Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification and Proposed Listing of Eleven Distinct Population Segments of Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas) as Endangered or Threatened and Revision of Current Listings, 15271-15337 [2015-06136]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 80
Monday,
No. 55
March 23, 2015
Part II
Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification and Proposed Listing of
Eleven Distinct Population Segments of Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia
mydas) as Endangered or Threatened and Revision of Current Listings;
Proposed Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15272
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
A public hearing will be held in
Hawai‘i. Interested parties may provide
oral or written comments at this
hearing.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 120425024–5022–02]
RIN 0648–XB089
Endangered and Threatened Species;
Identification and Proposed Listing of
Eleven Distinct Population Segments
of Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas)
as Endangered or Threatened and
Revision of Current Listings
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce; United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month
petition finding; request for comments;
notice of public hearing.
AGENCY:
The green sea turtle (Chelonia
mydas; hereafter referred to as the green
turtle) is currently listed under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a
threatened species, with the exception
of the Florida and Mexican Pacific coast
breeding populations, which are listed
as endangered. We, NMFS and USFWS,
find that the green turtle is composed of
11 distinct population segments (DPSs)
that qualify as ‘‘species’’ for listing
under the ESA. We propose to remove
the current range-wide listing and, in its
place, list eight DPSs as threatened and
three as endangered. We also propose to
apply existing protective regulations to
the DPSs. We solicit comments on these
proposed actions.
Although not determinable at this
time, designation of critical habitat may
be prudent, and we solicit relevant
information for those DPSs occurring
within U.S. jurisdiction. In the interim,
we propose to continue the existing
critical habitat designation (i.e., waters
surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto
Rico) in effect for the North Atlantic
DPS.
This proposed rule also constitutes
the 12-month finding on a petition to
reclassify the Hawaiian green turtle
population as a DPS and to delist that
DPS. Although we find the Hawaiian
green turtle population to constitute a
DPS (referred to in this proposed rule as
the Central North Pacific DPS), we do
not find delisting warranted.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Comments and information
regarding this proposed rule must be
received by close of business on June
22, 2015. A public hearing will be held
on April 8, 2015 from 6 to 8 p.m., with
an informational open house starting at
5:30 p.m. Requests for additional public
hearings must be made in writing and
received by May 7, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2012–0154, by the following
methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
1. Go to www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20120154.
2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields.
3. Enter or attach your comments.
OR
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Green Turtle Proposed Listing Rule,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Room 13535, Silver
Spring, MD 20910; or Green Turtle
Proposed Listing Rule, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, North Florida
Ecological Services Office, 7915
Baymeadows Way, Suite 200,
Jacksonville, FL 32256.
OR
• Public hearing: Interested parties
may provide oral or written comments
at the public hearing to be held at the
Japanese Cultural Center, 2454 South
Beretania Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i
96826. Parking is available at the
Japanese Cultural Center for $5.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by the Services. All
comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be
posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential
business information, or otherwise
sensitive information submitted
voluntarily by the sender will be
publicly accessible. The Services will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous). The proposed rule
is available electronically at https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/
green.htm and https://www.fws.gov/
DATES:
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20
factsheets/green-sea-turtle.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Schultz, NMFS (ph. 301–427–
8443, email jennifer.schultz@noaa.gov),
or Ann Marie Lauritsen, USFWS (ph.
904–731–3032, email annmarie_
lauritsen@fws.gov). Persons who use a
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–
8339, 24 hours a day, and 7 days a
week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited on the
Proposed Listing
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposal be as
accurate and effective as possible and
informed by the best available scientific
and commercial information. Therefore,
we request comments or information
from the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this
proposed rule. We are seeking
information and comments on whether
each of the 11 proposed green turtle
DPSs qualify as DPSs, whether listing of
each DPS is warranted, and, if so,
whether they should be classified as
threatened or endangered as described
in the ‘‘Listing Determinations Under
the ESA’’ section provided below.
Specifically, we are soliciting
information on the following subjects
relative to green turtles within the 11
proposed DPSs: (1) Historical and
current population status and trends, (2)
historical and current distribution, (3)
migratory movements and behavior, (4)
genetic population structure, (5) current
or planned activities that may adversely
affect green turtles, (6) conservation
efforts to protect green turtles, and (7)
our extinction risk analysis and
findings. We request that all data,
information, and comments be
accompanied by supporting
documentation such as maps,
bibliographic references, or reprints of
pertinent publications. We will consider
comments and new information when
making final determinations.
Public Comments Solicited on Critical
Habitat
Though we are not proposing to
designate critical habitat at this time, we
request evaluations describing the
quality and extent of existing habitats
within U.S. jurisdiction for the
proposed North Atlantic, South Atlantic
(U.S. Virgin Islands), Central South
Pacific (American Samoa), Central West
Pacific (Commonwealth of the Northern
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Mariana Islands (CNMI) and Guam),
Central North Pacific, and East Pacific
DPSs, as well as information on other
areas that may qualify as critical habitat
for these proposed DPSs. Specifically,
we are soliciting the identification of
particular areas within the geographical
area occupied by these species that
include physical or biological features
that are essential to the conservation of
these DPSs and that may require special
management considerations or
protection (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)).
Essential features may include, but are
not limited to, features specific to
individual species’ ranges, habitats, and
life history characteristics within the
following general categories of habitat
features: (1) Space for individual growth
and for normal behavior; (2) food, water,
air, light, minerals, or other nutritional
or physiological requirements; (3) cover
or shelter; (4) sites for breeding,
reproduction and development of
offspring; and (5) habitats that are
protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical,
geographical, and ecological
distributions of the species (50 CFR
424.12(b)). Areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing should also
be identified, if such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species (16
U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(ii)). Unlike for
occupied habitat, such areas are not
required to contain physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. ESA
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(h) specify that critical habitat
shall not be designated within foreign
countries or in other areas outside of
U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, we request
information only on potential areas of
critical habitat within locations under
U.S. jurisdiction.
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the
Secretary to consider the ‘‘economic
impact, impact on national security, and
any other relevant impact’’ of
designating a particular area as critical
habitat. Section 4(b)(2) also authorizes
the Secretary to conduct a balancing of
the benefits of inclusion and the
benefits of exclusion from a critical
habitat designation of a particular area,
and to exclude any particular area
where the Secretary finds that the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation, unless
excluding that area will result in
extinction of the species. Therefore, for
features and areas potentially qualifying
as critical habitat, we also request
information describing: (1) Activities or
other threats to the essential features
that could be affected by designating
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
them as critical habitat (pursuant to
section 4(b)(8) of the ESA); and (2) the
positive and negative economic,
national security and other relevant
impacts, including benefits to the
recovery of the species, likely to result
if these areas are designated as critical
habitat. We also seek information
regarding the conservation benefits of
designating areas within nesting
beaches and waters under U.S.
jurisdiction as critical habitat. Data
sought include, but are not limited to
the following: (1) Scientific or
commercial publications, (2)
administrative reports, maps or other
graphic materials, and (3) information
from experts or other interested parties.
Comments and data particularly are
sought concerning the following: (1)
Maps and specific information
describing the amount, distribution, and
type of use (e.g., foraging or migration)
by green turtles, as well as any
additional information on occupied and
unoccupied habitat areas; (2) the
reasons why any habitat should or
should not be determined to be critical
habitat as provided by sections 3(5)(A)
and 4(b)(2) of the ESA; (3) information
regarding the benefits of designating
particular areas as critical habitat; (4)
current or planned activities in the areas
that might be proposed for designation
and their possible impacts; (5) any
foreseeable economic or other potential
impacts resulting from designation, and
in particular any impacts on small
entities; and (6) whether specific
unoccupied areas may be essential to
provide additional habitat areas for the
conservation of the proposed DPSs. We
seek information regarding critical
habitat for the proposed green turtle
DPSs as soon as possible, but no later
than June 22, 2015.
Public Hearings
The Services will hold a public
hearing in Hawai‘i. Interested parties
may provide oral or written comments
at this hearing. A public hearing will be
held on April 8, 2015 from 6 to 8 p.m.,
with an informational open house
starting at 5:30 p.m., at the Japanese
Cultural Center, 2454 South Beretania
Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96826.
Parking is available at the Japanese
Cultural Center for $5. If requested by
the public by May 7, 2015, additional
hearings will be held regarding the
proposed listing of the green turtle
DPSs. If additional hearings are
requested, details regarding location(s),
date(s), and time(s) will be published in
a forthcoming Federal Register notice.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15273
References
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available upon request (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Policies for Delineating Species Under the
ESA
III. Listing Determinations Under the ESA
IV. Biology and Life History of Green Turtles
V. Overview of the Policies and Process Used
To Identify DPSs
A. Discreteness Determination
1. Atlantic Ocean/Mediterranean Sea
2. Indian Ocean
3. Pacific Ocean
B. Significance Determination
1. North Atlantic
2. Mediterranean
3. South Atlantic
4. Southwest Indian
5. North Indian
6. East Indian-West Pacific
7. Central West Pacific
8. Southwest Pacific
9. Central South Pacific
10. Central North Pacific
11. East Pacific
C. Summary of Discreteness and
Significance Determinations
VI. Listing Evaluation Process
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for
the Eleven Green Turtle DPSs
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
Eleven Green Turtle DPSs
C. Conservation Efforts
D. Extinction Risk Assessments and
Findings
VII. North Atlantic DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for
the North Atlantic DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the North
Atlantic DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
i. Gill Net and Trawl Fisheries
ii. Dredge Fishing
b. Channel Dredging
c. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic
d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disasters
e. Effects of Cold Stunning
f. Contaminants and Marine Debris
C. Conservation Efforts for the North
Atlantic DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the North Atlantic DPS
VIII. Mediterranean DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for
the Mediterranean DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
Mediterranean DPS
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
15274
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
i. Longline Fisheries
ii. Set Net (Gill Net) Fishing
iii. Trawl Fisheries
b. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic
c. Pollution
d. Effects of Climate Change
C. Conservation Efforts
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings
IX. South Atlantic DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for
the South Atlantic DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the South
Atlantic DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
c. Effects of Climate Change
C. Conservation Efforts for the South
Atlantic DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the South Atlantic DPS
X. Southwest Indian DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for
the Southwest Indian DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
Southwest Indian DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the Southwest
Indian DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the Southwest Indian DPS
XI. North Indian DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for
the North Indian DPS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the North
Indian DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
i. Gill Net Fisheries
ii. Trawl Fisheries
b. Vessel Strikes
c. Beach Driving
d. Pollution
e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disaster
C. Conservation Efforts for the North
Indian DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the North Indian DPS
XII. East Indian-West Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for
the East Indian-West Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the East
Indian-West Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the East IndianWest Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the East Indian-West Pacific
DPS
XIII. Central West Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for
the Central West Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
Central West Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Vessel Strikes
c. Pollution
d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disasters
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central West
Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the Central West Pacific
DPS
XIV. Southwest Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters in
the Southwest Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
Southwest Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Shark Control Programs
c. Boat Strikes and Port Dredging
d. Pollution and Marine Debris
e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the Southwest
Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the Southwest Pacific DPS
XV. Central South Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for
the Central South Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
Central South Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central
South Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the Central South Pacific
DPS
XVI. Central North Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for
the Central North Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
Central North Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
i. Longline Fisheries
ii. Gillnet Fisheries
iii. Other Gear Types
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
c. Vessel Interactions
d. Effects of Climate Change
e. Effects of Spatial Structure
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central
North Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the Central North Pacific
DPS
XVII. East Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for
the East Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the East
Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Pollution
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the East Pacific
DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the East Pacific DPS
XVIII. Proposed Determinations
XIX. Significant Portion of the Range
XX. Effects of Listing
A. Identifying Section 7 Conference and
Consultation Requirements
B. Critical Habitat
C. Take Prohibitions
D. Identification of Those Activities That
Would Constitute a Violation of Section
9 of the ESA
XXI. Peer Review
XXII. Classification
A. National Environmental Policy Act
B. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and Paperwork
Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
I. Background
On July 28, 1978, NMFS and USFWS,
collectively referred to as the Services,
listed the green turtle (Chelonia mydas)
under the ESA (43 FR 32800). Pursuant
to the authority that the statute
provided, and prior to the current
language in the definition of ‘‘species’’
regarding DPSs, the Services listed the
species as threatened, except for the
Florida and Mexican Pacific Coast
breeding populations, which were listed
as endangered. The Services published
recovery plans for U.S. Atlantic (https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/
plans.htm) and U.S. Pacific (including
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
the East Pacific) populations of the
green turtle (63 FR 28359, May 22,
1998). NMFS designated critical habitat
for the species to include waters
surrounding Culebra Island,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and its
outlying keys (63 FR 46693, September
2, 1998).
On February 16, 2012, the Services
received a petition from the Association
of Hawaiian Civic Clubs to identify the
Hawaiian green turtle population as a
DPS and ‘‘delist’’ the DPS under the
ESA. On August 1, 2012, NMFS, with
USFWS concurrence, determined that
the petition presented substantial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted (77
FR 45571). Initiating a review of new
information in accordance with the DPS
policy was consistent with the
recommendation made in the Services’
2007 Green Sea Turtle 5-year Review.
The Services initiated a status review to
consider the species across its range,
determine whether the petitioned action
is warranted, and determine whether
other DPSs could be recognized. The
Services decided to review the
Hawaiian population in the context of
green turtles globally with regard to
application of the DPS policy and in
light of significant new information
since the listing of the species in 1978.
The Services appointed a Status
Review Team (SRT) in September 2012.
SRT members were affiliated with
NMFS Science Centers and the Services’
field, regional, and headquarters offices,
and provided a diverse range of
expertise, including green turtle
genetics, demography, ecology, and
management, as well as risk analysis
and ESA policy. The SRT was charged
with reviewing and evaluating all
relevant scientific information relating
to green turtle population structure
globally to determine whether any
populations may qualify as DPSs and, if
so, to assess the extinction risk for each
proposed DPS. Findings of the SRT are
detailed in the ‘‘Green Turtle (Chelonia
mydas) Status Review under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act’’ (hereinafter
referred to as the Status Review; NMFS
and USFWS, 2014). The Status Review
underwent independent peer review by
14 scientists with expertise in green
turtle biology, genetics, or related fields,
and endangered species listing policy.
The Status Review is available
electronically at https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/
green.htm.
This Federal Register document
announces the 12-month finding on the
petition to identify the Hawaiian green
turtle population as a DPS and remove
the protections of the ESA from the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15275
DPS, and includes a proposed rule to
revise the existing listings to identify 11
green turtle DPSs worldwide and list
them as threatened or endangered under
the ESA in place of the existing listings.
Our determinations have been made
only after review of the best available
scientific and commercial information
pertaining to the species throughout its
range and within each DPS. This is
similar to the action we took for
loggerhead sea turtles (76 FR 58868,
September 22, 2011).
The ESA gives us clear authority to
make these listing determinations and to
revise the lists of endangered and
threatened species to reflect these
determinations. Section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA authorizes us to determine by
regulation whether ‘‘any species,’’
which is expressly defined to include
species, subspecies, and DPS, is an
endangered species or a threatened
species based on certain factors. Review
of the status of a species may be
commenced at any time, either on the
Services’ own initiative—through a
status review or in connection with a
5-year review under Section 4(c)(2)—or
in response to a petition. Because a DPS
is not a scientifically recognized entity,
but rather one that is created under the
language of the ESA and effectuated
through our DPS Policy (61 FR 4722,
February 7, 1996), we have some
discretion to determine whether the
species should be reclassified into DPSs
and what boundaries should be
recognized for each DPS. Section 4(c)(1)
gives us authority to update the lists of
threatened and endangered species to
reflect these determinations. This can
include revising the lists to remove a
species or reclassify the listed entity.
II. Policies for Delineating Species
Under the ESA
Section 3 of the ESA defines
‘‘species’’ as including ‘‘any subspecies
of fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature.’’ The
term ‘‘distinct population segment’’ is
not recognized in the scientific
literature. Therefore, the Services
adopted a joint policy for recognizing
DPSs under the ESA (DPS Policy; 61 FR
4722) on February 7, 1996. The DPS
Policy requires the consideration of
three elements when evaluating the
status of possible DPSs: (1) The
discreteness of the population segment
in relation to the remainder of the
species to which it belongs; (2) the
significance of the population segment
to the species to which it belongs; and
(3) the population segment’s
conservation status in relation to the
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15276
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
ESA’s standards for listing. This is
discussed further in the Status Review,
in the section entitled, ‘‘Overview of
Information and Process Used to
Identify DPSs.’’
III. Listing Determinations Under the
ESA
The ESA defines an endangered
species as one that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (section 3(6)), and a
threatened species as one that is likely
to become endangered in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (section 3(20)).
Thus, in the context of the ESA, the
Services interpret an ‘‘endangered
species’’ to be one that is presently in
danger of extinction. A ‘‘threatened
species,’’ on the other hand, is not
presently in danger of extinction, but is
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future. In other words, the primary
statutory difference between a
threatened and endangered species is
the timing of when a species may be in
danger of extinction, either presently
(endangered) or in the foreseeable future
(threatened).
When we consider whether a species
might qualify as threatened under the
ESA, we must consider the meaning of
the term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ It is
appropriate to interpret ‘‘foreseeable
future’’ as the horizon over which
predictions about the conservation
status of the species can be reasonably
relied upon. The foreseeable future
considers the life history of the species,
habitat characteristics, availability of
data, particular threats, ability to predict
threats, and the reliability to forecast the
effects of these threats and future events
on the status of the species under
consideration. Because a species may be
susceptible to a variety of threats for
which different data are available, or
which operate across different time
scales, the foreseeable future is not
necessarily reducible to a particular
number of years. For the green turtle,
the SRT used a horizon of 100 years to
evaluate the likelihood that a DPS
would reach a critical risk threshold
(i.e., quasi-extinction). In making the
proposed listing determinations, we
applied the horizon of 100 years in our
consideration of foreseeable future
under the scope of the definitions of
endangered and threatened species,
pursuant to section 3 of the ESA.
The statute requires us to determine
whether any species is endangered or
threatened as a result of any one or
combination of the following 5-factors:
(1) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (5) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence (section 4(a)(1)(A–E) of the
ESA). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA
requires us to make this determination
based solely on the best available
scientific and commercial data available
after conducting a review of the status
of the species and taking into account
any efforts being made by States or
foreign governments to protect the
species.
IV. Biology and Life History of Green
Turtles
A thorough account of green turtle
biology and life history may be found in
the Status Review, which is
incorporated here by reference. The
following is a succinct summary of that
information.
The green turtle, C. mydas, has a
circumglobal distribution, occurring
throughout tropical, subtropical, and, to
a lesser extent, temperate waters. Their
movements within the marine
environment are not fully understood,
but it is believed that green turtles
inhabit coastal waters of over 140
countries (Groombridge and Luxmoore,
1989). The Status Review lists 468
known nesting sites worldwide, with 79
having nesting aggregations with greater
than 500 females. The largest green
turtle nesting aggregation, with an
estimated number of nesting females
greater than 132,000, is Tortuguero,
Costa Rica (Sea Turtle Conservancy,
2013). There are 14 aggregations
estimated to have 10,001–100,000
nesting females: Quintana Roo, Mexico
(Julio Zurita, pers. comm., 2012);
Ascension Island, UK (S. Weber,
Ascension Island Government, pers.
˜
comm., 2013); Poilao, Guinea-Bissau
(Catry et al., 2009); Aldabra Atoll,
Seychelles (Mortimer et al., 2011;
Mortimer, 2012; J. Mortimer, unpubl.
´
data.); Moheli, Comoros Islands, France
(Bourjea, 2012); Mayotte, Comoros
Islands (Bourjea, 2012); Europa,
Esparses Islands, France (Lauret-Stepler
et al., 2007; Bourjea, 2012); Ras Al
Hadd, Oman (AlKindi et al., 2008); Ras
Sharma, Yemen (PERSGA/GEF, 2004);
Wellesley Group, Australia (Unpubl.
data cited in Limpus, 2009); Raine
Island, Australia (Chaloupka et al.,
2008a; Limpus, 2009); Moulter Cay,
Australia (Limpus, 2009); Capricorn
Bunker Group of Islands, Australia
(Limpus et al., 2003); and Colola,
Mexico (Delgado-Trejo and AlvaradoFigueroa, 2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Most green turtles spend the majority
of their lives in coastal foraging
grounds. These areas include fairly
shallow waters in open coastline and
protected bays and lagoons. While in
these areas, green turtles rely on marine
algae and seagrass as their primary diet
constituents, although some populations
also forage heavily on invertebrates.
These marine habitats are often highly
dynamic and in areas with annual
fluctuations in seawater and air
temperatures, which can cause the
distribution and abundance of potential
green turtle food items to vary
substantially between seasons and years
(Carballo et al., 2002).
At nesting beaches, green turtles rely
on beaches characterized by intact dune
structures, native vegetation, little to no
artificial lighting, and 26 to 35° C beach
temperatures for nesting (Limpus, 1971;
Salmon et al., 1992; Ackerman, 1997;
Witherington, 1997; Lorne and Salmon,
2007). Nests are typically laid at night
at the base of the primary dune (Hirth,
1997; Witherington et al., 2006).
Complete removal of vegetation, or
coastal construction, can affect thermal
regimes on beaches and thus affect the
incubation and resulting sex ratio of
hatchling turtles. Nests laid in these
areas are at a higher risk of tidal
inundation (Schroeder and Mosier,
2000).
Hatchlings emerge from their nests en
masse and almost exclusively at night,
presumably using decreasing sand
temperature as a cue (Hendrickson,
1958; Mrosovsky, 1968). Immediately
after hatchlings emerge from the nest,
they begin a period of frenzied activity.
During this active period, hatchlings
crawl to the surf, swim, and are swept
through the surf zone (Carr and Ogren,
1960; Carr, 1961; Wyneken and Salmon,
1992). They orient to waves in the
nearshore area and to the magnetic field
as they proceed further toward open
water (Lohmann and Lohmann, 2003).
Upon leaving the nesting beach and
entering the marine environment, posthatchling green turtles begin an oceanic
juvenile phase during which they are
presumed to primarily inhabit areas
where surface waters converge to form
local downwellings that result in linear
accumulations of floating material,
especially Sargassum sp. This
association with downwellings is welldocumented for loggerhead sea turtles
(Caretta caretta), as well as for some
post-hatchling green turtles
(Witherington et al., 2006; 2012). The
smallest of oceanic green turtles
associating with these areas are
relatively active, moving both within
Sargassum sp. mats and in nearby open
water, which may limit the ability of
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
researchers to detect their presence as
compared to relatively immobile
loggerheads of the same life stage that
associate with similar habitat (Smith
and Salmon, 2009; Witherington et al.,
2012).
Oceanic-stage juvenile green turtles
originating from nesting beaches in the
Northwest Atlantic appear to use
oceanic developmental habitats and
move with the predominant ocean gyres
for several years before returning to
their neritic (shallower water, generally
to 200 m depth, including open
coastline and protected bays and
lagoons) foraging and developmental
habitats (Musick and Limpus, 1997;
Bolten, 2003). Larger neonate green
turtles (at least 15–26 cm straight
carapace length; SCL) are known to
occupy Sargassum sp. habitats and
surrounding epipelagic waters, where
food items include Sargassum sp. and
associated invertebrates, fish eggs, and
insects (Witherington et al., 2012).
Knowledge of the diet and behavior of
oceanic stage juveniles, however, is
limited.
The neritic juvenile stage begins when
green turtles exit the oceanic zone and
enter the neritic zone (Bolten, 2003).
The age at recruitment to the neritic
zone likely varies with individuals
leaving the oceanic zone over a wide
size range (summarized in Avens and
Snover, 2013). After migrating to the
neritic zone, juveniles continue
maturing until they reach adulthood,
and some may periodically move
between the neritic and oceanic zones
(NMFS and USFWS, 2007; Parker et al.,
2011). The neritic zone, including both
open coastline and protected bays and
lagoons, provides important foraging
habitat, inter-nesting habitat, breeding,
and migratory habitat for adult green
turtles (Plotkin, 2003; NMFS and
USFWS, 2007). Some adult females may
also periodically move between the
neritic and oceanic zones (Plotkin, 2003;
Hatase et al., 2006) and, in some
instances, adult green turtles may reside
in the oceanic zone for foraging (NMFS
and USFWS, 2007; Seminoff et al.,
2008; Parker et al., 2011). Despite these
uses of the oceanic zone by green
turtles, much remains unknown about
how oceanography affects juvenile and
adult survival, adult migration, prey
availability, and reproductive output.
Most green turtles exhibit slow
growth rates, which has been described
as a consequence of their largely
herbivorous (i.e., low net energy) diet
(Bjorndal, 1982). Consistent with slow
growth, age-to-maturity for green turtles
appears to be the longest of any sea
turtle species (Chaloupka and Musick,
1997; Hirth, 1997). Published age at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
sexual maturity estimates are as high as
35–50 years, with lower ranges reported
for known age turtles from the Cayman
Islands (15–19 years; Bell et al., 2005)
and Caribbean Mexico (12–20 years;
Zurita et al., 2012) and some markrecapture projects (e.g., 15–25 years in
the Eastern Pacific; Seminoff et al.,
2002a). Mean adult reproductive
lifespan of green turtles from Australia’s
southern Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has
been estimated at 19 years using markrecapture and survival data (Chaloupka
and Limpus, 2005). The maximum
nesting lifespan observed in a 27-year
tag return dataset from Trindade Island,
Brazil was 16 years; however, nesting
monitoring was discontinuous over time
(Almeida et al., 2011). Tag return data
comprising 2,077 females (42,928
nesting events, 1968-partial 2012
season) from continuous monitoring at
French Frigate Shoals (FFS), Hawai‘i
show maximum nesting lifespans of 37–
38 years (n=2), with many individuals
(n=54) documented nesting over a
minimum of 25–35 years (I. NurziaHumburg, S. Hargrove, and G. Balazs,
NMFS, unpublished data, 2013).
V. Overview of the Policies and Process
Used To Identify DPSs
The SRT considered a vast array of
information in assessing whether there
are any green turtle population
segments that satisfy the DPS criteria of
being both discrete and significant. In
anticipation of conducting a green turtle
status review, NMFS contracted two
post-doctoral associates in 2011 to
collect and synthesize genetic and
demographic information on green
turtles worldwide. The SRT was
presented with, and evaluated, this
genetic and demographic information.
Demographic information included
green turtle nesting information;
morphological and behavioral data;
movements, as indicated by tagging
(flipper and passive integrated
transponder (PIT) tags) and satellite
telemetry data; and anthropogenic
impacts. Also discussed and considered
as a part of this analysis were
oceanographic features and geographic
barriers.
A population may be considered
discrete if it satisfies either one of the
following conditions: (1) It is markedly
separated from other populations of the
same taxon as a consequence of
physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors; or (2) it is delimited
by international governmental
boundaries within which differences in
control of exploitation, management of
habitat, conservation status, or
regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D)
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15277
of the ESA (61 FR 4722, February 7,
1996). According to the policy,
quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity can be
used to provide evidence for item (1).
The SRT compiled a list of attributes
that suggested various population
groups might be considered discrete,
identified potentially discrete units, and
discussed alternative scenarios for
lumping or splitting these potentially
discrete units. After arriving at a
tentative list of units, each member of
the SRT was given 100 points that could
be distributed among two categories: (1)
The unit under consideration is
discrete, and (2) the unit under
consideration is not discrete. The spread
of points reflects the level of certainty
of the SRT surrounding a decision to
call the unit discrete. The SRT
determined that there are 11 discrete
regional populations of green turtles
globally. Each of these was then
evaluated for significance.
A population may be considered
significant if it satisfies any one of the
following conditions: (1) Persistence of
the discrete segment in an ecological
setting unusual or unique for the taxon;
(2) evidence that loss of the discrete
segment would result in a significant
gap in the range of the taxon; (3)
evidence that the discrete segment
represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of a taxon that may be more
abundant elsewhere as an introduced
population outside its historical range;
and (4) evidence that the discrete
segment differs markedly from other
populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics. Because condition (3) is
not applicable to green turtles, the SRT
addressed conditions (1), (2) and (4).
The SRT listed the attributes that would
make potential DPSs (those determined
to be discrete in the previous step)
significant. As in the vote for
discreteness, members of the SRT were
then given 100 points with which to
vote for whether each unit met the
significance criterion in the joint policy.
All units that had been identified as
discrete were also determined to be
significant.
For more discussion on the process
the SRT used to identify DPSs, see
Section 3 of the Status Review
document.
A. Discreteness Determination
In evaluating discreteness among the
global green turtle population, the SRT
began by focusing on the physical
separation of ocean basins (i.e., Atlantic,
Pacific, and Indian Oceans). The result
was an evaluation of data by major
ocean basins, although it quickly
became clear that the Indian and Pacific
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15278
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Ocean populations overlapped. The
evaluation by ocean basin was not to
preclude any larger or smaller DPS
delineation, but to aid in data
organization and assessment. We
organized this section by ocean basin to
explain the discreteness determination
process and results.
Within each ocean basin, the SRT
started by evaluating genetic
information. The genetic data consisted
of results from studies using maternally
inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA),
biparentally inherited nuclear DNA
(nDNA) microsatellite (a section of DNA
consisting of very short nucleotide
sequences repeated many times), and
single nucleotide polymorphism (a DNA
sequence variation occurring commonly
within a population) markers. Next, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
SRT reviewed tagging, telemetry and
demographic data, and additional
information such as potential
differences in morphology. The SRT
also considered whether the available
information suggests that green turtle
population segments are separated by
vicariant barriers, such as
oceanographic features (e.g., current
systems), or biogeographic boundaries.
Genetic information that was
presented to the SRT resulted from a
global phylogenetic analysis (analysis
based on natural evolutionary
relationships) based on sequence data
from a total of 129 mtDNA haplotypes
(i.e., mtDNA sequences, which are
inherited together) identified from
approximately 4,400 individuals
sampled at 105 green turtle nesting sites
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
around the world (Jensen and Dutton,
NMFS, unpublished data; M. Jensen,
NRC, pers. comm., 2013). Results
indicated that the mtDNA variation
present in green turtles throughout the
world today occurs within eight major
clades (i.e., a group consisting of an
ancestor and all its descendants) that are
structured geographically within ocean
basins. These clades represent
similarities between haplotypes on
evolutionary timescales as opposed to
ecological timescales. See Figure 1 for a
visual representation of these clades.
There is divergence among individual
haplotypes within each green turtle
clade (M. Jensen, NRC, pers. comm.,
2013) and discrete populations can exist
within these clades.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Atlantic Ocean/Mediterranean Sea
Two of the eight major mtDNA clades,
Clades I and II, are found in the
Atlantic/Mediterranean region. Clade I
includes haplotypes primarily found in
turtles from the Mediterranean and the
western North Atlantic. Within Clade I,
two strongly divergent groups of
haplotypes are found, with one group
being restricted to the Mediterranean
and the other being restricted to the
western North Atlantic. Mediterranean
and western North Atlantic turtles share
only one specific haplotype that has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
been found in only two individuals,
indicating very strong long-term
isolation of females. As such, there is
strong evidence that these two
geographically-separated groups of
divergent haplotypes may be considered
discrete.
In addition to genetic evidence for
discreteness, in the Mediterranean,
green turtles are spatially separated
from populations in the Atlantic and
Indian Oceans, with the nearest known
nesting sites outside the Mediterranean
being several thousand kilometers away
in the Republic of Senegal (Senegal),
and the North Atlantic population being
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15279
more than 8,000 km away. Further, no
turtles tagged in the eastern
Mediterranean have been recovered
farther west than the Tunisian Republic
(Tunisia) inside the Mediterranean.
Nesting females from Cyprus, Turkey,
the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria), and
the State of Israel (Israel) have been
satellite tracked to the Arab Republic of
Egypt (Egypt), Libya, and Turkey—with
movements largely restricted to the
eastern Mediterranean (Godley et al.,
2002; Broderick et al., 2007). Postnesting turtles from this region migrate
primarily along the coast from their
nesting beach to their foraging and
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
EP23mr15.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
15280
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
overwintering grounds in the
Mediterranean (Godley et al., 2002;
Broderick et al., 2007).
Demographic evidence of discreteness
of Mediterranean green turtles lies in
the fact that Mediterranean green turtles
are the second smallest green turtles
worldwide (the smallest being in the
eastern Pacific), with a mean nesting
size in Alagadi, Cyprus of 92 cm Curved
Carapace Length (CCL; Broderick et al.,
2003), compared with 95 cm to 110 cm
CCL size range for most other
populations.
In the North Atlantic, tag recovery
and telemetry data indicate that nesting
females primarily reside within the
North Atlantic. Some nesting females
tagged at Tortuguero, Costa Rica were
recaptured in the South Atlantic
¨
(Troeng et al., 2005). There is some
degree of mixing of immature turtles on
foraging pastures between the North and
South Atlantic; however, nesting sites in
the eastern Caribbean carry mostly
mtDNA haplotypes from a different
clade (II), indicating strong long-term
isolation. Tagging studies have
identified juveniles from this
population in waters off Brazil and
Argentina, but we found no evidence of
movement of mature individuals.
The second clade within the Atlantic
Ocean basin, Clade II, includes
haplotypes found in all South Atlantic
nesting sites, some eastern Caribbean
turtles, and some turtles in the
southwest Indian Ocean. With a few
exceptions, green turtles in the South
Atlantic carry an mtDNA haplotype that
is found nowhere else, indicating strong
isolation of matrilines over evolutionary
time periods. The exceptions to this
pattern are: (1) One nesting site from the
eastern Caribbean, which exhibits a low
frequency of a haplotype from the North
Atlantic/Mediterranean clade (Clade I);
(2) nesting sites from the Gulf of
Mexico/Central America, which have a
low frequency of Clade II haplotypes;
and (3) two nesting sites from southeast
Africa, which have high frequencies of
Clade II haplotypes. The presence of a
shared haplotype in South Atlantic and
southwest Indian Ocean rookeries
demonstrates for the first time a recent
matrilineal link between Atlantic and
Indian Ocean green turtle populations
(Bourjea et al., 2007b). However, the
SRT believes all these exceptions reflect
historical events rather than
contemporary connectivity. This
interpretation is supported by satellite
telemetry, which reveals extensive
movements of turtles within the South
Atlantic region but no evidence for
migrations into other areas, other than
rare instances of movement into
foraging areas in the North Atlantic.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Long stretches of cold water along the
coasts of Patagonia and southwest
Africa serve to isolate South Atlantic
turtles from populations in the Indian
and Pacific Oceans.
Foraging ground studies in the
Atlantic have generally shown regional
structuring with strong stock
contribution from nearby regional
nesting sites, but little mixing over long
distances (Bolker et al., 2007). Overall,
the distribution of the two genetic
haplotype lineages (Clade I and Clade II)
is very similar to what is seen for the
nesting sites and indicates a strong
regional structuring with little overlap
(Bolker et al., 2007). However, a recent
study showed that a large proportion of
juvenile green turtles in the Cape Verde
Islands in the eastern Atlantic
originated from distant nesting sites
across the Atlantic, namely Suriname
(38 percent), Ascension Island (12
percent) and Guinea Bissau (19 percent),
suggesting that, like loggerheads, green
turtles in the Atlantic undertake
transoceanic developmental migrations
´
¨
(Monzon-Arguello et al., 2010). The fact
that long distance dispersal is only seen
for juvenile turtles suggests that larger
adult-sized turtles return to forage
within the region of their natal nesting
sites, thereby limiting the potential for
´
gene-flow across larger scales (Monzon¨
Arguello et al., 2010).
In the South Atlantic, flipper tag
recoveries have established movement
between feeding grounds and nesting
sites in the Caribbean and Brazil (Lima
et al., 2003; Lima et al., 2008; Lima et
al., 2012), and telemetry data indicate
that juvenile green turtles move from
Argentina to Uruguay and Brazil, from
Uruguay to Brazil, and from the Guianas
to Brazil. Telemetry studies indicate
that nesting females from the eastern
South Atlantic (west coast of Africa) are
confined to the eastern South Atlantic,
and nesting females from the western
South Atlantic are confined to the
western South Atlantic. In the eastern
South Atlantic, all tracked turtles
remained in the general vicinity of their
release location. Nesting females from
Ascension Island were tracked to
foraging grounds along the coast of
Brazil.
Finally, demographic evidence for
discreteness of South Atlantic green
turtles lies in the fact that the South
Atlantic is home to the largest green
turtles in the world, with a mean
nesting size of green turtles at Atol das
Rocas, Brazil of 118.6 cm CCL (n=738),
compared with 95 cm to 110 cm CCL
size range for most other populations.
Based on the information presented
above, the SRT concluded, and we
concur, that three discrete populations
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
exist in the Atlantic Ocean/
Mediterranean: (1) North Atlantic, (2)
Mediterranean, and (3) South Atlantic.
These three populations are markedly
separated from each other and from
populations within the Pacific Ocean
and Indian Ocean basins as a
consequence of physical (including both
oceanographic basins and currents),
ecological, and behavioral factors.
Information supporting this conclusion
includes genetic analysis, flipper tag
recoveries, and satellite telemetry.
2. Indian Ocean
Green turtles from the Indian Ocean
exhibit haplotypes from Clades II, III,
IV, VI, and VII. In the southwest Indian
Ocean, Bourjea et al. (2007b) genetically
assessed the population structure among
288 nesting green turtles from 10
nesting sites. Overall, the southwest
Indian Ocean appears to have at least
two genetic stocks: (1) The South
Mozambique Channel (Juan de Nova
and Europa); and (2) the North
Mozambique Channel. As stated earlier,
the authors recorded a high presence of
a common and widespread South
Atlantic Ocean haplotype (CM–A8) in
the South Mozambique Channel.
However, the observation that only a
single Atlantic haplotype has been
observed and that it occurs in high
frequency among South Mozambique
Channel rookeries suggests that gene
flow is not ongoing (Bourjea et al.,
2007b). Nesting sites in the North
Mozambique Channel share several
haplotypes (including CmP47 and
CmP49) with nesting sites in the eastern
Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia and the
Western Pacific, indicating strongconnectivity with the eastern Indian
Ocean population. However, tagging
and tracking data document movements
within the Southwest Indian Ocean but
not between it and the eastern Indian
and western Pacific Oceans. Although
there is some evidence of transboundary movement between the
southwest Indian Ocean and the
population in the North Indian Ocean,
evidence from tag returns indicates that
most remain in the southwest Indian
Ocean. Indeed, some green turtles in
Tanzania are probably resident, and
others are highly migratory, moving to
and from nesting and feeding grounds
within the southwest Indian Ocean in
Kenya, Seychelles, Comoros, Mayotte,
Europa Island and South Africa (Muir,
2005). From 2009 to 2011, 90 satellite
transmitters deployed on nesting green
turtles at five nesting sites in the
southwest Indian Ocean showed that
nearly 20 percent of the tracked turtles
used Madagascar coastal foraging
grounds while more than 80 percent
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
used the east African coasts, including
waters off north Mozambique and south
Tanzania. The SRT determined that
spatial separation between the
southwest Indian Ocean and other IndoPacific populations, as well as an
apparent nesting gap, the lack of transboundary recoveries in tagging, and
localized telemetry, indicate
discreteness from other populations in
the Indo-Pacific.
In the North Indian Ocean, limited
information from only a single nesting
site (Jana Island, Saudi Arabia, n=27)
exists on the genetic structure (M.
Jensen, NRC, pers. comm., 2013).
Nonetheless, four mtDNA haplotypes
never reported from any other nesting
site were identified from Jana Island,
and are highly divergent from other
haplotypes in the Indian Ocean. This
population also appears to be isolated
from other Indian populations by
substantial breaks in nesting habitat
along the Horn of Africa and along the
entire eastern side of the Indian
subcontinent.
Tagging of turtles on nesting beaches
of the North Indian Ocean started in the
late 1970s and indicates that some
turtles in the North Indian Ocean
migrate long distances from distant
feeding grounds to nesting beaches
while others are quite sedentary, but all
stay within the North Indian Ocean.
Tagging studies have revealed that some
turtles nesting on Ras Al Hadd and
Masirah, Oman can be found as far away
as Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Saudi
Arabia, the upper Gulf, and Pakistan
(Ross, 1987; Salm, 1991), and a green
turtle tagged in Oman was found in the
Maldives (Al-Saady et al., 2005). No
tagging has been carried out on feeding
grounds (Al-Saady et al., 2005).
A few green turtles in the North
Indian Ocean have been fitted with
satellite transmitters and reported at
www.seaturtle.org, but no data have
been published. One telemetered female
green turtle remained in the coastal
areas of the Persian Gulf for 49 days (N.
Pilcher, Marine Research Foundation,
pers. comm., 2013), and two nesting
turtles were telemetered at Masirah
Island, Oman, both of which moved
southward along the Arabian Peninsula
and were found in the Red Sea when the
transmissions ceased (Rees et al. 2012).
Telemetry data for captive-hatched and
reared green turtles at Republic of
Maldives (Vabbinfaru Island, Male
Atoll) have indicated wide movement
patterns within the Indian Ocean (N.
Pilcher, Marine Research Foundation,
pers. comm., 2013).
In the eastern Indian Ocean, turtles
mix readily with those in the western
Pacific. Genetic sampling in the eastern
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Indian and western Pacific Ocean
regions has been fairly extensive with
more than 22 nesting sites sampled
although, because there are a high
number of nesting sites in this region
and there is complex structure, there
remain gaps in sampling relative to
distribution (e.g., Thailand, Vietnam,
parts of Indonesia, and the Philippines).
Most nesting sites are dominated by
haplotypes from Clade VII, but with
some overlap of Clades III and IV
throughout the Indian Ocean—evidence
of a complex colonization history in this
region. While one common haplotype is
shared across the Indian Ocean,
substantial gaps in nesting sites along
the east coast of India and in the
southern Indian Ocean serve to isolate
the eastern Indian-western Pacific
population from those in the north and
southwest Indian Ocean. The Wallace
Line (a boundary drawn in 1859 by the
British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace
that separates the highly distinctive
faunas of the Asian and Australian
biogeographic regions) and its northern
extension separate this population from
populations to the east, which carry
haplotypes primarily from Clade IV.
Nesting sites to the northern extreme
(Taiwan and Japan) show more complex
patterns of higher mixing of divergent
haplotypes, and the placement of
individual nesting sites within this area
is somewhat uncertain and may become
better resolved when additional genetic
data are available.
Significant population substructuring
occurs among nesting sites in this area.
Mixed-stock analysis of foraging
grounds shows that green turtles from
multiple nesting beaches commonly mix
at feeding areas across northern
Australia (Dethmers et al., 2006) and
Malaysia (Jensen, 2010), with higher
contributions from nearby large nesting
sites. Satellite tracking also shows green
turtle movement throughout the eastern
Indian and western Pacific (Cheng,
2000; Dermawan, 2002; Charuchinda et
al., 2003; Wang, 2006).
Given the information presented
above, the SRT concluded, and we
concur, that three discrete populations
exist in the Indian Ocean, with the third
overlapping with the Pacific: (1)
Southwest Indian, (2) North Indian, and
(3) East Indian-West Pacific. These three
populations are markedly separated
from each other and from populations
within the Atlantic Ocean as a
consequence of physical, ecological, and
behavioral factors. Information
supporting this conclusion includes
genetic analysis, flipper tag recoveries,
and satellite telemetry.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15281
3. Pacific Ocean
The central west Pacific encompasses
most of the area commonly referred to
as Micronesia as well as parts of
Melanesia. Genetic sampling in the
central west Pacific has recently
improved, but remains challenging,
given the large number of small island
and atoll nesting sites. At least five
management units have been identified
in the region (Palau, Independent State
of Papua New Guinea (PNG), Yap,
CNMI/Guam, and the Republic of the
Marshall Islands (Marshall Islands);
Dethmers et al., 2006; M. Jensen, NRC,
pers. comm., 2013; Dutton et al., 2014).
The central west Pacific carries
haplotypes from Clade IV, while the
populations to the west carry
haplotypes predominantly from Clade
VII, so any mixing presumably reflects
foraging migrations rather than
interbreeding. The boundary between
the central west Pacific and the East
Indian-West Pacific populations is
congruent with the northern portion of
the Wallace Line. Wide expanses of
open ocean separate the central west
Pacific from the central north Pacific,
and genetic data provide no evidence of
gene flow between the central west
Pacific and the central north Pacific
over evolutionary time scales. Tagging
studies also have not found evidence for
migration of breeding adults to or from
adjacent populations.
In the southwest Pacific, genetic
sampling has been extensive for larger
nesting sites along the GBR, the Coral
Sea and New Caledonia (Dethmers et al.,
2006; Jensen, 2010; Dutton et al., 2014).
However, several smaller nesting sites
in this region have not been sampled
(e.g., Solomon Islands, Republic of
Vanuatu (Vanuatu), Tuvalu, PNG, etc.).
The southwest Pacific population is
characterized by haplotypes from Clade
V, which have been found only at
nesting sites in this population. It also
has a high frequency of haplotypes from
Clades III and IV, as well as low
frequency of haplotypes from Clades VI
and VII, making this area highly diverse
(haplotypes from the widespread Clade
IV differ from those found in the central
west and central south Pacific).
Traditional capture-mark-recapture
studies (Limpus, 2009) and genetic
mixed-stock analysis (Jensen, 2010)
show that turtles from several different
southwest Pacific nesting sites overlap
on feeding grounds along the east coast
of Australia. This mixing in foraging
areas might provide mating
opportunities between turtles from
different stocks as evidenced by the lack
of differentiation found between the
northern and southern GBR nesting sites
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
15282
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
for nuclear DNA (FitzSimmons et al.,
1997). However, tagging, telemetry, and
genetic studies show movement of
breeding adults occurs mainly within
the southwest Pacific.
In the central South Pacific, genetic
sampling has been limited to two
nesting sites (American Samoa and
French Polynesia) among the many
small isolated nesting sites that
characterize this region, but they both
contain relatively high frequencies of
Clade III haplotypes, which are not
found in the central west and southwest
Pacific populations. Nesting sites from
this area share some haplotypes with
surrounding nesting sites, but at low
frequency. There are also limited data
on mixed-stock foraging areas from this
region. Flipper tag returns and satellite
tracking studies demonstrate that postnesting females travel the complete
geographic breadth of this population,
from French Polynesia in the east to Fiji
in the west, and sometimes even slightly
beyond (Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993;
Craig et al., 2004; Maison et al., 2010;
White, 2012), as far as the Philippines
(Trevor, 2009). The complete extent of
migratory movements is unknown. The
central South Pacific is isolated by vast
expanses of open ocean from turtle
populations to the north (Hawai‘i) and
east (Galapagos), and in both of these
areas all turtle haplotypes are from an
entirely different clade (Clade VIII),
indicating lack of genetic exchange
across these barriers.
The central North Pacific, which
includes the Hawaiian Archipelago and
Johnston Atoll, is inhabited by green
turtles that are geographically discrete
in their genetic characteristics, range,
and movements, as evidenced by
genetic studies and mark-recapture
studies using flipper tags, microchip
tags, and satellite telemetry. The key
nesting aggregations within the
Hawaiian Archipelago have all been
genetically sampled. Mitochondrial
DNA studies show no significant
differentiation (based on haplotype
frequency) between FFS and Laysan
Island (P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm.,
2013). While the Hawaiian Islands do
share haplotypes with Revillagigedos
Islands (CmP1.1 and CmP3.1) at low
frequency, the populations remain
highly differentiated, and there is little
evidence of significant ongoing gene
flow. The Frey et al. (2013) analysis of
mtDNA and nDNA in scattered nesting
sites on the main Hawaiian Islands
(MHI; Molokai, Maui, Oahu, Lanai, and
Kauai) showed that nesting in the MHI
might be attributed to a relatively small
number of females that appear to be
related to each other and
demographically isolated from FFS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Turtles foraging in the MHI originate
from Hawaiian nesting sites, with very
rare records of turtles from outside the
central North Pacific (Dutton et al.,
2008), and there is a general absence of
turtles from the Hawaiian breeding
population at foraging areas outside the
central North Pacific. From 1965–2013,
17,536 green turtles (juvenile through
adult stages) were tagged. With only
three exceptions, the 7,360 recaptures of
these tagged turtles have been within
the Hawaiian Archipelago. The three
outliers involved recoveries in Japan,
the Marshall Islands, and the
Philippines (G. Balazs, NMFS, pers.
comm., 2013).
Information from tagging at FFS, areas
in the MHI, the Northwest Hawaiian
Islands (NWHI) to the northwest of FFS,
and at Johnston Atoll shows that
reproductive females and males
periodically migrate to FFS for seasonal
breeding from the other locations. At the
end of the season they return to their
respective foraging areas. The
reproductive migrations of 19 satellite
tracked green turtles (16 females and 3
males) all involved movements between
FFS and the MHI. Conventional tagging
using microchips and metal flipper tags
has resulted in the documentation of
164 turtles making reproductive
movements from or to FFS and foraging
pastures in the MHI, and 58 turtles from
or to FFS and the foraging pastures in
the NWHI (G. Balazs, NMFS, unpubl.
data).
Hawaiian green turtles also exhibit
morphological features that may make
them discrete from other populations,
possibly reflecting genetic as well as
ecological adaptations. In the Hawai‘i
population, and in Australian
populations, green turtles have a welldeveloped crop, which has not been
found in Caribbean or eastern Pacific
populations of green turtles (Balazs et
al., 1998; J. Seminoff, NMFS, unpubl.
data). In addition, juvenile green turtles
in Hawai‘i have proportionally larger
rear flippers than those in the western
Caribbean (Wyneken and Balazs, 1996;
Balazs et al., 1998). These anatomical
differences may reflect adaptive
variation to different environmental
conditions. A crop that holds food
material in the esophagus would permit
more food to be ingested during each
foraging event in a more dynamic
feeding environment, which is helpful
along wind-swept rugged coastlines
where large waves crash ashore. Larger
flippers would also aid in making them
stronger swimmers in this feeding
environment, and during reproductive
migrations across rough pelagic waters,
as opposed to calmer coastal waters
(Balazs et al., 1998).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The central North Pacific population
and those in the central South Pacific
and central west Pacific appear to be
separated by large oceanic areas, and the
central North Pacific and the eastern
Pacific populations are separated by the
East Pacific Barrier, an oceanographic
barrier that greatly restricts or
eliminates gene flow for most marine
species from a wide range of taxa
(Briggs, 1974).
In the eastern Pacific, genetic
sampling has been extensive and the
coverage in this region is substantial,
considering the relatively small
population sizes of most eastern Pacific
nesting sites, which include both
mainland and insular nesting. This
sampling indicates complete isolation of
nesting females between the eastern and
western Pacific nesting sites. Recent
efforts to determine the nesting stock
origins of green turtles assembled in
foraging areas have found that green
turtles from several eastern Pacific
nesting stocks commonly mix at feeding
areas in the Gulf of California and along
the Pacific coast in San Diego Bay, U.S.
(Nichols, 2003; P. Dutton, NMFS,
unpubl. data). In addition, green turtles
of eastern Pacific origin have been
found, albeit very rarely, in waters off
Hawai‘i (LeRoux et al., 2003; Dutton et
al., 2008), Japan (Kuroyanagi et al.,
1999; Hamabata et al., 2009), and New
Zealand (Godoy et al., 2012). A recent
study of juvenile green turtles foraging
at Gorgona Island in the Republic of
Colombia indicated a small number (5
percent) of turtles with the haplotype
CmP22, which was recently discovered
to be common in nesting green turtles
from the Marshall Islands and American
Samoa (Dutton et al., 2014). This shows
that, despite the isolation of nesting
females between the eastern and
western Pacific, a small number of
immature turtles successfully cross the
Pacific during developmental
migrations in both directions. However,
it is important to point out that there is
no evidence of mature turtles inhabiting
foraging or nesting habitat across the
Pacific from their region of origin.
Recent nDNA studies provide insights
that are consistent with patterns of
differentiation found with mtDNA in
the eastern Pacific. Roden et al. (2013)
found significant differentiation
between FFS and two eastern Pacific
´
populations (the Galapagos Islands,
´
Ecuador and Michoacan, Mexico) and
greater connectivity between Galapagos
´
and Michoacan than between FFS and
either of the eastern Pacific nesting
sites.
Flipper tagging and satellite telemetry
data show that dispersal and
reproductive migratory movements of
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
green turtles originating from the
eastern Pacific region are generally
confined to that region. Long-term
´
flipper tagging programs at Michoacan
´
(Alvarado-Dıaz and Figueroa, 1992) and
´
in the Galapagos Islands (Green, 1984;
P. Zarate, University of Florida, pers.
comm., 2012) produced 94 tag returns
from foraging areas throughout the
eastern Pacific (e.g., Seminoff et al.,
2002b). There were two apparent
groupings, with tags attached to turtles
´
nesting in the Galapagos largely
recovered along the shores from Costa
Rica to Chile in the southeastern Pacific,
and long-distance tag returns from the
´
Michoacan nesting site primarily from
foraging areas in Mexico to Nicaragua.
However, there was a small degree of
overlap between these two regions, as at
´
least one Michoacan tag was recovered
´
as far south as Colombia (Alvarado-Dıaz
and Figueroa, 1992).
Satellite telemetry efforts with green
turtles in the region have shown similar
results to those for flipper tag
recoveries. A total of 23 long-distance
satellite tracks were considered for the
Status Review (Seminoff, 2000; Nichols,
2003; Seminoff et al., 2008). Satellite
data show that turtles tracked in
northeastern Mexico (Nichols, 2003; J.
Nichols, California Academy of
Sciences, unpubl. data) and California
(P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2010)
all stayed within the region, whereas
turtles tracked from nesting beaches in
´
the Galapagos Islands all remained in
waters off Central America and the
broader southeastern Pacific Ocean
(Seminoff et al., 2008).
Demographic evidence of discreteness
is also found in morphological
differences between green turtles in the
eastern Pacific and those found
elsewhere. The smallest green turtles
worldwide are found in the eastern
Pacific, where mean nesting size is 82.0
´
cm CCL in Michoacan, Mexico (n=718,
´
(Alvarado-Dıaz and Figueroa, 1992) and
´
86.7 cm CCL in the Galapagos (n=2708;
´
(Zarate et al., 2003), compared to the 95
cm to 110 cm CCL size range for most
green turtles. In addition, Kamezaki and
Matsui (1995) found differences in skull
morphology among green turtle
populations on a broad global scale
when analyzing specimens representing
west and east Pacific (Japan and
´
Galapagos), Indian Ocean (Comoros and
Seychelles), and Caribbean (Costa Rica
and Guyana) populations. The eastern
Pacific was different from others based
on discriminant function analysis (used
to discriminate between two or more
naturally occurring groups).
Given the information presented
above, the SRT concluded, and we
concur, that there are five discrete
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
populations entirely within the Pacific
Ocean: (1) Central West Pacific, (2)
Southwest Pacific, (3) Central South
Pacific, (4) Central North Pacific, and (5)
East Pacific. These five populations are
markedly separated from each other and
from populations within the Atlantic
Ocean and Indian Oceans as a
consequence of physical, ecological,
behavioral, and oceanographic factors.
Information supporting this conclusion
includes genetic analysis, flipper tag
recoveries, and satellite telemetry.
Collectively, all observations above
led the SRT to propose that green turtles
from the following geographic areas
might be considered ‘‘discrete’’
according to criteria in the joint DPS
policy:
(1) North Atlantic Ocean
(2) Mediterranean Sea
(3) South Atlantic Ocean
(4) Southwest Indian Ocean
(5) North Indian Ocean
(6) East Indian Ocean-West Pacific
Ocean
(7) Central West Pacific Ocean
(8) Southwest Pacific Ocean
(9) Central South Pacific Ocean
(10) Central North Pacific Ocean
(11) East Pacific Ocean
B. Significance Determination
In accordance with the DPS Policy,
the SRT next reviewed whether the
population segments identified in the
discreteness analysis were biologically
and ecologically significant to the taxon
to which they belong, which is the
taxonomic species C. mydas. Data
relevant to the significance question
include ecological, behavioral, genetic
and morphological data. The SRT
considered the following factors, listed
in the DPS Policy, in determining
whether the discrete population
segments were significant: (1) Evidence
that loss of the discrete segment would
result in a significant gap in the range
of the taxon; (2) evidence that the
discrete segment differs markedly from
other populations of the species in its
genetic characteristics; and (3)
persistence of the discrete segment in an
unusual or unique ecological setting.
The DPS policy also allows for
consideration of other factors if they are
appropriate to the biology or ecology of
the species, such as unique
morphological or demographic
characteristics, and unique movement
patterns.
1. North Atlantic
Green turtles in the North Atlantic
differ markedly in their genetic
characteristics from other regional
populations. They are strongly divergent
from the Mediterranean population (the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15283
only other population within Clade I),
and turtles from adjacent populations in
the eastern Caribbean carry haplotypes
from a different clade. The North
Atlantic population has globally unique
haplotypes. Therefore, the loss of the
population would result in significant
genetic loss to the species as a whole.
The green turtles within the North
Atlantic population occupy a large
portion of one of the major ocean basins
in the world; therefore, the loss of this
segment would represent a significant
gap in the global range of green turtles.
Green turtles take advantage of the
warm waters of the Gulf Stream to nest
in North Carolina at 34° N., which is
farther from the equator than any other
nesting sites outside the Mediterranean
Sea. Tagging and telemetry studies show
that the North Atlantic green turtle
population has minimal mixing with
populations in the South Atlantic and
Mediterranean regions. The mean size of
nesting females in the North Atlantic,
which could reflect the ecological
setting and/or be genetically based, is
larger (average 101.7–109.3 cm CCL;
´
´
(Guzman-Hernandez, 2001, 2006) than
those in the adjacent Mediterranean Sea
(average 88–96 cm CCL), and smaller
than those at varying locations in the
South Atlantic, such as those at Isla
Trindade, Brazil (average 115.2 cm CCL;
Hirth, 1997; Almeida et al., 2011), Atol
das Rocas, Brazil (112.9–118.6 cm CCL;
Hirth, 1997; Bellini et al., 2013), and
Ascension Island (average 116.8 cm
CCL; Hirth, 1997).
Another factor indicating uniqueness
of the North Atlantic population is a
typical 2-year remigration interval, as
compared to 3-year or longer intervals
that are more common elsewhere
(Witherington et al., 2006).
2. Mediterranean
Mediterranean turtles differ markedly
in their genetic characteristics from
other regional populations, with
globally unique haplotypes and strong
divergence from the other population
within Clade I (the North Atlantic
population). Therefore, the loss of the
population would result in significant
genetic loss to the species as a whole.
Given this genetic distinctiveness and
the distinctive environmental
conditions, it is likely that turtles from
the eastern Mediterranean have
developed local adaptations that help
them persist in this area. Mediterranean
females are smaller than those in any
other regional population except the
Eastern Pacific, averaging 92.0 cm CCL
(Broderick et al., 2003) compared to the
global average of 95 cm–110 cm CCL.
The loss of the population would
result in a significant gap in the range
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15284
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
of the taxon. The population
encompasses a large region, separated
from other regional populations by large
expanses of ocean, and with an apparent
biogeographic boundary formed by the
western Mediterranean.
Finally, the Mediterranean Sea
appears to be a unique ecological setting
for the species. It is the most saline
marine water basin in the world (38
parts per thousand (ppt) or higher), is
nearly enclosed, and is outside the
normal latitudinal range for the species,
being the farthest from the equator of
any green turtle population. Although
similar information is not available for
green turtles, it has been postulated that
the high salinity of sea water in the
Mediterranean acts as a ‘‘barrier’’
preventing loggerhead sea turtles from
moving among the areas of the Western
Mediterranean, explaining why they do
not mix between the north and south
Mediterranean as juveniles (Revelles et
al., 2008). All nesting sites within the
Mediterranean are between latitudes
31–40° N., which not only affects
temperature but results in more seasonal
variation in day length and
environmental conditions, which may
have fostered local adaptations in green
turtles living there.
3. South Atlantic
The South Atlantic population has
globally unique haplotypes. Therefore,
the loss of the population would result
in significant genetic loss to the species
as a whole. The South Atlantic
population contains the only nesting
site in the world associated with a midocean ridge. This unique ecological
setting at Ascension Island, one of the
largest nesting sites within this
population, ensures diverse nesting
habitats and promotes resilience for the
species. This population spans an entire
hemispheric ocean basin, and its loss
would result in a gap of at least 12,000
km between populations off southeast
Africa and those in Florida, clearly a
significant gap in the range of the taxon.
Brazil and Guinea Bissau may have
acted as a refuge for Atlantic green
turtles during the Pleistocene period
(Reece et al., 2005). The average size of
nesting females is larger here than in
any other populations, ranging from
112.9–118.6 cm CCL (Hirth, 1997;
Almeida et al., 2011) compared to 95–
110 cm CCL worldwide, which could
reflect an adaptation to local
environmental conditions such as
habitat, availability of food, water
temperature, and population dynamics.
4. Southwest Indian
Within the Southwest Indian Ocean,
strong upwelling in the Mozambique
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Channel produces distinctive areas of
high productivity that support a robust
turtle population, and complex current
patterns in the area create a distinctive
ecological setting for green turtles.
Madagascar is one of the largest islands
in the world and its proximity to the
African coast, along with a proliferation
of nearby islands, creates a complex
series of habitats suitable for green
turtles. Loss of this population would
leave a gap of over 10,000 km between
populations in southern India and those
in west-central Africa. Nesting turtles
from this population are the largest
within the Indian Ocean, ranging from
103 cm (SCL)–112.3 cm (CCL) (Frazier,
1971; 1985) which could reflect growth
due to presence of a network of foraging
areas and localize migratory
movements.
5. North Indian
The ecological setting for this region
is unique for green turtles in that it
contains some of the warmest and
highly saline waters in the world,
indicative of the partially enclosed
marine habitats within this system. The
salinity in the North Indian Ocean
varies from 32 to 37 ppt comparable
only to the Mediterranean Sea. Salinity
in this region varies with local and
seasonal differences particularly in the
Arabian Sea (dense, high-salinity) and
the Bay of Bengal (low-salinity).
Although genetic data are very limited
for this population, with the only
sample being from the Persian Gulf, it
has two groups of highly divergent
haplotypes that are not found anywhere
else in the world (i.e., markedly
different genetic characteristics). The
loss of this population, and its globally
unique haplotypes, which are not found
in any other population, would result in
significant genetic loss to the species as
a whole. This population is isolated
from other Indian Ocean populations
which would render its loss a
significant gap in the range of the
species. Nesting turtles are smaller here
than in other Indian Ocean regions,
possibly reflecting genetic adaptations
to local environmental conditions.
6. East Indian-West Pacific
This area of complex habitats at the
confluence of the tropical Indian and
Pacific Oceans is a well-known hotspot
for speciation and diversification of
both terrestrial and marine taxa. It is
unique in that it contains the most
extensive continental shelf globally, and
particularly low salinity waters in the
northeastern Indian Ocean. Loss of
green turtles from this vast area would
create a substantial gap in the global
distribution and, because this
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
population is located at the center of the
species’ range, would strongly affect
connectivity within the species as a
whole. Connectivity is important for the
maintenance of genetic diversity and
resilience of the species. Genetic data
indicate the presence of ancestral
haplotypes with significant mtDNA
diversity. The loss of this population,
and its ancestral haplotypes, would
represent a significant genetic loss to the
species. The wide size range of nesting
females within this population (82.1
cm–105.6 cm; Charuchinda and
Monanunsap, 1998; Cheng, 2000) is also
an indication of the high level of
diversity within this population.
7. Central West Pacific
The Central West Pacific population
is genetically significant in that it has
both globally unique haplotypes and
ancestral haplotypes. The Central West
Pacific has no continental shelf habitats,
with all nesting occurring on small
islands or atolls that are volcanic or
coralline limestone. There is an
apparent oceanic boundary between the
Central West Pacific and the Central
North Pacific population and an
apparent biogeographic boundary
between the Central West Pacific and
the East Indian-West Pacific population.
Loss of turtles from this population
would create a large gap near the center
of the geographic range of the species.
8. Southwest Pacific
Clade V haplotypes have only been
found at nesting sites in the Southwest
Pacific population. In addition to these
globally unique haplotypes, the
presence of the ancestral haplotypes and
significant mtDNA diversity make this
population genetically significant.
Unlike most other populations in the
Pacific Ocean, this population includes
island nesting sites in close proximity to
coastal foraging areas. The Great Barrier
Reef (GBR) is the largest coral reef
system in the world and was
periodically isolated over geological
time. It provides expansive, year-round
foraging habitat for green turtles and
supports one of the largest nesting sites
in the world.
9. Central South Pacific
This population has globally unique
haplotypes. Therefore, the loss of the
population would result in significant
genetic loss to the species as a whole.
To a greater extent than in any other
regional population, nesting sites are
widely dispersed among a large number
of small habitats on islands and atolls.
Foraging areas are mostly coral reef
ecosystems, with seagrass beds in Tonga
and Fiji being a notable exception.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
10. Central North Pacific
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Mitochondrial DNA in this
extensively sampled region includes
globally unique haplotypes. Although
two haplotypes are shared with
individuals in the Revillagigedos
Islands in the East Pacific, there is little
evidence of significant ongoing gene
flow. The loss of this population would
result in significant genetic loss to the
species as a whole.
This population has no continentalshelf habitat and all nesting occurs on
mid-basin pinnacles. Turtles in this
population are known to bask, a rare
behavior for modern-day sea turtles, and
have unique morphological traits such
as unusually large flippers, possibly
reflecting adaptations to their ecological
setting. This is the most isolated of all
populations, with an apparent
biogeographic boundary with the
Eastern Pacific population and oceanic
boundaries with the Central West and
Central South Pacific populations. If all
turtles were lost from this vast
geographic area, it would create a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
significant gap in the global range of the
species.
C. Summary of Discreteness and
Significance Determinations
11. East Pacific
The two cold-water currents on the
east side of the Pacific Ocean (the
Humboldt Current in the south and the
California Current in the north) leave a
distinctive region of tropical ocean
along the west coasts of Mexico, Central
America, and northern South America
that is known as the Eastern Pacific
Zoogeographic Region (Briggs, 1974).
Perhaps as a result, some turtles in this
area exhibit a unique overwintering
behavior similar to hibernation. This
area also has a very narrow continental
shelf and low levels of seagrass,
resulting in a unique diet for green
turtles (e.g., tunicates and red mangrove
fruits; Amorocho and Reina, 2007). This
population has globally unique
haplotypes. Therefore, the loss of the
population would result in significant
genetic loss to the species as a whole.
Mean size of nesting turtles in the East
Pacific is smaller, at approximately 82
cm CCL (Pritchard, 1971) than in any
other population, which could reflect an
adaptation to local ecological
conditions, as could the distinctive
‘‘black’’ phenotype. The Galapagos
Island chain is one of the few areas
where green turtles bask (Hawai‘i being
the other). Loss of all turtles from this
population would leave a significant
gap in the range of the species as it
occurs along much of the eastern
boundary of the world’s largest ocean.
In summary, the 11 discrete
populations identified in the
Discreteness Determination section were
also determined to be significant to the
species, C. mydas. Each is genetically
unique, and many are identified by
unique mtDNA haplotypes which could
represent adaptive differences. Some
populations exist in unique or unusual
ecological settings influenced by local
ecological and physical factors which
may also lead to adaptive differences
and represent adaptive potential. Some
also possess unique morphological or
other demographic characteristics that
render them significant. Most
populations represent a large portion of
the species’ range, and their loss would
result in a significant gap in the range
of the species.
Based on the information provided in
the Discreteness Determination and
Significance Determination sections
above, the SRT identified the following
11 potential green turtle DPSs (Figure
2): (1) North Atlantic, (2) Mediterranean,
(3) South Atlantic, (4) Southwest Indian,
(5) North Indian, (6) East Indian-West
Pacific, (7) Central West Pacific, (8)
Southwest Pacific, (9) Central South
Pacific, (10) Central North Pacific, and
(11) East Pacific. We concur with the
findings of the SRT and conclude that
the 11 potential DPSs identified by the
SRT warrant delineation as DPSs.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
EP23MR15.001</GPH>
There is an apparent oceanic boundary
with the Central North Pacific
population. Although turtles in this area
are poorly studied, they may have
evolved adaptations to persist with this
very diffuse metapopulation structure. If
green turtles were lost from this entire
area, it would create a significant gap in
the range across the southern Pacific
Ocean.
15285
15286
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
VI. Listing Evaluation Process
A. Discussion of Population Parameters
for the Eleven Green Turtle DPSs
In these sections, we describe the
geographic range of each DPS. We
discuss its population parameters,
which are derived from population data
and influence the persistence of the
DPS. These population parameters
include: Abundance, growth rates or
trends, spatial structure, and diversity
or resilience (McElhany et al., 2000).
NMFS has used this approach in
numerous status reviews. USFWS uses
a similar approach, based on Shaffer
and Stein (2000), to evaluate a species’
status in terms of its representation,
resiliency, and redundancy; this
methodology has also been a widely
accepted approach (Tear et al., 2005).
Though expressed differently, these two
approaches rely on the same
conservation biology principles. Though
this information is presented separately
from the assessment of threats under
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, population
dynamics represent one aspect of the
other natural or manmade factors
affecting the continued existence of the
species that we consider under Factor E.
Complete population abundance and
trend estimates do not exist for any of
the 11 DPSs. The data used in the Status
Review and summarized here represent
the best scientific information available.
The data are more robust for some areas
than for others. For each DPS, the
primary data available are collected on
nesting beaches, either as counts of
nests or counts of nesting females, or a
combination of both (either direct or
extrapolated). Information on
abundance and trends away from the
nesting beaches is limited and often
non-existent, primarily because these
data are, relative to nesting beach
studies, logistically difficult and
expensive to obtain. Therefore, the
primary and best available information
source for directly evaluating status and
trends of the DPSs is nesting data.
Nesting female abundance estimates
for each nesting site or nesting beach are
presented in the Status Review for each
potential DPS. Accompanying this
information is trend information in the
form of bar plots and Population
Viability Analysis (PVA) models
extending 100 years into the future for
the 33 sites that met the criteria for
depicting the data this way, i.e., recent
(<10 year old) data over a given period
of time (10 years for bar plots, 15 years
for PVA) with consistent protocols and
effort during that time.
With regard to spatial structure, the
SRT used information from genetic,
tagging, telemetry, and demographic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
data to identify structuring and
substructuring within each DPS. This
informed the SRT of metapopulation
dynamics in order that it might consider
these dynamics in considerations about
the future of the species, including
whether source populations and genetic
diversity are being maintained.
With regard to diversity and
resilience, the SRT considered the
extent of ecological variation, including
the overall nesting spatial range,
diversity in nesting season, and
diversity of nesting site structure and
orientation, e.g., whether nesting sites
are insular or continental, have a high
or low beach face, and whether there are
a variety of types of sites. The SRT also
considered demographic and genetic
diversity of the DPS which may indicate
its ability to adapt and thus its
resilience. One of the considerations
when looking at diversity was the DPS’s
ability to adapt to climate change
including, but not limited to, sea level
rise and warming of nesting beaches.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
Eleven Green Turtle DPSs
Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 424 set forth procedures for adding
species to the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
Species. Under section 4(a) of the ESA,
the Services must determine whether a
species is threatened or endangered
because of any of the following 5
factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In this rulemaking, information
regarding the status of each of the 11
green turtle DPSs is considered in
relation to the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. That
information presented here is a
summary of the information in the
Status Review. The reader is directed to
the subsection within each DPS section
of the Status Review titled ‘‘Analysis of
Factors Listed Under ESA Section
4(a)(1)’’ for a more detailed discussion
of the factors.
C. Conservation Efforts
In evaluating the efficacy of protective
efforts not yet implemented or not yet
proven to be effective, we rely on the
Policy on Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions
(‘‘PECE’’; 68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003),
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
issued jointly by the Services.
Information on conservation efforts for
each DPS is summarized from the Status
Review. For a more detailed description
of conservation efforts, please see that
document. When assessing conservation
efforts, the SRT assumed that all
conservation efforts would remain in
place at their current levels. In our final
determinations, we considered the
conservation benefits of continued
protections under the ESA.
D. Extinction Risk Assessments and
Findings
To analyze the extinction risk of each
DPS, the SRT collected and presented
information on the six critical
assessment elements: (1) Abundance, (2)
growth rates/trends, (3) spatial
structure, (4) diversity/resilience, (5)
five factor analysis/threats, and (6)
conservation efforts. Shortly after each
presentation, the SRT voted twice: A
vote on the contribution of each critical
assessment element to extinction risk,
and a vote on the overall risk of
extinction to the DPS (see section 3.3.4
of the Status Review for a more detailed
discussion of this process).
In the first vote, SRT members ranked
the importance of each of the four
population parameters (Abundance,
Trends, Spatial Structure, Diversity/
Resilience) by assigning them a value
from 1 to 5 for each DPS, with 1
indicating a very low risk and 5
indicating a very high risk. SRT
members then ranked the influence of
the section 4(a)(1) factors (threats) on
the status of each DPS by assigning a
value of 0 (neutral effect on status—this
could mean that threats are not
sufficient to appreciably affect the status
of the DPS, or that threats are already
reflected in the population parameters),
–1 (threats described in the 5-factor
analysis suggest that the DPS will
experience some decline (<5 percent
decline) in abundance within 100
years), or –2 (threats described in the 5factor analysis suggest that the DPS will
experience significant decline (≥5
percent decline) in abundance within
100 years). They then ranked the
influence of conservation efforts on the
status of each DPS by assigning a value
of 0 (neutral effect on status—this could
mean that conservation efforts are not
sufficient to appreciably affect the status
of the DPS, or that conservation efforts
are already reflected in the population
parameters), +1 (activities described in
Conservation Efforts suggest that the
DPS will experience <5 percent increase
in abundance within 100 years), or +2
(activities described in Conservation
Efforts suggest that the DPS will
experience ≥5 percent increase in
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
abundance within 100 years). The SRT
did note in discussions that none of
these elements is entirely independent.
Abundance, growth rates, spatial
structure, and diversity/resilience are
linked and often dependent on each
other. Past threats and conservation
efforts affect these four population
parameters. To minimize ‘‘double
counting,’’ the SRT considered only
those threats and conservation measures
that are unlikely to be reflected in the
population parameters.
In the second vote, SRT members
provided their expert opinion (via vote)
on the likelihood that each DPS would
reach a critical risk threshold (quasiextinction) within 100 years. In the
Status Review, the SRT defined the
critical risk threshold (quasi-extinction)
as follows: ‘‘A DPS that has reached a
critical risk threshold has such low
abundance, declining trends, limited
distribution or diversity, and/or
significant threats (untempered by
significant conservation efforts) that the
DPS would be at very high risk of
extinction with little chance for
recovery.’’ Generally, DPSs were
considered to have higher viability if
they were composed of a number of
relatively large populations, distributed
throughout the geographic range of the
DPS, and exhibited stable or increasing
growth rates. DPSs were considered to
be at higher risk if they were composed
of fewer robust populations or with
robust populations all concentrated in a
small geographic area, where they might
be susceptible to correlated
catastrophes. Any DPS with low
phenotypic and/or habitat diversity
were also considered to be at higher risk
because the entire DPS could be
vulnerable to persistent environmental
conditions (Limpus and Nicholls, 2000;
Saba et al., 2008; Van Houtan and
Halley, 2011) or stochastic catastrophic
events (Hawkes et al., 2007; Van Houtan
and Bass, 2007; Fuentes et al., 2011).
Each member was given 100 points to
spread across risk categories, reflecting
their interpretation of the information
for that DPS; the voting results are
available in the Status Review. The
spread of points is meant to reflect the
amount of uncertainty in the risk
threshold bins. Risk categories were <1
percent, 1–5 percent, 6–10 percent, 11–
20 percent, 21–50 percent, and >50
percent. We note that, presumably
because this species is such a long-lived
species and, as such, it is unlikely that
it would go extinct within 100 years
even if it was lost in many places, every
DPS received numerous points in the <1
percent category, including those with
the most depressed numbers and that
face the highest threats.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
As noted above, the SRT estimated
the likelihood that a population would
fall below a critical risk threshold
within 100 years. The SRT did not
define the critical risk threshold
quantitatively but instead provided the
following definition: ‘‘A DPS that has
reached a critical risk threshold has
such low abundance, declining trends,
limited distribution or diversity, and/or
significant threats (untempered by
significant conservation efforts) that the
DPS would be at very high risk of
extinction with little chance for
recovery.’’
While the SRT’s review of the DPSs’
statuses was rigorous and extensive, the
framework used does not allow us to
easily or clearly translate a particular
critical risk category to an ESA listing
status. Structured expert opinion is a
valid and commonly used method of
evaluating extinction risk and forms a
useful starting point for our analysis.
However, in our judgment, the critical
risk threshold approach used for this
status review does not directly correlate
with the ESA’s definitions of
endangered and threatened. The ESA
defines an ‘‘endangered species’’ as
‘‘any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.’’ The critical risk
threshold, as defined by the SRT, is a
condition worse than endangered,
because it essentially precludes
recovery. Thus, while the SRT votes
informed our listing determinations, we
did not equate a particular critical risk
category with an ESA listing status, and
therefore the votes were not the basis for
those determinations. However, to make
our proposed listing determinations, we
applied the best available science that
was compiled by the SRT in examining
the definitions of endangered and
threatened species under section 3 of
the ESA.
After considering the extinction risk,
the Services then reviewed the present
threats and threats anticipated in the
foreseeable future for each DPS. We
examined the significant threats to each
DPS, how these threats affected that
DPS, and how they were predicted to
affect the DPS in the foreseeable future.
Our analysis weighed each factor within
the scope of the ESA’s definitions of
threatened and endangered for each
DPS.
Among other things, the Services also
carefully considered where current
conditions or protections are present
specifically because green turtles are
listed under the ESA, and whether those
conditions would likely exist absent
such a listing. We note that the latter
was not considered by the SRT,
meaning the SRT conducted all risk
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15287
analyses assuming all protections would
remain in place.
VII. North Atlantic DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters
for the North Atlantic DPS
The range of the North Atlantic DPS
extends from the boundary of South and
Central America north along the coast to
the northern extent of the green turtle’s
range to include Panama, Costa Rica,
Nicaragua, Honduras, Belize, Mexico,
and the United States. It then extends
due east across the Atlantic Ocean at 48°
N.; follows the coast south to include
the northern portion of the Islamic
Republic of Mauritania (Mauritania; to
19° N.) on the African continent; and
west along the 19° N. latitude to the
Caribbean basin, turning south and west
at 63.5° W., 19° N., and due south at 7.5°
N., 77° W. to the boundary of South and
Central to include Puerto Rico, the
Bahamas, Cuba, Turks and Caicos
Islands, Republic of Haiti (Haiti),
Dominican Republic, Cayman Islands,
and Jamaica. The North Atlantic DPS
includes the Florida breeding
population, which was originally listed
as endangered (43 FR 32800, July 28,
1978). Critical habitat was previously
designated for areas within the range of
this DPS (i.e., coastal waters
surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto
Rico; 63 FR 46693, September 2, 1998).
Green turtle nesting sites in the North
Atlantic are some of the most studied in
the world, with time series exceeding 40
years in Costa Rica and 35 years in
Florida. Seventy-three nesting sites were
identified within the North Atlantic
DPS, although some represent numerous
individual beaches. For instance,
Florida nesting beaches were listed by
county with the numerous beaches in
each county representing one site and,
for other U.S. beaches (from Texas to
North Carolina), each state’s nesting
beaches were represented as one site.
There are four regions that support high
density nesting concentrations for
which data were available: Tortuguero,
Costa Rica; Mexico (Campeche,
Yucatan, and Quintana Roo); Florida,
United States; and Cuba. There is one
nesting site with >100,000 nesting
females (Tortuguero at 131,751;
Chaloupka et al., 2008a; Sea Turtle
Conservancy, 2013), one with 10,001–
100,000 (Quintana Roo, Mexico at
18,257; Julio Zurita, pers. comm. 2012)
and six with 1,001–5,000: Cayo Largo,
Cuba; Campeche, Yucatan, and
Veracruz, Mexico; and Brevard and
Palm Beach Counties, FL, United States.
There are four with 501–1,000;
Tamaulipas, Mexico; Vieques, Puerto
Rico; Martin and Indian River Counties,
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
15288
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
FL, United States; nine with 101–500;
26 with <50; and 26 with numbers
unquantified. Seventy-nine percent of
the nesting turtles in this DPS nest at
Tortuguero.
Of the nesting sites with long-term
data sets, both Tortuguero and the index
beaches in Florida exhibit a strong
positive trend in the PVAs that were
conducted on them, as does Isla
Aguada, Mexico (one beach in the
Campeche group). Three beaches in
Cuba (total of 489 nesting females)
either showed no trend or a modest
positive trend. One beach in Mexico (El
Cuyo, Yucatan) exhibited no trend.
Genetic sampling in the North
Atlantic DPS has been generally
extensive with good coverage of large
populations in this region; however,
some smaller Caribbean nesting sites are
absent and coastal nesting sites in the
Gulf of Mexico are under-represented.
Genetic differentiation based on mtDNA
indicated that there are at least four
independent nesting subpopulations in
the North Atlantic DPS characterized by
shallow regional substructuring: (1)
Florida (Hutchinson Island; Lahanas et
al., 1994), (2) Cuba (Guanahacabibes
´
´
Penınsula and Cayerıa San Felipe; RuizUrquiola et al., 2010), (3) Mexico
(Quintana Roo; Encalada et al., 1996),
and (4) Costa Rica (Tortuguero; Lahanas
et al., 1994). These nesting sites are
characterized by common and
widespread haplotypes dominated by
CM–A1 and/or CM–A3. A relatively low
level of spatial structure is detected due
to shared common haplotypes, although
there are some rare/unique haplotypes
at some nesting sites. Connectivity may
indicate recent shared common
ancestry.
Green turtles nest on both continental
and island beaches throughout the range
of the DPS (Witherington et al., 2006).
Major nesting sites are primarily
continental with hundreds of lower
density sites scattered throughout the
Caribbean. Green turtles nesting in
Florida seem to prefer barrier island
beaches that receive high wave energy
and that have coarse sands, steep slopes,
and prominent foredunes. The greatest
nesting is on sparsely developed
beaches that have minimal levels of
artificial lighting. A high-low nesting
pattern for Florida and Mexico occurs
during the same years; however, nesting
in Tortuguero, Costa Rica is not always
in sync with Florida and Mexico (e.g.,
2011 was a high nesting year in Florida,
but for Tortuguero the high nesting year
was 2010). The nesting season is similar
throughout the range of the DPS, with
green turtles nesting from June to
November in Costa Rica (Bjorndal et al.,
1999), and May through September in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
the United States, Mexico, and Cuba
(Witherington et al., 2006).
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
North Atlantic DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
Within the range of the North Atlantic
DPS, nesting beaches continue to be
degraded from a variety of activities.
Destruction and modification of green
turtle nesting habitat results from
coastal development, coastal armoring,
beachfront lighting, erosion, sand
extraction, and vehicle and pedestrian
traffic on nesting beaches (Witherington
and Bjorndal, 1991; Witherington, 1992;
Witherington et al., 1996; Lutcavage et
al., 1997; Bouchard et al., 1998; Mosier,
1998; Witherington and Koeppel, 2000;
Mosier and Witherington, 2002; Leong
et al., 2003; Roberts and Ehrhart, 2007).
In addition, sea level rise resulting from
climate change poses a threat to all
nesting beaches. Portions of the
Southern United States and Caribbean
are found be to highly vulnerable to sea
level rise (Melillo et al., 2014). For
instance, along the southern portion of
the Florida coastline, one climate
change model predicted one meter of
sea level rise by 2060, resulting in the
inundation of more than 50 percent of
coastal wildlife refuges (Flaxman and
Vargas-Moreno, 2011). Most green turtle
nesting in the United States is
concentrated along the southeastern
coast of Florida with more than 90
percent of nesting occurring from
Brevard to Broward counties (https://
ocean.floridamarine.org/SeaTurtle/
nesting/FlexViewer/). Loss of nesting
habitat as a result of sea level rise poses
a threat to the population. Sea level rise
is exacerbated by coastal development
and armoring, which prevents the beach
from migrating and causes nesting green
turtles to abandon their nesting attempts
more frequently as a result of their
encounter with such structures (Mosier,
1998; Mosier and Witherington, 2000;
Rizkalla and Savage, 2011). Females
might nest in sub-optimal habitats,
where nests are more vulnerable to
erosion or inundation (Rizkalla and
Savage 2011). As a result, nests would
be subject to more frequent inundation,
exacerbated erosion, and increased
moisture from tidal overwash, which
can potentially alter thermal regimes, an
important factor in determining the sex
ratio of hatchlings.
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Green turtles in the post-hatchling
and early-juvenile stages are closely
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
associated with Sargassum algae in the
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
(Witherington et al., 2012), and
vulnerable to ingesting contaminants
such as tar balls and plastics that
aggregate in convergent zones where
Sargassum aggregates (Witherington,
2002). Juvenile and adult green turtles
and their nearshore foraging habitats are
also exposed to high levels of
pollutants, such as agricultural and
residential runoff, and sewage which
result in degraded foraging habitat
(Smith et al., 1992). Further, increased
nutrient load in these coastal waters
causes eutrophication. Eutrophication is
linked to harmful algal blooms that
result in the loss and degradation of
seagrass beds, and possibly
fibropapilloma tumors in green turtles
(Milton and Lutz, 2003).
In Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and
Panama, water quality is also affected by
sewage and industrial and agricultural
runoff. Pollution remains a major threat
in the waters of Jamaica. Major sources
of pollution are industrial and
agricultural effluent, garbage dumps and
solid waste, and household sewage
(Greenway, 1977; Green and Webber,
2003).
Nearshore foraging habitats such as
seagrass beds are affected by propeller
scarring, anchor damage, dredging, sand
mining, and marina construction
throughout the range of the DPS (Smith
´
et al., 1992; Dow et al., 2007; Patrıcio et
al., 2011). Sand placement projects
along the Florida coastline affect
nearshore reefs as a result of direct
burial of portions of the reef habitat and
loss of food sources available to green
turtles (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999).
The SRT found, and we concur, that
the North Atlantic DPS of the green
turtle is negatively affected by ongoing
changes in both its terrestrial and
marine habitats as a result of land and
water use practices as considered above
in Factor A. The increasing threats to
the terrestrial and marine habitats are
not reflected in the current trend for the
North Atlantic DPS, as it was based on
nesting numbers and not on all current
life stages. These increasing threats to
the population will become apparent
when those life stages affected by the
threats return to nest, as the trend
information is based solely on numbers
of nests. This lag time was considered
in our analysis. For example, a threat
that affects the oceanic juvenile phase
would not be detected until those turtles
return to nest, approximately 15 to 20
years later. The SRT also found, and we
concur, that coastal development,
beachfront lighting, erosion, sand
extraction, and sea level rise
increasingly impact nesting beaches of
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
this DPS and are increasing threats to
the DPS.
significant threat to the persistence of
this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
A partial list of the countries within
the range of the North Atlantic DPS
where ongoing intentional capture of
green turtles occurs, includes Costa Rica
¨
(Mangel and Troeng, 2001; Gonzalez
Prieto and Harrison, 2012), Mexico
(Seminoff, 2000; Gardner and Nichols,
´
2001; Dirado et al., 2002; Guzman´
´
Hernandez and Garcıa Alvarado, 2011),
Cuba (Fleming, 2001; F. Moncado,
Ministerio de la Industria Pesquera,
pers. comm., 2013), Nicaragua (Lagueux,
1998; Humber et al., 2014), the Bahamas
(Fleming, 2001), Jamaica (HaynesSutton et al., 2011), and the Cayman
Islands (Fleming, 2001). Harvest
remains legal in several of these
countries (Humphrey and Salm, 1996;
Wamukoya et al., 1996; Fleming, 2001;
¨
Fretey, 2001; Brautigam and Eckert,
2006).
The commercial artisanal green turtle
fishery in Nicaragua continues to be a
threat to the Tortuguero nesting
population, the largest remaining green
turtle population in the Atlantic
(Campbell and Lagueux, 2005). Local
demand for turtle meat in coastal
communities continues (Garland and
Carthy, 2010). There is a legal turtle
fishery on the Caribbean coast that is
located in the most important
developmental and foraging habitat for
Caribbean green turtles (Fleming, 2001;
Campbell and Lagueux, 2005). The
hunting of juvenile and adult turtles
continues both legally and illegally in
many foraging areas where green turtles
originating from Florida nesting beaches
´
are known to occur (Chacon, 2002;
Fleming, 2001).
Direct take of eggs is also an ongoing
threat in Panama (Evans and Vargas,
1998). Green turtles nesting on Belize’s
beaches and foraging along its coast are
harvested in the Robinson Point area
and sold in markets and restaurants
(Searle, 2003). Large numbers of green
turtles are captured in the area southeast
of Belize, an area which may be an
important migratory corridor (Searle,
2004). There are important feeding
grounds in the Banc d’Arguin,
Mauritania. While the frequency of
green turtle nesting in Mauritania is not
known, green turtle nests are reported as
being harvested there (Fretey, 2001;
Fretey and Hama, 2012).
Commercial harvest of green turtles
was a factor that contributed to the
historic decline of this DPS. Current
harvest of green turtles and eggs, in a
portion of this DPS, continues to be
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
Fibropapillomatosis (FP) has been
found in green turtle populations in the
United States (Hirama, 2001; Ene et al.,
2005; Foley et al., 2005; Hirama and
Ehrhart, 2007), the Bahamas, the
Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico (Dow
´
et al., 2007; Patrıcio et al., 2011),
Cayman Islands (Wood and Wood, 1994;
Dow et al., 2007), Costa Rica
¨
(Tortuguero; Mangel and Troeng, 2001),
Cuba (Moncada and Prieto, 2000),
Mexico (Yucatan Peninsula; K. Lopez,
pers. comm., as cited in MTSG, 2004),
and Nicaragua (Lagueux, 1998).
FP continues to be a major problem in
some lagoon systems and along the
nearshore reefs of Florida. It is a
chronic, often lethal disease occurring
predominantly in green turtles (Van
Houtan et al., 2014). A correlation
appeared to exist between these
degraded habitats and the prevalence of
FP in the green turtles that forage in
these areas but no direct link was
established (Aguirre and Lutz, 2004;
Foley et al., 2005). Indeed, across green
turtle populations, it is widely observed
that FP occurs most frequently in
eutrophied and otherwise impaired
waterways (Herbst, 1994; Van Houtan et
al., 2010). A recent study establishes
that eutrophication substantially
increases the nitrogen content of
macroalgae, thereby promoting the
latent herpes virus which causes FP
tumors in green turtles (Van Houtan et
al., 2014) although it is argued that there
is no inferential framework to base this
conclusion (Work et al., 2014). Despite
the high incidence of FP among foraging
populations, there is no conclusive
evidence on the effect of FP on
reproductive success (Chaloupka and
Balazs, 2005).
Harmful algal blooms, such as a red
tide, also affect green turtles in the
North Atlantic DPS. In Florida, the
species that causes most red tides is
Karenia brevis, a dinoflagellate that
produces a toxin (Redlow et al., 2002).
Since 2007, there were two red tide
events, one in 2007 along the east coast
of Florida, and one in 2012 along the
west coast of Florida. Sea turtle
stranding trends indicated that these
events were acting as a mortality factor
(A. Foley, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, pers. comm.,
2013). These events may impact a
population’s present and future
reproductive status.
Predators such as raccoons (Procyon
lotor), feral hogs (Sus scrofa), foxes
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus and Vulpes
vulpes), and coyotes (Canis latrans) may
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15289
take significant numbers of turtle eggs
(Stancyk, 1982; Allen et al., 2001). Nest
protection programs are in place at most
of the major nesting beaches in the
North Atlantic DPS, although they are
managed at varying levels and degrees
of effectiveness (Engeman et al., 2005).
Predator species that are particularly
difficult to manage include red fire ants
(Solenopsis invicta) and jaguars
(Panthera onca) (Wetterer, 2006; Prieto
and Harrison, 2012).
Although FP disease is of major
concern, with increasing levels in some
green turtle populations in this DPS, it
should be noted there is uncertainty of
the long-term survivability and effect on
the reproductive effort of the
population. Predation is known to occur
throughout this DPS, and we find it to
be a significant threat to this DPS in the
absence of well managed nest protection
programs.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
At least 15 regulatory mechanisms
that apply to green turtles regionally
(e.g., U.S. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act) or
globally (e.g., Convention on
International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) apply
to green turtles within the North
Atlantic Ocean. The analysis of these
existing regulatory mechanisms
assumed that all would remain in place
at their current levels.
In the United States, regulatory
mechanisms that protect green turtles
are in place and include State, Federal,
and international laws. The green turtle
was listed under the ESA in 1978,
providing relatively comprehensive
protection and recovery activities to
minimize the threats to green turtles in
the United States. Considering the
dependence of the species on
conservation efforts, significant
concerns remain regarding the
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms.
The development and implementation
of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in the
shrimp trawl fishery was likely the most
significant conservation
accomplishment for North Atlantic
green turtles in the marine environment
since their 1978 ESA listing. In the
southeast United States and Gulf of
Mexico, TEDs have been mandatory in
shrimp and flounder trawls for over a
decade. These regulations are
implemented and enforced to varying
degrees throughout the Gulf and U.S.
Southeast Atlantic. For example, the
State of Louisiana prohibits enforcement
of TED regulations and tow time limits.
In other States, enforcement of TED
regulations depends on available
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
15290
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
resources, and illegal or improperly
installed TEDs continue to contribute to
mortality of green turtles. Further, TEDs
are not required in all trawl fisheries,
and green turtle mortality continues in
the Gulf of Mexico, where shrimp
trawling is the highest (Lewison et al.,
2014). There are also regulatory
mechanisms in place that address the
loss of nesting habitat, such as the
Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B–
33.0155, which addresses threats from
armoring structures. However, these
regulatory mechanisms allow for
variances and armoring permits
continue to be issued along nesting
beaches.
Other threats, such as light pollution
on nesting beaches, marine debris,
vessel strikes, and continued direct
harvest of green turtles in places like
Nicaragua, are being addressed to some
extent by regulatory mechanisms,
although they remain a problem. In
addition, other regional and national
legislation to conserve green turtles
(often all sea turtles) exists throughout
the range of the DPS. The extent to
which threats have been reduced as a
result of these efforts is difficult to
ascertain. When the SRT assessed
conservation efforts, it assumed that all
conservation efforts would remain in
place at their current levels. The
following countries have laws to protect
green turtles: The Bahamas, Belize,
Bermuda, Canary Islands, Cayman
Islands, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,
Jamaica, Mauritania, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Panama, and the United States
(including the commonwealth of Puerto
Rico).
With regard to the United States, the
key law currently protecting green
turtles is the ESA. This law has been
instrumental in conserving sea turtles,
eliminating directed take of turtles in
U.S. waters unless authorized by permit
and reducing indirect take. In addition,
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Management and Conservation Act has
been effective at mandating responsible
fishing practices and bycatch mitigation
within fleets that sell fisheries products
to the United States, and the Marine
Turtle Conservation Act authorizes a
dedicated fund to support marine turtle
conservation projects in foreign
countries, with emphasis on protecting
nesting populations and nesting habitat.
In addition, at least 12 international
treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms
apply to the conservation of green
turtles in the North Atlantic DPS.
Outside of the United States, there are
some national regulations that address
the harvest of green turtles as well as the
import and export of turtle parts. These
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
regulations allow for the harvest of
green turtles of certain sizes, months, or
for ‘‘traditional’’ use. Gear restrictions
and TED requirements exist in a few
countries, although the compliance
level is unknown. Our Status Review
did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in
place to specifically address marine
pollution, sea level rise, and other
effects of climate change that continue
to contribute to the extinction risk of
this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Fisheries bycatch in artisanal and
industrial fishing gear continues to be a
major threat to green turtles in the North
Atlantic DPS. The adverse impacts of
bycatch on sea turtles has been
documented in marine environments
throughout the world (National
Research Council, 1990b; Epperly, 2003;
Lutcavage et al., 1997). The lack of
comprehensive and effective monitoring
and bycatch reduction efforts in many
pelagic and near-shore fisheries
operations throughout the range of the
North Atlantic DPS still allows
substantial direct and indirect mortality
(NMFS and USFWS, 2007).
i. Gill Net and Trawl Fisheries
Gill net fisheries may be the most
ubiquitous of fisheries operating in the
neritic range of the North Atlantic DPS.
In the United States, some states (e.g.,
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Louisiana, and Texas) have prohibited
gill nets in their waters, but there
remain active gill net fisheries in other
U.S. states, in U.S. Federal waters,
Mexican waters, Central and South
America, and the Northeast Atlantic.
Finfish fisheries accounted for the
greatest proportion of turtle bycatch (53
percent) in Cuba. In Jamaica, fish traps
and gill nets are the gear primarily
identified in sea turtle bycatch. Purse
seine and gill nets are used commonly
in the waters of the Dominican Republic
(Dow et al., 2007). In Costa Rica, gill
nets, hook and line, and trawls are the
main gear types deployed (Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, 2004). Shark-netting operations
in Panama are known to capture green
turtles (Meylan et al., 2013).
The development and implementation
of TEDs in the U.S. shrimp trawl fishery
was likely the most significant
conservation accomplishment for North
Atlantic green turtles in the marine
environment since their 1978 ESA
listing. In the southeast United States
and Gulf of Mexico, TEDs have been
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mandatory in shrimp and flounder
trawls for over a decade. However,
compliance varies throughout the
States, and green turtle mortality
continues in the Gulf of Mexico, where
shrimp trawling is the highest (Lewison
et al., 2014). With the current
regulations in place, an estimated 3,000
green turtles are captured (1,400 killed)
by shrimp trawls each year in the Gulf
and U.S. Southeast Atlantic (https://
sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_
resources/section_7/freq_biop/
documents/fisheries_bo/shrimp_biop_
2014.pdf). These regulations are
implemented and enforced to varying
degrees throughout the Gulf and U.S.
Southeast Atlantic (see discussion in
Factor D).
ii. Dredge Fishing
Dredge fishing gear is the
predominant gear used to harvest sea
scallops off the mid- and northeastern
U.S. Atlantic coast. Sea scallop dredges
are composed of a heavy steel frame and
cutting bar located on the bottom part of
the frame and a bag made of metal rings
and mesh twine attached to the frame.
Turtles can be struck and injured or
killed by the dredge frame and/or
captured in the bag, where they may
drown or be further injured or killed
when the catch and heavy gear are
dumped on the vessel deck.
b. Channel Dredging
In addition to the destruction or
degradation of habitat as described in
Factor A above, periodic dredging of
sediments from navigational channels
can also result in incidental mortality of
sea turtles. Direct injury or mortality of
green turtles by dredges has been well
documented in the southeastern and
mid-Atlantic U.S. (National Research
Council, 1990b). From 1980 to 2013, 105
green turtles were impacted as a result
of dredging operations in the U.S
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Solutions,
including modification of dredges, have
been successfully implemented to
reduce mortalities and injuries to sea
turtles in the United States (73 FR
18984, April 8, 2008; 77 FR 20728, April
6, 2012), and NMFS imposes annual
take limits based on the expected
number of green turtles impacted that
will not, directly or indirectly,
appreciably reduce the likelihood of
survival and recovery of the green turtle
in the wild.
c. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic
Boat strikes have been shown to be a
major mortality source in Florida
(Singel et al., 2003). Vessel strikes are a
growing concern and, as human
populations increase in coastal areas,
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
vessel strikes are likely to increase
(NMFS and FWS, 2008). From 2005 to
2009, 18.2 percent of all stranded green
turtles (695 of 3,818) in the U.S. Atlantic
(Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf of
Mexico) were documented as having
sustained some type of propeller or
collision injuries (L. Belskis, NMFS,
pers. comm., 2013). It is quite likely that
this is a chronic, albeit unreported,
problem near developed coastlines in
other areas as well, such as Panama
´
(e.g., Oros et al., 2005).
d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disasters
While sea turtles have survived past
eras that have included significant
temperature fluctuations, future climate
change is expected to happen at
unprecedented rates, and if turtles
cannot adapt quickly, they may face
local to widespread extirpations
(Hawkes et al., 2009). Climate change
and sea level rise have the potential to
affect green turtles significantly in the
North Atlantic DPS. North Atlantic
turtle populations could be affected by
the alteration of thermal sand
characteristics of beaches (from
warming temperatures), resulting in the
reduction or cessation of male hatchling
production (Hawkes et al., 2009;
Poloczanska et al., 2009). Increased sea
surface temperatures may alter the
timing of nesting for some stocks
(Weishampel et al., 2004), although the
implications of changes in nesting
timing are unclear. Changes in sea
temperatures will also likely alter
seagrass, macroalgae, and invertebrate
populations in coastal habitats in many
regions (Scavia et al., 2002). Further, a
significant rise in sea level, as is
projected for areas within the range of
the North Atlantic DPS (Flaxman and
Vargas-Moreno, 2011), could
significantly restrict green turtle nesting
habitat due to coastal development.
Structures on the landward side of the
beach can effectively prevent access to
nesting habitat and reduce available
nesting habitat (Mosier, 1998). The
increasing interaction between the
structures and the hydrodynamics of
tide and current, due to sea level rise,
often results in the alteration of the
beach profile seaward and in the
immediate vicinity of the structure
(Pilkey and Wright, 1988; Terchunian,
1988; Tait and Griggs, 1990; Plant and
Griggs, 1992), increased longshore
currents that move sand away from the
area, loss of interaction between the
dune and the beach berm, and
concentration of wave energy at the
ends of the structure (Schroeder and
Mosier, 1996). Impacts from global
climate change induced by human
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
activities are likely to become more
apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007).
Periodic hurricanes and other weather
events are generally localized and rarely
result in whole-scale losses over
multiple nesting seasons. However,
storm intensity and frequency are
predicted to increase as a result of
climate change (Melillo et al., 2014).
The negative effects of hurricanes on
low-lying and/or developed shorelines
may be longer-lasting and a greater
threat to the DPS overall when
combined with the effects of climate
change, and particularly sea level rise.
e. Effects of Cold Stunning
Cold stunning is the hypothermic
reaction that occurs when sea turtles are
exposed to prolonged cold water
temperatures. Cold stunning of green
turtles regularly occurs at several
locations in the United States, including
Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts (Still et
al., 2002); Long Island Sound, New York
(Meylan and Sadove, 1986; Morreale et
al., 1992); the Indian River Lagoon
system and the panhandle of Florida
(Mendonca and Ehrhart, 1982;
¸
Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989; Foley
et al., 2007); and Texas inshore waters
(Hildebrand, 1982; Shaver, 1990). Coldstunning events at these foraging areas
(Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989;
McMichael et al., 2006) leads to
mortality of juvenile and adult green
turtles, which may affect the present
and future green turtle population trend.
15291
result of ingesting contaminants
(Witherington, 2002).
Green turtles are affected by
anthropogenic marine debris (including
discarded fishing gear) and plastics
throughout the North Atlantic DPS.
Juvenile green turtles in pelagic waters
are particularly susceptible to these
effects as they feed on Sargassum in
which there is a high occurrence of
debris (Wabnitz and Nichols, 2010;
Witherington et al., 2012). In recent
decades, there has been an increase in
stranded green turtles reported as
affected by discarded fishery gear
throughout the southeastern United
States (Teas and Witzell, 1996; Adimey
et al., 2014).
C. Conservation Efforts for the North
Atlantic DPS
In the North Atlantic, nest protection
efforts have been implemented on two
major green turtle nesting beaches,
Tortuguero National Park in Costa Rica
and Florida, and progress has been
made in reducing mortality from
human-related impacts on other nesting
beaches. Tortuguero National Park was
established in 1976 to protect the
nesting turtles and habitat at this
nesting beach, which is by far the largest
in the DPS and the western hemisphere.
Since that time, the harvest of nesting
turtles on the beach has been reduced
by an order of magnitude (Bjorndal et
al., 1999). At Tortuguero, Sea Turtle
Conservancy researchers and volunteers
regularly monitor green turtle nesting
f. Contaminants and Marine Debris
trends, growth rates and reproductive
Several activities associated with
success, and also conduct sea turtle
offshore oil and gas production,
lighting surveys, education, and
including oil spills, operational
community outreach.
discharge, seismic surveys, explosive
In Florida, a key effort was the
platform removal, platform lighting, and acquisition of the Archie Carr National
drilling and production activities, are
Wildlife Refuge in Florida in 1991 by
known to affect sea turtles (National
Federal, State, Brevard and Indian River
Research Council, 1996; Davis et al.,
counties, and a non-governmental
2000; Viada et al., 2008; Conant et al.,
organization, where nesting densities
2009; G. Gitschlag, NMFS, pers. comm., range from 36 nests/km (22 nests/mi) to
2007, as cited in Conant et al., 2009). Oil 262 nests/km (419 nests/mi) (D. Bagley,
University of Central Florida, pers.
spills near nesting beaches just prior to
comm., 2014; K. Kneifl, USFWS, pers.
or during the nesting season place
comm., 2014). Over 60 percent of the
nesting females, incubating egg
available beachfront acquisitions for the
clutches, and hatchlings at significant
Refuge have been completed as the
risk from direct exposure to
result of a multi-agency land acquisition
contaminants (Fritts and McGehee,
effort. In addition, Hobe Sound National
1982; Lutcavage et al., 1997;
Wildlife Refuge, as well as coastal
Witherington, 1999), and have negative
national seashores such as the Dry
impacts on nesting habitat. The
Deepwater Horizon (Mississippi Canyon Tortugas National Park and Canaveral
National Seashore, military installations
252) oil spill, which started April 20,
such as Patrick Air Force Base and
2010, discharged oil into the Gulf of
Canaveral Air Force Station, and State
Mexico through July 15, 2010.
parks where green turtles regularly nest,
Witherington et al. (2012) note that the
provide protection for nesting turtles.
Deepwater Horizon oil spill was
However, despite these efforts,
particularly harmful to pelagic juvenile
green turtles. Due to their size, turtles in alteration of the coastline continues
and, outside of publicly-owned lands,
these stages are more vulnerable as a
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15292
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
coastal development and associated
coastal armoring remain serious threats.
Considerable effort has been
expended since the 1980s to document
and reduce commercial fishing bycatch
mortality. In the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico, measures (such as gear
modifications, changes to fishing
practices, and time/area closures) are
required to reduce sea turtle bycatch in
pelagic longline, mid-Atlantic gill net,
Virginia pound net, scallop dredge, and
southeast shrimp and flounder trawl
fisheries. However, enforcement of
regulations depends on available
resources, and bycatch continues to
contribute to mortality. Since 1989, the
United States has prohibited the
importation of shrimp harvested in a
manner that adversely affects sea turtles.
As a result of conservation efforts,
many of the intentional impacts
directed at sea turtles have been
lessened. For example, harvest of eggs
and adults has been reduced at several
nesting areas, including Tortuguero, and
an increasing number of communitybased initiatives are in place to reduce
the take of turtles in foraging areas.
However, despite these advances,
human impacts continue throughout the
North Atlantic. The lack of effective
monitoring in pelagic and near-shore
fisheries operations still allows
substantial direct and indirect mortality,
and the uncontrolled development of
coastal and marine habitats threatens to
destroy the supporting ecosystems of
long-lived green turtles.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the North Atlantic DPS
In the North Atlantic DPS, there are
several regions that support high
density nesting concentrations,
including possibly the largest in the
world at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Green
turtle nesting population trends have
been encouraging, exhibiting long-term
increases at all major nesting sites,
¨
including Tortuguero (Troeng, 1998;
¨
Campbell and Lagueux, 2005; Troeng
and Rankin, 2005) and Florida
(Chaloupka et al., 2008; B.
Witherington, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, pers. comm.,
2013). The North Atlantic DPS is
characterized by geographically
widespread nesting at a diversity of
sites, both mainland and insular. The
increasing threats are not reflected in
the current trend for the North Atlantic
DPS as it was based on nesting numbers
and not all current life stages. These
increasing threats to the population will
become apparent when those life stages
affected by the threats return to nest as
the trend information is based solely on
numbers of nests. This lag time was
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
considered in our analysis. However,
the 5-factor (section 4(a)(1) of the ESA)
analysis revealed continuing threats to
green turtles and their habitat that affect
all life stages.
On nesting beaches, many portions of
the DPS continue to be exposed to, and
are negatively impacted by, coastal
development and associated beachfront
lighting, coastal armoring, and erosion
as described in Factor A above. Impacts
from such development are further
exacerbated by existing and planned
shoreline development and shoreline
engineering. The current and
anticipated increase in armored
shoreline along high density nesting
beaches, particularly in Florida, is a
substantial unresolved threat to the
recovery and stability of this DPS as it
will result in the permanent loss of
nesting habitat.
Nests and hatchlings are susceptible
to predation which is prevalent
throughout the beaches within the range
of the North Atlantic DPS. Predation
would be an increasing threat without
nest protection and predatory control
programs in place.
Nesting beaches are also extremely
susceptible to sea level rise, which will
exacerbate some of the issues described
above in addition to leading to the
potential loss of nesting beaches. Along
the southeastern United States, one
climate change model predicted a
1-meter sea level rise by 2060, resulting
in the inundation of more than 50
percent of coastal wildlife refuges
(Flaxman and Vargas-Moreno, 2011).
Green turtle nesting in Florida is
concentrated along coastal wildlife
refuges in southern Florida such as
Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge
and the Archie Carr National Wildlife
Refuge, with more than 90 percent of
nesting occurring along southeast
Florida. This increase in sea level will
result in the permanent loss of current
green turtle nesting habitat. Loss of
beach is expected to be worse as a result
of the increase in hurricane frequency
and intensity (Flaxman and VargasMoreno, 2011). The increasing threat of
coastal erosion due to climate change
and sea level rise is expected to be
exacerbated by increasing humaninduced pressures on coastal areas
(IPCC, 2007).
In the water, fisheries bycatch, habitat
degradation, direct harvest, and FP are
major threats to green turtles in the
North Atlantic DPS. Artisanal and
industrial fishing gear, including drift
nets, set nets, pound nets, and trawls,
still cause substantial direct and
indirect mortality of green turtles
(NMFS and USFWS, 2007). In addition,
degradation and loss of foraging habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
due to pollution, including agricultural
and residential runoff, anchor damage,
dredging, channelization, and marina
construction remains a threat to both
juvenile and adult green turtles. Many
green turtles in this DPS remain
susceptible to direct harvesting. Current
legal and illegal harvest of green turtles
and eggs for human consumption
continues in the eastern Atlantic and
the Caribbean. A remaining threat is the
directed harvest of turtles in Nicaragua
that nest at Tortuguero and thus belong
to the largest and arguably the most
important population within the DPS
(although this population continues to
increase in spite of the harvest).
However, potential degradation or loss
of other, smaller populations is also of
concern, as these contribute to the
diversity and resilience of the DPS.
Finally, the prevalence of FP has
reached epidemic proportions in some
parts of the North Atlantic DPS. The
extent to which this will affect the longterm outlook for green turtles in the
North Atlantic DPS is unknown. Nesting
trends across the DPS continue to
increase despite the high incidence of
the disease.
While the Status Review indicates
that the DPS shows strength in many of
the critical population parameters
(abundance, population trends, spatial
structure, and diversity/resilience), as
indicated above, numerous threats
continue to act on the DPS, including
habitat degradation (coastal
development and armoring, loss of
foraging habitat, and pollution), bycatch
in fishing gear, continued turtle and egg
harvesting, FP, and climate change.
Importantly, the analysis of threats in
the Status Review was conducted
assuming current management regimes
would continue.
Many of the gains made by the species
over the past few decades are a direct
result of ESA protections in the United
States, as well as protections by U.S.
States and local jurisdictions and other
countries within the DPS range that are
influenced by the species’ ESA status.
Because the green turtle is currently
listed under the ESA, take can only be
authorized in the United States through
the processes provided in sections 7 and
10 of the ESA and their implementing
regulations. In the southeastern United
States, threats to nesting beaches and
nearshore waters include: Sand
placement on nesting beaches and
associated impacts to nearshore
hardbottom habitat; groin, jetty and
dock construction; and other activities.
Any such activities that are currently
funded, permitted and/or authorized by
Federal agencies are subject to
consultation with USFWS and NMFS,
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
and therefore are subject to reasonable
and prudent measures to minimize
effects of these activities as well as
conservation recommendations
associated with those consultations.
Federally-managed fisheries are also
subject to interagency consultation
under section 7 of the ESA. During the
consultation process NMFS and USFWS
have an opportunity to work with the
action agency to design practices to
minimize effects on green turtles, such
as when the activity occurs in areas or
habitats used mostly by green turtles
(i.e., seagrass beds and nesting beaches).
Activities that affect green turtles and
do not involve Federal agencies, such as
beach driving, some beach armoring,
and research, must comply with section
10 of the ESA to avoid violating the
statute. Section 10 permits require
avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating
impacts to green turtles to the extent
possible. In addition to the above
requirements, the requirement for use of
TEDs in fisheries within the United
States and in fisheries outside of the
United States that export wild-caught
shrimp to the United States is tied to
listing under the ESA.
This DPS has exhibited increases at
major nesting sites, and has several
stronghold populations. Green turtles in
the U.S. Atlantic have increased steadily
since being protected by the ESA
(Suckling et al., 2006). ESA driven
programs such as land acquisition, nest
protection, development of the TEDs,
and educational programs provide a
conservation benefit to green turtles.
The species is conservation dependent
or conservation-reliant in that even
when biological recovery goals are
achieved, maintenance of viable
populations will require continuing,
species-specific intervention (Scott et
al., 2010). Without alternate
mechanisms in place to continue certain
existing conservation efforts and
protections, threats would be expected
to increase and population trends may
be curtailed or reversed. Considering the
conservation dependence of the species,
significant concerns remain regarding
the inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms (one of the five section
4(a)(1) factors (Factor D), especially
when we evaluate the status of the DPS
absent the protections of the ESA.
For the above reasons, we propose to
list the North Atlantic DPS as
threatened. We do not find the DPS to
be in danger of extinction presently
because of the increasing nesting
population trends and geographically
widespread nesting at a diversity of
sites; however, continued threats are
likely to endanger the DPS within the
foreseeable future.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
VIII. Mediterranean DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters
for the Mediterranean DPS
The Mediterranean Sea is a virtually
enclosed basin occupying an area of
approximately 2.5 million square
kilometers. The Mediterranean DPS is
bounded by the entire coastline of the
Mediterranean Sea, excluding the Black
Sea. The westernmost border of the
range of this DPS is marked by the Strait
of Gibraltar (Figure 2).
Nesting in the Mediterranean occurs
mostly in the eastern Mediterranean,
with three nesting concentrations in
Turkey, Cyprus, and Syria. Currently,
approximately 452 to 2,051 nests are
laid in the Mediterranean each year—
about 70 percent in Turkey, 15 percent
in Cyprus, and 15 percent in Syria, with
trace nesting in Israel, Egypt, the
Hellenic Republic (Greece), and
Lebanon (Kasparek et al., 2001; Rees et
al., 2008; Casale and Margaritoulis,
2010). There are no sites with greater
than 500 nesting females. These
numbers are depleted from historical
levels (Kasparek et al., 2001). In terms
of distribution of nesting sites in the
Mediterranean, there are 32 sites, with
Akyatan, Turkey being the largest
nesting site, hosting 25 percent of the
total annual nesting (35–245 nesting
¨
females; Turkozan and Kaska, 2010).
There are seven sites for which 10
years or more of recent data are
available for annual nesting female
abundance (a criterion for presenting
trends in a bar graph). Of these, only
one site—West Coast, Cyprus—met our
standards for conducting a PVA. Of the
seven sites, five appeared to be
increasing, although some only slightly,
and two had no apparent trend.
However, while the Mediterranean DPS
appears to be stable or increasing, it is
severely depleted relative to historical
levels. This dynamic is particularly
apparent along the coast of Palestine/
Israel, where 300–350 nests were
deposited each year in the 1950s (Sella,
1995) compared to a mean of eight nests
each year from 1993 to 2008 (Casale and
Margaritoulis, 2010).
With regard to spatial structure,
genetic sampling in the Mediterranean
has been extensive and the coverage in
this region is substantial. Within the
Mediterranean, rookeries are
characterized by one dominant
haplotype CM–A13 and a recent study
showed no population substructuring
between several rookeries in Cyprus and
Turkey (Bagda et al., 2012). However,
analysis using unpublished data from
additional rookery samples in Cyprus
shows evidence for two stocks: Cyprus
(Karpaz, North Cyprus and Lara Bay;
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15293
Bagda et al., 2012; Dutton unpublished
data, 2013); and Turkey (Akayatan,
Alata, Kazanli, Samandag and
Yumurtal(k; Bagda et al., 2012). The
demography of green turtles in the
Mediterranean appears to be consistent
among the various nesting assemblages
(Broderick and Godley, 1996; Broderick
et al., 2002a). This consistency in
parameters such as mean nesting size,
inter-nesting interval, clutch size,
hatching success, nesting season, and
clutch frequency suggests a low level of
population structuring in the
Mediterranean. Mediterranean turtles
have not been detected foraging outside
the Mediterranean (e.g., Lahanas et al.,
´
¨
1998; Monzon-Arguello et al., 2010).
Despite years of flipper tagging
(Demetropoulos and
Hadjichristophorou, 1995, 2010; Y.
Kaska, Pamukkale University, pers.
comm., 2013), few tag recoveries have
been reported. However, satellite
tracking revealed that post-nesting
turtles migrate primarily along the coast
from their nesting beach to foraging
grounds, increasing the likelihood of
interacting with fisheries (Broderick et
al., 2002a).
With regard to diversity and
resilience, the overall spatial range of
the DPS is limited. Green turtle nesting
is found primarily in the eastern
Mediterranean (Turkey, Syria, Cyprus,
Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt: Kasparek et
al., 2001). The nesting season is
consistent throughout the range of this
DPS (June to August; Broderick et al.,
2002a), thus limiting the temporal
buffering against climate change in
terms of impacts due to storms and
other seasonal events. The fact that
turtles nest on both insular and
continental sites suggests some degree
of nesting diversity, but with the sites so
close together, the benefits of this
diversity may be minimal.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
Mediterranean DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
In the Mediterranean, destruction and
modification of green turtle nesting
habitat result from coastal development
and construction, beachfront lighting,
sand extraction, beach erosion,
vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and
beach pollution (Kasparek et al., 2001;
Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010). These
activities may directly affect the amount
and suitability of nesting habitat
available to nesting females and thus
affect the nesting success of green
turtles, as well as the survivability of
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15294
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
eggs and hatchlings. In Turkey, coastal
˘
construction on Samandag and Kazanli
beaches is of concern, particularly from
associated lighting and human activities
¨
on the beach (Turkozan and Kaska,
2010). In Cyprus, the increased
construction of beachfront hotels and
other properties in some areas in recent
years, as well as the associated increase
in beachfront lighting and human
activity on the beach, is decreasing the
quality of nesting habitat
(Demetropoulos and
Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al.,
2010). In Turkey and Latakia beach in
Syria, beach erosion and sand extraction
also pose a problem to green turtle
¨
nesting habitat (Turkozan and Kaska,
2010; Rees et al., 2010).
Nesting beaches in the eastern
Mediterranean are exposed to high
levels of pollution and marine debris, in
particular the beaches of Cyprus,
˜
Turkey, and Egypt (Caminas, 2004). In
Turkey, marine debris washing ashore is
a substantial problem and has degraded
nesting beaches, especially Akyatan and
˘
Samandag beaches. In Syria, Jony and
Rees (2008) reported that beaches
contain a large amount of plastic litter
that washes ashore or is blown in from
dumps located in the beach dunes; this
litter has been documented as
accumulating in such large amounts that
it can hinder nesting females from
locating suitable nesting sites and cause
emergent hatchlings to have difficulty
crawling to the sea (Rees et al., 2010).
In Cyprus, marine debris has also been
a significant problem on some beaches,
although organized beach clean-ups in
recent years have greatly reduced the
amount of litter on the beach
(Demetropoulos and
Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al.,
2010).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Dynamite fishing and boat anchors
affect green turtles and their habitat in
the Mediterranean. Khalil et al. (2009)
reported that dynamite fishing offshore
of nesting beaches is a common problem
in Lebanon. Illegal dynamite fishing
also occurs year round in Libya (Hamza,
2010), and, although illegal, explosions
at sea that are likely due to dynamite
fishing have been reported off the coast
of Syria (Saad, unpubl. data, as cited in
Rees et al., 2010). Further, the
Mediterranean is a site of intense tourist
activity, and corresponding boat
anchoring also may affect green turtle
foraging habitat in the neritic
environment.
Because the Mediterranean is an
enclosed sea, organic and inorganic
wastes, toxic effluents, and other
pollutants rapidly affect the ecosystem
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
˜
(Caminas, 2004). The Mediterranean has
been declared a ‘‘special area’’ by the
MARPOL Convention (International
Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships), in which
deliberate petroleum discharges from
vessels are banned, but numerous
repeated offenses are still thought to
occur (Pavlakis et al., 1996).
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization for commercial
purposes likely was a factor that
contributed to the historical declines of
this DPS. Egg collection and turtle
harvest for individual consumption still
occurs in Egypt (Clarke et al., 2000;
Nada and Casale, 2008). A study found
that the open selling of sea turtles in
Egypt generally has been curtailed due
to enforcement efforts, but a high level
of intentional killing for the black
market or for direct personal
consumption still exists (Nada and
Casale, 2008). Several hundred turtles
are currently estimated to be
slaughtered each year in Egypt (Nada
and Casale, 2008). In Syria and Egypt,
as reported for other countries, green
turtles incidentally captured by fishers
are sometimes eaten (Nada and Casale,
2008; Rees et al., 2010). Small quantities
of stuffed turtles and juvenile turtle
carapaces, presumably of Syrian origin,
have been observed for sale in Latakia
and Damascus (Rees et al., 2010).
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
Nest and hatchling predation likely
was a factor that contributed to the
historical decline of the Mediterranean
DPS. There have been no records of FP
or other diseases in green turtles in this
DPS. In this DPS, green turtle eggs and
hatchlings are subject to depredation by
wild canids (i.e., foxes (Vulpes vulpes),
golden jackals (Canis aureus), feral and
domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris),
and ghost crabs (Ocypode cursor; van
Piggelen and Strijbosch, 1993; Brown
and MacDonald, 1995; Aureggi et al.,
1999, 2005; Simms et al., 2002; Akcinar
et al., 2006; Jony and Rees, 2008; Khalil
et al., 2009; Aureggi and Khalil, 2010;
Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou,
2010; Fuller et al., 2010; Rees et al.,
2010).
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
There are at least 13 international
treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms
that pertain to the Mediterranean, and
nearly all countries lining the
Mediterranean have some level of
national legislation directed at sea turtle
protection. The SRT analysis of these
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
existing regulatory mechanisms
assumed that all would remain in place
at their current levels.
Regulatory mechanisms are in place
throughout the range of the DPS that
address the direct capture of green
turtles for most of the countries within
this DPS. Most Mediterranean countries
have developed national legislation to
protect sea turtles and nesting habitats
(Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010). The
following countries have laws to protect
green turtles: Albania, Croatia, Cyprus,
Egypt, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon,
Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey. In
addition, at least 13 international
treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms
apply to the conservation of green
turtles in the Mediterranean DPS.
National protective legislation generally
prohibits intentional killing,
harassment, possession, trade, or
attempts at these (Margaritoulis et al.,
2003). In addition, some countries have
site-specific legislation or conservation
designation for turtle habitat protection.
These are implemented to various
degrees throughout the range of the
DPS. There are some national
regulations, within this DPS, that
specially address the harvest of green
turtles.
In western Cyprus, Lara-Toxeftra
beaches have been afforded protection
through the Fisheries Law and
Regulations since 1989 (Margaritoulis,
2007). In northern Cyprus, four beaches
(Alagadi Beach, Karpaz Peninsular,
South Karpaz, and Akdeniz) have been
designated as Special Protected Areas
(Fuller et al., 2010). These four areas
include the third and fifth most
important green turtle nesting beaches
in the Mediterranean (Kasparek et al.,
2001). In Syria, establishment of a
protected area at Latakia beach, the most
important green turtle nesting beach in
the country, is being sought but is facing
strong opposition from the tourism
sector (Rees et al., 2010). While it is
important to recognize the success of
these protected areas, we must also note
that the protection has been in place for
some time and the threats to the species
remain (particularly from increasing
tourism activities). It is unlikely that the
protective measures discussed here are
sufficient for the conservation of the
species in the Mediterranean.
Regulatory mechanisms are not in
place in many countries within this DPS
to address the major threat of sea turtle
bycatch. Some of the countries in which
this DPS is located limit the number and
type of fishing licenses issued but sea
turtle bycatch is not considered in these
authorizations. It is unlikely that
bycatch mortality can be sufficiently
reduced across the range of the DPS in
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
the near future because of the diversity
and magnitude of the fisheries operating
in the DPS, the lack of comprehensive
information on fishing distribution and
effort, limitations on implementing
demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities,
limitations on enforcement capacity,
and lack of availability of
comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies. Our Status Review did not
reveal regulatory mechanisms in place
to specifically address coastal
development, marine pollution, sea
level rise, and effects of climate change
that continue to contribute to the
extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture of sea turtles in
artisanal and commercial fisheries is a
significant threat to the survival of green
turtles in the Mediterranean. Fishing
practices alone have been estimated to
result in over 150,000 sea turtle captures
per year, with approximately 50,000
mortalities (Lucchetti and Sala, 2009;
Casale, 2011) and sea turtle bycatch in
multiple gears in the Mediterranean is
considered among the most urgent
conservation priorities globally (Wallace
et al., 2010).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
i. Longline Fisheries
In the Mediterranean, surface longline
fisheries are a source of green turtle
˜
bycatch (Caminas, 2004). Incidental
captures have been reported from
Cyprus (Godley et al., 1998), Turkey
(Godley et al., 1998), Italy (Laurent et
al., 2001), and Egypt (Nada, 2001;
˜
Caminas, 2004). In Egypt, based on fleet
data and catch rates reported by fishers
during the 2000s, the total number of
sea turtles (i.e., all species) bycaught in
longlines was estimated to be over 2,200
per year (Nada and Casale, 2008).
Fishers also reported that some of the
caught turtles are dead, and the
incidence of mortality is particularly
high in longlines and gill nets.
ii. Set Net (Gill Net) Fishing
Casale (2008) considered mortality by
set nets to be 60 percent, with a
resulting estimate of 16,000 turtles
killed per year. However, a breakdown
of these estimates by turtle species is
not available. Most of these turtles are
likely juveniles, with an average size of
45.4 cm CCL (n=74, Casale, 2008).
iii. Trawl Fisheries
Green turtles have been reported as
incidentally captured in bottom trawls
in Egypt (Nada and Casale, 2011),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Greece (Margaritoulis et al., 2003),
Tunisia (Laurent et al., 1990), Turkey
(Laurent et al., 1996; Oruc, 2001), Syria,
¸
Israel, and Libya (Casale et al., 2010),
but are likely also captured by bottom
trawlers in other neritic foraging areas
in the eastern Mediterranean (Casale et
al., 2010). Laurent et al. (1996)
estimated that approximately 10,000 to
15,000 sea turtles were being captured
annually by bottom trawling in the
eastern Mediterranean. Although most
of the turtles taken were loggerheads,
they estimated that the number of green
turtles taken was 1,000 to 3,000
annually in Turkey and Egypt alone.
More recently, Casale (2011) compiled
available trawl bycatch data throughout
the Mediterranean and reported that
Italy and Tunisia have the highest level
of sea turtle bycatch, potentially over
20,000 captures per year combined, and
Croatia, Greece, Turkey, Libya, Greece,
and Egypt each have an estimated 1,900
or more sea turtle captures per year.
Further, Albania, Algeria, Cyprus,
Morocco, Slovenia, Spain, and Syria
may each capture a few hundred sea
turtles per year (Casale, 2011). Available
data suggest the annual number of sea
turtle captures by all Mediterranean
trawlers may be greater than 39,000
(Casale, 2011). Although most of the
turtles reported by Casale (2011) as
taken by bottom trawlers were
undoubtedly loggerheads, a few
thousand were likely green turtles based
on earlier reports (Laurent et al., 1990;
Laurent et al., 1996; Oruc, 2001;
¸
Margaritoulis et al., 2003; Nada and
Casale, 2008).
b. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic
Propeller and collision injuries from
boats and ships are becoming more
common for sea turtles in the
Mediterranean, although it is unclear as
to whether the events, or just the
reporting of the injuries, are increasing.
Speedboat and jet-ski impacts are of
particular concern in areas of intense
tourist activity, such as Greece, Turkey,
and Syria. Boats operating near sea
turtle nesting beaches during the nesting
season are likely to either cause females
to abandon nesting attempts or cause
˜
their injury or death (Caminas, 2004).
Males may also be affected in high-use
boating areas where sea turtle mating
occurs (Demetropoulos, 2000; Rees et
al., 2010).
c. Pollution
Unattended or discarded nets, floating
plastics and bags, and tar balls are of
particular concern in the Mediterranean
˜
(Caminas, 2004; Margaritoulis, 2007).
Monofilament netting appears to be the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15295
most dangerous waste produced by the
˜
fishing industry (Caminas, 2004).
The discharge of chemical substances,
including highly toxic chromium
compounds from a soda-chromium
factory close to the Kazanli nesting
beach in Turkey, is cause for concern
(Kasparek et al., 2001; Venizelos and
Kasparek, 2006).
d. Effects of Climate Change
Both the marine and terrestrial realms
will be influenced by temperature
increases and will likely undergo
alterations that will adversely affect
green turtles. Mediterranean turtle
populations could be affected by the
alteration of thermal sand
characteristics (from global warming),
resulting in the reduction or cessation of
male hatchling production (Kasparek et
˜
al., 2001; Caminas, 2004; Hawkes et al.,
2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009). In
northern Cyprus, green turtle hatchling
sex ratios are already thought to be
highly female biased (approximately 95
percent female; Wright et al., 2012).
This, in tandem with predicted future
rises in temperatures, is cause for
concern (Fuller et al., 2010). As
temperatures increase, there is also
concern that incubation temperatures
will reach levels that exceed the thermal
tolerance for embryonic development,
thus increasing embryo and hatchling
mortality (Fuller et al., 2010). Further, a
significant rise in sea level would
restrict green turtle nesting habitat in
the eastern Mediterranean. While sea
turtles have survived past eras that have
included significant temperature
fluctuations, future climate change is
expected to happen at unprecedented
rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread
extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change
induced by human activities are likely
to become more apparent in future years
(IPCC, 2007).
In summary, within Factor E, we find
that fishery bycatch and marine
pollution that occurs throughout the
range of the Mediterranean DPS are
significant threats to this DPS. In
addition, boat strikes and changes likely
to result from climate change are an
increasing threat to the persistence of
this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts
Regional and national efforts are
underway to conserve green turtles
(often all sea turtles) throughout the
range of the DPS. The extent to which
threats have been reduced as a result of
these efforts is difficult to ascertain.
Green turtle nesting primarily occurs
in Turkey, Cyprus, and Syria, and a
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15296
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
notable proportion of nesting in those
areas is protected through various
mechanisms. In Turkey, three important
green turtle nesting beaches (Alata,
Kazanli, and Akyatan) were all
designated as protected areas by the
Turkish Ministry of Culture, while two
¨
other beaches (Belek and Gosku Delta)
also have some level of protected status
(Kasparek et al., 2001; Fuller et al.,
2010). These five protected beaches
represent approximately 60 percent of
nesting in Turkey (see Canbolat et al.,
2009 and Fuller et al., 2010).
There has been success within these
protected areas, but as the protection
has been in place for some time and the
threats to the species remain
(particularly from increasing tourism
activities), it is unlikely that the
protective measures discussed here are
sufficient for the conservation of the
species in the Mediterranean.
Marine debris is also a significant
problem on many green turtle nesting
beaches in the eastern Mediterranean, in
particular the nesting beaches of Cyprus
˜
and Turkey (Caminas, 2004;
Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou,
¨
2010; Fuller et al., 2010; Turkozan and
Kaska, 2010). Although organized beach
clean-ups in recent years on some
beaches in Cyprus have greatly reduced
the amount of litter on the beach
(Demetropoulos and
Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al.,
2010), it is still an overall pervasive
problem.
Protection of marine habitats is in the
early stages in the Mediterranean, as in
other areas of the world. Off the LaraToxeftra nesting beaches in western
Cyprus, a marine protection zone
extends to the 20-m isobath (i.e., 20-m
depth line) as delineated by the
Fisheries Regulation (Margaritoulis,
2007; Demetropoulos and
Hadjichristophorou, 2010). As
mentioned above, establishment of a
protected area at Latakia beach in Syria
is being sought and would include
protection of a section of sea offshore;
however, it is facing strong opposition
from the tourism sector (Serra, 2008;
Rees et al., 2010).
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings
The Mediterranean DPS is
characterized by low green turtle
nesting abundance at 32 different
locations, with many of these sites
having only one or two known nesting
females and none having greater than
245 nesting females. While some of
these sites show stable or increasing
trends, the extremely low nesting
abundance of this DPS compared to
historical abundance creates an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
intrinsically high risk to the long-term
stability of the population. The spatial
range of the population is limited to the
eastern Mediterranean, and the nesting
season is consistent throughout this DPS
(June to August; Broderick et al., 2002a),
thus limiting the temporal buffering
against climate change in terms of
impacts due to storms and other
seasonal events. The fact that turtles
nest on both insular and continental
sites suggests some degree of nesting
diversity but, with the sites so close
together, the benefits of this diversity
may be minimal. Mitochondrial DNA
studies have identified two stocks but,
in general there is low population
substructuring in the Mediterranean.
The five-factor analysis in the Status
Review reveals numerous significant
threats to green turtles within the range
of the DPS. Coastal development,
beachfront lighting, erosion resulting
from sand extraction, illegal harvest,
detrimental fishing practices, and
marine pollution both at nesting
beaches and important foraging grounds
are continuing concerns across the
Mediterranean DPS, and are
insufficiently tempered by conservation
efforts. Current illegal harvest of green
turtles for human consumption
continues as a moderate threat to this
DPS. Fishery bycatch occurs throughout
the Mediterranean Sea, particularly
bycatch mortality of green turtles in
pelagic longline, set net, and trawl
fisheries. Additional threats from boat
strikes, which are becoming more
common, and changes likely to result
from climate change will negatively
affect this DPS.
For the above reasons, we propose to
list the Mediterranean DPS as
endangered. Based on its low nesting
abundance, limited spatial distribution,
and exposure to increasing threats, we
find that this DPS is presently in danger
of extinction throughout its range.
IX. South Atlantic DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters
for the South Atlantic DPS
The South Atlantic DPS’s range
boundary begins at the border of
Panama and Colombia at 7.5° N., 77° W.,
heads due north to 10.5° N., 77° W.,
then northeast to 19° N., 63.5° W., and
along 19° N. latitude to Mauritania in
Africa, to include the U.S. Virgin
Islands in the Caribbean. It extends
along the coast of Africa to South Africa,
with the southern border being 40° S.
latitude.
Green turtle nesting occurs on
beaches along the western coast of
Africa from southern Mauritania to
South Africa, in the middle of the South
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Atlantic on Ascension Island, in the
Caribbean portion of the South Atlantic
including Caribbean South America,
and along eastern South America down
through Brazil (Figure 2). In the eastern
South Atlantic, significant sea turtle
habitats have been identified, including
green turtle feeding grounds in Corisco
Bay, Equatorial Guinea/Gabon (Formia,
1999); Congo (Bal et al., 2007; Girard et
al., 2014); Mussulo Bay, Angola (Carr
and Carr, 1991); and Principe Island
(SWOT, 2010). In the western South
Atlantic, juvenile and adult green turtles
utilize foraging areas throughout the
Caribbean areas of the South Atlantic,
often resulting in interactions with
fisheries occurring in those same waters
(Dow et al., 2007). While no nesting
occurs as far south as Uruguay and
Argentina, both countries have
important foraging grounds for South
Atlantic green turtles (LopezMendilaharsu et al., 2006; Lezama,
´
2009; Gonzalez Carman et al., 2011;
Prosdocimi et al., 2012; Rivas-Zinno,
2012). Within the range of the South
Atlantic DPS, there are a total of 51
nesting sites (some being individual
beaches and others representing
multiple nesting beaches) that can be
roughly divided into four regions:
western Africa, Ascension Island,
Brazil, and the South Atlantic Caribbean
(including Colombia, the Guianas, and
Aves Island in addition to the numerous
small, insular nesting sites). Much of the
South Atlantic is data poor with only
occasional or incomplete nesting
surveys. Therefore, for 37 of the 51
identified nesting areas of this DPS, we
were not able to estimate nesting female
abundance, even for relatively large
nesting sites such as French Guiana. Of
the nesting sites for which an estimate
could be derived, three account for the
˜
bulk of the nesting: Poilao, GuineaBissau (29,016 nesting females; Catry et
al., 2009); Ascension Island, UK (13,417
nesting females; S. Weber, Ascension
Island Government, pers. comm., 2013);
and the Galibi Reserve, Suriname (9,406
nesting females; Schulz, 1975;
Weijerman et al., 1998). There are two
sites with >10,000 nesting females
˜
(Poilao and Ascension Island); one site
with 5,001–10,000 nesting females
(Suriname); three sites with 1,001–5,000
nesting females (Trindade Island, Brazil
(2,016; Almeida et al., 2011; Projecto
Tamar, 2011); Aves Island, Venezuela
(2,833; Prieto et al., 2012); and Matapica
Reserve, Suriname (3,661; A. Turney,
pers. comm., 2012). There are three sites
with 501–1,001 nesting females, three
sites with 101–500, two sites with 51–
˜
100, and 37 unquantified sites. Poilao
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
accounts for almost 46 percent of the
total number of nesting females.
Long-term monitoring data for this
DPS are relatively scarce. There are
three sites for which 10 or more years
of recent data are available for annual
nesting female abundance (a criterion
for presenting trends in a bar graph in
the Status Review): (1) Ascension
Island, UK; (2) Galibi and Matapica
Reserves, Suriname; and (3) Atol das
Rocas, Brazil. Together, the first two
sites represent approximately 26,759
nesting females (42 percent of the
population), while the third site has
only 275 nesting females (Bellini et al.,
2013). Ascension Island, and Galibi and
Matapica Reserves have exhibited
substantial increases since the 1970s.
Although they did not meet the criteria
for presenting bar graphs, there are
indications of trends at other beaches in
the South Atlantic, such as increasing
trends at Isla Trindade, Brazil, and Aves
Island, Venezuela, and decreasing
trends at Bioko Island, Equatorial
Guinea.
With regard to spatial structure, the
phylogenic relationship of the eastern
Caribbean nesting sites indicates that,
despite the close proximity of other
Caribbean nesting sites, they are more
closely related to the nesting sites in the
South Atlantic (M. Jensen, NRC, unpubl.
data). Green turtle nesting sites found in
Brazil, Ascension Island, and West
Africa have shallow structuring and are
dominated by a common and
widespread haplotype, CM–A8, that is
found in high frequency across all
nesting sites in the South Atlantic
(Bjorndal et al., 2006; Formia et al.,
2006). A recent study showed that a
large proportion of juvenile green turtles
foraging in Cape Verde in the eastern
Atlantic originated from distant nesting
sites across the Atlantic, namely
Suriname (38 percent), Ascension Island
(12 percent), and Guinea Bissau (19
percent), suggesting that, like the
loggerheads, green turtles in the Atlantic
undertake transoceanic developmental
´
¨
migrations (Monzon-Arguello et al.,
2010). The fact that long distance
dispersal is only seen for juvenile turtles
suggests that larger adult-sized turtles
return to forage within the region of
their natal nesting sites, thereby limiting
the potential for gene flow across larger
´
¨
scales (Monzon-Arguello et al., 2010).
Important foraging grounds in the
western South Atlantic, such as those
off of Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, are
shared by turtles from various nesting
assemblages in the western South
Atlantic and Ascension Island.
Important foraging grounds in the
eastern South Atlantic, such as the Gulf
of Guinea, are shared by turtles from the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
eastern South Atlantic as well as
juveniles from Suriname and Ascension
Island.
Overall, many demographic
parameters of green turtles in the South
Atlantic appear to vary widely among
the various nesting assemblages.
However, this variability in parameters
such as remigration interval, clutch size,
hatching success, sex ratio, and clutch
frequency is not separated out
regionally within the range of the DPS
and therefore does not necessarily
suggest a high level of population
structuring. Average sizes of nesting
females are the largest reported for
females globally (Hirth, 1997; Almeida
et al., 2011; Bellini et al., 2013).
With regard to diversity and
resilience, the overall range of the DPS
is extensive and varied, with both
insular and continental nesting.
Ascension Island, one of the largest
nesting sites, is isolated and protected
in the middle of the South Atlantic, and
appears to have migratory connections
to nesting sites on the eastern and
western ends of the DPS’s range. The
insular sites vary quite a bit in terms of
potential impacts from sea level rise and
tropical weather. Aves Island, one of the
largest Caribbean nesting sites within
the range of the South Atlantic DPS is
particularly vulnerable to sea level rise
as it is a very low-lying island.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
South Atlantic DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
At continental sites in the South
Atlantic DPS destruction and
modification of sea turtle nesting habitat
(for green turtles and other species)
result from coastal development and
construction, placement of erosion
control structures and other barriers to
nesting, beachfront lighting, vehicular
and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction,
beach erosion, beach sand placement,
beach pollution, removal of native
vegetation, and planting of non-native
vegetation (D’Amato and Marczwski,
1993; Marcovaldi and dei Marcovaldi,
1999; Naro-Maciel et al., 1999;
Broderick et al., 2002b; Marcovaldi et
al., 2002; Formia et al., 2003; Tanner,
2013).
In very low-lying islands such as
Aves, rising sea levels and increased
storms could result in a loss of nesting
habitat, thus potentially eliminating
their functionality as nesting beaches.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15297
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
On the western side of the South
Atlantic, the Brazil Current Large
Marine Ecosystem (LME) region is
characterized by the Global
International Waters Assessment
(GIWA) as suffering severe impacts in
the areas of pollution, coastal habitat
modification, and overexploitation of
fish stocks (Marques et al., 2004). The
Patagonian Shelf LME is moderately
affected by pollution, habitat
modification, and overfishing (Mugetti
et al., 2004). In the Canary Current LME,
the area is characterized by the GIWA as
severely impacted in the area of
modification or loss of ecosystems or
ecotones and health impacts, but these
impacts are decreasing (https://
www.lme.noaa.gov). The Celtic-Biscay
Shelf LME is affected by alterations to
the seabed, agriculture, and sewage
´
´
´
(Valdez-Gonzalez and Ramırez-Bautista,
2002). The Gulf of Guinea has been
characterized as severely impacted in
the area of solid wastes by the GIWA;
this and other pollution indicators are
increasing (https://www.lme.noaa.gov).
On the eastern side of the South
Atlantic, the Benguela Current LME has
been moderately impacted by
overfishing, with future conditions
expected to worsen by the GIWA
(Prochazka et al., 2005).
In Brazil, green turtles in degraded
coastal areas that have ingested plastic
debris have been found to have diets
that are lower in diversity and quality
(Santos et al., 2011). Off the
northwestern coast of Suriname run-off
from rice production and other
agricultural activities is a problem
(Reichart and Fretey, 1993) and likely
would have similar impacts. The
reduction of carrying capacity for green
turtles in seagrass beds impacted by
anchor damage in popular bays in the
U.S. Virgin Islands has also been
documented (Williams, 1988). Likewise,
sediment contamination from coastal
and upstream industrial sites has been
recognized in the Caribbean, including
St. Croix (Ross and DeLorenzo, 1997),
and has the potential to impact green
turtle habitat as well as the turtles
themselves. Such coastal degradation
has been seen throughout the Caribbean
areas that fall within the range of the
South Atlantic DPS (Dow et al., 2007).
In summary, we find that the South
Atlantic DPS of the green turtle is
negatively affected by ongoing changes
in both its terrestrial and marine
habitats as a result of land and water use
practices as considered above in Factor
A. However, sufficient data are not
available to assess the significance of
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15298
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
these threats to the persistence of this
DPS.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization for commercial
purposes likely was a factor that
contributed to the historical declines of
this DPS. Although legal and illegal
collection of eggs and harvest of turtles
persists as a threat to this DPS, it does
not appear to be a significant threat to
its resilience. Eggs are taken for human
consumption in Brazil, but the amount
is considered minor when compared to
historical rates of egg collection
(Marcovaldi and dei Marcovaldi, 1999;
Marcovaldi et al., 2005; Almeida and
Mendes, 2007). Use of sea turtles,
including green turtles, for medicinal
purposes occasionally occurs in
northeastern Brazil (Alvez and Rosa,
2006; Braga-Filho and Schiavetti, 2013).
Egg harvest occurred in the Galibi area
until 1967 when a ban was enacted.
Subsequently, a controlled harvest was
allowed until the early 2000s via permit
with poaching continuing at
approximately 100 to 450 nests per year
(Reichart and Fretey, 1993).
Throughout the Caribbean areas of the
South Atlantic DPS, harvest of green
turtle eggs and turtles, both illegal and
legal, continues (Dow et al., 2007).
Among the British Caribbean territories
within the South Atlantic DPS
(including Anguilla, Turks and Caicos,
the British Virgin Islands, and
Montserrat) there are legal sea turtle
fisheries, with anywhere from a few
(Montserrat) to over a thousand (Turks
and Caicos) green turtles taken per year
(Godley et al., 2004).
Turtles are harvested along the west
African coast and, in some areas, are
considered a significant source of food
and income due to the poverty of many
´
residents (Formia et al., 2003; Tomas et
´
al., 2010). In the Bijagos Archipelago
(Guinea-Bissau), all sea turtles are
protected by national law, but
enforcement is limited and many turtles
are killed by locals for consumption
(Catry et al., 2009).
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
FP is highly variable in its presence
and severity throughout the range of the
DPS, with areas of lower water quality,
especially due to nutrient enrichment,
often being the sites with the most
prevalent and most severe cases of FP.
In Brazilian waters, FP has been
documented but is highly variable
among sites (Williams and BunkleyWilliams, 2000). FP has been confirmed
among green turtles of Africa’s Atlantic
coast, from Gabon and Equatorial
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Guinea (Formia et al., 2013), GuineaBissau (Catry et al., 2009), Gambia, and
Senegal (Barnett et al., 2004), the Congo
and Principe Island (Girard et al., 2013).
The prevalence varies greatly among
locations.
Eggs and nests in Brazil experience
depredation, primarily by foxes
(Dusycion vetulus; Marcovaldi and
Laurent, 1996). Nests laid by green
turtles in the southern Atlantic African
coastline experience predation from
local wildlife and feral animals, such as
jackals (Canus sp.; Weir et al., 2007).
Shark predation on green turtles,
especially by tiger sharks (Galeocerdo
cuvier), has been documented off
northeastern Brazil at a frequency high
enough to indicate that green turtles
may be an important food source for
tiger sharks off Brazilian waters
(Bornatowski et al., 2012). Predation on
nesting females can also occur from
large predators, such as jaguars
(Panthera onca) in Suriname (Autar,
1994). On Ascension Island predation
by domestic and feral cats (Felus sp.)
and dogs (Canus sp.), frigate birds
(Fregata minor), land crabs (subphylum
Crustacea), and fish (class Osteichthyes)
have all been cited as mortality sources
for hatchling green turtles (Broderick et
´
al., 2002a). On the Bijagos Archipelago
nest predation by monitor lizards
(Varanus sp.) was highly variable, with
green turtle nests experiencing 76
˜
percent predation rates on Joao Vieira
(da Silva Ferreira, 2012). On the
southern beaches of Bioko in the Gulf of
Guinea, predation on eggs and
hatchlings can come from a wide variety
of species, such as ghost crabs (family
Ocypodidae), ants (family Formicidae),
monitor lizards, monkeys (suborder
Haplorrhini), porcupines (order
Rodentia), vultures (family Accipitridae)
and crows (Corvus sp.), in addition to
´
village dogs (Tomas et al., 1999).
Although disease and predation are
known to occur, quantitative data are
not sufficient to assess the degree of
impact of these threats on the
persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
There are at least 20 national and
international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms that pertain to the South
Atlantic DPS. Regulatory mechanisms
that address the direct capture of green
turtles for most of the countries within
this DPS are implemented to various
degrees throughout the range of the
DPS, with some countries having no
commitment to the implementation of
the regulation. The main threats to
South Atlantic green turtles include
fishery bycatch, marine debris and
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
pollution, habitat destruction affecting
eggs and hatchlings at nesting beaches,
and nest and hatchling predation. Most
South Atlantic countries, including
those in South America, the Caribbean,
and Africa, have developed national
legislation and have various projects
sponsored by governments, local
communities, academic institutions,
and non-governmental organizations to
protect sea turtles and nesting and
foraging habitats to varying degrees
(Dow et al., 2007; Formia et al., 2003).
The consistency and effectiveness of
such programs likely vary greatly across
countries and over time based on
resource availability and political
stability. In addition, some countries
have site specific legislation or
conservation designation for turtle
habitat protection. Regional and
national legislation to conserve green
turtles (often all sea turtles) exists
throughout the range of the DPS. The
extent to which threats have been
reduced as a result of these efforts is
difficult to ascertain. The following
countries have laws to protect green
turtles: Angola, Argentina, Ascension
Island, Benin, Brazil, British Virgin
Islands, Cameroon, Cape Verde,
Colombia, Congo, Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, French
Guiana, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana,
Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Guyana, Ivory
Coast, Liberia, Namibia, Nigeria, St.
Helena, Sao Tome and Principe,
Senegal, Sierra-Leone, South Africa,
Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago,
Turks and Caicos Islands, U.S. Virgin
Islands, Uruguay, Venezuela.
The Status Review described limited
regulatory mechanisms to address
bycatch, such as TED requirements;
however, there are no widespread
regulations to address bycatch as a
result of the gill net fisheries. A variety
of countries operate industrial trawling
off Guinea-Bissau. The national
government does not have any
requirements for TED use in their
waters. There is also extensive illegal
fishing occurring (Catry et al., 2009).
´
While the Bolama-Bijagos Biosphere
Reserve covers the entire archipelago
and provides some protection through
the management of the reserve and the
survey work patrolling the areas, limited
enforcement and resource shortages
limit the effectiveness of the reserve. It
is unlikely that bycatch mortality,
discussed in more detail in Factor E, can
be sufficiently reduced across the range
of the DPS in the near future because of
the diversity and magnitude of the
fisheries operating in the DPS, the lack
of comprehensive information on
fishing distribution and effort,
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
limitations on implementing
demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities,
limitations on enforcement capacity,
and lack of availability of
comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies.
The Status Review did not reveal any
regulatory mechanisms in place to
specifically address coastal
development, marine pollution, sea
level rise, and effects of climate change
that continue to contribute to the
extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Green turtles are incidentally
captured throughout the South Atlantic
DPS in pelagic and demersal longlines,
drift and set gill nets, bottom and midwater trawls, fishing dredges, pound
nets and weirs, haul and purse seines,
pots and traps, and hook and line gear.
There is also substantial
documentation of the interaction of
small-scale artisanal gill net fisheries
with green turtles in their foraging
grounds along the western South
Atlantic, with green turtles documented
as the most common species stranded
throughout the coast of Brazil
(Marcovaldi et al., 2009); Lima et al.,
´
2010; Barata et al., 2011; Lopez-Barrera
et al., 2012). Similarly, artisanal gill net
fisheries in the coastal waters of the Rio
de la Plata area of Uruguay were
estimated to have captured 1,861 green
turtles over the 13-month duration of a
study, despite a time-area closure
during the ‘‘peak’’ season identified in
Lezama (2009).
Incidental captures of juvenile green
turtles have also been documented on
important foraging grounds off
´
Argentina, especially Samborombon Bay
´
and El Rincon, primarily from gill nets
used by the artisanal fisheries, but also
from shrimp nets and other artisanal
´
fishing gear (Gonzalez Carman et al.,
2011). Green turtles utilizing foraging
grounds off Argentina have been
demonstrated to be primarily from the
Ascension Islands nesting beaches,
although individuals from Trindade
Island, Suriname, and Aves Island
nesting assemblages were also utilizing
the Argentine foraging grounds
(Prosdocimi et al., 2012). Therefore
impacts to green turtles off Argentina
affect a variety of nesting assemblages
within the western and central South
Atlantic.
A variety of countries operate
industrial trawling off Guinea-Bissau.
The national government does not have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
any requirements for TED use in their
waters. There is also extensive illegal
fishing occurring (Catry et al., 2009).
´
While the Bolama-Bijagos Biosphere
Reserve covers the entire archipelago
and provides some protection through
the management of the reserve and the
survey work patrolling the areas, limited
enforcement and resource shortages
limit the effectiveness of the reserve.
In Ghana and the Ivory Coast, fish
stocks have been reduced through
overfishing and environmental
degradation, and many fishers that
incidentally catch sea turtles will keep
and kill the turtle to feed their families
(Tanner, 2013). Since 2001, a push has
been made to generate alternative
sources of income for the local
populations of the Ivory Coast and to
employ ex-poachers to patrol the
˜
beaches (Penate et al., 2007).
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
Various studies have shown high
prevalence of marine debris ingestion by
green turtles in the western South
Atlantic, in some cases occurring in 100
percent of the individuals examined
(Bugoni et al., 2001; Tourinho et al.,
2010; Guebert-Bartholo et al., 2011;
Murman, 2011).
Oil exploration and extraction within
the Gulf of Guinea rapidly increased
since the discovery of oil reserves in the
1980s and 1990s (Formia et al., 2003),
with the associated activities and
potential for oil spills and other
pollution creating a threat to the
important foraging areas and nesting
beaches for green turtles in the area.
c. Effects of Climate Change
As in other areas of the world, climate
change and sea level rise have the
potential to affect green turtles in the
South Atlantic. Effects of climate change
include, among other things, increased
sea surface temperature, the alteration of
thermal sand characteristics of beaches
(from warming temperatures), which
could result in the reduction or
cessation of male hatchling production
(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al.,
2009), and a significant rise in sea level,
which could significantly restrict green
turtle nesting habitat. In very low-lying
islands such as Aves, rising sea levels
and increased storms could potentially
eliminate its functionality as a nesting
beach. Some beaches will likely
experience lethal incubation
temperatures that will result in losses of
complete hatchling cohorts (Fuentes et
al., 2010; Fuentes et al., 2011; Glen and
Mrosovsky, 2004). While sea turtles
have survived past eras that have
included significant temperature
fluctuations, future climate change is
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15299
expected to happen at unprecedented
rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread
extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change
induced by human activities are likely
to become more apparent in future years
(IPCC, 2007).
In summary, within Factor E, we find
that bycatch that occurs throughout the
South Atlantic, particularly bycatch
mortality of green turtles from nearshore
gill net fisheries, continues to be a
significant threat to this DPS. In
addition, changes likely to result from
climate change are also an increasing
threat to this DPS and likely a
significant threat to the persistence of
this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the South
Atlantic DPS
The main in-water threat to green
turtles in the South Atlantic DPS is
incidental capture in fisheries, although
marine debris and pollution are also
threats. The main threat on beaches is
habitat destruction, followed by
hatchling predation. Most South
Atlantic countries, including those in
South America, the Caribbean, and
Africa, have developed national
legislation and have various projects
sponsored by governments, local
communities, academic institutions,
and non-governmental organizations to
protect sea turtles, and nesting and
foraging habitats to varying degrees
(Dow et al., 2007; Formia et al., 2003).
The consistency and effectiveness of
such programs likely vary greatly across
countries and over time based on
resource availability and political
stability. In addition, some countries
have site specific legislation or
conservation designation for turtle
habitat protection. When assessing
conservation efforts, we assumed that
all conservation efforts would remain in
place at their current levels.
Conservation through education is a
widely-used and valuable tool
throughout nations within the range of
the South Atlantic DPS and around the
world. Such education initiatives can be
highly successful. In Akassa, Nigeria, a
dedicated, intensive conservation
education program by the Akassa
Community Development Project
resulted in sea turtles being recognized
locally as an essential part of the area’s
natural heritage. This has resulted in the
majority of the nests in Akassa being
protected, and when live stranded
turtles are found, they are released
(Formia et al., 2003). However, in areas
where the utilization of sea turtles is
deeply ingrained in the local culture,
such as the La Guajira region of
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
15300
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Colombia (Patino-Martinez et al., 2012),
changing people’s attitudes about the
use of sea turtles can be a long, slow
process.
In the Caribbean, green turtle
conservation on the nesting beach varies
widely among the 22 nations and
territories. However, programs at the
three largest nesting sites—Aves Island,
French Guiana, and Suriname—with
over 500 crawls per year (Dow et al.,
2007), provide protection to a
significant proportion of nesting in the
area.
In South America, outside of the
Caribbean, Brazil is the only nation with
substantial green turtle nesting. In
Brazil, the primary nesting areas are
monitored by Projeto TAMAR, the
national sea turtle conservation
program, and many detrimental human
activities are restricted by various state
and Federal laws (Marcovaldi and dei
Marcovaldi, 1999; Marcovaldi et al.,
2002; 2005). Nevertheless, tourism
development in coastal areas in Brazil is
high, and Projeto TAMAR works toward
raising awareness of turtles and their
conservation needs through educational
and informational activities at their
Visitor Centers that are dispersed
throughout the nesting areas
(Marcovaldi et al., 2005; Marcovaldi
2011). Since 1990, TAMAR has worked
along green turtle foraging areas such as
Almofala and Ubatuba (Marcovaldi et
al., 2002).
The South Atlantic Association is a
multinational group that includes
representatives from Brazil, Uruguay,
and Argentina that meets bi-annually to
share information and develop regional
action plans to address threats,
including bycatch. In 2001, the
Brazilian Plan for Reduction of
Incidental Sea Turtle Capture in
Fisheries was created to address
incidental capture of the five species in
the country (Marcovaldi et al., 2002,
2006). This national plan includes
various activities to mitigate bycatch,
including time-area restrictions of
fisheries, use of bycatch reduction
devices, and working with fishers to
successfully release live-captured
turtles. In Uruguay, all sea turtles are
protected from human impacts,
including fisheries bycatch, by
presidential decree (Decreto
Presidencial 144/98). The Karumbe
conservation project in Uruguay has
been working on assessing in-water
threats to marine turtles for several
years (see https://cicmar.org/proyectos/
promacoda), with the objective of
developing mitigation plans in the
future. In Argentina, various
conservation organizations are working
toward assessing bycatch of green
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
turtles and other sea turtle species in
fisheries, with the objective of
developing mitigation plans for this
threat (https://www.prictma.com.ar).
Green turtle nesting occurs on many
beaches along the western coast of
Africa, and there have been, and
continue to be, sea turtle projects in
many of the nations in the area ranging
from research to public awareness to
government conservation efforts (see
Formia et al., 2003 for a regional
synopsis). The largest nesting
´
˜
assemblages occur on Poilao, Bijagos
Archipelago, Guinea Bissau, and on
Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea. While
conservation efforts on the beaches have
been established, issues with
enforcement capabilities and resources
make consistent protection problematic
(Catry et al., 2009; Formia et al., 2003;
´
Tomas et al., 2010). Since 2001, a push
has been made to generate alternative
sources of income for the local
populations of the Ivory Coast and to
employ ex-poachers to patrol the
˜
beaches (Penate et al., 2007).
Green turtle conservation efforts on
Ascension Island have involved
extensive monitoring, outreach, and
research. The group Turtles in the UK
Overseas Territories promotes the
conservation, research, and management
of marine turtle populations and their
habitats, and has worked extensively on
Ascension Island (https://
www.seaturtle.org/mtrg/projects/tukot/
ascension.shtml). Additionally, there
are legal prohibitions protecting sea
turtles on Ascension.
Overall, conservation efforts for green
turtles in the South Atlantic DPS are
inconsistent. While there are numerous
and varied conservation efforts,
especially on the primary nesting
beaches, many issues remain due to
limited enforcement of existing laws
and marine protected areas as well as
extensive fishery bycatch, especially in
coastal waters. The effectiveness and
consistency of conservation measures
will need to be increased substantially
to prevent the further decline, and allow
the recovery, of this DPS in the future.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the South Atlantic DPS
Nesting abundance for this DPS is
relatively high, with large rookeries
spread out geographically, the two
˜
largest at Poilao, Guinea-Bissau, and
Ascension Island, UK. Population
trends within rookeries are inconsistent
and, in many cases, the data are limited
and a trend could not be determined,
even for major rookeries. While some
nesting beaches such as Ascension
Island, Aves Island, and Galibi appear to
˜
be increasing, others such as Poilao,
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Trindade, and Atol das Rocas seem to be
stable or do not have sufficient data to
make a determination. Bioko, Equatorial
Guinea, appears to be in decline. The
diversity/resilience of the DPS is
bolstered by the widespread nature of
the rookeries, but a potential concern is
the domination of the DPS by insular
nesting sites, which has the potential to
reduce the resilience of the DPS in the
face of sea level rise and increasing
tropical storm activity.
The 5-factor analysis in the Status
Review revealed numerous continuing
threats to green turtles within the South
Atlantic DPS. Habitat destruction and
degradation both at nesting beaches and
important foraging grounds is a
continuing concern, though inconsistent
across the DPS. Overutilization (harvest)
of green turtles within the South
Atlantic was likely a primary factor in
past declines. While reduced from those
levels due to increased legal protections,
harvest is still thought to be fairly
extensive in some areas of western
Africa. Fishery bycatch also continues
to be a major concern throughout the
range of the DPS, near nesting beaches
and foraging areas as well as on the high
seas. Despite increasing legal
protections for sea turtles within the
DPS, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms is a noted issue.
While many international and national
laws purporting to protect sea turtles
exist, limitations in resources and
political will create a situation of
inconsistent or sometimes nonexistent
practical measures to enforce those
laws. Increasing awareness and
conservation efforts by governments,
local communities, non-governmental
organizations, and industries have
helped to reduce threats, but efforts
remain inconsistent and often resource
limited.
While the Status Review indicates
that the DPS shows strength in many of
the critical population parameters, there
are still concerns about the impacts of
ongoing threats. The increasing threats
are not reflected in the current trend for
the South Atlantic DPS as it was based
on nesting numbers and not all current
life stages. These increasing threats to
the population will only become
apparent when those life stages affected
by the threats return to nest and the
beaches are consistently monitored, as
the trend information is based solely on
numbers of nests. This lag time and
nesting data were considered in our
analysis.
For the above reasons, we propose to
list the South Atlantic DPS as
threatened. We do not find the DPS to
be in danger of extinction presently
because of high nesting abundance and
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
geographically widespread nesting at a
diversity of sites; however, the
continued threats are likely to endanger
the DPS within the foreseeable future.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
X. Southwest Indian DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters
for the Southwest Indian DPS
The range of the Southwest Indian
DPS has as its western boundary the
shores of continental Africa from the
equator, just north of the Kenya-Somalia
border, south to the Cape of Good Hope
(South Africa), and extends south from
there along 19° E. longitude to 40° S.,
19° E. Its southern boundary extends
along 40° S. latitude from 19° E. to 84°
E., and its eastern boundary runs along
84° E. longitude from 40° S. latitude to
the equator. Its northern boundary
extends along the equator from 84° E. to
the continent of Africa just north of the
Kenya-Somalia border (Figure 2).
Nesting occurs along the east coast of
Africa as far south as 25° S., the north,
west, and south coasts of Madagascar,
and scattered offshore islands in the
southwest Indian Ocean (Figure 8.1 in
the Status Review). Foraging occurs
along the east coast of Africa, around
Madagascar where numerous seagrass
beds are found, and on shallow banks
and shoals throughout the region,
including those associated with
virtually every island in Seychelles
(Mortimer, 1984; Mortimer et al., 1996).
Small and immature turtles are also
concentrated in Mozambique around
Bazaruto and Inhassoro and in Maputo
Bay (Bourjea, 2012). Along the coast of
Kenya, an aerial survey in 1994
indicated that sea turtles are widely
distributed within the 20-m isobaths
mainly within seagrass beds and coral
reefs (Frazier, 1975; Wamukoya et al.,
1996; Okemwa et al., 2004). The eastern
seaboard of South Africa serves as a
feeding and developmental area for
green turtles (Bourjea, 2012).
For the DPS, there are 14 nesting sites
with some measure of abundance, four
of which have more than 10,000 nesting
females: Europa (Eparses Islands,
France; 25,500; Lauret-Stepler et al.,
2007; Bourjea, 2012), Aldabra Atoll
(Seychelles; 16,000 (Mortimer et al.,
2011; Mortimer, 2012; J. Mortimer
´
unpubl. data)), Moheli (Comoros; 15,000
(Bourjea, 2012), and Mayotte (France;
12,000; Bourjea et al., 2007a; Bourjea,
2012). Les Glorieuses has 5,001–10,000
nesting females (6,000; Lauret-Stepler et
al., 2007; Bourjea, 2012). Five sites have
1,001–5,000 nesting females: Tromelin
Island; 4,500 (Lauret-Stepler et al., 2007;
Bourjea, 2012); Kenya; 1,500 (Okemwa
et al., 2004); Tanzania; 1,500 (Muir,
2005; Bourjea, 2012); Mauritius; 1,800
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
(Bourjea, 2012); and Assumption,
Cosmoledo, Astove, and Farquhar in the
Seychelles; ∼2,000 (J. Mortimer unpubl.
data). There are four sites with <500
nesting females: Madagascar;
Mozambique; Amirantes Group,
Seychelles; and Inner Islands of the
Seychelles; and 23 more sites with
unquantified numbers of nesting
females. The largest nesting site,
Europa, accounts for approximately 30
percent of all nesting.
Green turtles in the Southwest Indian
Ocean were exploited for many decades
(Hughes, 1974; Frazier, 1980, 1982;
Mortimer et al., 2011); however, the
species has successfully recovered at
some nesting beaches in the recent years
and trend data show increasing trends,
albeit largely at protected sites (Bourjea,
2012). At protected nesting sites with
long-term monitoring, five out of six
monitoring sites have shown increase in
nesting activities (Europa, Glorieuses,
´
Mayotte, Moheli, and Aldabra), whereas
a declining trend has been reported for
Tromelin Island (Bourjea, 2012). There
are three nesting sites with greater than
10 years of recent monitoring data: Les
Glorieuses, Europa and Tromelin,
Eparses Islands, the trends of which are
discussed above. No sites met our
standards for conducting a PVA.
With regard to spatial structure,
genetic sampling in the Southwest
Indian DPS has been fairly extensive
and nesting sites are relatively well
represented, with the exception of the
northern nesting sites. Mitochondrial
DNA studies indicate a moderate degree
of spatial structuring within this DPS,
with connectivity between proximate
nesting sites (see below). Overall, the
Southwest Indian DPS appears to have
at least two genetic stocks: (1) The
South Mozambique Channel consisting
of Juan de Nova and Europa; and (2) the
numerous nesting sites in the North
Mozambique Channel consisting of
´
Nosy Iranja, Mayotte, Moheli,
Glorieuses, Cosmoledo, Aldabra,
Farquhar, also including Tromelin
located east of Madagascar (Bourjea et
al., 2006). Satellite telemetry data are
available for green turtles that nest at
some nesting beaches within the range
of this DPS. Green turtles nesting along
the East African coast confine their
migration to along the coast. This is in
contrast to those nesting on islands (e.g.,
Comoros, Eparses, and Seychelles),
which reach the East African or
Malagasy coast via ‘migration corridors’
or along mid-oceanic seagrass beds. This
behavior is believed to be mainly
attributable to the fact that those areas
are characterized by a network of large
seagrass beds (Bourjea, 2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15301
With regard to diversity and
resilience, nesting in the Southwest
Indian DPS occurs throughout the range
of this DPS on islands, atolls, and on the
main continent of Africa in Kenya. The
nesting substrate can be variable as
some of the nesting beaches are volcanic
islands and the atolls are made of
coralline sand. Nesting occurs
throughout the year with peaks that vary
among nesting sites (Dalleau et al.,
2012; Mortimer, 2012). The fact that
turtles nest on both insular and
continental sites, in variable substrates
and at different peak seasons suggests a
high degree of nesting diversity and
indicates some resiliency.
The genetic structure of this DPS is
characterized by high diversity and a
mix of unique and rare haplotypes, as
well as common and widespread
haplotypes. These common and
widespread haplotypes (CM–A8, CmP47
and CmP49) make up the majority of the
haplotypes present in the Southwest
Indian DPS and appear to be ancestral
haplotypes (based on presence in the
South Atlantic and Southwest Pacific
DPSs). The Southwest Indian Ocean
represents a genetic hotspot with 0.3 to
6.5 percent (mean = 4.2 percent)
estimated sequence divergence among
the seven haplotypes identified. These
haplotypes belong to three highly
diverged genetic clades of haplotypes
and highlights the complex colonization
history of the region. There have been
no nDNA studies from this region, nor
are there studies published on genetic
stock composition at foraging areas
within the range of the Southwest
Indian DPS.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
Southwest Indian DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
Habitat degradation is reported as an
important source of additional mortality
for this DPS, although the exact scale of
habitat destruction at nesting beaches
often is undocumented (Bourjea, 2012).
In particular, habitat destruction due to
development of the coastline and
dredging or land-fill in foraging areas is
a threat to green turtles throughout the
Seychelles (Mortimer et al., 1996).
Increases in tourism and human
population growth on Mayotte Island
may lead to further negative impacts
upon this coastal environment (Bourjea
et al., 2007). The possible negative
effects of artificial lighting at a main
nesting beach on Aldabra are of concern
at the Seychelles (Mortimer et al., 2011),
although it is currently being addressed
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15302
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(J. Mortimer, Seychelles Dept. of
Environment, pers. comm., 2014).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
´
In Moheli, Comoros Islands, habitat
degradation due to sedimentation, sand
extraction, and coral reef/seagrass bed
degradation is also a concern (Ahamada,
2008). Similar situations are reported for
Tanzania (Bourjea, 2012) and
Madagascar (Ciccione et al., 2002;
Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994 as cited
in Bourjea, 2012).
For both the terrestrial and the
neritic/oceanic zones, we believe that
sufficient data are not available to assess
the significance of these threats to the
persistence of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Legal and illegal collection of eggs
and harvest of turtles throughout the
Southwest Indian DPS for human
consumption persists as a threat to this
DPS. Egg poaching has been reported for
Comoros Islands (Ahamada, 2008;
Bourjea, 2012); Mozambique (Costa et
al., 2007; Videira et al., 2008); Tanzania
(Bourjea, 2012); Madagascar
(Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994;
Ciccione et al. 2002 as cited in Bourjea,
2012; Lilette, 2006 as cited in Bourjea,
2012); and Kenya (Bourjea, 2012). Egg
exploitation has affected green turtle
populations in the Maldives (Seminoff
et al., 2004). Illegal egg collection in
Mauritius seems to be an important
source of mortality but no data are
available.
Nesting green turtle numbers in the
Seychelles have increased at protected
sites, but declined where there has been
heavy poaching, as on the developed
´
islands of Mahe, Praslin, and La Digue
(Bourjea, 2012). On Assumption Island
and Aldabra, the number of nesting
females was known to have decreased
due to overharvesting (Mortimer, 1984),
but they have been protected at Aldabra
since 1968 (J. Mortimer, pers. comm.,
Seychelles Dept. of Environment, 2014).
Areas of particularly heavy
exploitation of green turtles include
foraging locations in the Western Indian
Ocean such as Madagascar
(Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994; Mbindo,
1996; Bourjea, 2012). Artisanal fisheries,
such as beach seines and gill nets, have
been reported to take tens of thousands
of turtles annually (Hughes, 1981;
Rakotonirina, 1987; Rakotonirina and
Cooke, 1994; Lilette, 2006; Humber et
al., 2010). This exploitation affects
turtles nesting in the Eparses Islands,
where poaching and illegal trade at
international foraging grounds are also a
threat (Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Lauret-Stepler et al., 2007). Similarly,
commercial and small-scale fisheries at
foraging grounds along the east African
coast, mainly Tanzania and Kenya,
affect green turtles nesting on Mayotte,
Comoros Islands (Bourjea et al., 2007).
Intentional capture of green turtles
continues in the Seychelles (Seminoff et
al., 2004) and in the east coast of Africa
(Baldwin et al., 2003; Louro et al.,
2006).
In summary, current legal and illegal
collection of eggs and harvest of turtles
persists as a threat throughout this DPS.
The killing of nesting females continues
to threaten the stability of green turtle
populations in many areas affecting the
DPS by reducing adult abundance and
egg production.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
The prevalence of FP in the
Southwest Indian DPS is not known. FP
is extremely rare among green turtles in
Seychelles (J.A. Mortimer, unpublished
data). Side striped jackals (Canis
adustus) and honey badgers (Melivora
capensis) are known to depredate nests
on the mainland coast of East Africa
(Baldwin et al., 2003).
However, quantitative data are not
sufficient to assess the degree of impact
of these threats on the persistence of
this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
There are at least 15 national and
international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms that pertain to the
Southwest Indian DPS. The analysis of
these existing regulatory mechanisms
assumed that all would remain in place
at their current levels; however, some
are not realizing their full potential
because they are not adequately
enforced.
Regulatory mechanisms that address
the direct capture of green turtles are
implemented to various degrees
throughout the range of the DPS with
some countries having no commitment
to the implementation of the regulation.
Existing regulatory mechanisms to
address bycatch and coastal
development are not implemented
adequately as evident by the high level
of bycatch within this DPS.
In addition to broad-reaching
international instruments, the following
countries have laws to protect green
turtles: Mozambique, Republic of
Seychelles, Comoros Islands, Mayotte
Island, and the French Eparses Islands.
However, these regulatory mechanisms
are not range-wide and do not address
the loss of the nesting beach,
overutilization, and bycatch that are
significant threats to this DPS. The
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Status Review revealed a lack of existing
regulatory mechanisms to address sea
level rise, and effects of climate change
that continue to contribute to the
extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Quantifying the magnitude of the
threat of fisheries on green turtles in the
Southwest Indian DPS is very difficult
given the low level of observer coverage
and dearth of investigations into
bycatch conducted by countries that
have large fishing fleets. Sea turtles are
caught in demersal and pelagic
longlines, trawls, gill nets, and seines
(Peterson, 2005; Louro et al., 2006;
Costa et al., 2007; Fennessy and Isaksen,
2007; Peterson et al., 2007; 2009).
Bycatch is a concern along the east coast
of Africa and in many island Exclusive
Economic Zones (EEZs), including the
Seychelles, Mayotte, Comoros,
Tanzania, Kenya, and South Africa.
(Mortimer et al., 1996; Bourjea et al.,
2007a; Bourjea, 2012).
b. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disasters
Effects of climate change include,
among other things, increased sea
surface temperatures, the alteration of
thermal sand characteristics of beaches
(from warming temperatures), which
could result in the reduction or
cessation of male hatchling production
(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al.,
2009), and a significant rise in sea level,
which could significantly restrict green
turtle nesting habitat. In the Southwest
Indian DPS, climate change could have
profound long-term impacts on nesting
populations because much of the
nesting occurs in low-lying islands and
atolls. The pending sea level rise from
climate change is a potential problem,
as this will inundate nesting sites and
decrease available nesting habitat
(Daniels et al., 1993). While sea turtles
have survived past eras that have
included significant temperature
fluctuations, future climate change is
expected to happen at unprecedented
rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread
extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change
induced by human activities are likely
to become more apparent in future years
(IPCC, 2007).
In summary, within Factor E, we find
that fishery bycatch that occurs
throughout the range of the DPS,
particularly bycatch of green turtles
from long lining operations, small
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
prawn trawl fishery, and coastal gill
nets, can affect juvenile to adult size
turtles. In addition, climate change and
natural disasters are expected to be an
increasing threat to the persistence of
this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the
Southwest Indian DPS
Nine countries of the southwest
Indian Ocean developed and signed the
Indian Ocean Southeast Asian Marine
Turtle Memorandum of Understanding
(IOSEA; www.ioseaturtles.org): Comoros
in June 2001, United Republic of
Tanzania in June 2001, Kenya in May
2002, Mauritius in July 2002,
Madagascar in January 2003, Seychelles
in January 2003, South Africa in
February 2005; and Mozambique and
France (Indian Ocean) in December
2008. IOSEA aims to develop and assist
countries of the region in the
implementation of the IOSEA regional
strategy for management and
conservation of sea turtles and their
habitats. Accordingly, IOSEA has been
successfully coordinating and closely
monitoring region-wide conservation
efforts in the Indian Ocean for years.
This has included the development of a
state-of-the-art online reporting facility,
satellite tracking, genetic regional
database, flipper tag inventory, and a
global bibliographic resource.
Also within the Southwest Indian
DPS, the Western Indian Ocean-Marine
Turtle Task Force plays a role in sea
turtle conservation. This is a technical,
non-political working group comprised
of specialists from eleven countries:
´
Comoros, France (La Reunion), Kenya,
Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique,
Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa,
United Kingdom and Tanzania, as well
as representatives from
intergovernmental organizations,
academic, and non-governmental
organizations within the region.
The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
(IOTC) is playing an increasingly
constructive role in turtle conservation.
In 2005, the IOTC adopted Resolution
05/08, superseded by Resolution 09/06
on Sea Turtles, which sets out reporting
requirements on interactions with sea
turtles and accordingly provides an
executive summary per species for
adoption at the Working Party on
Ecosystem and By-catch and then
subsequently at the Scientific
Committee. In 2011, IOTC developed a
‘‘Sea Turtle Identification Card’’ to be
distributed to all long-liners operating
in the Indian Ocean (https://
www.iotc.org/).
Although there is considerable
uncertainty in anthropogenic
mortalities, especially in the water, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
15303
DPS may have benefitted from
conservation efforts at the nesting
beaches.
continued threats are likely to endanger
the DPS within the foreseeable future.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the Southwest Indian DPS
The Southwest Indian DPS is
characterized by relatively high levels of
green turtle nesting abundance and
increasing trends. The overall nesting
range for the Southwest Indian DPS
occurs throughout the range of this DPS
on islands, atolls, and on the main
continent of Africa in Kenya. The fact
that turtles nest on both insular and
continental sites, and nesting substrate
can be variable as some of the nesting
beaches are volcanic islands and the
atolls are made of coralline sand,
suggests a high degree of nesting
diversity. Nesting also occurs
throughout the year with peaks that vary
among rookeries (Dalleau et al., 2012;
Mortimer, 2012). The genetic structure
of this DPS is characterized by high
diversity and a mix of unique and rare
haplotypes, as well as common and
widespread haplotypes. However, the
five-factor analysis in the Status Review
revealed continuing threats to green
turtles and their habitat within the range
of the DPS.
Nesting beaches throughout the range
of this DPS are susceptible to coastal
development and associated beachfront
lighting, erosion, and sea level rise.
Coral reef and seagrass bed degradation
continues in portions of the range of the
DPS affecting foraging turtles. Direct
capture of juvenile and adult turtles
continues to take place using a variety
of gear types in artisanal and industrial
fisheries.
The Southwest Indian DPS is
protected by various international
treaties and agreements as well as a few
national laws, and there are protected
beaches throughout the range of this
DPS. As a result of these designations
and agreements, many of the intentional
impacts directed at sea turtles have been
lessened, such as the harvest of eggs and
adults in several nesting areas, although
the extent to which they are reduced is
not clear.
While the Status Review indicates
that the DPS shows strength in many of
the critical population parameters, there
are still concerns about threats to the
DPS from fisheries interactions, direct
harvest (eggs and adults), and climate
change.
For the above reasons, we propose to
list the Southwest Indian DPS as
threatened. We do not find the DPS to
be in danger of extinction presently
because of the high nesting abundance
and geographically widespread nesting
at a diversity of sites; however, the
A. Discussion of Population Parameters
for the North Indian DPS
The range of the North Indian DPS
begins at the border of Somalia and
Kenya north into the Gulf of Aden, Red
Sea, Persian Gulf and east to the Gulf of
Mannar off the southern tip of India and
includes a major portion of India’s
southeastern coast up to Andra Pradesh.
The southern and eastern boundaries
are the equator (0°) and 84° E.,
respectively, which intersect in the
southeast corner of the range of the DPS.
It is bordered by the following countries
(following the water bodies from west to
east): Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Sudan,
Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates,
Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran,
Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka (Figure
2).
Nesting is concentrated primarily in
the northern and western region of the
range of the North Indian DPS from the
Arabian Peninsula to the PakistaniIndian border, with smaller but
significant nesting colonies occurring in
Sri Lanka, India’s Lakshadweep Island
group, and the Red Sea. Nesting in the
Arabian Gulf occurs in low numbers.
Seagrass beds are extensive within the
range of the DPS, although a
comprehensive understanding of
juvenile and adult foraging areas is
lacking. There are extensive foraging
areas in the Arabian Gulf, on the coasts
of Oman and Yemen, Gulf of Aden, and
in the Red Sea (Ross and Barwani, 1982;
Salm, 1991; Salm and Salm, 2001). Barr
al Hickman, along the Sahil al Jazit
coastline in Oman, is one of the most
important known foraging grounds for
green turtles. Although development of
dense seagrass beds is limited
seasonally due to monsoons, the
Arabian Sea coast’s foraging areas are
extensive (Jupp et al., 1996 as cited in
Ferreira et al., 2006). Juvenile green
turtles have been sighted and captured
year-round in the lagoons in Agatti and
Kavaratti. These Lakshadweep lagoons
are known to be important
developmental habitat for green turtles
in this DPS (Tripathy et al., 2002;
Tripathy et al., 2006).
Thirty-eight total nesting sites were
identified by the SRT, some being
individual beaches and others
representing multiple nesting beaches,
although nesting data is more than a
decade old for the vast majority of these
sites. Nonetheless, our best estimates
indicate that, of the 38 sites, two have
>10,000 nesting females (Ras Sharma,
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
XI. North Indian DPS
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
15304
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Yemen; 18,000 (PERSGA/GEF, 2004)
and Ras Al Hadd, Oman; 16,184 (Ross,
1979; AlKindi et al., 2008)); one has
5,001–10,000 nesting females (Kamgar
Beach at Ormara, Pakistan; 6,000
(Groombridge et al., 1988)); five have
1,001–5,000 nesting females (Saudi
Arabian Gulf Islands; 2,410 (AlMerghani et al., 2000; Pilcher, 2000);
north coast of Ras Al Hadd, Oman;
1,875 (Salm et al., 1993); Ra’s Jifan to
Ra’s Jibsh, Oman; 1,500 (Ross, 1979;
AlKindi et al., 2008); Masirah Island,
Oman; 1,125 (Grobler et al., 2001); and
Gujarat, India; 1,125 (Sunderraj et al.,
2006a, 2006b; K. Shanker pers. comm.,
2013); 15 sites have 101–500 nesting
females; 10 have fewer than 50; and one
is unquantified. The largest site, Ras
Sharma in Yemen, accounts for 33
percent of the nesting females. Daran
Beach, Jiwani, Pakistan, with an
estimated 371 nesting females (Waqas et
al., 2011), and Zabargard Island, Egypt,
with an estimated 444 nesting females
(Hanafy, 2012; El-Sadek et al., 2013), are
the only sites for which 10 or more
years of recent data are available for
annual nesting female abundance (the
standards for representing trends in bar
plot in this report). It is difficult to
ascertain any trend from these data. No
sites met the standards for PVA.
However, some other sites were
examined, with caveats, as follows.
Nesting at Ras Al Hadd appears to
have increased from approximately
6,000 females nesting each year for the
period 1977 to 1979 (Ross and Barwani,
1982) through the late 1980s
(Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989), to
the estimate of 16,184 nesting females,
as calculated from 21,578 nests found in
2007 (AlKindi et al., 2008). Declines are
evident at Hawkes Bay and Sandspit,
Pakistan, where a mean of
approximately 1,300 nests were
deposited annually from 1981 to 1985
(Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989) and
a mean of approximately 600 nests were
laid from 1994 to 1997 (Asrar, 1999). At
Gujarat, India, 866 nests were deposited
in 1981 (Bhaskar, 1984) and 461 nests
in 2000 (Sunderraj et al., 2006);
however, because there are only two
data points, it is not possible to
determine a trend. At Ras Sharma,
counts of nightly nesting females during
peak nesting season in 1966 and 1972
(30–40 females; Hirth, 1968; Hirth and
Hollingsworth, 1973) versus the same
index during the peak of the 1999
nesting season (15 females; Saad, 1999)
are suggestive of a decline. Again the
lack of multiple-year data sets for both
Gujarat and Ras Sharma preclude trend
assessment.
With regard to spatial structure, only
one stock from this DPS (in Saudi
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Arabia) has been characterized
genetically based on limited sampling;
however, it was found to be very
distinct from other nesting sites
elsewhere in the Indian Ocean based on
mtDNA analysis. There are no studies of
foraging grounds within the range of the
North Indian DPS to provide
information on the distribution or the
mixing of turtles outside of this DPS. A
few flipper tag recoveries have been
reported with no reported recoveries
outside of the range of the North Indian
DPS. Adult females from Egypt, Sri
Lanka, and Oman were satellite tagged
and tracked during post-nesting
migrations, and all remained within the
range of the North Indian DPS. The
satellite telemetry data for nesting
females in Sri Lanka provided some
information on possible foraging
locations which were within the inshore
waters of southern Sri Lanka and the
Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve,
although sample size was limited
(Richardson et al., 2013). Satellite
telemetry for nesting females in Kuwait
verified nesting in Qaru Island. These
turtles migrated to the shallow seas in
Saudi Arabia (Rees et al., 2013).
With regard to diversity and
resilience, the demography of green
turtles in the North Indian DPS appears
to vary among nesting assemblages,
suggesting a complex population
structuring in the North Indian DPS.
The population is moderately dispersed
within the range of the North Indian
DPS, although the greatest nesting is
concentrated in the northern and
western region of the DPS’s range, with
about 72 percent of the nesting
concentrated in Oman and Yemen. The
nesting season varies widely within the
range of the DPS. The peak nesting
season in Ras Sharma, Yemen is July, in
Gujarat, India, it is from August to
March (Sunderraj et al., 2006), and in
Oman, nesting occurs year-round.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
North Indian DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
One of the largest green turtle nesting
populations within this DPS is
concentrated on the nesting beaches of
Ras Al Hadd, Oman (Ross, 1979). Ras Al
Hadd, Ras al Jinz, and the numerous
smaller nesting beaches south of it are
protected from development as part of
the Ras Al Hadd Nature Reserve.
However, upland light pollution is
negatively impacting these otherwise
suitable nesting habitats (E. Possardt,
USFWS, pers. comm., 2013). The most
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
important green turtle nesting beaches
in Yemen fall within the Ras Sharma
Protected Area, and this nesting habitat
is secure from beach development
threats.
Light pollution is increasing near the
Karan Island, Saudi Arabia site from oil
rig developments, but the impact on
hatchlings and nesting females is
unknown (J. Miller, Biological Research
and Education Consultants, pers.
comm., 2013). At Ras Baridi, one of the
main nesting beaches in Saudi Arabia,
uncontrolled particulate emissions from
a large cement factory has coated the
beaches at times and poses a threat to
hatchlings because they are unable to
emerge from the nest due to the
hardened sand (PERSGA/GEF, 2004;
Pilcher, 1999).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Trawling occurs throughout much of
the range of the North Indian DPS and
has the potential to destroy bottom
habitat in these areas. Marine pollution,
including direct contamination and
structural habitat degradation, affects
green turtle neritic and oceanic habitat.
The most dramatic example of the
threats to sea turtles and their habitat
from oil pollution in the region is the
Gulf War oil spill in the Arabian Gulf in
1991, which is estimated to be the
largest oil spill in history at the time of
the 2010 report (ABC, 2010).
In the Arabian Gulf, extensive
seagrass beds provide important
foraging sites for green turtles within
waters of Bahrain, United Arab
Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, but
these are being degraded and lost from
the continual threat of dredging,
siltation, and land reclamation (Pilcher,
2000, 2006; Al-Muraikhi et al., 2005;
Abdulqader, 2008; Al-Abdessalaam et
al., 2008).
In the waters surrounding the
Lakshadweep islands in India, there
exist high densities of green turtles that,
without the natural level of control from
the top predators such as tiger sharks,
can cause an increase in grazing
pressure and reduce the amount of
healthy seagrass beds available (Kelkar
et al., 2013).
In summary, we find that the North
Indian DPS of the green turtle is
negatively affected by ongoing changes
in both its terrestrial and marine
habitats as a result of land and water use
practices. Beach and marine pollution
are an increasing threat to this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Directed take of eggs and turtles by
humans occurs at the primary green
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
turtle nesting beaches and in waters off
of Saudi Arabia (Al-Merghani et al.,
1996; Pilcher, 2000), Yemen (K. Nasher,
Sana’a University, pers. comm., 2013),
Oman (R. Baldwin, Five Oceans LLC,
pers. comm., 2013), Djibouti and
Somalia (PERSGA 2001; van de Elst,
2006; Galair, 2009; van de Giessen,
2011; Witsen, 2012), Eritrea (Howe
et al., 2004; Pilcher, 2006; Teclemariam
et al., 2009), the Islamic Republic of Iran
(Mobaraki, 2004; 2007; 2011), India
(Sunderraj et al., 2006), and Sri Lanka
(Rajakaruna et al., 2009; Turtle
Conservation Project, 2009). Directed
take of nesting females is also still
common at nesting beaches in Yemen
(K. Nasher, Sana’a University, pers.
comm., 2013). In spite of wildlife
protection laws, green turtles are still
killed opportunistically for food in
Oman (R. Baldwin, Five Oceans LLC,
pers. comm., 2013).
Illegal and legal capture of sea turtles
and the collection of turtle eggs is fairly
widespread in the Djibouti and Somalia
region of the Gulf of Aden and the Red
Sea, and turtle meat, oil and eggs are an
important source of subsidiary food for
artisanal fishers (PERSGA, 2001; van de
Elst, 2006; Galair, 2009; van de Giessen,
2011; Witsen, 2012). Harvesting of sea
turtle eggs and meat for consumption by
local communities and fishers occurs at
a subsistence level in Eritrea (Howe et
al., 2004; Pilcher, 2006; Teclemariam et
al., 2009); however, the pressure on
green turtle populations is reported to
be high because they are prized for their
meat products (Teclemariam et al.,
2009). Egg harvesting has also been
reported as a threat impacting green
turtles in the Islamic Republic of Iran,
with eggs being used for both
consumption (in some cases as an
aphrodisiac) and for use in traditional
medicines (Mobaraki, 2004; 2007; 2011).
In spite of wildlife protection laws,
green turtles are still killed
opportunistically for trade in the Bay of
Mannar between India and Sri Lanka
(Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2006). In
India, green turtle export was banned in
the 1980s; however, subsistence
harvesting continues (Bhupathy and
Saravanan, 2006). An increase in the
number of green turtles killed by fishers
has been reported in Agatti Island,
Lakshadweep, India. The cause for the
killing has been linked to increases in
green turtles within the area. The
perception is that green turtles damage
fishing gear and overgraze seagrass
thereby reducing catch levels (Arthur
et al., 2013).
In summary, current legal and illegal
collection of eggs and harvest of turtles
throughout the range of the North
Indian DPS for human consumption
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
persists as a threat to this DPS. The
harvest of nesting females continues to
threaten the stability of green turtle
populations in many areas affecting the
DPS by reducing adult abundance and
egg production.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
The prevalence of FP in the North
Indian DPS is not known. Predation of
hatchlings and eggs by red foxes (Vulpes
vulpes arabica) is common at the Ras al
Jinz, Oman green turtle nesting beach
(Mendonca et al., 2010), and
¸
depredation by feral dogs has been
identified as a major threat at sea turtle
nesting beaches in Pakistan (Asrar,
1999; Firdous, 2001) and the main green
turtle nesting beach at Ras Sharma
(Stanton, 2008). On two Egyptian Red
Sea beaches (Ras Honkorab and Om AlAbath beaches, which are both within
Wadi Gimal National Park limits),
predation is reported to be very high
with only a few nests surviving
(Mancini, 2012). The most common
predators observed on these two
beaches in Egypt were desert foxes (V.
zerda) and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris),
but ghost crabs were regularly observed
near nests as well. In Qatar, depredation
of eggs and hatchlings by foxes has been
identified as a key source of turtle
mortality (Al-Muraikhi et al., 2005;
Pilcher, 2006). Along the beaches of
Gujarat in India, dogs, jackals, monitor
lizards, crabs, crows, and possibly
hyenas and feral pigs depredate nests
and eat hatchings (Sunderraj et al.,
2006).
Although disease and predation are
known to occur, quantitative data are
not sufficient to assess the degree of
impact of these threats on the
persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
There are several international treaties
and/or regulatory mechanisms that
pertain to the North Indian DPS, and
nearly all countries lining the North
Indian DPS have some level of national
legislation directed at sea turtle
protection. The following countries
have laws to protect green turtles:
Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India,
Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka,
Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and
Yemen. In addition, at least 14
international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms apply to the conservation
of green turtles in the North Indian DPS.
Within the last decade, since the
establishment of the Jeddah Convention
(The Regional Convention for the
Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of
Aden Environment), there is more of an
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15305
effort to strengthen participation in
international and regional agreements
(PERSGA, 2010). The analysis of these
existing regulatory mechanisms
assumed that all would remain in place
at their current levels. The overall
effectiveness and enforcement of these
laws varies among the countries and
relies on each country’s priorities. Often
the enforcement of these laws is done in
collaboration with non-governmental
agencies such as HEPCA in the Red Sea
(https://www.hepca.org/).
Regulatory mechanisms that address
the direct capture of green turtles are
implemented to various degrees
throughout the range of the DPS with
some countries having no regulation in
place. Our Status Review reported no
widespread regulations for the gill net
and trawl fisheries to address the threat
of bycatch. The Status Review revealed
a lack of existing regulatory mechanisms
to address coastal development, sea
level rise, and effects of climate change
that continue to contribute to the
extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Sea turtle bycatch from gill nets,
trawls, and longline fisheries is a
significant cause of sea turtle mortality
for the North Indian DPS, although there
are fewer bycatch data than for other
regions of the world (Wright and
Mohanty, 2002; Project GloBAL, 2007;
Bourjea et al., 2008; Abdulqader, 2010;
Wallace et al., 2010). The magnitude of
trawl, gill net, and longline fisheries
within the range of the North Indian
DPS is great with no substantive sea
turtle protection measures in place to
reduce sea turtle bycatch mortality.
Along the coast of Ras Al Hadd, one of
the densest nesting beaches of this DPS,
fishery related mortality is particularly
high where green turtles are incidentally
caught in fishing gear (Salm, 1991).
i. Gill Net Fisheries
Gill nets are widely deployed and
used throughout the region and known
to kill thousands of sea turtles in some
regions (Project GloBAL, 2007). Two
member Indian Ocean Tuna
Commission parties, Iran and Kenya,
alone reported the use of 12,023 gill nets
in the Indian Ocean in 2012. In
Lakshadweep and Tamil Nadu, India,
the most common net fisheries (i.e., gill
net, shore seine, anchor net and drag
nets) are known to incidentally catch
green turtles (Tripathy et al., 2006;
Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2006).
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15306
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Incidental capture of sea turtles in
fishing nets (presumably in gill nets or
set nets) has been identified as the main
cause of mortality of juvenile green
turtles within Iranian and the United
Arab Emirates foraging areas (Mobaraki,
2007; Al-Abdessalaam et al., 2008). In
Qatar, entrapment of turtles in fishing
nets has been identified as a key source
of mortality (Al-Muraikhi et al., 2005).
ii. Trawl Fisheries
Shrimp trawling occurs in many
countries throughout the range of the
North Indian DPS including Pakistan,
India, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. In
Yemen, trawling is believed to be a
significant threat to sea turtles, mainly
hawksbill and greens; however, no data
are available (Bourjea et al., 2008).
Pakistan and India require the use of
TEDs to meet the requirements of U.S.
Public Law 101–162, section 609 for
exporting shrimp to the United States,
but the level of compliance is unclear
(E. Possardt, USFWS, pers. obs. 2013).
Nowhere else within the range of the
North Indian DPS are TEDs being used
and it can be assumed that significant
sea turtle bycatch occurs. One
documented assessment of the impact of
trawling on sea turtles in this region is
from Bahrain where trawls were
reported to capture over 300 sea turtles
annually, mostly greens (Abdulqader
and Miller, 2012; Abdulqader, 2010).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. Vessel Strikes
Boat strikes have been identified as a
major cause of sea turtle mortality in the
United Arab Emirates (Al-Abdessalaam
et al., 2008) and Qatar (Al-Muraikhi et
al., 2005). Boat strikes of sea turtles also
have been identified as a regular
occurrence in Iran and seem to be
increasing in some areas (Mobaraki,
2011). Boat strikes are undoubtedly a
regular occurrence throughout the
Arabian Gulf and other important green
turtle foraging grounds within the range
of the North Indian DPS and,
cumulatively, are likely significant, but
quantification is lacking.
c. Beach Driving
Beach driving by fishers who haul
and launch boats from Ras al Jinz beach
in Oman is highly problematic, and
hatchling turtles are likely being caught
in ruts, struck or run over. However, no
assessment has been conducted to
determine the extent of impacts on
nesting turtles and hatchlings (E.
Possardt, USFWS, pers. comm., 2013).
d. Pollution
Pollution has been identified as a
main threat to sea turtles in Iran
(Mobaraki, 2007) and Pakistan (Firdous,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
2001); however, no specific information
about the type of pollution was
provided. In Sri Lanka, Kapurusinghe
(Kapurusinghe, 2006) stated that
polluted inland water flows into Beira
Lake and subsequently the sea, and that
garbage, including polythene and
plastics, dumped on beaches in some
areas is washed into the sea, where it
can be lethal to sea turtles. In Gujarat,
India, the increase in ports and shipping
traffic results in problems from oil
spills, garbage, and other pollutants
such as fertilizers and cement (Surderraj
et al., 2006).
e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disasters
Similar to other areas of the world,
climate change and sea level rise have
the potential to affect green turtles in
the North Indian DPS. Effects of climate
change include, among other things,
increased sea surface temperatures, the
alteration of thermal sand
characteristics of beaches (from
warming temperatures), which could
result in the reduction or cessation of
male hatchling production (Hawkes et
al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009), and
a significant rise in sea level, which
could significantly restrict green turtle
nesting habitat. In addition, cyclones
such as those occurring in consecutive
years in 1998 and 1999 in Kachchch,
India, cause severe erosion of the
nesting beach (Surderraj et al., 2006)
and, when combined with the effects of
sea level rise, may have increased
cumulative impacts in the future. While
sea turtles have survived past eras that
have included significant temperature
fluctuations, future climate change is
expected to happen at unprecedented
rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread
extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change
induced by human activities are likely
to become more apparent in future years
(IPCC, 2007).
Within Factor E, we find that fishery
bycatch (longline, gill net, and trawl
fishing) occurs throughout the range of
the DPS and is a significant threat to
this DPS. In addition, pollution, vessel
strikes, climate change and natural
disasters are expected to be an
increasing threat to the persistence of
this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the North
Indian DPS
In 2012, the IOTC began requiring its
31 contracting Parties to report sea turtle
bycatch and to use safe handling and
release techniques for sea turtles on
longline vessels. The IOTC and IOSEA
also recently completed an ‘‘Ecological
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Risk Assessment and Productivity—
Susceptibility Analysis of sea turtles
overlapping with fisheries in the IOTC
region.’’ One conclusion was that green
turtles account for 50 88 percent of
artisanal and commercial gill nets
bycatch. Two methods of estimating
total bycatch were used, and resulted in
an annual gill net bycatch estimate of
29,488 sea turtles within the IOTC
region.
While conservation efforts for the
North Indian DPS are extensive and
expanding, they still remain inadequate
to ensure the long-term viability of the
population. Efforts have been largely
focused on the nesting beaches, and
there are only recent efforts underway to
understand the extent of green turtle
interactions with gill nets and trawlers
and the resulting cumulative effects
from bycatch—one of the major threats
to this DPS. Concerted efforts to identify
and protected critical foraging grounds
is also lacking.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the North Indian DPS
The North Indian DPS has a high level
of green turtle nesting abundance with
two of the largest nesting assemblages of
green turtles in the world nesting in
Yemen and Oman. The North Indian
DPS also has expansive, largely
undeveloped nesting beaches, and many
of these beaches are protected from
development as nationally designated
reserves or protected areas, although
threats still remain. The North Indian
DPS also features extensive coastal
seagrass beds distributed throughout the
region, which provide abundant
foraging grounds for this species.
Nesting beaches are distributed broadly
throughout the region.
Coastal development, beachfront
lighting, fishing practices, and marine
pollution at nesting beaches and
important foraging grounds are
continuing concerns across the DPS.
Current illegal harvest of green turtles
and eggs for human consumption is a
continuing but limited threat to this
DPS. Fishery bycatch occurs throughout
the North Indian DPS, particularly
bycatch mortality of green turtles from
gill nets and trawl fisheries, and the
cumulative mortality from these
fisheries is probably the greatest threat
to this DPS. Additional threats from
boat strikes, which are becoming more
common, and expected impacts of
climate change, will negatively affect
this DPS.
Conservation efforts are substantial
but uneven in the range of the North
Indian DPS and focused almost entirely
on nesting beaches. The ability for some
countries to sustain or develop needed
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
conservation programs in the context of
political instability within the region is
of concern. Further, our analysis did not
consider the scenario in which current
laws or regulatory mechanisms were not
continued. Given the conservation
dependence of the species, without
mechanisms in place to continue
conservation efforts in this DPS, some
threats could increase and population
trends could be affected.
For the above reasons, we propose to
list the North Indian DPS as threatened.
We do not find the DPS to be in danger
of extinction presently because of high
nesting abundance in protected areas;
however, the continued threats are
likely to endanger the DPS within the
foreseeable future.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
XII. East Indian-West Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters
for the East Indian-West Pacific DPS
The western boundary for the range of
the East Indian–West Pacific DPS is 84°
E. longitude from 40° S. to where it
coincides with India near Odisha,
northeast along the shoreline and into
the West Pacific Ocean to include
Taiwan extending east at 41° N. to 146°
E. longitude, south and west to 4.5° N.,
129° E., then south and east to West
Papua in Indonesia and the Torres
Straits in Australia. The southern
boundary is 40° S. latitude,
encompassing the Gulf of Carpentaria
(Figure 2).
Green turtle nesting is widely
dispersed throughout the range of the
East Indian–West Pacific DPS, with
important nesting sites occurring in
Northern Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia
(Sabah and Sarawak Turtle Islands),
Peninsular Malaysia, and the Philippine
Turtle Islands. The in-water range of the
East Indian-West Pacific DPS is
similarly widespread with shared
foraging sites throughout the range of
the DPS. The largest nesting site lies
within Northern Australia, which
supports approximately 25,000 nesting
females (Limpus, 2009). Nonetheless,
populations are substantially depleted
from historical levels.
There are 58 known nesting sites,
although we note that the nesting female
estimates for many of these sites are
over a decade old. The largest,
Wellesley Group, lies in northern
Australia and supports approximately
25,000 nesting females (EPA
Queensland Turtle Conservation Project
unpublished data cited in Limpus,
2009). Five sites have 5,001–10,000
nesting females: Bilang-Bilangan,
Indonesia (7,156; Reischig et al., 2012);
Sabah Turtle Island Park, Malaysia
(7,011; de Silva, 1982; Basintal, 2002; P.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Bastinal pers. comm., 2011); Ningaloo,
North West Cape, Australia (6,269;
Prince, 2003; Markovina, 2008; Bool et
al., 2009; Gourlay et al., 2010; Kelliher
et al., 2011); Baguan Island, Philippines
(5,874; Pawikan Conservation Project,
2013); and Pangumbahan, Indonesia
(5,199; Muhara and Herlina, 2012).
Seven sites have 1,001–5,000 nesting
females: Sangalaki (2,740; Reischig et
al., 2012), Enu (2,048; Dethmers, 2010),
Mataha (1,652; Reischig et al., 2012),
and Belambangan Island, Indonesia
(1,736; Dermawan, 2002); Terranganu
(1,875; Chan, 2010) and Sarawak Turtle
Island, Malaysia (1,155; Groombridge
and Luxmoore, 1989; Chan 2006; Chan,
2010); and Lihiman, Philippines (1,217;
Pawikan Conservation Project, 2013).
Eight sites have 501–1,000 nesting
females, 30 have <500 nesting females,
and seven are unquantified.
Green turtle populations within the
range of the East Indian-West Pacific
DPS have experienced apparent
declines at some nesting sites, and
increases at others in the past several
decades. For instance, in Southeast
Asia, data suggest that populations have
declined in the Gulf of Thailand,
Vietnam, and the Berau Islands, Meru
Betiri National Park, Pangumbahan,
Thamihla Kyun, and perhaps Enu
Island, all in Indonesia, although the
lack of recent and/or multiple year data
prevents an assessment of the current
trends at these sites. At Sipadan,
Sarawak and Terengganu in Malaysia,
nesting appears to be stable, although
Terengganu might be decreasing.
Nesting has remained stable in the
Philippine Turtle Islands and may have
increased at the Sabah Turtle Islands,
Malaysia. In Western Australia, data are
not sufficient to draw any conclusions
regarding long-term trends, although
these sites, together with the Wellesley
Group in Northern Australia (the largest
nesting site), may constitute the most
important green turtle nesting
concentration in the Indian Ocean.
When examining spatial structure for
the East Indian-West Pacific DPS, the
SRT examined three lines of evidence:
genetic data, flipper and satellite
tagging, and demographic data. Genetic
sampling in the East Indian-West Pacific
DPS has occurred at 22 nesting sites.
There appears to be a complex
population structure, even though there
are gaps in sampling relative to
distribution. Overall, this region is
dominated by a few common and
widespread haplotypes and has varying
levels of spatial structure characterized
by the presence of rare/unique
haplotypes at most nesting sites. There
is significant population substructuring.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15307
Tagging and tracking studies have
been geared to studying internesting
migrations, and defining the range of
internesting habitats and post-nesting
migrations. Green turtles that were
satellite tracked from Pulau Redang,
Terengganu indicate migrations to the
South China Sea and Sulu Sea areas
(Liew, 2002). Cheng (2000) reported
movements of eight post-nesting green
turtles from Wan-An Island, Taiwan that
were satellite tracked, and which
distributed widely on the continental
shelf to the east of mainland China.
Satellite telemetry studies conducted
from 2000 to 2003 demonstrated that the
green turtles nesting at Taipin Tao are
a shared natural resource among the
nations in the southern South China
Sea. Female green turtles tracked in the
same area travelled long distances in a
post-nesting migration, ending in the
Sulu Sea in the Philippines and the
Malaysia Peninsula with distances that
ranged from 456 to 2,823 km
(Charuchinda et al., 2002) and in the
coastal region of Japan (Wang, 2006).
Waayers and Fitzpatrick (2013) found
that in the Kimberly region of Australia,
the green turtle appears to have a broad
migration distribution and numerous
potential foraging areas.
Mixed stock analysis of foraging
grounds shows that green turtles from
multiple nesting beach origins
commonly mix at feeding areas in
foraging grounds across northern
Australia (Dethmers et al., 2010) and
Malaysia (Jensen, 2010) with higher
contributions from nearby large nesting
sites. There is evidence of low
frequency contribution from nesting
sites outside the range of the DPS at
some foraging areas.
The demography of green turtles in
the East Indian-West Pacific DPS varies
throughout the nesting assemblages.
This variation in parameters such as
mean nesting size, remigration interval,
internesting interval, clutch size,
hatching success, and clutch frequency
suggests a high level of population
structuring in this DPS.
With regard to diversity and
resilience, nesting and foraging areas are
widespread within the range of this
DPS, providing a level of population
resilience through habitat diversity. The
nesting season varies throughout the
range of the DPS, with nesting from June
to August in the inner Gulf of Thailand,
peak nesting from March to July on
Derawan Island (Charuchinda and
Monanunsap, 1998; Abe et al., 2003;
Aureggi et al., 2004; Adnyana et al.,
2008), year-round nesting in Thameela
Island, Myanmar and Aru, Indonesia
(although peaking from November to
March; (Dethmers, 2010; Lwin, 2009),
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15308
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
and peak nesting from November to
March in Aru, Indonesia (Dethmers,
2010), Sukamade, southeastern Java
(Arinal, 1997), Barrow Island, and
western Australia (Pendoley, 2005).
Nesting occurs on both insular and
continental sites, yielding a degree of
nesting diversity. Limited information
also suggests that there are two types of
nesting females within the DPS: Those
with high site fidelity which nest
regularly at one site, such as the Sabah
Turtle Islands; and those with low site
fidelity such as at Ishigaki Island which
select different nesting sites allowing for
increased diversity and resilience for
the DPS (Basintal, 2002; Abe et al.,
2003).
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
East Indian-West Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
a. Terrestrial Zone
In the East Indian-West Pacific DPS,
the majority of green turtle nesting
beaches are extensively eroded. Nesting
habitat is degraded due to a variety of
human activities largely related to
tourism. Coastal development and
associated artificial lighting, sand
mining, and marine debris affect the
amount and quality of habitat that is
available to nesting green turtles.
However, there are sanctuaries and
parks throughout the region where nests
are protected to various degrees.
Most of the beaches in Vietnam have
a large amount of marine debris, which
includes glass, plastics, polystyrenes,
floats, nets, and light bulbs. This debris
can entrap turtles and impede nesting
activity.
In Australia, the majority of green
turtle nesting along the beaches of the
Gulf of Carpentaria occurs outside of the
protection of the National Park. Other
minor nesting sites lie within the
protected lands of the Indigenous
Protected Areas (Limpus, 2009). In
Western Australia, the impacts to
nesting and hatchling green turtles by
independent turtle watchers as well as
off-road vehicles has increased in the
Ningaloo region as the number of
visitors has increased over the years
(Waayers, 2010). Nesting turtles and
hatchlings are routinely disturbed by
people with their cars and flashlights
(Kelliher et al., 2011). Burn-off flares
associated with oil and gas production
on the Northwest shelf of Australia are
in sufficiently close proximity to the
green turtle nesting beaches to possibly
cause hatchling disorientation
(Pendoley, 2000)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Green turtles forage in the seagrass
beds around the Andaman and Nicobar
Islands in India. Some of these seagrass
beds in the South Andaman group are
no longer viable foraging habitat
because of siltation and degradation due
to waste disposal, a byproduct of the
rapid increase in tourism (Andrews,
2000). Green turtles that forage off the
waters of the Bay of Bengal in south
Bangladesh also face depleted foraging
habitat from divers collecting seagrass
for commercial purposes and by
anchoring of commercial ships, ferries,
and boats in this habitat (Sarkar, 2001).
In the nearshore waters of Thailand,
seagrass beds are partially protected
since fishing gear such as trawls are
prohibited (Charuchinda et al., 2002). In
the waters surrounding the islands of
Togean and Banggai in Indonesia, the
use of dynamite and potassium cyanide
are common, and this type of fishing
method destroys green turtle foraging
habitat (Surjadi and Anwar, 2001).
Seagrass beds are found throughout
the nearshore areas of Vietnam’s
mainland coast and islands (Ministry of
Fisheries, 2003). Destructive fishing
practices have been and possibly
continue to be a major threat to this
habitat in 21 of Vietnam’s 29 provinces
(Asia Development Bank, 1999 as cited
in the Ministry of Fisheries, 2003) and
in the waters of Indonesia (Cruz, 2002;
Dethmers, 2010). Although these
destructive fishing practices are
prohibited by legislation passed in 1989,
enforcement may not be sufficient to
prevent these practices from occurring.
Green turtle foraging habitat is under
increased threat from decreased water
quality through river run-off and
development (Ministry of Fisheries,
2003).
In summary, within Factor A, we find
that coastal development, beachfront
lighting, erosion resulting from sand
mining, and sea level rise, are a
significant threat to a large portion of
this DPS. The extent of fishing practices,
depleted seagrass beds, and marine
pollution is broad with high levels
occurring in waters where high numbers
of green turtles are known to forage and
migrate are significant threats to the
persistence of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The green turtle populations within
this DPS have been declining
throughout their range. Populations
throughout Asia have been depleted by
long-term harvests of eggs and adults,
and by by-catch in the ever-growing
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
fisheries (Shanker and Pilcher, 2003).
On St. Martins Island, Bangladesh, overexploitation has brought the nesting
turtles to near extinction (Hasan, 2009).
Nesting females continue to be killed in
countries within Southeast Asia and the
Indian Ocean (Fleming, 2001; Fretey,
2001; Cruz, 2002). Despite substantial
declines in green turtle nesting
numbers, egg harvest remains legal in
several of the countries within the range
of this DPS. Some countries have
protections in place; however, harvest
continues due to lack of enforcement.
In Myanmar and Thailand, hatcheries
are set up to protect a portion of the
eggs. However, these hatcheries retain
hatchlings for several days for tourism
purposes, thus reducing the likelihood
of hatchling survival (Charuchinda et
al., 2002).
Turtle nesting numbers have
decreased in peninsular Malaysia and
the Philippines due to more than 40
years of overharvesting of eggs and
females (Siow and Moll, 1982; de Silva,
1982; Limpus, 1995; Cruz, 2002). In
order to provide some protection for
turtles, all three Sabah Turtle Islands
were acquired and protected by the
Sabah State Government in the 1970s
(de Silva, 1982). After more than 20
years of conservation efforts (1970–
1990), the population had still not
shown signs of recovery (Limpus et al.,
2001).
Local islanders in Indonesia have
traditionally considered turtles,
especially green turtles, as part of their
diet (Hitipeuw and Pet-Soede, 2004 as
cited in FAO, 2004). Illegal egg
harvesting continues, but there is an
increased effort to fully protect green
turtles from harvest on the islands of
Bilang-Bilangan and Mataha in
Indonesia (Reischig et al., 2012).
Despite legal protections for sea
turtles, at-sea poaching of turtles is a
continuing problem in Southeast Asia,
especially by Hainanese and Vietnamese
vessels. The poaching occurs in a wideranging area of the region, and has
moved as turtle stocks have been
depleted, with vessels being
apprehended off Malaysia, Indonesia,
and the Philippines (Pilcher et al., 2009
as cited in Lam et al., 2011).
In Australia, green turtles are
harvested by Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islanders for subsistence
purposes. There is a widespread use of
motorized aluminum boats in contrast
to the traditional dugout canoes
powered by paddles or sail. The total
harvest of green turtles by indigenous
people across northern and Western
Australia is probably several thousand
annually (Kowarsky, 1982; Henry and
Lyle, 2003 as cited in Limpus, 2009).
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The indigenous harvest of eggs may be
unsustainable in northeast Arnhem
Land (Kennett and Yunupingu, 1998).
Current legal and illegal collection of
eggs and harvest of turtles occur
throughout the East Indian-West Pacific
DPS and persists as a significant threat
to this DPS. The harvest of nesting
females continues to threaten the
stability of green turtle populations in
many areas affecting the DPS by
reducing adult abundance and reducing
egg production.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
FP has been found in green turtles in
Indonesia (Adnyana et al., 1997), Japan
(Y. Matsuzawa, Japanese Sea Turtle
Association, pers. comm., 2004), the
Philippines (Nalo-Ochona, 2000),
Western Australia (Raidal and Prince,
1996; Aguirre and Lutz, 2004), and on
PhuQuoc in Vietnam (Ministry of
Fisheries, 2003). Epidemiological
studies indicate rising incidence of this
disease (George, 1997), thus the above
list will likely grow in the future.
The best available data suggest that
current nest and hatchling predation on
the East Indian-West Pacific DPS is
prevalent and may be an increasing
threat without nest protection and
predatory control programs in place.
Depredation of nests by feral animals is
also widespread in many South Asian
areas (Sunderraj et al., 2001; Islam,
2002). Nest predation by feral pigs and
dogs is a major threat on the Andaman
and Nicobar Islands of India (Fatima et
al., 2011). Monitor lizards are also a
significant and widespread predator in
some areas (Andrews et al., 2006). Dog
predation is a major threat to the green
turtle nests on Sonadia Island in
Bangladesh (Islam et al., 2011). Jackals,
foxes, wild boars, and monitor lizards
also predate green turtle nests and
hatchlings along the beaches of
Bangladesh, and dogs also kill or injure
nesting females in Bangladesh (Andrews
et al., 2006). Lizards and ghost crabs are
the natural predators of green turtle
nests in Thailand (Chantrapornsyl,
1993). In Malaysia, crabs (Ocypode spp.)
predate green turtle eggs (Ali and
Ibrahim, 2000), and gold-ringed cat
snakes or mangrove snakes
(Boigadendrophila), (Asiatic) reticulated
pythons (Python reticulatus), monitor
lizards (Varanus sp.), and house mice
(Mus musculus) predate hatchlings
(Hendrickson, 1958). Monitor lizards,
crabs, and ants predate eggs and
hatchlings on the beaches of Vietnam
(as cited in ‘‘Sea Turtle MigrationTracking and Coastal Habitat Education
Program—An Educator’s Guide’’ https://
www.ioseaturtles.org/Education/
seaturtlebooklet.pdf). In Japan, raccoon
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and
weasels (Mustela itatsi) are a threat to
nests (Kamezaki et al., 2003). In Taiwan,
snakes predate the nests (Cheng et al.,
2009). On the North West Cape and the
beaches of the Ningaloo coast of
mainland Australia, a long established
feral European red fox (Vulpes vulpes)
population historically preyed heavily
on eggs and is thought to be responsible
for the lower numbers of nesting turtles
on the mainland beaches (Baldwin et
al., 2003; Kelliher et al., 2011).
Although disease and predation are
known to occur, quantitative data are
not sufficient to assess the degree of
impact of these threats on the
persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Although conservation efforts to
protect some nesting beaches and
marine habitat are underway, more
widespread and consistent protection is
needed. There are at least 16 national
and international treaties and/or
regulatory mechanisms that pertain to
the East Indian-West Pacific DPS. The
analysis of these existing regulatory
mechanisms assumed that all would
remain in place at their current levels.
The following countries have laws to
protect green turtles: Australia,
Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam,
Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India,
Indonesia, Japan, Myanmar, Thailand,
Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, and
Vietnam. In addition, at least 17
international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms apply to the conservation
of green turtles in the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS. However, some regulatory
mechanisms, including laws and
international treaties, are not realizing
their full potential because they are not
enforced, or do not apply in all
countries occupied by the DPS.
Regulatory mechanisms are in place
throughout the range of the DPS that
address the direct capture of green
turtles for most of the countries within
this DPS. These are implemented to
various degrees throughout the range of
the DPS. There are some national
regulations within this DPS that
specially address the harvest of green
turtles, while a few regulations are
limited in that they only apply to
certain size classes, or times of year, or
allowed for traditional use.
Fishery bycatch throughout the range
of the East Indian-West Pacific DPS (see
Factor E), as well as anthropogenic
threats to nesting beaches and foraging
grounds (Factor A) and eggs/turtles and
foraging (Factors A, B, C, and E), are
substantial. Although national and
international governmental and non-
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15309
governmental entities in the East IndianWest Pacific DPS are currently working
toward reducing green turtle bycatch as
well as egg and turtle harvest, it is
unlikely that this source of mortality
can be sufficiently reduced across the
range of the DPS in the near future. This
is due to the lack of bycatch reduction
in commercial and artisanal fisheries
operating within the range of this DPS,
the lack of comprehensive information
on fishing distribution and effort,
limitations on implementing
demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities,
limitations on enforcement capacity,
and lack of availability of
comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies. Beaches and in-water
habitat throughout the range of the DPS
are under various levels of protection,
depending in part on the clarity of
regulations and consistency of funding
for enforcement.
In summary, although regulatory
mechanisms are in place that should
address direct and incidental take of
green turtles within this DPS, these
regulatory mechanisms are not
implemented throughout the range of
this DPS. These mechanisms are not
sufficiently implemented to address the
direct harvest of green turtles and are
insufficient to address the major threat
of bycatch which remains a significant
risk to this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and
commercial fisheries is a significant
threat to the survival of green turtles in
the East Indian-West Pacific DPS. Green
turtles may be caught in drift and set gill
nets, bottom and mid-water trawling,
fishing dredges, pound nets and weirs,
and haul and purse seines.
Bycatch in fisheries using gears such
as trawlers, drift nets, and purse seines
is thought to be one of the main causes
of decline in the green turtle population
in Thailand and Malaysia. The rapid
expansion of fishing operations is
largely responsible for the increase in
adult turtle mortality due to bycatch
(Settle, 1995). The most used fishing
gears in the waters of Thailand are
trawling and drift gill nets. Heavy
fishing is the main threat to foraging sea
turtles (Chan et al., 1988;
Chantrapornsyl, 1993; Liew, 2002).
Gill nets and set bag nets are the two
major fishing gears used in the Bay of
Bengal, and green turtles are likely
captured during these fishing operations
(Hossain and Hoq, 2010). Along the
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15310
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
coast of Andaman and Nicobar Islands,
the main type of fishery is gill nets and
purse seines with thousands of turtles
killed annually by fisheries operations
including the shark fishery (Chandi et
al., 2012; Shanker and Pilcher, 2003). In
1994, Bhaskar estimated at least 600
green turtles were killed as a result of
the shark fishery in this area. Over the
last decade, there has been an increase
in the large predator fishing industry.
Green turtle mortality can be expected
to be much higher than that estimated
in the 1990s as a result of these current
operations (Namboothri et al., 2012).
Trawl fishing is also common in
Bangladesh. No green turtle stranding
information is available to determine
the fishery threat level to the green
turtle population; however, it is
expected to be high as TEDs are not
used and the population has declined
(Ahmed et al., 2006; Khan et al., 2006).
On the Turtle Islands in the Philippines,
there have been an increased number of
dead turtles as a result of fishing
activities, such as shrimp trawlers and
demersal nets (Cruz, 2002).
One of the main threats to green
turtles in Vietnam and Indonesia is the
incidental capture from gill and trawl
nets and the opportunistic capture by
fishers. Hundreds of green turtles are
captured by fisheries per year in
Vietnam (Ministry of Fisheries, 2003;
Hamann et al., 2006a; Dethmers, 2010).
In Indonesia, green turtles were
recorded as one of the main species
caught in the longline fisheries. Trawl
gear is still allowed in the Arafura Sea,
posing a major threat to green turtles
(Dethmers, 2010). Shrimp trawl captures
in Indonesia are high because of the
limited use of TEDs (Zainudin et al.,
2008).
The estimated bycatch of the Japanese
large-mesh drift net fishery in the North
Pacific Ocean in 1990–1991 was 1,501
turtles, of which 248 were estimated to
be green turtles (Wetherall et al., 1993).
Wetherall et al. (1993) report that the
actual mortality of sea turtles taken in
the Japanese and Taiwanese large-mesh
fisheries may have been between 2,500
and 9,000 per year.
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
Pollution from oil spills, as well as
from agricultural and organic chemicals,
is a major threat to the waters used by
green turtles in the Bay of Bengal
(Sarkar, 2001). The result of human
population growth in China has been an
increased amount of pollutants in the
coastal system. Discharges from
untreated sewage have occurred in
Xisha Archipelago (Li et al., 2004 as
cited in Chan et al., 2007).
Concentrations of nine heavy metals
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
(iron, manganese, zinc, copper, lead,
nickel, cadmium, cobalt, and mercury)
and other trace elements were found in
liver, kidney, and muscle tissues of
green turtles collected from Yaeyama
Islands, Okinawa, Japan (Anan et al.,
2001). The accumulation of cadmium
found in the green turtles is likely due
to accumulations of this heavy metal in
the plant materials on which they forage
(Sakai et al., 2000).
In the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia,
discarded fishing nets have been found
to cause a high number of turtle deaths
with the majority being green turtles
(Chatto et al., 1995).
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disasters
Effects of climate change include,
among other things, increased sea
surface temperatures, the alteration of
thermal sand characteristics of beaches
(from warming temperatures), which
could result in the reduction or
cessation of male hatchling production
(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al.,
2009), and a significant rise in sea level,
which could significantly restrict green
turtle nesting habitat. While sea turtles
have survived past eras that have
included significant temperature
fluctuations, future climate change is
expected to happen at unprecedented
rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread
extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change
induced by human activities are likely
to become more apparent in future years
(IPCC, 2007).
Natural environmental events, such as
cyclones and hurricanes, may affect
green turtles in the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS. Typhoons have been
shown to cause severe beach erosion
and negatively affect hatching success at
green turtle nesting beaches in Japan,
especially in areas already prone to
erosion.
In summary, within Factor E, we find
that fishery bycatch, particularly from
drift net and purse seine fisheries, occur
throughout the East Indian-West Pacific
DPS, with localized high levels of
mortality in waters where juvenile to
adult turtles are known to forage and
migrate are a persistent risk to this DPS.
In addition, vessel collisions, marine
pollution, changes likely to result from
climate change, and natural disasters are
expected to be an increasing threat to
the persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the East
Indian-West Pacific DPS
There are numerous ongoing
conservation efforts in this region.
Hatcheries have been set up throughout
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the region to protect a portion of the
eggs laid and prevent complete egg
harvesting. In addition, bycatch
reduction efforts have been made in
some areas, protected areas are
established throughout the region, and
monitoring, outreach and enforcement
efforts have made progress in sea turtle
conservation. Despite these
conservation efforts, considerable
uncertainty in the status of this DPS lies
with inadequate efforts to measure
bycatch in the region, a short time-series
of monitoring on nesting beaches, and
missing vital rates data necessary for
population assessments.
In India, since 1978, the Centre for
Herpetology/Madras Crocodile Bank
Trust has conducted sea turtle surveys
and studies in the islands. In a bilateral
agreement, the Governments of the
Philippines and Malaysia established
The Turtle Island Heritage Protected
Area (TIHPA), made up of nine islands
(six in the Philippines and three in
Malaysia). The TIHPA is one of the
world’s major nesting grounds for green
turtles. Management of the TIHPA is
shared by both countries. One of the
nesting beaches for this DPS, Australia’s
Dirk Hartog Island, is part of the Shark
Bay World Heritage Area and recently
became part of Australia’s National Park
System. This designation may facilitate
monitoring of nesting beaches and
enforcement of prohibitions on direct
take of green turtles and their eggs.
Conservation efforts on nesting beaches
have included invasive predator control.
Illegal trade of turtle parts continues
to be a problem in the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS. In order to reduce this
threat, the Vietnamese Government,
with assistance from IUCN, WWF,
TRAFFIC and the Danish Government,
formulated a Marine Turtle
Conservation Action Plan in 2010 to
expand awareness to fishers and
enforcement officers, and to confiscate
sea turtle products (Stiles, 2009;
Ministry of Fisheries 2010). The level of
effectiveness and progress of this
program is not known.
TEDs are now in use in Thailand,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia
and Brunei, expanded by initiatives of
the South East Asian Fisheries
Development Center (Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, 2004). In 2000, the use of TEDs
in the Northern Australian Prawn
Fishery was made mandatory. Prior to
the use of TEDs, this fishery took
between 5,000 and 6,000 sea turtles as
bycatch annually, with a mortality rate
estimated to be 40 percent (Poiner and
Harris, 1996). Since the mandatory use
of TEDs has been in effect, the annual
bycatch of sea turtles in the Northern
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Australian Prawn Fishery has dropped
to fewer than 200 sea turtles per year,
with a mortality rate of approximately
22 percent (based on recent years).
Initial progress has been made to
measure the threat of incidental capture
of sea turtles in other artisanal and
commercial fisheries in the Southeast
Indo-Pacific Ocean (Lewison et al.,
2004; Limpus, 2009); however, the data
remain inadequate for population
assessments.
As in other DPSs, persistent marine
debris poses entanglement and ingestion
hazards to green turtles. In 2009,
Australia’s Department of the
Environment, Water, Heritage and the
Arts published a threat abatement plan
for the impacts of marine debris on
vertebrate marine life (https://
www.environment.gov.au/system/files/
resources/d945695b-a3b9-4010-91b4914efcdbae2f/files/marine-debris-threatabatement-plan.pdf).
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS
The East Indian-West Pacific DPS is
characterized by a relatively large
geographic area with widespread
nesting reported in 58 different
locations throughout the range of the
DPS. Although the numerous nesting
sites have relatively high abundance of
nesting females, decades of harvesting
and habitat degradation have led to a
drastic decline in the sea turtle
populations within this DPS in the last
century. Population trends at many of
the higher abundance rookeries are
decreasing, though there appears to be
an increasing trend on Sabah in
Malaysia and on Baguan in the
Philippines, presumably due to effective
conservation efforts.
Continued harvest, coastal
development, beachfront lighting,
erosion, fishing practices, and marine
pollution both at nesting beaches and
important foraging grounds are all
continuing concerns across the range of
the DPS. Harvest of turtles and eggs for
human consumption continues as a high
threat to this East Indian-West Pacific
DPS. Coastal development, largely due
to tourism, is an increasing threat in
many areas. Fishery bycatch occurs
throughout the range of the DPS,
particularly bycatch mortality of green
turtles from pelagic longline, set net,
and trawl fisheries. Additional threats
due to climate change, such as loss of
habitat due to sea level rise and
increased ratio of female to male turtles,
negatively impact this DPS.
Conservation efforts have been effective
in a few areas but are lacking or not
effective in most.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
For the above reasons, we propose to
list the East Indian-West Pacific DPS as
threatened. We do not find the DPS to
be in danger of extinction presently
because of high nesting abundance and
geographically widespread nesting at a
diversity of sites; however, the
continued threats are likely to endanger
the DPS within the foreseeable future.
XIII. Central West Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters
for the Central West Pacific DPS
The range of the Central West Pacific
DPS has a northern boundary of 41° N.
latitude and is bounded by 41° N., 169°
E. in the northeast corner, going
southeast to 9° N., 175° W., then
southwest to 13° S., 171° E., west and
slightly north to the eastern tip of Papua
New Guinea, along the northern shore of
the Island of New Guinea to West Papua
in Indonesia, northwest to 4.5° N., 129°
E. then to West Papua in Indonesia, then
north to 41° N., 146° E. It encompasses
the Republic of Palau (Palau), FSM,
New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Marshall
Islands, Guam, the CNMI, and a portion
of Japan (Ogasawara; Figure 2).
Green turtle nesting occurs at low
levels throughout the geographic
distribution of the DPS (approximately
51 sites), with isolated locations having
higher nesting activity. Only two
populations are known to have >1,000
nesting turtles, with all the rest having
fewer than 400 nesting females, for a
total number of known nesting females
of approximately 6,500. The highest
numbers of females nesting in this DPS
are located in Gielop and Iar Island,
Ulithi Atoll, Yap, Federated States of
Micronesia (FSM; 1,412) or 22 percent
of the population 2013); Chichijima
(1,301) and Hahajima (394), Ogasawara,
Japan; Bikar Atoll, Marshall Islands
(300); and Merir Island, Palau (441;
(NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Bureau of
Marine Resources, 2005; Barr, 2006;
Palau Bureau of Marine Resources,
2008; Maison et al., 2010; H. Suganuma,
Everlasting Nature of Asia, pers. comm.,
2012; J. Cruce, Ocean Society, pers.
comm., 2013). There are numerous other
populations in the FSM, Solomon
Islands, Palau, Guam, and the CNMI.
Historical baseline nesting information
in general is not widely available in this
region, but exploitation and trade of
green turtles throughout the region is
well-known (Groombridge and
Luxmoore, 1989).
Green turtles departing nesting
grounds within the range of this DPS
travel throughout the western Pacific
Ocean. Green turtles are found in
coastal waters in low to moderate
densities at foraging areas throughout
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15311
the range of the DPS. Aerial sea turtle
surveys show that an in-water
population exists around Guam
(Division of Aquatic and Wildlife
Resources, 2011). In-water green turtle
density in the Marianas Archipelago is
low and mostly restricted to juveniles
(Pultz et al., 1999; Kolinski et al., 2005;
Kolinski et al., 2006; Palacios, 2012a).
In-water information in this DPS overall
is particularly limited.
There is insufficient long-term and
standardized monitoring information to
adequately describe abundance and
population trends for many areas of the
Central West Pacific DPS. The available
information suggests a nesting
population decrease in some portions of
the DPS like the Marshall Islands, or
unknown trends in other areas such as
Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Marianas,
Solomon Islands, or the FSM (Maison et
al., 2010). There is only one site for
which 15 or more years of recent data
are available for annual nesting female
abundance, one of the standards for
performing a PVA. This is at Chichijima,
Japan, one of the major green turtle
nesting concentrations in Japan
(Horikoshi et al.,1994). Although the
PVA has limitations, it shows a
continuing upward trend for the
population. The population has
increased in abundance from a mean of
approximately 100 annual nesting
females in the late 1970s/early 1980s to
a mean of approximately 500 annual
nesting females since 2000. Chaloupka
et al. (2008a) reports an estimated
annual population growth rate of 6.8
percent per year for the Chichijima
nesting site.
With regard to spatial structure,
genetic sampling in the Central West
Pacific has recently improved, but
remains challenging given the large
number of small islands and atoll
nesting sites. Stock structure analysis
indicated that nesting sites separated by
more than 1,000 km were significantly
differentiated from each other while
neighboring nesting sites within 500 km
showed no genetic differentiation
(Dutton et al., 2014). Based on mtDNA
analyses, there are four independent
stocks within the DPS (Dethmers et al.
2006; Jensen 2010; Dutton et al. 2014).
With respect to tagging and telemetry,
there are records of turtles flipper tagged
in the Philippines nesting in the FSM;
a turtle tagged in Japan was recorded
nesting in the FSM; turtles tagged in the
Japan Archipelago and China were
recorded nesting in the Ogasawara
islands (Suganuma, pers. comm.,
Ogasawara Marine Center, Everlasting
Nature of Asia, unpublished data); and
turtles tagged in the FSM were
recaptured in the Philippines, Marshall
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15312
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Islands, and Papua New Guinea (Palau
BMR, 2008; Cruce, 2009). Satellite
telemetry shows that nesting females
migrate to areas both within and outside
of the range of the Central West Pacific
DPS. For example, satellite tracks show
turtles moving from the Mariana Islands
to the Philippines and Japan, and others
moving from the Chichijima Islands of
Ogasawara to the main islands of Japan
(Hatase et al., 2006; Japan Fisheries
Resource Conservation Association,
1999). Green turtles have also been
shown to move from the FSM to the
Philippines and to the west (G. Balazs,
NMFS, unpublished data; Kolinski, et
al., unpublished data.)
Demographic data availability is
limited and somewhat variable for many
nesting sites in the range of this DPS.
Variability in parameters such as
remigration interval, clutch size,
hatching success, and clutch frequency
is not separated out regionally within
the DPS and, therefore, does not
necessarily suggest a high level of
population structuring.
With regard to diversity and
resilience, the overall range of the DPS
is relatively widespread, which lends
some resilience. However, nesting
generally occurs at what appear to be
low numbers, except in several
locations, and only on islands and atolls
throughout the range of the DPS.
Nesting information is limited for some
areas, but occurs from November to
August in Palau; from March through
September in the FSM; and May to
August in Ogasawara, Japan. Some
turtles travel outside the bounds of the
range of this DPS, into the East Indian/
West Pacific DPS presumably to forage.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
Central West Pacific DPS
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
In the Central West Pacific Ocean,
some nesting beaches have become
severely degraded from a variety of
activities. Destruction and modification
of green turtle nesting habitat results
from coastal development and
construction, placement of barriers to
nesting, beachfront lighting, vehicular
and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction,
beach erosion, beach pollution, removal
of native vegetation, and presence of
non-native vegetation.
Human populations are growing
rapidly in many areas of the insular
Pacific and this expansion is exerting
increased pressure on limited island
resources. The most valuable land on
most Pacific islands is often located
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
along the coastline, particularly when it
is associated with a sandy beach. For
instance, construction (and associated
lighting) on the islands of Saipan,
Tinian, and Rota in the CNMI, is
occurring at a rapid rate in some areas
and is resulting in loss or degradation of
green turtle nesting habitat (NMFS and
USFWS, 1998).
In the FSM, construction of houses
and pig pens on Oroluk beaches in
Pohnpei State interferes with turtle
nesting by creating barriers to nesting
habitat (NMFS and USFWS, 1998;
Buden, 1999). Nesting habitat
destruction is also a major threat to
Guam turtles and has resulted mainly
from construction and development due
to increased tourism (NMFS and
USFWS, 1998; Project GloBAL, 2009a).
Coastal construction is a moderate
problem on Majuro Atoll in the
Republic of the Marshall Islands (NMFS
and USFWS, 1998); however, it is
unknown to what extent nesting
beaches are being affected. On the outer
atolls of the Marshall Islands, beach
erosion has been aggravated by airfield
and dock development, and by urban
development on Majuro and Kwajalein
Atolls. In the Republic of Palau,
increasing nesting habitat degradation
from tourism and coastal development
has been identified as a threat to sea
turtles (Eberdong and Klain, 2008;
Isamu and Guilbeaux, 2002), although
the extent and significance of the
impacts are unknown.
Also in the CNMI, the majority of the
nesting beaches on Tinian are on
military-leased land, where the
potential for construction impacts exists
(CNMI Coastal Resources Management
Office, 2011). Increased public use of
nesting beaches is a threat to sea turtle
nesting habitat throughout the CNMI.
Public use of beaches includes a variety
of recreational activities, including
picnicking, swimming, surfing, playing
sports, scuba diving and snorkeling
access (CNMI Coastal Resources
Management Office, 2011). Beach
driving is a pastime on Saipan and
could threaten green turtle nesting
habitat (NMFS and USFWS, 1998;
Palacios, 2012a; Wusstig, 2012).
Expected U.S. military expansion
plans for this region are likely to
include relocation of thousands of
military personnel to Guam and
increased training exercises in the CNMI
(CNMI Coastal Resources Management
Office, 2011).
In the Ogasawara Islands of Japan,
nighttime tourist and resident activity
on beaches to view and photograph
nesting turtles is a problem, resulting in
harassment of nesting turtles and
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
increased aborted nesting attempts
(Ishizaki et al., 2011).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Fishing methods not only incidentally
capture green turtles and destroy bottom
habitat (including seagrasses) but may
also deplete invertebrate and fish
populations and thus alter ecosystem
dynamics. Dynamite fishing occurs in
the FSM (NMFS and USFWS, 1998;
Government of the Federated States of
Micronesia, 2004) and the Marshall
Islands (Hay and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005).
Dynamite fishing, as well as use of fish
poisons, occurs in Papua New Guinea,
although these practices are small scale
and relatively isolated (Berdach and
Mandeakali, 2004). Coral reefs and
seagrass beds within the urban centers
of the four states of the FSM (Pohnpei,
Yap, Chuuk, and Kosrae; NMFS and
USFWS, 1998) and Saipan have been
reported as being degraded by hotels,
golf courses, and general tourist
activities (Project GloBAL, 2009b),
presumably as a result of runoff and
other impacts. Coastal development in
Guam has resulted in sedimentation,
which has damaged Guam’s coral reefs
and, presumably, food sources for
turtles (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Coral
reefs and seagrass habitat off the lagoon
shoreline of the Kwajalein Atoll islands
and Majuro Atoll have been degraded by
coastal construction, dredging, boat
anchoring, and/or eutrophication from
sewage and runoff from landfills, grave
sites, and pig and chicken pens (NMFS
and USFWS, 1998; Hay and SablanZebedy, 2005).
Dredging and filling as well as sand
extraction have contributed to changes
to longshore processes and coastal
erosion in the Marshall Islands, FSM,
Kiribati’s Gilbert Islands chain, and
Palau (Smith et al., 1997; NMFS and
USFWS, 1998; Government of the
Federated States of Micronesia, 2004;
Hay and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005; Pacific
News Center, 2012).
Marine pollution, including direct
contamination and structural habitat
degradation, can affect green turtle
neritic and oceanic habitat. In Palau,
environmental contamination in the
form of sewage effluent is a problem
around Koror State, particularly Malakal
Harbor, and nearby urban areas (NMFS
and USFWS, 1998). In the Solomon
Islands, sewage discharges from land
and discharges of garbage, bilge water,
and other pollutants from ships have
been identified as sources of pollution
to the coastal and marine environments
(Solomon Islands Ministry of
Environment Conservation and
Meteorology, 2008). Land-based
activities, including logging, plantation
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
development, and mining, often cause
excessive sedimentation of nearshore
waters (Sulu et al., 2000).
Environmental contamination was
identified as a minor problem in the
Marshall Islands in 1998 (NMFS and
USFWS, 1998) and around Wake Island
(Defense Environmental Network and
Information Exchange, undated).
Rudrud et al. (2007) found that there is
a high probability of green turtles being
exposed to toxicants remaining in the
Marshall Islands from past wars and
weapons testing (e.g., foraging on algae
growing on toxic surfaces, resting near
irradiated shipwrecks).
In summary, we find that the Central
West Pacific DPS of the green turtle is
negatively affected by ongoing changes
in both its terrestrial and marine
habitats as a result of land and water use
practices as considered above in Factor
A. Destruction and modification of
green turtle nesting habitat resulting
from coastal development and
construction, beachfront lighting,
vehicular and pedestrian traffic, beach
erosion, and pollution are significant
threats to the persistence of this DPS.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
The potential effects of FP and
endoparasites also exist for green turtles
found in the Central West Pacific Ocean,
but the impacts to the population are
unknown.
The loss of eggs to non-human
predators is a severe problem in some
areas. These predators include domestic
animals, such as cats, dogs, and pigs, as
well as wild species such as rats,
mongoose, birds, monitor lizards,
snakes, and crabs, ants, and other
invertebrates (Suganuma et al., 1996;
NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Maturbongs,
2000; Cummings, 2002; Wilson et al.,
2004; Cruce, 2008).
Although disease and predation are
known to occur, quantitative data are
not sufficient to assess the degree of
impact of these threats on the
persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Regional and national legislation to
conserve green turtles (often all sea
turtles) exists throughout the range of
the DPS. National protective legislation
generally prohibits intentional killing,
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or harassment, possession, trade, or
attempts at these; however, a lack of or
Educational Purposes
inadequate enforcement of these laws
Directed take of eggs is a known
appears to be pervasive. The following
ongoing problem in the Central West
countries have laws to protect green
Pacific in the CNMI, FSM, Guam,
turtles: CNMI, FSM, Guam, Japan
Kiribati (Gilbert Islands chain), Papua,
(Ogasawara Islands), Kiribati, Marshall
Papua New Guinea, Marshall Islands,
Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua, Papua
and Palau (Eckert, 1993; Guilbeaux,
New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and
2001; Hitipeuw and Maturbongs, 2002;
United States (Wake Island). In
Philip, 2002). In addition to the
addition, at least 17 international
collection of eggs from nesting beaches,
treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms
the killing of nesting females continues
apply to the conservation of green
to threaten the stability of green turtle
turtles in the Central West Pacific DPS.
populations. Ongoing harvest of nesting These are implemented to various
adults has been documented in the
degrees throughout the range of the
CNMI (Palacios, 2012a), FSM (Cruce,
DPS. There are some national
2009), Guam (Cummings, 2002), Papua
regulations, within this DPS, that
(Hitipeuw and Maturbongs, 2002),
specially address the harvest of green
Papua New Guinea (Maison et al., 2010), turtles while a few regulations are
and Palau (Guilbeaux, 2001). Mortality
limited in that they only apply to turtles
of turtles in foraging habitats is also
of certain sizes, times of years, or allow
problematic for recovery efforts.
for harvest for tradition use.
Ongoing intentional capture of green
On December 12, 2008, the Western
turtles in their marine habitats has been and Central Pacific Fisheries
documented in southern and eastern
Commission issued a Conservation and
Papua New Guinea (Limpus et al., 2002) Management Measure (2008–03;
and the Solomon Islands (D. Broderick,
https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-20081998; Pita and Broderick, 2005).
03/conservation-and-management-seaturtles) to reduce sea turtle mortality
Green turtles have long been
during fishing operations, collect and
harvested for their meat in the
report information on fisheries
Ogasawara Islands, and records show a
interactions with turtles, and encourage
rapid decline in the sea turtle
safe handling and resuscitation of
population between 1880 and 1920
turtles. This measure requires purse
(Horikoshi et al., 1994; Ishizaki, 2007).
seine vessels to avoid encircling turtles
Currently, sea turtle harvest is strictly
and to release entangled turtles. It also
regulated with a harvest limit of 135
requires longline vessels to use line
mature turtles per year (Ishizaki, 2007).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15313
cutters and dehookers to release turtles.
However, enforcement mechanisms are
not explicit, and the level of compliance
is uncertain.
Additional regulatory mechanisms are
not in place in many countries within
this DPS to address the major threat of
bycatch within this DPS. It is unlikely
that bycatch mortality can be
sufficiently reduced across the range of
the DPS in the near future because of
the diversity and magnitude of the
fisheries operating in the DPS, the lack
of comprehensive information on
fishing distribution and effort,
limitations on implementing
demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities,
limitations on enforcement capacity,
and lack of availability of
comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies. Although conservation
efforts to protect some nesting beaches
are underway, more widespread and
consistent protection would speed
recovery. Some regulatory mechanisms,
including laws and international
treaties, are not realizing their full
potential because they are not enforced
adequately, or do not apply in all
countries occupied by the DPS.
The Status Review revealed a lack of
existing regulatory mechanisms to
address coastal development, pollution,
sea level rise, and effects of climate
change that continue to contribute to the
extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and
commercial fisheries is a threat to the
survival of green turtles in the Central
West Pacific. Sea turtles may be caught
in longline, pole and line, and purse
seine fisheries.
Within the Marshall Islands, Palau,
the FSM, and the Solomon Islands, a
purse-seine fishery for tuna and a
significant longline fishery operate, and
sea turtles have been captured in both
fisheries with green turtle mortality
occurring (Oceanic Fisheries
Programme, 2001; McCoy, 2003; Hay
and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005; McCoy,
2007a; McCoy, 2007b; Western and
Central Pacific Fisheries Commission,
2008).
Numerous subsistence and smallscale commercial fishing operations
occur along Saipan’s western coast and
along both the Rota and Tinian coasts
(CNMI Coastal Resources Management
Office, 2011). Incidental catch of turtles
in Guam’s coastal waters by commercial
fishing vessels likely also occurs (NMFS
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15314
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
and USFWS, 1998). In 2007, 222 fishing
vessels (200 purse-seiners and 22
longliners) had access to Papua New
Guinea waters (Kumoru, 2008).
Although no official reports have been
released on sea turtle bycatch within
these fisheries (Project GloBAL, 2009c),
sea turtle interactions with both
fisheries have been commonly observed
(Kumoru, 2008). However, the level of
mortality is unknown.
b. Vessel Strikes
The impacts of vessel strikes in the
Central West Pacific are unknown, but
not thought to be of great consequence,
except possibly in Palau where high
speed skiffs constantly travel
throughout the lagoon south of the main
islands (NMFS and USFWS, 1998).
However, green turtles have been
documented as occasionally being hit by
boats in Guam (Guam Division of
Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, 2012).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
c. Pollution
In the FSM, debris is dumped freely
and frequently off boats and ships
(including government ships). Landfill
areas are practically nonexistent in the
outer islands and have not been
addressed adequately on Yap proper or
on Chuuk and Pohnpei. The volume of
imported goods (including plastic and
paper packaging) appears to be
increasing (NMFS and USFWS, 1998).
In Palau, entanglement in abandoned
fishing nets has been identified as a
threat to sea turtles (Eberdong and
Klain, 2008). In the Marshall Islands,
debris and garbage disposal in coastal
waters is a serious problem on Majuro
Atoll and Ebete Island (Kwajalein Atoll),
both of which have inadequate space,
earth cover, and shore protection for
sanitary landfills. This problem also
exists to a lesser extent at Daliet Atoll
(NMFS and USFWS, 1998).
A study of the gastrointestinal tracts
of 36 slaughtered green turtles in the
Ogasawara Islands of Japan in 2001
revealed the presence of marine debris
(e.g., plastic bag pieces, plastic blocks,
monofilament lines, Styrofoam pieces)
in the majority of the turtles (Sako and
Horikoshi, 2003).
d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disasters
Over the long term, Central West
Pacific turtle populations could be
affected by the alteration of thermal
sand characteristics (from global
warming), resulting in the reduction or
cessation of male hatchling production
˜
(Caminas, 2004; Hawkes et al., 2009;
Kasparek et al., 2001; Poloczanska et al.,
2009). Further, a significant rise in sea
level would restrict green turtle nesting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
habitat in the Central West Pacific.
Coastal erosion has been identified as a
high risk in the CNMI due to the
existence of concentrated human
population centers near erosion-prone
zones, coupled with the potential
increasing threat of erosion from sea
level rise (CNMI Coastal Resources
Management Office, 2011). In the FSM,
Yap State’s low coralline atolls are
extremely vulnerable to rises in sea
levels and will be adversely affected if
rises occur (NMFS and USFWS, 1998).
These risks are high for all beaches in
the Central West Pacific. Interestingly,
Barnett and Adger (2003) identified
projected increases in sea-surface
temperature, and not sea level rise, as
the greatest long-term risk of climate
change to atoll morphology and thus to
atoll countries like those in the Central
West Pacific. They state that coral reefs,
which are essential to the formation and
maintenance of the islets located around
the rim of an atoll, are highly sensitive
to sudden changes in sea-surface
temperature. Thus, climate change
impacts could have profound long-term
impacts on green turtle nesting in the
Central West Pacific, but it is not
possible to project the impacts at this
point in time.
Natural environmental events such as
cyclones and hurricanes may affect
green turtles in the Central West Pacific
DPS. These storm events have been
shown to cause severe beach erosion
with likely negative effects on hatching
success at many green turtle nesting
beaches, especially in areas already
prone to erosion. Shoreline erosion
occurs naturally on many islands in the
atolls of the Marshall Islands due to
˜
storms, sea level rise from the El Nino–
Southern Oscillation, and currents
(NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Some
erosion of nesting beaches at Oroluk
was reported in 1990 after passage of
Typhoon Owen (NMFS and USFWS,
1998). However, effects of these natural
events may be exacerbated by climate
change. While sea turtles have survived
past eras that have included significant
temperature fluctuations, future climate
change is expected to happen at
unprecedented rates, and if turtles
cannot adapt quickly they may face
local to widespread extirpations
(Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts from
global climate change induced by
human activities are likely to become
more apparent in future years (IPCC,
2007).
In summary, within Factor E, we find
that fishery bycatch continues to
threaten this DPS. In addition, changes
likely to result from climate change and
natural disasters are increasing threats
to this DPS.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central
West Pacific DPS
Very few areas that host important
green turtle nesting or foraging
aggregations have been designated as
protected areas within the Central West
Pacific. However, at least one country,
Palau, has site-specific conservation for
sea turtle habitat protection. Two
nationally mandated protected areas,
Ngerukewid Islands Wildlife Preserve
and Ngerumekaol Spawning Area, exist
within Koror State, and restrictions are
placed on entry and fishing within
established boundaries.
Marine debris is a problem on some
green turtle nesting beaches and
foraging areas in the Central West
Pacific, in particular on the nesting
beaches of the CNMI (Palacios, 2012a;
2012b) and in the nearshore foraging
areas of the FSM, Marshall Islands, and
Palau (NMFS and USFWS, 1998;
Eberdong and Klain, 2008). Organized
beach clean-ups on some CMNI beaches
have been conducted to help mitigate
this impact (Palacios, 2012b).
Overall, it appears that international
and national laws to protect green
turtles may be insufficient or not
implemented effectively to address the
needs of green turtles in the Central
West Pacific. This minimizes the
potential success of existing
conservation efforts.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the Central West Pacific
DPS
The Central West Pacific DPS is
characterized by a relatively small
nesting population spread across a
relatively expansive area roughly 2,500
miles wide (Palau to the Marshall
Islands) and 2,500 miles long
(Ogasawara, Japan to the Solomon
Islands). This DPS is dominated by
insular nesting. Fifty-one known nesting
sites were analyzed, although many had
very old data (20–30 years old). Sixteen
sites were identified but numbers of
nesting females were ‘‘unquantified,’’
and another 21 had fewer than 100
nesting females. Only two sites had
more than 1,000 nesting females (1,412
and 1,301). Further study of this DPS
would improve our understanding of it.
The limited available information on
trends suggests a nesting population
decrease in some areas, an increase in
one Japanese nesting site, and unknown
trends in others. The second largest
nesting site in this DPS (Chichijima,
Japan) shows positive growth. The
dispersed location of nesting sites and
lack of concentration of nesting
provides a level of habitat diversity and
population resilience which reduces
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
overall extinction risk, as does widely
varied nesting seasons; however, the
contribution of this characteristic to
such diversity and resilience is reduced
by the small size of many of these sites
and the threats faced in each of the
nesting and foraging areas.
Human populations are growing
rapidly in many areas of the insular
Pacific and this expansion is
accompanied by threats to green turtle
nesting habitat resulting from coastal
development and construction,
beachfront lighting, degradation of
waters and seagrass beds off of
populated areas, and sand extraction.
Destructive fishing methods (use of
dynamite and poisons) not only
incidentally capture green turtles, but
also deplete invertebrate and fish
populations and thus alter ecosystem
dynamics. Fishery bycatch, particularly
bycatch mortality of green turtles from
longline, pole and line, and purse seine
fisheries, continue as threats to this
DPS. In addition, legal and illegal
harvest of green turtles and eggs for
human consumption remains a
significant threat in many areas of this
DPS. Finally, changes likely to result
from climate change and natural
disasters could have profound long-term
impacts on green turtle nesting in the
Central West Pacific.
Although regulatory mechanisms are
in place that should address direct and
incidental take of Central West Pacific
green turtles, these regulatory
mechanisms are insufficient or are not
being implemented effectively to
address the population trajectories of
green turtles.
For the above reasons, we propose to
list the Central West Pacific DPS as
endangered. Based on its low nesting
abundance and exposure to increasing
threats, we find that this DPS is
presently in danger of extinction
throughout its range.
XIV. Southwest Pacific DPS
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. Discussion of Population Parameters
in the Southwest Pacific DPS
The range of the Southwest Pacific
DPS extends from the western boundary
of Torres Strait, to the eastern tip of
Papua New Guinea and out to the
offshore coordinate of 13° S., 171° E.;
the eastern boundary runs from this
point southeast to 40° S., 176° E.; the
southern boundary runs along 40° S.
from 142° E. to 176° E.; and the western
boundary runs from 40° S., 142° E north
to Australian coast then follows the
coast northward to Torres Strait (Figure
2).
Green turtle nesting is widely
dispersed throughout the Southwest
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Pacific Ocean at 12 total nesting sites,
although it should be noted that,
perhaps more so than in other DPSs,
proximate nesting beaches were
grouped for analysis because nesting
populations are small, with the
exception of a few sites, including Raine
Island, where the majority (>90 percent)
of the nesting in the northern GBR
occurs. While it would be possible to
split the nesting aggregations into more
than 100 different sites, because many
of the most recent estimates are
aggregated (Limpus, 2009), we followed
this tendency and aggregated nesting
within broad regional areas. The bulk of
this DPS nests within Australia’s Great
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and
eastern Torres Strait. The northern GBR
and Torres Strait support some of the
world’s highest concentrations of
nesting (Chaloupka et al., 2008a).
Nesting abundance in the northern GBR
is not directly counted throughout the
nesting season largely because of the
remoteness of the site and the sheer
numbers of turtles that may nest on any
given night. Raine Island, with estimates
of annual nesting females varying from
4,000–89,000 (Seminoff et al., 2004;
NMFS and U.S. FWS, 2007; Chaloupka
et al., 2008a; Limpus, 2009) (note the
Status Review used an estimate of
25,000 nesting females), Moulter Cay,
with 15,965 nesting females (Limpus et
al., 2003; Limpus, 2009), and the rest of
the Capricorn Bunker Group with
31,249 nesting females (Limpus, 2009)
represent the three sites with >10,000
nesting females. Heron Island is the
index nesting beach for the southern
GBR, and nearly every nesting female on
Heron Island has been tagged since 1974
(Limpus and Nicholls, 2000). Heron
Island (4,891 nesting females;
Chaloupka et al., 2008a; Limpus, 2009),
Bramble Cay in the northern GBR
(1,660; Limpus et al., 2003; Limpus
2009), and Huon, Leleizour and Fabre in
New Caledonia (1,777; Limpus, 2009)
represent the sites with 1,001–5,000
nesting females. There are three sites
with 501–1,000: The Coral Sea (all sites;
1,000; Limpus, 2009), No. 8 Sandbank
in northern GBR (637; Limpus et al.,
2003; Limpus 2009), and other northern
GBR sites, including Murray Islands,
other outer islands, most inner shelf
cays and the mainland coast (535;
Limpus 2009). Bamboo Bay in Vanuatu
(165; MacKay and Petro, 2013) and No.
7 Sandbank in the northern GBR
represent the two sites with nesting
females in the 101–500 category. The
rest of the southern GBR (represented
here as one site) is unquantified.
The Raine Island and Heron Island
sites both have high inter-annual
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15315
variability and slightly increasing linear
trends. These were the only two nesting
areas for which 15 or more years of
recent data are available for annual
nesting female abundance, one of the
standards for performing a PVA in the
Status Review. Both show a continued
increasing trend, though the Raine
Island PVA indicates that there is a 9.1
percent probability that this population
will fall below the trend reference point
(50 percent decline) at the end of 100
years, and a 0.4 percent probability that
it will fall below the absolute
abundance reference (100 females per
year) at the end of 100 years. However,
extra caution must be used when
interpreting results of the Raine Island
PVA, because it only represents females
observed during one sampling event on
one night. The Heron Island PVA
indicates that there is a 17.5 percent
probability that the magnitude of adult
females associated with Heron Island
nesting will fall below the trend
reference point (50 percent decline) at
the end of 100 years, and an 8.3 percent
probability that this population will fall
below the absolute abundance reference
(100 females per year) at the end of 100
years. It should be noted that PVA
modeling has important limitations, and
does not fully incorporate other key
elements critical to the decision making
process such as spatial structure or
threats. It assumes all environmental
and anthropogenic pressures will
remain constant in the forecast period
and it relies on nesting data alone.
Although long robust time series are
not available for New Caledonia, recent
and historical accounts do not suggest a
significant decline in abundance of
green turtles nesting in New Caledonia
(Maison et al., 2010). The trend at
Vanuatu has not been documented
(Maison et al., 2010).
With regard to spatial structure,
genetic sampling in the Southwest
Pacific DPS has been extensive for larger
nesting sites along the GBR, the Coral
Sea, and New Caledonia; however, there
are several smaller nesting sites in this
region that still need to be sampled (e.g.
Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, and
Papua New Guinea). Within this DPS,
four regional genetic stocks have been
identified in the Southwest Pacific
Ocean; northern GBR, southern GBR,
Coral Sea (Dethmers et al., 2006; Jensen,
2010), and New Caledonia (Dethmers et
al., 2006; Dutton et al., 2014). Mixed
stock analysis of foraging grounds
shows that green turtles from multiple
nesting beach origins commonly mix in
foraging grounds along the GBR and
Torres Strait regions (Jensen, 2010), but
with the vast majority originating from
nesting sites within the GBR. There is
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15316
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
evidence of low frequency contribution
from nesting sites outside the range of
the DPS at some foraging areas.
With regard to diversity and
resilience, nesting beach monitoring
along with flipper and satellite tagging
show the spatial structure of this DPS is
largely consistent with viable
populations. Nesting can occur yearround in the most northerly nesting
sites, but a distinct peak occurs in late
December to early January for all
Australian nesting sites. Foraging is
widely dispersed throughout the range
of this DPS (Limpus, 2009). There are
various factors that lead to resilience in
nesting in the Southwest Pacific DPS: it
is widely dispersed throughout the
region, there is more than one major
nesting site, there is evidence of some
connectivity between nesting sites
within each of the four regional stocks
but no connectivity among regional
stocks, and there is continental and
insular nesting. Nesting, however, is not
evenly distributed throughout the range
of the DPS, and some of the densest
nesting occurs on Raine Island, which
has habitat-based threats.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
Southwest Pacific DPS
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
Destruction and modification of green
turtle nesting habitat in the Southwest
Pacific DPS result from beach erosion,
beach pollution, removal of native
vegetation, and planting of non-native
vegetation, as well as natural
environmental change (Limpus, 2009).
Coastal development and construction,
placement of erosion control structures
and other barriers to nesting, and
vehicular traffic minimally impact green
turtles in this DPS (Limpus, 2009).
Artificial light levels have increased
significantly for green turtles in minor
nesting sites of the northern GBR and
remained relatively constant for the
mainland of Australia (part of southern
GBR) south of Gladstone (Kamrowski et
al., 2014). Most of the nests at the
documented nesting sites within this
DPS occur within the protected habitat,
but there is still concern about the
viability of nesting habitat (Limpus,
2009). Total productivity is limited by
reduced nesting and hatching success,
which at Raine Island appear to be
depressed due to habitat issues. At
Raine Island, mean nesting success (i.e.,
probability that a clutch will be laid
when a turtle comes ashore for a nesting
attempt) can be as low as 3.3 percent
(Limpus et al., 2007). Reduced
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
recruitment can be caused by flooding
of egg chambers by ground water, dry
collapsing sand around egg chambers,
and underlying rock which prevents
appropriately deep egg chambers
(Limpus et al., 2003). In the 1996 to
1997 breeding season, for example,
flooding of nests caused a near total loss
of viable eggs, and flooding has been a
regular event in subsequent years
(Limpus et al., 2003; Limpus, 2009).
Death of nesting females occurs on
Raine Island when they enter the
elevated interior of the island due to
crowding on the beach and return along
a different route, encountering hazards
such as small cliffs, over which they
wander and roll onto their backs.
Nightly mortality ranges from 0 to over
70 per night and is highest when nesting
the previous night exceeds 1,000
(Limpus et al., 2003). Understanding the
root cause of changes to Raine Island
nesting habitat is challenging and is the
aim of several Australian and State
Government research and monitoring
projects. These habitat-based threats
(particularly related to hatchling
production) constitute serious threats to
this DPS, given the large abundance of
turtles nesting in the northern GBR.
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Threats to habitat in the neritic and/
or oceanic zones in the Southwest
Pacific DPS include fishing practices,
channel dredging, and marine pollution,
although the internesting habitat
adjacent to the nesting sites with the
highest documented nesting levels in
this DPS is protected by the Great
Barrier Reef Coastal Marine Park and the
adjacent Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
(Limpus, 2009). Protection for marine
turtles in the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage area has been increasing since
the mid-1990s (Dryden et al., 2008).
In summary, we find that the
Southwest Pacific DPS of the green
turtle is negatively affected by ongoing
changes in both its terrestrial and
marine habitats as a result of land and
water use practices as considered above
in Factor A. Groundwater intrusion on
high density beaches, artificial lighting,
fishery practices, channel dredging, and
marine pollution are continual threats to
the persistence of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Southwest Pacific DPS turtles are
vulnerable to harvest throughout
Australia and neighboring countries
such as New Caledonia, Fiji, Vanuatu,
Papua New Guinea, and Indonesia
(Limpus, 2009). Cumulative annual
harvest of green turtles that nest in
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Australia may be in the tens of
thousands, and it appears likely that
historical native harvest may have been
in the same order of magnitude
(Limpus, 2009). The Australian Native
Title Act (1993) gives Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islanders a legal right to
hunt sea turtles in Australia for
traditional, communal, non-commercial
purposes (Limpus, 2009). Although
indigenous groups, governments,
wildlife managers and scientists work
together with the aim of sustainably
managing turtle resources (Maison et al.,
2010 citing K. Dobbs, Queensland Parks
Authority, pers. comm., 2010),
traditional harvest remains a threat to
green turtle populations. However,
quantitative data are not sufficient to
assess the degree of impact of harvest on
the persistence of this DPS.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
Low levels of FP-associated turtle
herpes virus is common in green turtles
in some but not all semi-enclosed
waters like Moreton Bay and Repulse
Bay in Australia, more infrequent in
nearshore open waters, and rare in offshore coral reef habitats (Limpus, 2009).
Mortality and recovery rates from this
virus are not quantified but stranded,
infected turtles are regularly
encountered in south Queensland
(Limpus, 2009).
Primary hatchling and egg predators
of this DPS include crabs, birds, fish,
and mammals. The magnitude of egg
predation is not well documented, but
within Australia the highest levels of
vertebrate predation on eggs occur in
other species, primarily loggerheads
(Environment Australia, 2003). In
Vanuatu, nest predation by feral dogs is
a primary threat (Maison et al., 2010).
Survivorship of hatchlings in the
southern GBR during the transition from
nest to sea (accounting for crab and bird
predation) may be quite high (Limpus,
1971), but survivorship of hatchlings as
they transition across the reef flat from
the water’s edge to deep water is likely
considerably lower (Gyuris, 1994 as
cited in Limpus, 2009). Similar
survivorship estimates are not available
for the northern GBR, but survival
during the nest to sea transition is
expected to be low and variable,
depending on the predator assemblage.
Although many birds co-occur with sea
turtle hatchlings in the northern GBR,
only some birds, like the rufous night
heron (Nycticorax caledonicus), are
important predators (Limpus et al.,
2003). Terrestrial crabs that occur
throughout the northern GBR have been
observed feeding on turtle hatchlings
and eggs, but crabs are generally of low
density (Limpus et al., 2003). Shark
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
predation on hatchlings as well as
adults has been documented (Limpus et
al., 2003).
Although disease and predation are
known to occur, quantitative data are
not sufficient to assess the degree of
impact of these threats on the
persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Regulatory mechanisms are in place
throughout the range of the DPS that
address the direct capture of green
turtles within this DPS. There are
regulations, within this DPS, that
specially address the harvest of green
turtles while a few regulations are
limited in that they only apply to
certain times of year or allow for
traditional use. Australia, New
Caledonia and Vanuatu, the only
countries with nesting aside from the
Coral Sea Islands, which are a territory
of Australia, have laws to protect green
turtles. National protective legislation
generally regulates intentional killing,
possession, and trade (Limpus, 2009;
Maison et al., 2010). In addition, at least
17 international treaties and/or
regulatory mechanisms apply to the
conservation of green turtles in the
Southwest Pacific DPS.
The majority of nesting beaches (and
often the associated internesting habitat)
are protected in Australia, which is the
country with the vast majority of the
known nesting.
In Australia, the conservation of green
turtles is governed by a variety of
national and territorial legislation.
Conservation began with 1932 harvest
restrictions on turtles and eggs in
Queensland in October and November,
south of 17° S., and by 1968 the
restriction extended all year long for all
of Queensland (Limpus, 2009). As
described in the preceding section,
other conservation efforts include
sweeping take prohibitions,
implementation of bycatch reduction
devices and safer dredging practices,
improvement of shark control devices,
and safer dredging practices, and the
development of community based
management plans with Indigenous
groups. Australia has undertaken
extensive marine spatial planning to
protect nesting turtles and internesting
habitat surrounding important nesting
sites. The GBR’s listing on the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization’s World Heritage
List in 1981 has increased the protection
of habitats within the GBR World
Heritage Area (Dryden et al., 2008).
In New Caledonia, 1985 fishery
regulations contained some regional sea
turtle conservation measures, and these
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
were expanded in 2008 to include the
EEZ, the Main Island, and remote
islands (Maison et al., 2010). In
Vanuatu, new fisheries regulations in
2009 prohibit the take, harm, capture,
disturbance, possession, sale, purchase
of or interference, import, or export of
green turtles Maison et al., 2010).
There are several regulatory
mechanisms in place that should
address incidental take of green turtles
within this DPS; however, these
regulatory mechanisms are not realizing
their full potential because they are not
enforced at the local level. The analysis
of these existing regulatory mechanisms
assumed that all would remain in place
at their current levels.
The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms to address impacts to
nesting beach habitat and
overutilization is a continuing concern
for this DPS. Other threats with
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
include incidental bycatch in fishing
gear, boat strikes, port dredging, debris,
national defense, and toxic compounds.
Lack of implementation or enforcement
by some nations renders regulatory
mechanisms less effective than if they
were implemented in a more consistent
manner across the target region. It is
unlikely that bycatch mortality can be
sufficiently reduced across the range of
the DPS in the near future because of
the diversity and magnitude of the
fisheries operating in the DPS, the lack
of comprehensive information on
fishing distribution and effort,
limitations on implementing
demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities,
limitations on enforcement capacity,
and lack of availability of
comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies.
The Status Review did not reveal
regulatory mechanisms in place to
specifically address threats to nesting
beaches, eggs, hatchlings, juveniles, and
adults through harvest and incidental
harm occur throughout the range of the
Southwest Pacific DPS. Some threats,
such as inundation of nests at Raine
Island and sea level rise, cannot be
controlled through individual national
legislation and persist as a threat to this
DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and
commercial fisheries is a threat to the
survival of green turtles in the
Southwest Pacific Ocean. The primary
gear types involved in these interactions
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15317
include trawl fisheries, longlines, drift
nets, and set nets. These are employed
by both artisanal and industrial fleets,
and target a wide variety of species
including prawns, crabs, sardines, and
large pelagic fish.
Nesting turtles of the Southwest
Pacific DPS are vulnerable to the
Queensland East Coast Trawl Fisheries
and the Torres Strait Prawn Fishery, and
to the extent other turtles forage west of
Torres Strait, they are also vulnerable
(Limpus, 2009). In 2000, the use of TEDs
in the Northern Australian Prawn
Fishery became mandatory, due in part
to several factors: (1) Objectives of the
Australian Recovery Plan for Marine
Turtles, (2) requirements of the
Australian Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act for
Commonwealth fisheries to become
ecologically sustainable, and (3) the
1996 U.S. import embargo on wildcaught prawns taken in a fishery
without adequate turtle bycatch
management practices (Robins et al.,
2002).
Australian and international longline
fisheries capture green turtles. Precise
estimates of international capture of
Southwest Pacific Ocean DPS green
turtles by the international longline fleet
are not available, but they are thought
to be larger than the Australian
component (DEWHA, 2010). In addition
to threats from prawn trawls, green
turtles may face threats from other
fishing gear (summarized from Limpus,
2009). Take of green turtles in gill nets
(targeting barramundi, salmon,
mackerel, and shark) in Queensland and
the Northern Territory has been
observed but not quantified. Untended
‘‘ghost’’ fishing gear that has been
intentionally discarded or lost due to
weather conditions may entangle and
kill many hundreds of green turtles
annually.
b. Shark Control Programs
Green turtles are captured in shark
control programs, but protocols are in
place to reduce the impact. The
Queensland Shark Control Program is
managed by the Queensland Department
of Primary Industries and Fisheries
(Limpus, 2009) and has been operating
since 1962 (Gribble et al., 1998). In
1992, their operations began to be
modified to reduce mortality of nontarget species (Gribble et al., 1998).
Observed green turtle annual mortality
during 1998–2003 was 2.7 per year
(Limpus, 2009). Green turtles have been
captured in the New South Wales sharkmeshing program since 1937, but total
capture for all turtle species from 1950
through 1993 is roughly five or fewer
turtles per year (Krogh and Reid, 1996).
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15318
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Post-release survival does not appear to
have been monitored in any of the
monitoring programs.
c. Boat Strikes and Port Dredging
The magnitude of mortality from boat
strikes may be in the high tens to low
hundreds per year in Queensland
(Limpus, 2009). This threat affects
juvenile and adult turtles and may
increase with increasing high-speed
boat traffic in coastal waters. The
magnitude of mortality from port
dredging in Queensland may be in the
order of tens of turtles or less per year
(Limpus, 2009).
d. Toxic Compounds and Marine Debris
Toxic compounds and
bioaccumulative chemicals threaten
green turtles in the Southwest Pacific
DPS. Poor health conditions
(debilitation and death) have been
reported in the southern Gulf of
Carpentaria for green turtles, many of
which had unusual black fat (Kwan and
Bell, 2003; Limpus, 2009). Heavy metal
concentrations have also been reported
in Australia (Dight and Gladstone, 1994;
Reiner, 1994; Gordon et al., 1998;
Limpus, 2009), but the health impact
has not been quantified. The magnitude
of mortality from ingestion of synthetic
material in Queensland is expected to
be at least tens of turtles annually
(Limpus, 2009).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disasters
Green turtle populations could be
affected by the effects of climate change
on nesting grounds (Fuentes et al., 2011)
as well as in marine habitats (Hamann
et al., 2007; Hawkes et al., 2009).
Potential effects of climate change
include changes in nest site selection,
range shifts, diet shifts, and loss of
nesting habitat due to sea level rise
(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al.,
2009). Climate change will likely also
cause higher sand temperatures leading
to increased feminization of surviving
hatchlings (i.e., changes in sex ratio),
and some beaches will likely experience
lethal incubation temperatures that will
result in losses of complete hatchling
cohorts (Glen and Mrosovsky, 2004;
Fuentes et al., 2010; Fuentes et al.,
2011). While sea turtles have survived
past eras that have included significant
temperature fluctuations, future climate
change is expected to happen at
unprecedented rates, and if turtles
cannot adapt quickly they may face
local to widespread extirpations
(Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts from
global climate change induced by
human activities are likely to become
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
more apparent in future years (IPCC,
2007).
In a study of the northern GBR nesting
assemblages, Bramble Cay and Milman
Islet were vulnerable to sea-level rise,
and almost all sites in the study were
expected to be vulnerable to increased
temperatures by 2070 (Fuentes et al.,
2011). Similar data are not available for
other nesting sites.
The Southwest Pacific DPS contains
some atolls, as well as coral reef areas
that share some ecological
characteristics with atolls. Barnett and
Adger (2003) state that coral reefs,
which are essential to the formation and
maintenance of the islets located around
the rim of an atoll, are highly sensitive
to sudden changes in sea-surface
temperature. Thus, climate change
impacts could have long-term impacts
on green turtle ecology in the Southwest
Pacific DPS, but it is not possible to
project the impacts at this point in time.
In summary, within Factor E, we find
that fishery bycatch that occurs
throughout the range of the DPS,
particularly bycatch mortality of green
turtles from pelagic longline, drift nets,
set net, and trawl fisheries, is a
continued risk to this DPS. Additional
threats from boat strikes, marine
pollution, changes likely to result from
climate change, and cyclonic storm
events are pose an increasing risk to the
persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the
Southwest Pacific DPS
Conservation efforts for the Southwest
Pacific DPS have resulted in sweeping
take prohibitions, implementation of
bycatch reduction devices,
improvement of shark control devices,
and safer dredging practices. Australia,
in particular, has undertaken extensive
marine spatial planning to protect
nesting turtles and internesting habitat
surrounding some of the largest and
most important nesting sites in the DPS.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the Southwest Pacific DPS
The Southwest Pacific DPS is
characterized by relatively high levels of
green turtle nesting abundance (>80,000
nesting females) and contains the GBR,
the largest coral reef system in the
world, as well as continental coastline,
islands, and atolls. The trends in nesting
female abundance at the two index
beaches (Raine Island and Heron Island,
Australia) are stable or increasing. The
spatial structure of this DPS extends
over a large geographic area, with
several large nesting sites spread within
the range of this DPS, and includes both
continental and insular nesting, thereby
providing a level of habitat diversity
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and population resilience. This region
has high genetic diversity resulting from
a mix of highly divergent lineages, some
of which are among the oldest lineages
found in C. mydas. There are concerns
about climate change in general and the
nesting habitat at Raine Island in
particular, where nests are sometimes
flooded and nesting female mortality
can range from 1–70 per night due to
overcrowding.
The threats to this Southwest Pacific
DPS include directed harvest, incidental
bycatch in fisheries, shark control
programs, boat strikes, port dredging,
debris, activities associated with
national defense, disease, predation,
toxic compounds, and climate change.
Conservation efforts have resulted in
sweeping take prohibitions,
implementation of bycatch reduction
devices, improvement of shark control
devices, and safer dredging practices.
Australia, in particular, has undertaken
extensive marine spatial planning to
protect nesting turtles and internesting
habitat surrounding important nesting
sites. In the southern GBR threats are
well managed, harvest is low, and the
population increasing; however, in the
northern GBR there are concerns for
Raine Island and harvest is a cause for
concern. In the Coral Sea there are few
known threats and it is remote and well
managed from human threats. Although
the DPS shows strength in many of the
critical elements, there are still concerns
about numerous threats including
climate change and habitat degradation.
For the above reasons, we propose to
list the Southwest Pacific DPS as
threatened. We do not find the DPS to
be in danger of extinction presently
because of high nesting abundance and
geographically widespread nesting at a
diversity of sites; however, the
continued threats are likely to endanger
the DPS within the foreseeable future.
XV. Central South Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters
for the Central South Pacific DPS
The range of the Central South Pacific
DPS extends north and east of New
Zealand to include a longitudinal
expanse of 7,500 km—from Easter
Island, Chile in the east to Fiji in the
west, and encompasses American
Samoa, French Polynesia, Cook Islands,
Fiji, Kiribati, Tokelau, Tonga, and
Tuvalu. Its open ocean polygonal
boundary endpoints are (clockwise from
the northwest-most extent): 9° N., 175°
W. to 9° N., 125° W. to 40° S., 96° W.
to 40° S., 176° E., to 13° S., 171° E., and
back to 9° N., 175° W. (Figure 2).
Nesting occurs sporadically
throughout the geographic distribution
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
of the DPS at low levels. Green turtles
departing nesting grounds within the
range of this DPS travel throughout the
South Pacific Ocean. Post-nesting green
turtles tagged in the early 1990s from
Rose Atoll returned to foraging grounds
in Fiji and French Polynesia (Craig et
al., 2004). Nesting females tagged in
French Polynesia migrated west after
nesting to various sites in the western
South Pacific (Tuato’o-Bartley et al.,
1993). In addition to nesting beaches,
green turtles are found in coastal waters
(White and Galbraith, 2013; White,
2013), but in-water information for this
DPS is particularly limited.
Based on available data, we estimate
there are approximately 2,800 nesting
females in this DPS at 59 nesting sites.
The most abundant nesting area was
Scilly Atoll, French Polynesia, which in
the early 1990s was estimated to host
300–400 nesting females annually
(Balazs et al., 1995), and has an
estimated total nesting female
abundance of 1,050 breeding females,
roughly one-third of all nesting females
in the DPS (although this number is
dated, it is used in the Status Review as
it is the most recent data and the best
available). However, Scilly Atoll was
last monitored in the early 1990s (Balazs
et al., 1995), and abundance has
reportedly declined as a result of
commercial exploitation (Conservation
International Pacific Islands Program,
2013). There are six other sites with
101–500 nesting females according to
the best available data, although the
estimate for Nukunonu, Tokelau is from
the 1970s. Many nesting areas (21 of 58,
or 36 percent) only have qualitative
information that nesting is present,
indicating that there is still much to
learn about green turtle nesting in this
region. As these unquantified nesting
sites most likely each have a female
abundance in the 1–100 range, their
collective sum is probably fewer than
700 nesting females. Historical baseline
nesting information in general is not
widely available in this region, but
exploitation and trade of green turtles
throughout the region is well-known
(Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989).
No long-term monitoring programs are
currently available at beaches in this
population, and no single site has had
standardized surveys for even 5
continuous years. Most nesting areas are
in remote, low-lying atolls that are
logistically difficult to access. Partial
and inconsistent monitoring from the
largest nesting site in this DPS, Scilly
Atoll, suggests significant nesting
declines from persistent and illegal
commercial harvesting (Petit, 2013).
Historically, 100–500 females nested
annually at Canton Island, Kiribati
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
(Balazs, 1975b) but, as of 2002, it had an
estimated 29 nesting females. Nesting
abundance is reported to be stable to
increasing at Tongareva Atoll (White
and Galbraith, 2013). It is also reported
to be stable to increasing at Rose Atoll,
Swains Atoll, Tetiaroa, Tikehau, and
Maiao. However, these sites are of
relatively low abundance and in sum
represent less than 16 percent of the
population abundance at Scilly Atoll
alone.
With regard to spatial structure,
genetic sampling in the Central South
Pacific is limited and many of the small
isolated nesting sites that characterize
this region have not been covered.
Mitochondrial DNA studies indicate
there are at least two genetic stocks in
American Samoa and French Polynesia
(Dutton et al., 2014), which have unique
haplotypes (Dutton et al., 2014). Flipper
tag returns and satellite tracking studies
demonstrate that post-nesting turtles
travel the complete geographic breadth
of the range of this DPS, from French
Polynesia in the east to Fiji in the west,
and sometimes even slightly beyond
(Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993; Craig et al.,
2004; Maison et al., 2010; White, 2012),
even as far as the Philippines (Trevor,
2009). Limited demographic
information suggests a low level of
population structuring within this DPS
(Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993; Craig et al.,
2004; White, 2012; White and Galbraith,
2013).
With regard to diversity and
resilience, the Central South Pacific has
a broad geographical area, but the
nesting sites themselves exhibit little
diversity. Most nesting sites are located
in low-lying coral atolls or oceanic
islands and thus are subject to loss of
habitat due to sea level rise. Local
nesting density is sparse spatially,
typically spread over >10 km stretches
of beach and is also low in terms of
abundance. Only one nesting site (Scilly
Atoll with 1,050 females; Balazs et al.,
1995) has a nesting female abundance
exceeding 250, and this estimate is 20
years old. Foraging areas are mostly
coral reef ecosystems, with seagrass
beds in Tonga and Fiji being a notable
exception.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
Central South Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
Nesting in the Central South Pacific
DPS is geographically widespread with
the majority of nesting sites being
remote and not easily accessed, and at
low-lying oceanic islands or coral atolls.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15319
The largest nesting site for this DPS is
believed to be at Scilly Atoll in French
Polynesia. Balazs et al. (1995) report
that the earliest human settlement at
Scilly Atoll in French Polynesia appears
to have occurred around 1952. It is
unclear how much of an effect human
habitation of the atoll has had, or is
having, on the nesting habitat for the
turtle.
In the populated islands of American
Samoa, such as Tutuila, continuous
incremental loss of habitat has occurred
due to varied activities of human
populations (Tuato’o-Bartley et al.,
1993; NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Saili,
2005). Indeed, human population
growth and attendant village expansion
and development on Tutuila Island have
resulted in decreasing usage of some
Tutuila beaches by nesting turtles and
pre-emption of some green turtle nesting
beaches (Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993).
Turtles on Tutuila, possibly disoriented
by land-based lights, are subject to
mortality from cars (A. Tagarino,
American Samoa DMWR, pers. comm.,
2013). Lighting is a potential problem
affecting the quality of the nesting
habitat on Ofu nesting beach as well
(Tagarino, 2012). The main nesting site
in American Samoa is Rose Atoll, which
is uninhabited and therefore without
current threats to terrestrial habitat.
In Samoa, degradation of habitat
through coastal development and
natural disasters as cited in SPREP
(SPREP, 2012) remains a threat (J. Ward,
Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment, Samoa, pers. comm.,
2013).
In Kiribati, historical destruction
(bulldozing) of the vegetation zone next
to the nesting beach on Canton Island in
the Phoenix Islands occurred during
World War II and may have negatively
affected the availability of a portion of
nesting beach area (Balazs, 1975). The
remoteness of these islands and
minimal amount of study of sea turtles
in this area makes recent information on
nesting beach condition and threats
difficult to obtain.
In the Cook Islands, the major nesting
site for green turtles, Tongareva Atoll, is
uninhabited and there are not likely
threats related to development or
human disturbance (White, 2012b).
However, elsewhere in the Cook Islands,
sand extraction (for building purposes)
and building developments are reported
as potential threats to sea turtles; for
instance, the best potential site at
Tauhunu motu on Manihiki appears to
be no longer used for nesting (White,
2012a). Weaver (1996) notes that sea
turtles are negatively affected in Fiji by
modification of nesting beaches. Coastal
erosion in Tonga and Tuvalu is reported
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15320
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
as a major problem for turtle nesting
(Alefaio and Alefaio, 2006; Bell et al.,
2010).
Human consumption has had a
significant impact on green turtles in the
Central South Pacific DPS. Hirth and
Rohovit (1992) report that exploitation
of green turtles for eggs, meat, and parts
has occurred throughout the South
Pacific Region, including American
Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji Islands,
French Polynesia, and Kiribati. Allen
(2007) notes that in Remote Oceania
(which includes this DPS) sea turtles
were important in traditional societies
but, despite this, have experienced
severe declines since human
colonization approximately 2,800 years
ago. At western contact, some of the
islands supported sizable human
populations resulting in intense
pressures on local coastal fisheries.
At Scilly Atoll in French Polynesia
local residents (approximately 20 to 40
people) are allowed to take 50 adults per
year from a nesting population that
could be as low as 300–400 (M. S. Allen,
2007; Balazs et al., 1995). Balazs et al.
(1995) reported that declines in nesting
green turtles at the important areas of
Scilly, Motu-one, and Mopelia, among
the highest density nesting sites in the
DPS, have occurred due to commercial
exploitation for markets in Tahiti, as
well as exploitation due to human
habitation. Illegal harvest of sea turtles
has been reported for French Polynesia
by Te Honu Tea (2007). Brikke (2009)
conducted a study on Bora Bora and
Maupiti islands and reported that sea
turtle meat remains in high demand and
that fines are rarely imposed.
Directed take in the marine
environment has been a significant
source of mortality in American Samoa,
and turtle populations have seriously
declined (Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993;
NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Although
take of sea turtle eggs or sea turtles is
illegal (the ESA applies in this territory),
turtles from American Samoa migrate to
other countries (e.g., Fiji, Samoa, French
Polynesia) where turtle consumption is
legal or occurs illegally (Craig, 1993;
Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993).
Turtles have been traditionally
harvested for food and shells in the
country of Samoa, and over-exploitation
of turtles has negatively affected local
populations (Government of Samoa,
1998). Unsustainable harvest (direct
take for meat) remains a major threat to
green turtles in Samoa (J. Ward,
Government of Samoa, pers. comm.
2013).
In Fiji, Weaver (1996) identified the
contemporary harvest and consumption
of turtles by humans for eggs, meat, and
Little is known regarding the status of
the foraging habitat and threats found in
French Polynesia (Balazs et al., 1995).
NMFS and USFWS (1998) noted that
degradation of coral reef habitats on the
south side of Tutuila Island, American
Samoa is occurring due to
sedimentation from erosion on
agricultural slopes and natural disasters.
Ship groundings are also potential
threats to habitat in American Samoa.
For example, a ship grounded at Rose
Atoll in 1993, damaging reef habitat and
spilling 100,000 gallons of fuel and
other contaminants (USFWS, 2014). In
the nearby neighboring country of
Samoa, coastal and marine areas have
been negatively impacted by pollution
(Government of Samoa, 1998).
Fiji appears to be an important
foraging area for green turtles of this
DPS. Sea turtles have been negatively
affected by alteration and degradation of
foraging habitat and to some extent
pollution or degradation of nearshore
ecosystems (Batibasaga et al., 2006). Jit
(2007) also suggests that sea turtles in
Fiji are threatened by degradation of
reefs and seagrass beds. Given that
turtles outside of Fiji appear to use this
foraging habitat, negative effects to this
foraging area have important
implications for the entire DPS. Tourism
development on the eastern coast of Viti
Levu could negatively impact sea turtle
foraging sites (Jit, 2007).
In Tonga, marine habitat is being
affected by anthropogenic activities.
Heavy sedimentation and poor water
quality have killed patch reefs; high
nutrients and high turbidity are
negatively impacting seagrasses; and
human activities are negatively
impacting mangroves (Prescott et al.,
2004).
Although Palmyra Atoll is now
protected, it was altered by U.S. military
activities during World War II through
dredging, connection, and expansion of
islets (Sterling et al., 2013).
In summary, as to Factor A, we find
that the Central South Pacific DPS of the
green turtle is negatively affected by
ongoing changes in both its terrestrial
and marine habitats as a result of land
and water use practices. Pollution
persists and loss of beach due to coastal
development is significant threats to
this DPS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
shells as a significant threat for sea
turtles. This includes commercial
harvest, as well as subsistence and
ceremonial harvest. In Kiribati (e.g.,
Phoenix Islands), an unknown number
of turtles are caught as bycatch on
longlines and eaten (Obura and Stone,
2002). Poaching has been reported for
Caroline Atoll, but to what extent it
currently occurs is unknown (Teeb’aki,
1992).
In Tonga, Bell et al. (1994) report that
collection of eggs for subsistence occurs.
Prescott et al. (2004) and Havea and
MacKay (2009) also note that it is still
a practice on islands where turtles nest.
Bell et al. (2009) report that in Tonga sea
turtles are harvested and live turtles are
often seen transported from outer
islands to the main island, Tongatapu.
It is unclear if this harvest is
sustainable, especially given the
increased catch rates in Tungua for the
commercial market (Havea and MacKay,
2009).
In Tuvalu, harvest of sea turtles for
their meat has been cited as a major
threat (Alefaio and Alefaio, 2006; Ono
and Addison, 2009). In the Cook
Islands, turtles are sometimes killed
during nesting at Palmerston and
Rakahanga, while nesting and fishing on
Nassau, and while nesting at Manihiki,
Tongareva, and probably at other atolls
(White, 2012). In Tokelau, Balazs (1983)
reported human take of both sea turtle
eggs from nests and adult males and
females while copulating, nesting, or
swimming (by harpoon).
In summary, within Factor B current
legal and illegal collection of eggs and
harvest of turtles throughout the Central
South Pacific DPS persist as a threat to
this DPS. The threat to the stability of
green turtle populations posed by
harvesting nesting females is
particularly significant due to the small
number of nesting females within this
DPS.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
While FP is recorded elsewhere in the
Pacific, it does not appear to be a threat
in the Central South Pacific DPS
(Utzurrum, 2002; A. Tagarino, American
Samoa DMWR, pers. comm., 2013). The
best available data suggest that current
nest and hatchling predation on several
Central South Pacific DPS nesting
beaches and in-water habitats is a
potential threat to this DPS.
Predation of green turtles (e.g., by
sharks) occurs in French Polynesia;
however, the extent of such predation is
unknown. In American Samoa,
Polynesian rats (Rattus exultans) were
an issue at Rose Atoll prior to a 1993
eradication (USFWS, 2014), but no
longer appear to be a problem. Crabs are
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
reported to eat hatchlings at Rose Atoll
(Ponwith, 1990; Balazs, 1993; Pendleton
pers. comm., USFWS, 2013). On Swains
Island, feral pig activity has been
documented and may be a threat to
nests on the island (Tagarino and
Utzurrum, 2010). Predation of green
turtles by sharks has been reported at
Rose Atoll and Palmyra Atoll; however,
the extent of such predation is unknown
(Graeffe, 1873; Sachet, 1954; Balazs,
1999; Sterling et al., 2013). The main
threat to wildlife on Rose Atoll is
thought to be the introduction (or
possible reintroduction) of exotic
species (K. Van Houtan, NMFS, pers.
comm., 2013).
In Samoa, feral animal predation on
turtle nests and eggs remains a threat
(SPREP, 2012; J. Ward, Government of
Samoa, pers. comm., 2013). In other
areas, predation is likely a contributing
threat to green turtles. Introduced
animals, including feral cats, rats, and
feral pigs, are reported problems for
wildlife (Teeb’aki, 1992) and may
threaten green turtles on certain islands
in Kiribati such as Kiritimati. In
Tokelau, identified predators that may
constitute a terrestrial threat to turtles
include hermit crabs, ghost crabs,
Polynesian rats, frigate birds (Fregata
ariel, F. minor), and reef herons (Egretta
sacra; Balazs, 1983). Feral pigs, rats,
crabs, possibly some sea birds, and large
fish are potential predators of sea turtles
(eggs and hatchlings) in the Cook
Islands (White, 2012). Pigs are reported
on Mauke, although their impact on sea
turtles is unquantified (Bradshaw and
Bradshaw, 2012).
Although predation is known to
occur, quantitative data are not
sufficient to assess the degree of impact
of these threats on the persistence of
this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Lack of regulatory mechanisms and/or
adequate implementation and
enforcement is a threat to the Central
South Pacific DPS. The analysis of these
existing regulatory mechanisms
assumed that all would remain in place
at their current levels. Regulatory
mechanisms that address the direct
capture of green turtles for most of the
countries within this DPS specifically
address the harvest of green turtles,
while a few regulations are limited in
that they only apply during certain
times of the year or allow for traditional
harvest.
Numerous countries have reserves
(French Polynesia, Kiribati, Samoa, and
the U.S. Pacific Remote Islands Marine
National Monument), national
legislation, and/or local regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
protecting turtles. These include the
foreign Cook Islands, Fiji, French
Polynesia, Kiribati, Pitcairn Islands,
Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, and the U.S.
territories of Wake, Baker, Howland and
Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef and
Palmyra Atoll. In some places such as
Tokelau and Wallis and Futuna,
information on turtle protection was
either unclear or could not be found. At
least 17 international treaties and/or
regulatory mechanisms apply to the
conservation of green turtles in the
Central South Pacific DPS.
Green turtles in American Samoa are
fully protected under the ESA. Green
turtles are also protected by the Fishing
and Hunting Regulations for American
Samoa (24.0934), which prohibit the
import, export, sale, possession,
transport, or trade of sea turtles or their
parts and take (as defined by the ESA)
and carry additional penalties for
violations at the local government level
(Maison et al., 2010). Additionally, an
American Samoa Executive Order in
2003 established the territorial waters of
American Samoa as a sanctuary for sea
turtles and marine mammals, in 2003;
American Samoa declared its
submerged lands a Whale and Turtle
Sanctuary. It is not known how effective
implementation of these protections is
in American Samoa. The NOAA
National Marine Sanctuary of American
Samoa is comprised of six protected
areas, covering 35,175 km2 of nearshore
coral reef and offshore open ocean
waters across the Samoan Archipelago.
Additionally, Rose Atoll Marine
National Monument was established in
2009 and encompasses the Rose Atoll
National Wildlife Refuge. These
protected areas should provide some
level of protection for green turtles and
their habitat; however the effectiveness
of these monuments for this species is
unknown.
Regulatory mechanisms are
apparently inadequate to curb a
continued loss of nesting habitat and
degradation of foraging habitat due to
human activities and coastal
development on populated islands of
American Samoa, Samoa, Tonga,
Tuvalu, Fiji, and the Cook Islands.
Turtles continue to be harvested for
food and shells, and are used in
commercial, subsistence, and
ceremonial capacities. Rudrud (2010)
suggests that traditional laws in
Polynesia may have historically limited
green turtle consumption to certain
people (chiefs, priests) or special
ceremonies. However, as the societies of
this region have been affected by
Western culture and modernization of
traditions have been altered; traditional
laws have lost their effectiveness in
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15321
limiting negative effects of harvest on
sea turtles.
There are protected areas, within this
DPS, that should provide some level of
protection for green turtles and their
habitat; however the effectiveness of
these monuments for this species is
unknown. The Status Review did not
reveal regulatory mechanisms in place
to specifically address coastal
development, marine pollution, sea
level rise, and effects of climate change
that continue to contribute to the
extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and
commercial fisheries is a significant
threat to the survival of green sea turtles
throughout the Central South Pacific
DPS. The primary gear types involved in
these interactions include longlines and
nets.
Incidental capture in line, trap, or net
fisheries presents a threat to sea turtles
in American Samoa (Tagarino, 2011).
Subsistence gill nets have been known
to occasionally catch green turtles.
Additionally, longline fishing is
considered a threat to Central South
Pacific green turtles. In 2010, the
American Samoa longline fishery was
estimated to have interacted with an
average of 33 green turtles annually,
with a 92 percent mortality rate,
triggering reinitiation of a section 7
consultation; the current incidental take
statement allows 45 green sea turtle
interactions (41 mortalities) every three
years (https://www.fpir.noaa.gov/Library/
PUBDOCs/biological_opinions/622NMFS-ASLL_Am_to_Pelagics_FMP_
Biop_FINAL_9-16-10.pdf).
In Fiji, green turtles are killed in
commercial fishing nets; however, the
exact extent and intensity of this threat
is unknown (Rupeni et al. 2002). Jit
(2007) and McCoy (2008) report that
green turtle bycatch is occurring in
longline tuna fisheries in Fiji. The exact
level of interaction with green turtles is
unclear.
In the Cook Islands, longline fishery
regulations require fishers to adopt the
use of circle hooks and to follow
‘‘releasing hooked turtles’’ guidelines
(Goodwin, 2008), although it is unclear
how effective these regulations are.
McCoy (2008) suggests that sea turtle
bycatch is occurring in tuna fisheries in
the Cook Islands; however, no
information is provided on possible
extent of sea turtle take or the species
that are possibly taken.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15322
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
Direct or indirect disposal of
anthropogenic waste introduces
potentially lethal materials into green
turtle foraging habitats. Green turtles
will ingest plastic, monofilament fishing
line, and other marine debris (Bjorndal
et al., 1994), and the effects may be
lethal or non-lethal, resulting in varying
effects that may increase the probability
of death (Balazs, 1985; Carr, 1987;
McCauley and Bjorndal, 1999). Marine
debris presents a threat to green turtles
in American Samoa (Aeby et al., 2008;
USFWS, 2014; Tagarino et al., 2008). It
is potentially hazardous to adults and
hatchlings and is present at Rose Atoll
(USFWS, 2014). It is also a threat at
nearby inhabited islands.
Pago Pago Harbor in American Samoa
is seriously polluted, and uncontrolled
effluent contaminants have impaired
water quality in some coastal waters
(Aeby et al., 2008). Effects to coastal
habitat (e.g., reefs) from sedimentation
related to development and runoff are
significant potential threats in American
Samoa, and human population
pressures place strains on shoreline
resources (Aeby et al., 2008).
Ship groundings (e.g., at Rose Atoll in
1993) that damage reef habitat and spill
fuel and other contaminants,
degradation of coastal waters due to siltladen runoff from land and nutrient
enrichment from human discharges and
wastes, and contamination by heavy
metals and other contaminants are
threats to green turtles in American
Samoa (NMFS and USFWS, 1998;
USFWS, 2014).
In Fiji, Weaver (1996) identified
potential threats to sea turtles from
heavy metals and industrial waste,
organic loadings in coastal areas, plastic
bags, and leachate poisoning of seagrass
foraging areas. In the Cook Islands,
White (2012) noted possible issues with
oil, tar, or toxic chemicals and terrestrial
run-off into lagoons at Rarotonga, and
Bradshaw and Bradshaw (2012) note
pollution (e.g., accumulation of plastics
on the beach) on Mauke (M.White,
unpubl. data, www.honucookislands
.com).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disasters
Climate change has the potential to
greatly affect green turtles. Potential
impacts of climate change on green
turtles include loss of beach habitat
from rising sea levels, repeated
inundation of nests, skewed hatchling
sex ratios from rising incubation
temperatures, and abrupt disruption of
ocean currents used for natural
dispersal (Fish et al., 2005, 2008;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al.,
2009). Impacts from global climate
change induced by human activities are
likely to become more apparent in
future years (IPCC, 2007).
A recent study of 27 atoll islands in
the central Pacific (including Kiribati
and Tuvalu), demonstrated that 14
percent of islands decreased in area over
a 19–60 year time span (Webb and
Kench, 2010). This occurred in a region
considered most vulnerable to sea-level
rise (Nicholls and Cazenave, 2010)
during a period in which sea-levels rose
2 mm per year.
Catastrophic natural environmental
events, such as cyclones or hurricanes,
may affect green turtles in the Central
South Pacific Ocean, and may
exacerbate issues such as decreased
available habitat due to sea level rise.
These types of events may disrupt green
turtle nesting activity (Van Houtan and
Bass, 2007), even if just on a temporary
scale.
In summary, within Factor E, we find
that incidental fishery bycatch,
interactions with recreational and
commercial vessels, marine pollution as
well as the increasing threat of climate
change, and major storm events are
expected to be an increasing threat to
the persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central
South Pacific DPS
There are many islands and atolls in
the range of this DPS spread across an
expansive area. Conservation efforts,
such as establishment of protected
areas, exist that are beneficial to green
turtles.
It is unclear how well conservation
efforts such as protected areas and the
national legislation relating to green
turtles are working. It appears that the
remoteness of some of the areas is
providing the most conservation
protection for certain threats.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the Central South Pacific
DPS
The Central South Pacific DPS is
characterized by geographically
widespread nesting at very low levels of
abundance, mostly in remote low-lying
oceanic atolls. Nesting is reported in 57
different locations, although some
abundance numbers are 20 years old or
older. By far the highest nesting
abundance estimate is from Scilly Atoll,
French Polynesia (1,050 nesting
females), but this estimate is from 1991
data and abundance of nesting females
has reportedly significantly declined in
the past 30 years as a result of
commercial exploitation. There are also
no long-term monitoring programs that
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
have been active in this DPS for even a
5-year period. While the dispersed
location of nesting sites might provide
a level of habitat diversity and
population resilience which reduces
overall extinction risk, this contribution
is reduced by the low population size of
these sites (only Scilly Atoll has over
225 nesting females) and overall
population size of fewer than 3,000
nesting females.
Chronic and persistent illegal harvest
is a concern in the Central South Pacific
DPS, and sea level rise is a threat that
is expected to increase in the future.
Indeed, climate change may affect this
DPS more than any other because nearly
all nesting sites exist on low-lying
atolls. Sea level rise is expected to
exacerbate beach erosion, inundations,
and storm surge on small islands (IPCC,
2007). The loss of habitat as a result of
climate change could be accelerated due
to a combination of other environmental
and oceanographic changes such as an
increase in the intensity of storms and/
or changes in prevailing currents, both
of which could lead to increased beach
loss via erosion (Kennedy et al., 2002;
Meehl et al., 2007).
For the above reasons, we propose to
list the Central South Pacific DPS as
endangered. Based on its low nesting
abundance and exposure to increasing
threats, we find that this DPS is
presently in danger of extinction
throughout its range.
XVI. Central North Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters
for the Central North Pacific DPS
The range of the Central North Pacific
DPS covers the Hawaiian Archipelago
and Johnston Atoll. It is bounded by a
four-sided polygon with open ocean
extents reaching to 41° N., 169° E. in the
northwest corner, 41° N., 143° W. in the
northeast, 9° N., 125° W. in southeast,
and 9° N., 175° W. in the southwest
(Figure 2). The Hawaiian Archipelago is
the most geographically isolated island
group on the planet. From 1965 to 2013,
17,536 green turtles were tagged,
including all post-pelagic size classes
from juveniles to adults. With only three
exceptions, the 7,360 recaptures of these
tagged turtles have been made within
the Hawaiian Archipelago. The three
outliers involved a recovery in Japan,
one in the Marshall Islands and one in
the Philippines.
The principal nesting site for green
turtles in the Central North Pacific DPS
is FFS, where 96 percent of the
population (3,710 of 3,846 nesting
females) currently nests (Balazs, 1980;
Lipman and Balazs, 1983). However,
nesting was historically abundant at
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
various sites across the archipelago as
recently as 1920 (Kittinger et al., 2013),
and remnant nesting aggregations may
have existed in the MHIs as recently as
the 1930s, but were no longer present in
the 1970s (Balazs, 1976). Current
nesting by green turtles occurs in low
numbers (3–36 nesting females at any
one site) throughout the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) at Laysan,
Lisianski, Pearl and Hermes Reef, and
very uncommonly at Midway. Since
2000, green turtle nesting on the MHI
has been identified in low numbers (1–
24) on seven islands (Frey et al., 2013;
Kittinger et al., 2013; NMFS Pacific
Islands Fisheries Science Center,
unpublished data, 2013). Green turtles
in the Central North Pacific DPS bask on
beaches throughout the NWHI and in
the MHI.
Since nesting surveys were initiated
in 1973, there has been a marked
increase in annual green turtle nesting
at East Island, FFS, where
approximately 50 percent of the nesting
on FFS occurs (Balazs and Chaloupka,
2004, 2006). During the first 5 years of
monitoring (1973–1977), the mean
annual nesting abundance was 83
females, and during the most recent 5
years of monitoring (2009–2012), the
mean annual nesting abundance was
464 females (Balazs and Chaloupka,
2006; G. Balazs, NMFS, unpublished
data). This increase over the last 40
years corresponds to an annual increase
of 4.8 percent.
Information on in-water abundance
trends is consistent with the increase in
nesting (Balazs, 2000; Balazs et al.,
2005; Balazs et al., 1996). This linkage
is to be expected since genetics, satellite
telemetry, and direct observation show
that green turtles from the nesting
beaches in the FFS nesting site remain
resident to foraging pastures throughout
the archipelago (Balazs, 1976; Craig and
Balazs, 1995; Keuper-Bennett and
Bennet, 2000; P. Dutton, NMFS, pers.
comm., 2013). The number of immature
green turtles residing in foraging areas
of the eight MHI has increased (Balazs
et al., 1996). In addition, although the
causes are not totally clear, there has
been a dramatic increase in the number
of basking turtles in the Hawaiian
Islands over the last 2 decades, both in
the southern foraging areas of the main
islands (Balazs et al., 1996) as well as
at northern foraging areas at Midway
Atoll (Balazs et al., 2005).
With regard to spatial structure,
genetic sampling in the Central North
Pacific DPS has been extensive and
representative, given that there are few
nesting populations in this region.
Results of mtDNA analysis indicate a
low level of spatial structure with regard
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
to minor nesting around the MHI and
the NWHI, and the same haplotypes
occur throughout the range of the DPS.
Within the NWHI, studies show no
significant differentiation (based on
mtDNA haplotype frequency) between
FFS and Laysan Island (P. Dutton,
NMFS, pers. comm., 2013). An analysis
by Frey et al. (2013) of the low level of
scattered nesting on the MHI (Moloka‘i,
Maui, O‘ahu, Lana‘i and Kaua‘i; mtDNA
and nDNA) showed that nesting in the
MHI might be attributed to a relatively
small number of females that appear to
be related to each other, and
demographically isolated from FFS.
Frey et al. (2013) suggest that the
nesting population at the MHI may be
the result of a few recent founders that
originated from the FFS breeding
population. Demographic studies of
green turtles do not reveal any
structuring of traits within the DPS.
With regard to diversity and
resilience, because nesting in the
Central North Pacific DPS is unusually
concentrated at one site, there is little
diversity in nesting areas. Balazs
(Balazs, 1980) reported that the
distribution of green turtles in the
Hawaiian Archipelago has been reduced
within historical times, and Kittinger et
al. (2013) suggest that a significant
constriction in the spatial distribution of
important reproduction sites presents a
challenge to the population’s future and
makes this DPS highly vulnerable.
Further, the primary nesting site, FFS, is
a low-lying coral atoll that is susceptible
to erosion, geomorphological changes
and sea level rise, and has already lost
significant nesting area (Baker et al.,
2006).
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
Central North Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
In Hawai‘i, most nesting currently
occurs in the NWHI, although nesting is
increasing in the MHI, as is basking of
green turtles. Coastal development and
construction, vehicular and pedestrian
traffic, beach pollution, tourism, and
other human related activities are
current threats to nesting and basking
habitat in the MHI. These threats will
affect more green turtles in this DPS if
nesting increases in the MHI. Human
populations are growing rapidly in
many areas of the insular Pacific,
including Hawai‘i, and this expansion is
exerting increased pressure on limited
island resources.
Climatic changes in the NWHI pose
threats through reduction in area of
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15323
nesting beaches critical to this DPS
(Baker et al., 2006). Baker et al. (2006)
examined the potential effects of sea
level rise in the NWHI and found that
the primary nesting area for the Central
North Pacific population will be
negatively impacted by sea level rise
through possible loss of nesting habitat.
For example, Whale-Skate Island at
French Frigate Shoals was formerly a
primary green turtle nesting site for this
DPS, but the island has subsided and is
no longer available for nesting (Kittinger
et al., 2013). Trig, Gin, and Little Gin
could lose large portions of their area,
concentrating nesting even further at
East Island (Baker et al., 2006).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Impacts to the quality of coastal
habitats in the MHI are a threat to this
DPS and are expected to continue and
possibly increase with an increasing
human population and annual influx of
millions of tourists. Loss of foraging
habitat or reduction in habitat quality in
the MHI due to nearshore development
is a threat to this DPS. Marina
construction, beach development,
siltation of forage areas, contamination
of forage areas from anthropogenic
activities, resort development or
activities, increased vessel traffic, and
other activities are all considered threats
to this population and its habitat
(Bowen et al., 1992; NMFS and USFWS,
1998; Friedlander et al., 2006; Wedding
and Friedlander, 2008; Wedding et al.,
2008; Van Houtan et al., 2010). Seagrass
and coral reef habitat of Moloka‘i has
been degraded from upland soil erosion
and siltation, and coral reefs of Hawai‘i,
Kaua‘i, Lana‘i, Maui, and O‘ahu have
been degraded by sedimentation,
sewage, or coastal construction (NMFS
and USFWS, 1998). In general, MHI
coral reefs have suffered from landbased sources of pollution, overfishing,
recreational overuse, and alien and
invasive species (Friedlander et al.,
2005). Vessel groundings (mechanical
damage to habitat and reef-associated
organisms) and related release of
contaminants (e.g., fuel, hazardous
substances, etc.) are a threat to Central
North Pacific green turtle habitat (Keller
et al., 2009). It is difficult to predict the
exact number or severity of vessel
groundings expected in any future year,
but key nesting and foraging habitat for
green sea turtles occurs in the areas of
the MHI and the NWHI where
commercial and recreational boating
occurs (Keller et al., 2009).
During the last century, habitat on
Johnston Atoll was affected by military
activities such as nuclear testing and
chemical weapons incineration. The
lingering effects of these activities
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15324
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
include water contamination from
nutrients, dioxins, plutonium, and a
subsurface plume of PCB-contaminated
petroleum product (Balazs, 1985).
In summary, within Factor A, we find
that the loss of nesting beach habitat is
a threat to the DPS in the NWHI. We
find that coastal development and
construction, vehicular and pedestrian
traffic, beach pollution, tourism, and
other human related activities are
threats in the MHI. Climate change,
marina construction, contamination of
forage areas from anthropogenic
activities, resort development or
activities, increased vessel traffic are
significant, increasing threats posing a
risk to the persistence of this DPS.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Harvest of green turtles has been
illegal since green turtles were listed
under the ESA in 1978. It is possible
that human take today is underreported,
as anecdotal information suggests that
some degree of illegal take occurs
throughout the MHI. The extent of such
take is unknown; however, it is believed
that current illegal harvest of green
turtles for human consumption
continues in a limited way, although
Federal and State cooperative efforts
and existing legislation appear to be
minimizing the threat.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
The FP disease affects green turtles
found in the Central North Pacific
Ocean (Francke et al., 2013). This
disease results in internal and/or
external tumors (fibropapillomas) that
may grow large enough to hamper
swimming, vision, feeding, and
potential escape from predators. FP
appears to have peaked in some areas of
Hawai‘i, remained the same in some
regions, and increased in others (Van
Houtan et al., 2010). Environmental
factors may be significant in promoting
FP, and eutrophication (increase in
nutrients) of coastal marine ecosystems
may promote this disease (Van Houtan
et al., 2010). FP remains an important
concern in some green turtle
populations. This is particularly true
given the continued, and possibly future
increasing, human impacts to, and
eutrophication of, coastal marine
ecosystems that may promote this
disease. However, its effects on
reproductive effort are uncertain.
Ghost crabs (Ocypode spp.) prey on
hatchlings at FFS (Niethammer et al.,
1997) at approximately 5 percent
(Balazs, 1980). Large grouper
(Epinephelus tauvina), sea birds, and
sharks are documented natural
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
predators of green turtles in Hawai‘i;
however, the extent of predation is
unknown (Balazs, 1995; Balazs and
Kubis, 2007; Francke, 2013).
Mongoose, rats, dogs, feral pigs, and
cats—all introduced species—that exist
on the MHI are known to prey on eggs
and hatchlings, although the impact on
the current low level of nesting is
unclear (nesting in the MHI is extremely
low compared to historical levels). If
nesting in the MHI increases, the
importance of the threat from these
potential predators would increase.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Regulatory mechanisms that protect
green turtles are in place and include
State, Federal, and international laws.
The analysis of these existing regulatory
mechanisms assumed that all would
remain in place at their current levels.
Numerous Federal and State
governmental and non-governmental
efforts at public education, protection
and monitoring of green turtles
contribute to the conservation of the
Central North Pacific DPS. At least 16
international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms apply to the conservation
of green turtles in the Central North
Pacific.
Nesting occurs exclusively within the
United States. Monitoring and
protective efforts are ongoing for both
nesting areas (in the NWHI and where
nesting is occurring in the MHI) and in
nearshore waters. Regulatory
mechanisms in U.S. jurisdiction are in
place through the ESA, MSA and the
State of Hawai‘i that currently address
direct and incidental take of Central
North Pacific green turtles, and these
regulatory mechanisms have been an
important factor in the encouraging
trend in this DPS.
The Pacific Remote Islands Marine
National Monument was established in
January 2009, and is cooperatively
managed by the Secretary of Commerce
(NOAA) and the Secretary of the Interior
(USFWS), with the exception of Wake
Island and Johnston Atoll, which are
currently managed by the Department of
Defense. The areas extend 92.6 km from
the mean low water lines around
emergent islands and atolls and include
green turtle habitat. Commercial fishing
is prohibited within the limits of the
Monument, and recreational fishing
requires a permit. On September 27,
2014, President Obama issued
Presidential Proclamation 9173 to
expand the Pacific Remote Islands
Monument to incorporate waters and
submerged lands at Jarvis Island, Wake
Island, and Johnston Atoll to the
seaward limit of the U.S. Exclusive
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Economic Zone (EEZ). Proclamation
9173 prohibits commercial fishing in
expanded areas of the Monument, and
directs the Secretaries of Interior and
Commerce to ensure that recreational
and non-commercial fishing continue to
be managed as sustainable activities in
the Monument. The protected areas
provide some protection to sea turtles
and their habitat through permitted
access and its remoteness.
A commercial ban on turtle harvest
was put into place by the State of
Hawai‘i in 1974, 4 years before the green
turtle was listed under the ESA. Since
1978, green turtles have been protected
by the ESA. They are also protected by
the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter
195D (Hawai‘i State Legislature,
accessed Sept. 10, 2010) and Hawai‘i
Administrative Rules, 13–124 (Hawai‘i
Administrative Rules, accessed Sept. 10,
2010), which adopt the same
definitions, status designations, and
prohibitions as the ESA and carry
additional penalties for violations at the
State government level. These two
statutes have been, and currently are,
key tools in efforts to recover and
protect this DPS, and both have
provided for comprehensive protection
and recovery activities that have been
sufficiently effective to improve the
status of green turtles in Hawai‘i
significantly. The ESA and Hawai‘i
statutes are not, however, redundant.
For example, the ESA requires Federal
agencies to consult with the Services on
their actions that may affect green
turtles.
Current monitoring, conservation
efforts, and legal enforcement have been
effective and promote the persistence of
the Central North Pacific DPS, which
occurs almost exclusively in U.S.
waters. It is important to note, however,
that the analysis by the SRT did not
consider the scenario in which current
laws or regulatory mechanisms were not
continued. Under the ESA, regulatory
measures provide protections that are
not provided entirely by State
protections. For instance, if the DPS was
delisted and the protections of the ESA
were no longer in place, many on-theground conservation and monitoring
actions and, importantly, financial
resources that are afforded by the ESA
(e.g., section 6) would not continue. In
addition, the taking of green turtles in
the United States requires authorization
under sections 7 or 10 of the ESA and
their implementing regulations. For
example, activities that affect green
turtles and do not involve Federal
agencies, such as coastal development,
construction, and research, must
comply with section 10 of the ESA to
avoid violating the statute. Section 10
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
permits require avoiding, minimizing,
and mitigating impacts to green turtles
to the extent possible. Federal actions
(i.e., those authorized, funded, or
carried out by Federal agencies), are
subject to consultation with the Services
under section 7 of the ESA; those
resulting in take of green turtles are
required to minimize effects. These
actions include, but are not limited to,
federally regulated fisheries and
management and research activities
within the federally-protected
¯
¯
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National
Monument in the NWHI.
The threat of bycatch in international
fisheries is not adequately regulated,
although bycatch in domestic Federal
fisheries has been addressed to a greater
extent. In addition, some threats to the
species, such as climate change, are
either not able to be regulated under the
ESA, or not regulated sufficiently to
control or even slow the threat.
The Status Review did not reveal
regulatory mechanisms in place to
specifically address marine pollution,
sea level rise, and effects of climate
change that continue to contribute to the
extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting its Continued
Existence
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
The SRT identified incidental capture
in fisheries as a significant threat to
green turtles of the Central North Pacific
DPS. The primary gear types involved in
these interactions include longlines and
nets. These are employed by both
artisanal and industrial fleets, and target
a variety of species.
i. Longline Fisheries
Pacific longline fisheries capture
green turtles as bycatch in longline gear
(line, hooks), and these interactions can
result in mortality (NMFS, 2012). U.S.
longline fisheries are required to comply
with sea turtle mitigation measures (50
CFR 665.812), including the use of
circle hooks, dehookers, line clippers,
and crewmember training, that have
reduced green sea turtle interactions to
negligible levels. However, while exact
numbers are not available, it is
estimated that, at a minimum, 100 green
turtles from the Central North Pacific
DPS are captured and killed annually by
foreign longlines (NMFS, 2012).
ii. Gillnet Fisheries
Interactions between Central North
Pacific green turtles and nearshore
fisheries in the MHI can result in
entanglement, injury, and mortality.
Balazs et al. (1987) documented sea
turtle mortality resulting from bycatch
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
in fishing gear over 25 years ago in
Hawai‘i. While gill nets are regulated by
the state of Hawai‘i, fishers are only
required to inspect them completely
every two hours, so entanglement and
drowning does occur (NMFS, 2012).
Each year green sea turtles are
incidentally entangled in net gear, some
of these resulting in mortality (e.g.,
Francke, 2013); however the reported
strandings in the MHI are believed to be
a smaller subset of the actual level of
interaction with this gear.
iii. Other Gear Types
Hook-and-line fishing from shore or
boats also hooks and entangles green
turtles (Francke et al., 2013; NMFS,
2012). Interactions with nearshore
recreational fisheries are identified in
the NMFS stranding database as those
turtles that strand as a result of
interactions with fish hooks and fishing
line. Nearshore fishery interactions have
increased over time (Francke, 2013;
Francke et al., 2013; Ikonomopoulou et
al., 2013). While current public
outreach efforts by NMFS and its
partners attempt to reduce the
magnitude of impact on green turtles
from hook-and-line fishing, injury or
mortality from the hooking or from the
effects of line remaining on turtles that
are cut free or break the line remains an
issue (https://pifscblog.wordpress.com/
2013/06/07/marine-turtle-responseachieves-significant-milestone/).
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
The ingestion of and entanglement in
marine debris is another anthropogenic
threat to Central North Pacific green
turtles throughout their range. Marine
debris is common in the MHI and a
direct threat to sea turtles (Wedding and
Friedlander, 2008). Stranding
information for this DPS shows that
entanglement in lost or discarded
fishing line is one of the causes of green
turtle strandings and mortality in the
MHI. In the NWHI, marine debris is also
a threat in the terrestrial and marine
environment. In 1996, it was estimated
that between 750 and 1,000 tons of
marine debris were on reefs and beaches
in the NWHI, and the source of much of
the debris is fishing nets discarded or
lost in the northeastern Pacific Ocean
(Keller et al., 2009). Turtles in the MHI
encounter pollution as a result of coastal
development, runoff, and waste water
(point source and non-point source
pollution; Friedlander et al., 2008).
c. Vessel Interactions
As in other parts of the world, boating
activities are a threat to turtles within
this DPS (Francke et al., 2013).
Chaloupka et al. (2008b) report that 2.5
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15325
percent of green turtle strandings (N =
3,745) were caused by boat strike in the
Hawaiian Archipelago from 1982 to
2003. Additionally, boat traffic has been
shown to exclude green turtles from
preferred coastal foraging pastures
(Seminoff et al., 2002c), which may
negatively affect their nutritional intake.
Vessel groundings (mechanical
damage to habitat and reef-associated
organisms) and related release of
contaminants (e.g., fuel, hazardous
substances, etc.) are a threat not only to
Central North Pacific green turtle
habitat, but directly to the turtles
themselves. Thirteen reported vessel
groundings have occurred in the NWHI
in the last 60 years (Keller et al., 2009).
Vessel traffic and presence can also
have negative effects through habitat
damage from anchors, waste discharge,
light and noise (Keller et al., 2009).
d. Effects of Climate Change
As in other areas of the world, climate
change and sea level rise have the
potential to negatively affect green
turtles in the Central North Pacific DPS.
Climate change influences on water
temperatures, ocean acidification, sea
level and related changes in coral reef
habitat, wave climate and coastal
shorelines are expected to continue
(Friedlander et al., 2008). Keller et al.
(2009) suggest that sea level rise,
changing storm dynamics, sea surface
temperatures, and ocean acidification
are key threats for the NWHI, and that
evidence of sea level rise has already
begun to adversely affect terrestrial and
ocean habitat. Tiwari et al. (2010)
argued that East Island itself is still not
yet at carrying capacity, in the sense of
crude nesting area and current nesting
densities. Yet entire islands have been
submerged in recent history (i.e., WhaleSkate in the late 1990s), resulting in the
loss of a primary nesting site at FFS
(Baker et al., 2006). It is likely that sea
level rise will lead to increased erosion
of nesting beaches and significant loss
of habitat (Baker et al., 2006; IPCC,
2007); however, it remains unclear how
nesting habitat loss and natal homing
traits will influence future nesting in
this DPS.
As temperatures increase, there is
concern that incubation temperatures
could reach levels that exceed the
thermal tolerance for embryonic
development, thus increasing embryo
and hatchling mortality (Balazs and
Kubis, 2007; Fuller et al., 2010).
Niethammer et al. (Niethammer 1997)
note that given that the FFS nesting
colony is on the northern extreme of
green turtle breeding range, small
changes in beach conditions (e.g.,
microhabitats of nests) may have severe
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15326
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
consequences on nesting. Changes in
global temperatures could also affect
juvenile and adult distribution patterns.
Possible changes to ocean currents and
dynamics may result in negative effects
to natural dispersal during a complex
life cycle (Van Houtan and Halley,
2011), and possible nest mortality
linked to erosion may result from
increased storm frequency (Van Houtan
and Bass, 2007) and intensity (Keller et
al., 2009).
While sea turtles have survived past
eras that have included significant
temperature fluctuations, future climate
change is expected to happen at
unprecedented rates, and if turtles
cannot adapt quickly they may face
local to widespread extirpations
(Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts from
global climate change induced by
human activities are likely to become
more apparent in future years (IPCC,
2007).
e. Effects of Spatial Structure
While the nesting population
trajectory in the Central North Pacific
DPS is positive and encouraging, the
DPS exhibits moderately low levels of
abundance (3,846 nesting females), and
more than 96 percent of nesting occurs
at one site in the NWHI (FFS).
Therefore, survival of this DPS is
currently highly dependent on
successful nesting at FFS (Niethammer
et al., 1992). The concentrated nature
and relatively small size of the nesting
population make it vulnerable to
random variation and stochasticities in
the biological and physical
environment, including natural
catastrophes, as well as changes in
climate and resulting effects such as sea
level rise. This increases its risk of
extinction, even though the DPS may
currently have positive population
growth (e.g., Meffe et al., 1994; Primack,
1998; Balazs and Kubis, 2007; Hunter
and Gibbs, 2007). That said, aside from
sea level rise, FFS is relatively isolated
from anthropogenic threats, as it occurs
¯
¯
within the Papahanaumokuakea Marine
National Monument, a remote
Monument that has controlled access for
activities that occur within it. The
regional range expansion into nesting
areas in the MHI provide increased
spatial diversity and may buffer against
the loss of nesting sites at FFS; however,
nesting areas in the MHI are exposed to
anthropogenic threats.
Within Factor E, we find that
incidental bycatch in fishing gear,
marine pollution, interactions with
recreational and commercial vessels,
climate change, beach driving, and
major storm events all negatively affect
green turtles in the Central North Pacific
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
DPS. The consideration of climate
change, and the fact that the one
isolated atoll, where approximately 96
percent of green turtles within this DPS
nest, is extremely vulnerable to sea level
rise, increase the risk of extinction for
this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central
North Pacific DPS
The State of Hawai‘i’s efforts to
conserve green turtles include: Wildlife
regulations; coordination of stranding
response and specimen storage on the
islands of Maui, Hawai‘i, and Kaua‘i;
issuance and management of special
activity permits; statewide outreach and
education activities; and nest
monitoring on Maui (Department of
Land and Natural Resources, 2013).
Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources
staff responds to stranded turtle reports
and issues special use permits to
researchers and educators. The Division
of Conservation and Resources
Enforcement investigates reports of
illegal poaching, provides support and
security at some nest sites and
strandings, and addresses complaints
from the public regarding turtle
disturbances.
With regard to conservation areas, the
¯
¯
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National
Monument in the NWHI is a
conservation area established in 2006
that encompasses coral reefs, islands
and shallow water environments. It
comprises several previously existing
Federal conservation areas, including
the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem
Reserve, Midway Atoll National
Wildlife Refuge, Hawaiian Islands
National Wildlife Refuge, NWHI Marine
Refuge, State Seabird Sanctuary at Kure
Atoll and the Battle of Midway National
Memorial. The Monument is
administered jointly by three cotrustees: NOAA, the USFWS, and the
State of Hawai‘i. The Monument’s
mission is to carry out seamless
integrated management to ensure
ecological integrity and achieve strong,
long-term protection and perpetuation
of NWHI ecosystems, Native Hawaiian
culture, and heritage resources for
current and future generations.
Commercial fishing is prohibited in the
Monument and all other human
activities require a permit.
Overall, conservation efforts have
been successful in this DPS, as
exhibited by the increasing trend in the
green turtle population.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the Central North Pacific
DPS
The Central North Pacific DPS is
characterized by geographically
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
concentrated nesting (96 percent of
nesting occurs at one location) and
moderately low levels of abundance
(3,846 nesting females). Such a low
number is the result of chronic
historical exploitation, which extirpated
80 percent of historically major nesting
grounds (Kittinger et al., 2013). The DPS
is geographically and chronologically
well-sampled, with no sites where
nesting is unquantified, and very little
chance there are undocumented nesting
locations. Time series analysis of
nesting female abundance over 40 years
at FFS shows a marked increase in
nesting since surveys were initiated in
1973, with an encouraging annual rate
of increase of 4.8 percent. However, 96
percent of nesting now occurs at one
atoll (FFS)—where sea level rise is a
significant concern—and no more than
40 females nest at any of the other 11
sites. Information on in-water
abundance trends is consistent with the
increase in nesting.
The Status Review indicates that the
DPS shows strength in its population
trend, but that there are concerns about
overall abundance, spatial structure,
and diversity/resilience. Indeed, in spite
of the positive trends in the last few
decades, the unprecedented
concentration of nesting at one site and
moderately low population size raise
serious concerns about the resilience of
this DPS, particularly its ability to adapt
to future climate scenarios. Ninety-eight
percent of the population nests are low
lying atolls (96 percent nesting in a
single low-lying atoll), making them
extremely vulnerable to sea level rise—
some effects of which have already been
witnessed. Keller et al. (2009) suggest
that sea level rise, changing storm
dynamics, sea surface temperatures, and
ocean acidification are key threats for
the NWHI. Current and projected maps
of four islands in the NWHI predicted
a sea level rise ranging from 9 cm to 88
cm by 2100, with a projected loss of
nesting beach at approximately 15 to 26
percent (IPCC, 2001). Further, sea level
rise is expected to continue at a rate
exceeding that observed during 1971–
2010 as a result of increased ocean
warming and increased loss of glacier
and ice sheet mass (IPCC, 2013). Baker
et al. (2006) examined the potential
effects of sea level rise in the NWHI and
found that the primary nesting area for
the Central North Pacific population is
threatened by sea level rise through
possible loss of nesting habitat. They
note that one formerly significant
nesting site—Whale-Skate Island—is
now completely submerged. They
further note that the islets of Trig, Gin
and Little Gin could lose large portions
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
of their area, concentrating nesting even
further at East Island. In contrast, Tiwari
et al. (2010) argued that East Island itself
is still not yet at carrying capacity, in
the sense of crude nesting area and
current nesting densities. It remains
unclear how catastrophic nesting habitat
loss and natal homing traits will
influence future nesting in this DPS.
Habitat degradation resulting from the
release of contaminants contained in
landfills and other areas of the NWHI
could also occur as the islands erode or
are flooded from sea level rise (Keller et
al., 2009). Other effects of climate
change include increasing temperatures
at nesting beaches that may affect
hatchling sex ratios and embryonic
development (Balazs and Kubis, 2007;
Fuller et al., 2010b). Making this an
even greater concern is that climate
change and the resultant sea level rise
are difficult to regulate and certainly
cannot be sufficiently regulated through
the ESA to slow its effects.
In summary, despite an upward trend
in population abundance, the Central
North Pacific DPS is characterized by
geographically concentrated nesting and
low levels of abundance (3,846 nesting
females). The lack of redundancy in
nesting sites and the low nesting
numbers at these sites lead to low
resilience within this DPS. The
consideration of climate change, and the
fact that the one isolated atoll, where
approximately 96 percent of green
turtles within this DPS nest, is
extremely vulnerable to sea level rise,
increase the risk of extinction.
For the above reasons, we propose to
list the Central North Pacific DPS as
threatened. We do not find the DPS to
be in danger of extinction presently
because of the increasing nesting trend;
however, the continued threats coupled
with a small and narrowly distributed
nesting population are likely to
endanger the DPS within the foreseeable
future.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
XVII. East Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters
for the East Pacific DPS
The range of the East Pacific DPS
extends from the California/Oregon
border (41 °N) southward along the
Pacific coast of the Americas to central
Chile (40 °S). Green turtles originating
from this DPS regularly strand along the
shoreline of Oregon and Washington.
The northern and southern boundaries
of this DPS extend from the
aforementioned locations in the United
States and Chile to 142 °W and 96 °W,
respectively. The offshore boundary of
this DPS is a straight line between these
two coordinates. This DPS encompasses
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
the Revillagigedos Archipelago, Mexico
´
and the Galapagos Archipelago, Ecuador
(Figure 2). The East Pacific DPS also
includes the Mexican Pacific coast
breeding population, which is currently
listed as endangered (43 FR 32800, July
28, 1978).
Green turtle nesting is widely
dispersed in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.
We identified 40 total nesting sites for
which abundance information is
available, although there are sporadic
nesting events in other areas with
undocumented abundance. The largest
nesting aggregation is found in Colola,
´
Michoacan, Mexico, with 11,588 nesting
females, or nearly 58 percent of the total
nesting population (Delgado-Trejo and
Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012). The second
´
largest site is in the Galapagos Islands,
Ecuador, where nesting at the four
primary nesting sites (Quinta Playa and
Barahona (Isabela Island), Las Bachas
(Santa Cruz Island), and Las Salinas
(Baltras Island)) has been stable to
slightly increasing since the late 1970s,
and was last estimated at 3,603 nesting
`
females in 2005 (Zarate et al., 2006;
`
Zarate, unpubl. data). Other nesting
´
areas are found in Michoacan, including
Bahia Maruata (1,149; Delgado-Trejo
and Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012) and
Motin de Oro (240; Delgado-Trejo and
Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012); Clarion and
Socorro Islands in the Revillagigedos
Archipelago, Mexico (500; Blanco and
´
Santidrian, 2011); and 26 sites
throughout the Pacific Coast of Costa
Rica, including Playa San Jose in the Bat
Islands (498; L. Fonseca, unpubl. data),
Playa Colorada (498; L. Fonseca,
unpubl. data), Nombre Jesus (450;
´
Blanco and Santidrian, 2011), Playa
´
Cabuyal (273; P. Santidrian-Tomillo,
Leatherback Trust, pers. comm., 2013),
Playa Zapotillal (150; Blanco and
´
Santidrian, 2011) and Playa Nancite
(123; Fonseca et al., 2011). Low level
nesting (fewer than 100 nesting females)
occurs elsewhere in Mexico, Costa Rica,
mainland Ecuador, Colombia,
Guatemala, and Peru, although the last
two are unquantified (G. TiburciosPintos, Minicipio de Los Cabos, pers.
comm., 2012; S. Kelez, ecOceanica,
pers. comm., 2012).
Nesting at the largest beach in the
´
range of this DPS (Colola, Michoacan,
Mexico) has shown an upward trend
since 1996. The observed increase at
Colola may have resulted from the onset
of nesting beach protection in 1979—as
is suggested by the similarity in timing
between the onset of beach conservation
and the age-to-maturity for green turtles
in Pacific Mexico. The initial upward
turn in annual nesting was seen in 1996,
about 17 years after the initiation of a
nesting beach protection program
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15327
´
(Cliffton et al., 1982; Alvarado-Dıaz et
al., 2001), and growth data from the Gulf
of California suggest that green turtles in
this DPS mature at 15–25 years
(Seminoff et al., 2002a). Although not a
clear cause of the increasing nesting
trend, the consistency in timing is
nonetheless compelling. The
presidential decree protecting all sea
turtles of Mexico (Pesca, 1990) certainly
helped the situation, but this occurred
much later than the start of nesting
beach conservation. It is more likely that
this national legislation has had its
greatest positive impact at the foraging
areas, where green turtle hunting was
once rampant.
With regard to spatial structure,
genetic sampling in the eastern Pacific
has been extensive and the coverage in
this region is substantial considering the
relatively low population sizes of most
eastern Pacific nesting sites. Within this
DPS there is significant population
substructuring. Four regional genetic
stocks have been identified in the
eastern Pacific (P. Dutton, NMFS,
unpubl. data): Revillagigedos
´
Archipelago (Mexico), Michoacan
´
(Mexico), Costa Rica, and the Galapagos
Islands (Ecuador). There is a relatively
high level of spatial structure and the
presence of rare/unique haplotypes at
each nesting site stock. Green turtles
from multiple nesting beach origins
commonly mix at feeding areas in the
Gulf of California (Nichols, 2003; P.
Dutton, NMFS, unpubl. data). A recent
study using nuclear single nucleotide
polymorphisms (a DNA sequence
variation occurring commonly within a
population) and microsatellite markers
investigated the genetic stock structure
among five Pacific green turtle nesting
populations. They found significant
structure between their two eastern
´
Pacific sample sites (Galapagos and
Mexico), suggesting that male-mediated
gene flow between regional nesting
stocks is limited (Roden et al., 2013).
Flipper tag recoveries show 94 tag
returns from foraging areas that were
applied at two primary nesting sites,
´
´
Michoacan Mexico and the Galapagos
Islands, Ecuador. Two apparent
groupings suggest some North/South
structure. Forty-nine satellite tracks of
green turtles in the eastern Pacific show
apparent track clustering in Northwest
Mexico to Southern United States, and
in the Southeast Pacific, from the
´
Galapagos Islands to the high seas and
to the Central American mainland.
There are too few satellite tracks to
provide solid information on spatial
structure. Within-region variation in
demographic features also suggests a
level of spatial structure for the East
Pacific DPS. Among all nesting
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15328
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
assemblages in the East Pacific DPS, the
Revillagigedos Islands stands out as
uniquely different from the remaining
areas.
With regard to diversity and
resilience, the East Pacific DPS has
substantial nesting at both insular and
continental nesting sites. The presence
of year round nesting at some sites, and
non-overlapping nesting seasons at
others, suggest that the nesting
phenology of green turtles in this DPS
may help buffer in geologic time against
climate change, both in terms of
increased mean incubation temperatures
on beaches and in terms of impact to
storms and other seasonal events. The
´
nesting season in Michoacan runs from
´
October through January (Alvarado-Dıaz
and Figueroa, 1990); in the
Revillagigedos Islands nesting occurs
from March through November with a
peak in April/May (Awbrey et al., 1984;
´
Brattstrom, 1982) and in the Galapagos,
nesting occurs year-round with a peak
´
from January to March (Zarate et al.,
2013). Year-round nesting has also been
confirmed for some areas in Costa Rica.
There is a range of beach shade levels
depending on the nesting beach. At
some sites such as those in the
Revillagigedos Islands and beaches in
Mexico, the beaches have little
vegetation and nests are commonly laid
in full-sun areas. On the other hand, the
beaches in Costa Rica are highly shaded
and nests are commonly deposited deep
in the coastal scrub bushes and trees.
There are also intermediate sites, such
´
as those in the Galapagos, which have
a mix of full sun and shade sites on any
given beach. While the exposed beaches
are more likely to suffer from the
impacts of climate change, those in
shaded areas may be subjected to less
heating.
traffic during the nesting season
(Seminoff, 1994). Nest destruction due
to human presence is also a threat to
´
nesting beaches in the Galapagos Islands
´
(Zarate et al., 2006). However, such
´
threats vary by site (Zarate, 2012).
Insular sites have very low levels of
human interference at nesting beaches,
although turtles may be affected in
foraging areas. The low impacts at
insular nesting sites suggest that these
areas may serve as nesting refugia if
management regimes change and/or
poaching at continental sites increases.
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
With respect to environmental
degradation in the marine environment,
coastal habitats along the continental
and insular shores of the eastern Pacific
are relatively pristine, although green
turtles in San Diego Bay, at the north
edge of their range, have high levels of
contaminants (Komoroske et al., 2011;
2012). However, the nutrient flow and
structure within seagrass communities
in many coastal areas are likely
modified today due to the depletion of
green turtles which, during times of
higher abundance, would have been
keystone consumers in these habitats
(Bjorndal, 1980; Thayer et al., 1992;
Seminoff et al., 2012b). Although the
impacts of ongoing and proposed
human activities are difficult to
quantify, recent human population
increases in many areas underscore the
need to develop and implement
management strategies that balance
development and economic activities
with the needs of green turtles.
In summary, within Factor A we find
that the East Pacific DPS of the green
turtle is negatively affected by ongoing
changes in both its terrestrial and
marine habitats as a result of land and
water use practices. We also find that
coastal development, beachfront
lighting, and heavy foot traffic
consistently affect hatchlings and
nesting turtles on a small portion of this
DPS.
a. Terrestrial Zone
The largest threat on nesting beaches
in the East Pacific DPS is reduced
availability of habitat due to heavy
armament and subsequent erosion. In
addition, while nesting beaches in Costa
Rica, Revillagigedos Islands, and the
´
Galapagos Islands are less affected by
coastal development than green turtle
nesting beaches in other regions around
the Pacific, several of the secondary
´
green turtle nesting beaches in Mexico
suffer from coastal development. For
example, effects of coastal development
are especially acute at Maruata, a site
with heavy tourist activity and foot
2. Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
In some countries and localities
within the range of the East Pacific DPS,
harvest of green turtle eggs is legal,
while in others it is illegal but persistent
due to lack of enforcement. The impact
of egg harvest is exacerbated by the high
monetary value of eggs, consistent
market demand, and severe poverty in
many of the countries in the Eastern
Pacific Region where sea turtles are
found. Egg harvest is a major
conservation challenge at several sites
in Costa Rica, including Nombre de
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the
East Pacific DPS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Jesus and Zapotillal Beaches, where 90
percent of the eggs were taken by egg
collectors during one particular study
(Blanco, 2010). Egg harvest is also
believed to occur at unprotected nesting
sites in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador,
and Nicaragua (NMFS and USFWS,
2007). Indeed, green turtles are hunted
in many areas of northwest Mexico
despite legal protection (Nichols et al.,
2002; Seminoff et al., 2003; J. Seminoff,
NMFS, pers. obs., 2012). Mancini and
Koch (2009) describe a black market that
killed tens of thousands of green turtles
each year in the Eastern Pacific Region.
Sea turtles were, and continue to be,
harvested primarily for their meat,
although other products have served
important non-food uses. Sea turtle oil
was for many years used as a cold
remedy and the meat, eggs and other
products have been highly-valued for
their aphrodisiacal qualities, beliefs that
strongly persist in the countries
bordering the East Pacific DPS.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
FP is virtually non-existent in green
turtles within the East Pacific DPS
(Koch et al., 2007), and predation occurs
´
at low levels. In the Galapagos Islands
there is depredation on eggs and
hatchlings by feral pigs (Sus sp.) and
beetles (order Coleoptera), although
´
predation levels are not reported (Zarate
et al., 2003; 2006). There are accounts of
jaguars (Panthera onca) killing adult
female green turtles (L. Fonseca,
National University of Costa Rica,
unpubl. data, 2009) at beaches in Costa
Rica, but this is not a major problem for
the DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The following countries have laws to
protect green turtles: Chile, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and the
United States. In addition, at least 10
international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms apply to the conservation
of green turtles in the East Pacific DPS.
Overall, regulatory mechanisms for
green turtles in the East Pacific DPS are
inconsistent. While there are numerous
substantive and/or improving
conservation efforts, especially on the
primary nesting beaches, and this may
be reflected in the recent increases in
the number of nesting females, many
concerns remain due to limited
enforcement of existing laws and marine
protected areas as well as extensive
fishery bycatch, especially in coastal
waters. The analysis of existing
regulatory mechanisms assumed that all
would remain in place at their current
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
levels; however, some regulatory
mechanisms, including laws and
international treaties, are not realizing
their full potential because they are not
enforced adequately in all countries
occupied by the DPS.
While most of the major nesting
beaches are monitored, some of the
management measures in place are
inadequate and may be inappropriate.
On some beaches, hatchling releases are
coordinated with the tourist industry or
nests are being trampled on or are
unprotected. The largest threat on the
nesting beaches, reduced availability of
habitat due to heavy armament and
subsequent erosion, is just beginning to
be addressed, but without immediate
attention may ultimately result in the
demise of the highest density beaches.
Further, it is suspected that there are
substantial impacts from illegal,
unreported, and unregulated fishing,
which we are unable to mitigate without
additional fisheries management efforts
and international collaborations. While
conservation projects for this population
have been in place since 1978 for some
important areas, efforts in other areas
are still being developed to address
major threats, including fisheries
bycatch and long-term nesting habitat
protection.
Bycatch has not been thoroughly
evaluated but it is largely known that
most fishermen either improperly
implement TEDs or remove them
entirely from their trawls. As was the
case with sea turtle meat and egg
collection, an almost total lack of
enforcement of bycatch mitigation
measures by local authorities only helps
to confound the problem. Additionally,
TEDs are not a requirement for artisanal
shrimping boats which, with today’s
technology, are becoming more
‘industrial’ in ability and have been
reported to catch large numbers of sea
turtles. It is unlikely that bycatch
mortality can be sufficiently reduced
across the range of the DPS in the near
future because of the diversity and
magnitude of the fisheries operating in
the DPS, the lack of comprehensive
information on fishing distribution and
effort, limitations on implementing
demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities,
limitations on enforcement capacity,
and lack of availability of
comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies.
The Status Review did not reveal
regulatory mechanisms in place to
specifically address impacts to the
nesting beach, marine pollution, sea
level rise, and effects of climate change
that continue to contribute to the
extinction risk of this DPS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and
commercial fisheries is a significant
threat to the survival of green turtles
throughout the Eastern Pacific Ocean.
The primary gear types involved in
these interactions include longlines,
drift nets, set nets, and trawl fisheries.
These are employed by both artisanal
and industrial fleets, and target a wide
variety of species including tunas
(Thunnus sp.), sharks (class
Chondrichthyes), sardines (Sardinella
sp.), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), and
mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus).
In the Eastern Pacific Ocean,
particularly areas in the southern
portion of the range of this DPS,
significant bycatch has been reported in
artisanal gill net and longline shark and
mahi mahi fisheries operating out of
Peru (Kelez et al., 2003; Alfaro-Shigueto
et al., 2006) and, to a lesser extent, Chile
(Donoso and Dutton, 2010). The fishing
industry in Peru is the second largest
economic activity in the country and,
over the past few years, the longline
fishery has rapidly increased. During an
observer program in 2003/2004, 588 sets
were observed during 60 trips, and 154
sea turtles were taken as bycatch. Green
turtles were the second most common
sea turtle species in these interactions.
In many cases, green turtles are kept on
board for human consumption;
therefore, the mortality rate in this
artisanal longline fishery is likely high
because sea turtles are retained for
future consumption or sale.
Koch et al. (2006) reported green
turtle bycatch-related dead strandings
numbering in the hundreds in Bahia
Magdalena. In Baja California Sur,
Mexico, from 2006–2009 small-scale
gill-net fisheries caused massive green
turtle mortality at Laguna San Ignacio,
where Mancini et al. (2012) estimated
that over 1,000 turtles were killed each
year in nets set for guitarfish.
Bycatch in coastal areas occurs
principally in shrimp trawlers, gill nets
and bottom longlines (e.g., Orrego and
Arauz, 2004). However, since 1996, all
countries from Mexico to Ecuador
declared the use of TEDs as mandatory
for all industrial fleets to meet the
requirements to export shrimp to the
United States under the U.S. MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Helvey and Fahy,
2012). Since then, bycatch has not been
thoroughly evaluated but it is widely
believed that most fishers either
improperly implement TEDs or remove
them entirely from their trawls.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15329
Additionally, TEDs are not required
for artisanal shrimping boats, which
with today’s technology, are becoming
more ‘industrial’ in ability and have
been reported to catch large numbers of
sea turtles (A. Zavala, Universidad de
Sinaloa, pers. comm., 2012). Bottom-set
longlines and gill nets, both artisanal
and industrial, also interact frequently
with sea turtles, and can have
devastating mortality rates, such as has
been the case in artisanal fisheries of
Baja California, Mexico (Peckham et al.,
2007). In purse seine fisheries, which
typically target tuna and other large
pelagic fish species, the highest rate of
turtles are captured with ‘‘log sets’’
around natural floating objects or Fish
Aggregation Devices (Hall, 1998).
b. Pollution
Other threats such as debris ingestion
(Seminoff et al., 2002c) and boat strikes
(P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2012;
NMFS stranding records, unpubl.) also
affect green turtles in the Eastern
Pacific. Red tide poisoning is also a
threat to this species (Delgado-Trejo and
Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012).
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural
Disasters
Effects of climate change include,
among other things, sea surface
temperature increases, the alteration of
thermal sand characteristics of beaches
(from warming temperatures), which
could result in the reduction or
cessation of male hatchling production
(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al.,
2009), and a significant rise in sea level,
which could significantly restrict green
turtle nesting habitat. While sea turtles
have survived past eras that have
included significant temperature
fluctuations, future climate change is
expected to happen at unprecedented
rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread
extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change
induced by human activities are likely
to become more apparent in future years
(IPCC, 2007). However, at the primary
´
nesting beach in Michoacan, Mexico
(Colola), the beach slope aspect is
extremely steep and the dune surface at
which the vast majority of nests are laid
is well-elevated. This site is likely
buffered against short-term sea level rise
as a result of climate change. In
addition, many nesting sites are along
protected beach faces, out of tidal surge
pathways. For example, multiple
nesting sites in Costa Rica and in the
´
Galapagos Islands are on beaches that
are protected from major swell coming
in from the ocean.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15330
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Within Factor E, we find that fishery
bycatch that occurs throughout the
eastern Pacific Ocean, particularly
bycatch mortality of green turtles from
nearshore gill net fisheries, is a
significant threat to the persistence of
this DPS.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. Conservation Efforts for the East
Pacific DPS
There are a multitude of NGOs and
conservation networks whose efforts are
raising awareness about sea turtle
conservation.
Protection of green turtles is provided
by local marine reserves throughout the
region. In addition, sea turtles may
benefit from the following broader
regional efforts: (1) The Eastern Tropical
Pacific (ETP) Marine Corridor (CMAR)
Initiative supported by the governments
of Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, and
Ecuador, which is a voluntary
agreement to work towards sustainable
use and conservation of marine
resources in these countries’ waters; (2)
the ETP Seascape Program managed by
Conservation International that supports
cooperative marine management in the
ETP, including implementation of the
CMAR; (3) the IATTC and its bycatch
reduction efforts that are among the
world’s finest for regional fisheries
management organizations; (4) the IAC,
which is designed to lessen impacts on
sea turtles from fisheries and other
human impacts; and (5) the Permanent
Commission of the South Pacific (Lima
Convention), which has developed an
‘‘Action Plan for Sea Turtles in the
Southeast Pacific.’’
There are indications that wildlife
enforcement branches of local and
national governments are stepping up
their efforts to enforce existing laws,
although successes in stemming sea
turtle exploitation through legal
channels are few and far between.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and
Findings for the East Pacific DPS
The East Pacific DPS is characterized
by moderate levels of green turtle
nesting abundance (>20,000 nesting
females) occurring in three primary
regions, with Mexico having the largest
number of nesting females at several
sites (13,664 nesting females), followed
´
by the Galapagos, Ecuador (3,603
nesting females), and Costa Rica (2,826
nesting females distributed among 26
nesting sites). Although trend
information is lacking for the vast
majority of sites, 25 years of monitoring
´
at Michoacan, Mexico—the largest
nesting aggregation in this DPS—shows
an increasing trend since the
population’s low point in the mid1980s. In addition to Mexico, data from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
´
the Galapagos Archipelago suggest a
stable trend, and the largest-ever nesting
numbers reported in Costa Rica suggest
this site may be on the increase as well.
Genetic and demographic data show
some substructuring among the
populations, and nesting is welldistributed in the East Pacific DPS,
occurring from the tip of the Baja
California Peninsula to northern Peru.
Such a broad latitudinal range may be
advantageous to green turtles in this
DPS in the face of global climate change.
Likewise, with year round nesting at
several sites and non-overlapping
nesting seasons at others, it appears that
this DPS may benefit from nesting
season temporal diversity in relation to
population resilience. Lastly, nesting at
both continental and insular sites
provides a degree of diversity as well as
resilience, with some insular sites
providing relatively threat-free nesting
refugia within this DPS’s range.
Nevertheless, green turtles continue to
be affected by a variety of threats within
the range of the East Pacific DPS. These
include harvest of eggs and turtles for
food and non-food uses, bycatch in
coastal and offshore marine fisheries
gear, coastal development, beachfront
lighting, and heavy foot traffic.
Although the situation has improved to
some extent, the harvest of turtles and
their eggs continues throughout much of
the range, although more problematic
´
outside of the Galapagos Islands,
particularly in Central America (egg
harvest) and Mexico (harvest of foraging
turtles). Mortality from diseases such as
FP is not a problem in the Eastern
Pacific, but depredation by natural
predators is a very large concern,
´
particularly in the Galapagos and, to a
lesser extent, in Costa Rica. Green turtle
interactions and mortalities with coastal
and offshore fisheries in the eastern
Pacific region are of concern and are
considered an impediment to green
turtle recovery in the East Pacific DPS.
Yet despite these concerns, the largest
nesting sites appear to be increasing.
Conservation actions, national laws,
and international instruments have
provided the foundation for what
appears to be an ongoing population
recovery in the region, particularly in
Mexico, although work remains to
ensure continued recovery. Further, our
analysis did not consider the scenario in
which current laws or regulatory
mechanisms were not continued. Given
the conservation dependence of the
species, without mechanisms in place to
continue conservation efforts and
funding streams in this DPS, some
threats could increase and population
trends could be affected.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
For the above reasons, we propose to
list the East Pacific DPS as threatened.
We do not find the DPS to be in danger
of extinction presently because of high
nesting abundance and increasing
trends; however, the continued threats
from coastal and offshore fisheries are
likely to endanger the DPS within the
foreseeable future.
XVIII. Proposed Determinations
Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires
that the Services make listing
determinations based solely on the best
scientific and commercial data available
after conducting a review of the status
of the species and taking into account
those efforts, if any, being made by any
state or foreign nation, or political
subdivisions thereof, to protect and
conserve the species (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(1)). We have reviewed the best
available scientific and commercial
information, including information
included in the petition, the status
review report, and other published and
unpublished information; and we have
consulted with species experts and
individuals familiar with green turtles
and their habitat.
Based on the best available scientific
and commercial information, we
identify 11 green turtle DPSs: Central
North Pacific, North Atlantic,
Mediterranean, South Atlantic,
Southwest Indian, North Indian, East
Indian-West Pacific, Central West
Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central
South Pacific, and East Pacific. We find
that the purposes of the Act would be
furthered by managing this wideranging species as separate units under
the DPS authority, in order to allow for
enhanced protections where needed.
Based on a review of the five factors
contained in ESA section 4(a)(1), we
find that the best available science
supports the listing status of
‘‘endangered’’ for three of the DPSs and
therefore conclude that the species as a
whole no longer meets the definition of
a ‘‘threatened species’’ throughout its
range. We propose to remove the current
species-wide listing and to list 11 DPSs
as threatened or endangered. We
propose to list the North Atlantic, South
Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North
Indian, East Indian-West Pacific,
Southwest Pacific, Central North
Pacific, and East Pacific DPSs as
threatened, and the Mediterranean,
Central West Pacific, and Central South
Pacific DPSs as endangered for the
reasons described above for each DPS.
Regarding the February 16, 2012
petition from the Association of
Hawaiian Civic Clubs to identify the
Hawaiian green turtle population as a
DPS and ‘‘delist’’ the DPS under the
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
ESA, as described above we conclude
that the petitioned entity qualifies as a
DPS (Central North Pacific DPS), but
that the DPS should be listed as
threatened for the reasons discussed
above. We therefore deny the petition
seeking its delisting.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
XIX. Significant Portion of the Range
Under the ESA and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is endangered or threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. See the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant
Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered
Species Act’s Definitions of
‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened
Species’’ (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014).
Under that policy, we only need to
consider whether listing may be
appropriate on the basis of the
‘‘significant portion of its range’’
language if the rangewide analysis does
not lead to a determination to list as
threatened or endangered. Because we
have determined that each DPS of green
turtle is either threatened or endangered
throughout all of its range, no portion of
its range can be ‘‘significant’’ for
purposes of the definitions of
‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened
species.’’
XX. Effects of Listing
Conservation measures provided for
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA include, but
are not limited to, recovery plans and
actions (prepared pursuant to 16 U.S.C.
1536(f)) and the actions recommended
in them; designation of critical habitat if
prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C.
1533(a)(3)(A)(i)); Federal agency
requirements to consult with the
Services and to ensure its actions are
not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat (16 U.S.C.
1536(a)(2)); and prohibitions on taking
(16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the
species’ plight through listing promotes
conservation actions by Federal and
state agencies, foreign entities, private
groups, and individuals. Should the
proposed listings be made final, a
recovery plan or plans may be
developed, unless we find that such
plan would not promote the
conservation of the species.
A. Identifying Section 7 Conference and
Consultation Requirements
Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(4))
of the ESA and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR 402) require Federal
agencies to confer with the Services on
actions likely to jeopardize the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
continued existence of species proposed
for listing, or that result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a proposed
species is ultimately listed, section
7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to
consult with the Services on any action
they authorize, fund, or carry out if
those actions may affect the listed
species or its critical habitat; Federal
agencies must insure that such actions
are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species or
result in destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical
habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2); 50 CFR
402). Because green turtles are currently
listed throughout their range,
requirements for initiating consultation
will not change if the current listing is
reclassified and revised to reflect
recognition of multiple DPSs. Examples
of Federal actions that affect green
turtles include, but are not limited to:
Dredging and channelization, beach and
nearshore construction, pile-driving,
water quality standards, power plants,
vessel traffic, military activities, and
fisheries management practices.
B. Critical Habitat
Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA defines
critical habitat as ‘‘(i) the specific areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species, at the time it is listed
. . . on which are found those physical
or biological features (I) essential to the
conservation of the species and (II)
which may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed . . . upon a determination by
the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)).’’ Section
3(3) of the ESA also defines the terms
‘‘conserve,’’ ‘‘conserving,’’ and
‘‘conservation’’ to mean ‘‘to use and the
use of all methods and procedures
which are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened
species to the point at which the
measures provided pursuant to this
chapter Act are no longer necessary (16
U.S.C. 1532(3)).’’
Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) of the ESA, as
amended, and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12(a)), require that, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary shall
designate critical habitat at the time the
species is determined to be an
endangered or threatened species.
Designations of critical habitat must be
based on the best scientific data
available and must take into
consideration the economic, national
security, and other relevant impacts of
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15331
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). The
Services’ regulations (50 CFR
424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation
of critical habitat is not prudent when
one or both of the following situations
exist: (1) The species is threatened by
taking or other human activity, and
identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of threat
to the species, or (2) such designation of
critical habitat would not be beneficial
to the species.
The identification and mapping of
critical habitat is not expected to
increase the degree of threat from
human activity, such as take of turtles
or eggs. In the absence of finding that
the designation of critical habitat would
increase threats to a species, a finding
that designation may be prudent is
warranted if there are any benefits to a
critical habitat designation. Here, the
potential benefits of designation would
include (1) Triggering consultation
under section 7 of the ESA for Federal
actions in unoccupied designated
critical habitat; (2) focusing
conservation activities on the most
essential features and areas; (3)
providing educational benefits to State
or county governments or private
entities; and (4) preventing people from
causing inadvertent harm to the species.
Because we have determined that the
designation of critical habitat will not
likely increase the degree of threat to the
species and may provide some measure
of benefit, we determine that
designation of critical habitat may be
prudent for the green turtle, subject to
review of information in connection
with the designation.
Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2))
state that critical habitat is not
determinable when one or both of the
following situations exists: (1)
Information sufficient to perform
required analysis of the impacts of the
designation is lacking; or (2) the
biological needs of the species are not
sufficiently well known to permit
identification of an area as critical
habitat. At this point, we are still in the
process of acquiring the information
needed to assess the critical habitat
designation. Accordingly, we find
designation of critical habitat to be not
determinable at this time.
A final regulation designating critical
habitat is generally due concurrently
with a final regulation listing a species
as endangered or threatened (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)). The statute does not
mandate that the proposed rule to
designate critical habitat has to be
published concurrent with the proposed
listing rule, and thus a proposed rule
designating critical habitat may be
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
15332
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
published following the proposed
listing rule (but at least 90 days before
the intended effective date of the rule
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5)(A)). Upon a
finding that designation of critical
habitat is not determinable, the Services
have an additional year to finalize a
proposed critical habitat designation (16
U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). In effect, then,
the Services have up to one year
following final listing of the species to
finalize a critical habitat designation
where such habitat is initially not
determinable. To ensure that the
Services may make a timely proposal
based on the best scientific and
commercial information available, we
invite public input on features and areas
that may meet the definition of critical
habitat for the DPSs proposed for listing
that occur in U.S. waters or its
territories. These include the North
Atlantic (southeastern United States and
Puerto Rico), South Atlantic (U.S. Virgin
Islands), Central South Pacific
(American Samoa), Central West Pacific
(CNMI and Guam), Central North
Pacific, and East Pacific DPSs
(California).
The Services previously designated
critical habitat for green turtles in
waters surrounding Culebra Island,
Puerto Rico from the mean high water
line seaward to 3 nautical miles (5.6 km;
63 FR 46693, September 2, 1998). These
waters include Culebra’s outlying Keys,
including Cayo Norte, Cayo Ballena,
´
Cayos Geniquı, Isla Culebrita, Arrecife
˜
Culebrita, Cayo de Luis Pena, Las
Hermanas, El Mono, Cayo Lobo, Cayo
Lobito, Cayo Botijuela, Alcarraza, Los
Gemelos, and Piedra Steven, and are
within the range of the North Atlantic
DPS.
The ESA does not speak directly to
the status of designated critical habitat
when the agency later amends a species
listing by dividing it into constituent
DPSs. Notably, critical habitat does not
lose its biological and conservation
relevance to the relevant listed DPS
(here, the North Atlantic) simply
because the species listing is amended.
Moreover, carrying forward an existing
critical habitat designation can enhance
the protection provided to the listed
DPS because the carried-forward
designation protects habitat features
essential to the species’ recovery from
destruction or adverse modification in
section 7 consultations. Given that
Congress has not spoken directly to this
issue in the statute, we find that the
benefits of designated critical habitat,
the ESA’s broad purpose to conserve the
ecosystems upon which endangered and
threatened species depend, and taking a
reasonable precautionary approach, the
ESA should be construed to provide in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
these circumstances for keeping existing
critical habitat designation in place as a
transitional matter until the designation
is re-promulgated or amended through a
further rulemaking. Therefore, critical
habitat remains in effect for the listed
North Atlantic DPS in order to preserve
its conservation value, as the designated
critical habitat continues to support the
DPS’s important biological functions
(e.g., foraging habitat, developmental
habitat, and shelter/refuge from
predators). The Services have not
designated critical habitat within the
range of the other ten green turtle DPSs.
C. Take Prohibitions
All of the take prohibitions of section
9(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C.
§ 1538(a)(1)) will automatically apply to
the three DPSs proposed to be listed as
endangered, the Mediterranean, Central
West Pacific and Central South Pacific,
if the proposal to list them as
endangered is finalized. These include
prohibitions against importing,
exporting, engaging in foreign or
interstate commerce, or ‘‘taking’’ of the
species. ‘‘Take’’ is defined under the
ESA as ‘‘to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or attempt to engage in any such
conduct (16 U.S.C. § 1532(19)).’’ These
prohibitions apply to any ‘‘person’’ (as
defined by the ESA) subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States,
including in the United States, its
territorial sea, or on the high seas.
Certain exceptions apply to employees
of the Services, other Federal land
management agencies, and State
conservation agencies. In addition, 50
CFR part 224.104 would apply to the
proposed endangered DPSs. Some of the
current provisions apply only to areas in
the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Atlantic;
however, future provisions may apply to
any endangered DPS, without regard to
its geographic boundaries.
In the case of threatened species, ESA
section 4(d) authorizes the Secretary to
issue regulations deemed necessary and
appropriate for the conservation of
species. The Services already have in
place take prohibitions and exceptions
that apply to threatened species of sea
turtles, set forth at 50 CFR 17.42(b),
223.205, 223.206, and 223.207. These
existing take prohibitions and
exceptions will continue to remain in
effect and apply to those DPSs listed as
threatened, which are the North
Atlantic, South Atlantic, Southwest
Indian, North Indian, East Indian-West
Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central
North Pacific, and East Pacific DPSs.
Pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, we
may issue permits to carry out otherwise
prohibited activities involving
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
endangered and threatened wildlife
under certain circumstances.
Regulations governing permits are
codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR
223.206. With regard to endangered
wildlife, a permit may be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific
purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and for
incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities. There are
also certain statutory exemptions from
the prohibitions, which are found in
sections 9 and 10 of the ESA.
D. Identification of Those Activities
That Would Constitute a Violation of
Section 9 of the ESA
On July 1, 1994, the Services
published a policy (59 FR 34272) that
requires us to identify, to the maximum
extent practicable at the time a species
is listed, those activities that would or
would not constitute a violation of
section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a listing on proposed and
ongoing activities within a species’
range. We will identify, to the extent
known at the time of the final rule,
those specific activities that, although
they may appear to pose impacts to the
species, will not be considered likely to
result in violation of section 9, as well
as activities that will be considered
likely to result in violation. Based on
currently available information, we
conclude that the activities most likely
to violate the section 9 prohibitions
against ‘‘take’’ of endangered green
turtle DPSs include, but are not limited
to, the following: (1) Importation or
exportation of any part of a green turtle
or green turtle eggs; (2) directed take of
green turtles, including fishing for,
capturing, handling, or possessing green
turtles, eggs, or parts; (3) sale of green
turtles, eggs, or parts; (4) destruction or
modification of green turtle habitat,
including nesting beaches, beaches used
for basking, and developmental,
foraging habitat, and migratory habitat
that actually kills or injures green turtles
(50 CFR 222.102); and (5) indirect take
of green turtles in the course of
otherwise lawful activities, such as
fishing, dredging, coastal construction,
vessel traffic, and discharge of
pollutants. We emphasize that whether
a violation results from a particular
activity depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each incident. The
mere fact that an activity may fall
within one of these categories does not
mean that the specific activity will
cause a violation; due to such factors as
location and scope, specific actions may
not result in direct or indirect adverse
effects on the species. Further, an
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15333
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
activity not listed may in fact result in
a violation. We also emphasize that
because the green turtle is currently
listed, we do not anticipate changes in
the activities that would constitute a
violation of section 9. Possible
exceptions include those actions
affecting the breeding populations in
Florida and the Pacific coast of Mexico,
which were heretofore listed as
endangered. Under the final rule, these
populations would become part of the
threatened North Atlantic and East
Pacific DPSs, respectively, and therefore
will be protected by the existing
protective regulations.
XXI. Peer Review
The intent of the peer review policy
is to ensure that listings are based on the
best scientific and commercial data
available. In December 2004, the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
issued a Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review establishing
minimum peer review standards, a
transparent process for public
disclosure of peer review planning, and
opportunities for public participation.
The OMB Bulletin, implemented under
the Information Quality Act (Public Law
106–554), is intended to enhance the
quality and credibility of the Federal
government’s scientific information, and
applies to influential or highly
influential scientific information
disseminated on or after June 16, 2005.
To satisfy our requirements under the
OMB Bulletin, we obtained independent
peer review of the status review report
from 15 independent specialists in the
academic and scientific community. All
peer reviewer comments were addressed
prior to dissemination of the final status
review report and publication of this
proposed rule.
XXII. Classification
A. National Environmental Policy Act
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in
section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered
when assessing species for listing. Based
on this limitation of criteria for a listing
decision and the opinion in Pacific
Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d
829 (6th Cir. 1981), NOAA has
concluded that ESA listing actions are
not subject to the environmental
assessment requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (See NOAA
Administrative Order 216–6). Similarly,
USFWS has determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act,
need not be prepared in connection
with regulations pursuant to section 4(a)
of the ESA. USFWS published a notice
outlining its reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register
on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
B. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and Paperwork
Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on
the 1982 amendments to the ESA,
economic impacts cannot be considered
when assessing the status of a species.
Therefore, the economic analysis
requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act are not applicable to the
listing process. In addition, this
proposed rule is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866. This
proposed rule does not contain a
collection-of-information requirement
for the purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we
determined that this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects
and that a Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with the intent of
the Administration and Congress to
provide continuing and meaningful
dialogue on issues of mutual state and
Federal interest, this proposed rule will
be given to the relevant state agencies in
each state in which the species is
Species
Vertebrate population where
endangered or threatened
Historic range
Common name
Scientific name
*
*
*
Status
*
believed to occur, and those states will
be invited to comment on this proposal.
We have considered, among other
things, Federal, State, and local
conservation measures. As we proceed,
we intend to continue engaging in
informal and formal contacts with the
State, and other affected local or
regional entities, giving careful
consideration to all written and oral
comments received.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened wildlife
and plants.
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Transportation.
Dated: March 11, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Dated: February 25, 2015.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR parts 17, 223, and 224
are proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
2. In § 17.11(h) revise the entry for
‘‘Sea turtle, green’’, which is in
alphabetical order under REPTILES, to
read as follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) The ‘‘List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife’’ is provided below:
Critical
habitat
When listed
*
*
Special rules
*
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
REPTILES
*
Sea turtle, green
(Central North
Pacific DPS).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
Chelonia mydas
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
*
Central North Pacific Ocean.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
*
Green sea turtles originating
from the Central North
Pacific Ocean, bounded
by the following coordinates: 41° N., 169° E. in
the northwest; 41° N.,
143° W. in the northeast;
9° N., 125° W. in the
southeast; and 9° N.,
175° W. in the southwest.
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
*
T
*
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
NA
*
17.42(b), 223.205,
223.206, 223.207
15334
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Species
Historic range
Common name
Vertebrate population where
endangered or threatened
Status
When listed
Green sea turtles originating
from the Central South
Pacific Ocean, bounded
by the following coordinates: 9° N., 175° W. in
the northwest; 9° N., 125°
W. in the northeast; 40°
S., 96° W. in the southeast; 40° S., 176° E. in
the southwest; and 13°
S., 171° E. in the west.
Green sea turtles originating
from the Central West Pacific Ocean, bounded by
the following coordinates:
41° N., 146° E. in the
northwest; 41° N., 169° E.
in the northeast; 9° N.,
175° W. in the east; 13°
S., 171° E. in the southeast; along the northern
coast of the island of New
Guinea; and 4.5° N., 129°
E. in the west.
Green sea turtles originating
from the Eastern Indian
and Western Pacific
Oceans, bounded by the
following lines and coordinates: 41° N. Lat. in the
north, 41° N., 146° E. in
the northeast; 4.5° N.,
129° E. in the southeast;
along the southern coast
of the island of New Guinea; along the western
coast of Australia (west of
142° E. Long.); 40° S.
Lat. in the south; and 84°
E. Long. in the east.
Green sea turtles originating
from the East Pacific
Ocean, bounded by the
following lines and coordinates: 41° N., 143° W. in
the northwest; 41° N. Lat.
in the north; along the
western coasts of the
Americas; 40° S. Lat. in
the south; and 40° S., 96°
W. in the southwest.
Green sea turtles originating
from the Mediterranean
Sea, bounded by 5.5° W.
Long. in the west.
Green sea turtles originating
from the North Atlantic
Ocean, bounded by the
following lines and coordinates: 48° N. Lat. in the
north, along the western
coasts of Europe and Africa (west of 5.5° W.
Long.); north of 19° N.
Lat. in the east; 19° N.,
63.5° W. in the south;
10.5° N., 77° W. in the
west; and along the eastern coasts of the Americas (north of 7.5° N., 77°
W.).
Green sea turtles originating
from the North Indian
Ocean, bounded by: Africa and Asia in the west
and north; 84° E. Long. in
the east; and the equator
in the south.
E
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
NA
224.104
E
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
NA
224.104
T
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
NA
17.42(b), 223.205,
223.206, 223.207
T
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
NA
17.42(b), 223.205,
223.206, 223.207
E
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
NA
224.104
Scientific name
Chelonia mydas
Central South Pacific Ocean.
Sea turtle, green
(Central West
Pacific DPS).
Chelonia mydas
Central West Pacific Ocean.
Sea turtle, green
(East Indian-West
Pacific DPS).
Chelonia mydas
Eastern Indian and
Western Pacific
Oceans.
Sea turtle, green
(East Pacific
DPS).
Chelonia mydas
East Pacific Ocean
Sea turtle, green
(Mediterranean
DPS).
Chelonia mydas
Mediterranean Sea
Sea turtle, green
(North Atlantic
DPS).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Sea turtle, green
(Central South
Pacific DPS).
Chelonia mydas
North Atlantic
Ocean
Sea turtle, green
(North Indian
DPS).
Chelonia mydas
North Indian
Ocean
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
T
T
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Critical
habitat
Special rules
226.208
17.42(b), 223.205,
223.206, 223.207
NA
17.42(b), 223.205,
223.206, 223.207
15335
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Species
Vertebrate population where
endangered or threatened
Historic range
Common name
Scientific name
Sea turtle, green
(South Atlantic
DPS).
Chelonia mydas
South Atlantic
Ocean
Sea turtle, green
(Southwest Indian DPS).
Chelonia mydas
Southwest Indian
Ocean
Sea turtle, green
(Southwest Pacific DPS).
Chelonia mydas
Southwestern Pacific Ocean
*
*
Status
When listed
Green sea turtles originating
from the South Atlantic
Ocean, bounded by the
following lines and coordinates: along the northern
and eastern coasts of
South America (east of
7.5° N., 77° W.); 10.5° N.,
77° W. in the west; 19°
N., 63.5° W. in the northwest; 19° N. Lat. in the
northeast; 40° S., 19° E.
in the southeast; and 40°
S. Lat. in the south.
Green sea turtles originating
from the Southwest Indian
Ocean, bounded by the
following lines: the equator to the north; 84° E.
Long. to the east; 40° S.
Lat. to the south; and 19°
E. Long (and along the
eastern coast of Africa) in
the west.
Green sea turtles originating
from the Southwestern
Pacific Ocean, bounded
by the following lines and
coordinates: along the
southern coast of the island of New Guinea and
the Torres Strait (east of
142° E Long.); 13° S.,
171° E. in the northeast;
40° S., 176° E. in the
southeast; and 40° S.,
142° E. in the southwest.
T
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
NA
17.42(b), 223.205,
223.206, 223.207
T
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
NA
17.42(b), 223.205,
223.206, 223.207
T
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
NA
17.42(b), 223.205,
223.206, 223.207
*
*
*
PART 223—THREATENED MARINE
AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
3. The authority citation for part 223
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart B,
§ 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C.
4. Amend the table in § 223.102(e) by
revising the entry ‘‘Sea turtle, green’’
under Sea Turtles to read as follows:
*
SEA TURTLES 2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Sea turtle, green
(Central North Pacific DPS).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Scientific name
*
Chelonia mydas .....
18:10 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
*
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
*
*
*
Sfmt 4702
*
(e) The threatened species under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Commerce are:
Critical
habitat
*
Green sea turtles originating from the
Central North Pacific Ocean, bounded by the following coordinates: 41°
N., 169° E. in the northwest; 41° N.,
143° W. in the northeast; 9° N., 125°
W. in the southeast; and 9° N., 175°
W in the southwest.
PO 00000
*
Citation(s) for listing
determination(s)
Description of listed entity
*
*
§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened
marine and anadromous species.
Species 1
Common name
Special rules
*
1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
§ 223.206(d)(9).
■
Critical
habitat
*
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
ESA Rules
*
NA
17.42(b), 223.205,
223.206,
223.207.
15336
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Species 1
Citation(s) for listing
determination(s)
Common name
Scientific name
Description of listed entity
Sea turtle, green
(East Indian-West
Pacific DPS).
Chelonia mydas .....
Green sea turtles originating from the
Eastern Indian and Western Pacific
Oceans, bounded by the following
lines and coordinates: 41° N. Lat. in
the north, 41° N., 146° E. in the
northeast; 4.5° N., 129° E. in the
southeast; along the southern coast
of the island of New Guinea; along
the western coast of Australia (west
of 142° E. Long.); 40° S. Lat. in the
south; and 84° E. Long. in the east.
Green sea turtles originating from the
East Pacific Ocean, bounded by the
following lines and coordinates: 41°
N., 143° W. in the northwest; 41° N.
Lat. in the north; along the western
coasts of the Americas; 40° S. Lat. in
the south; and 40° S., 96° W. in the
southwest.
Green sea turtles originating from the
North Atlantic Ocean, bounded by the
following lines and coordinates: 48°
N. Lat. in the north, along the western coasts of Europe and Africa (west
of 5.5° W. Long.); north of 19° N. Lat.
in the east; 19° N., 63.5° W. in the
south; 10.5° N., 77° W. in the west;
and along the eastern coasts of the
Americas (north of 7.5° N., 77° W.).
Green sea turtles originating from the
North Indian Ocean, bounded by: Africa and Asia in the west and north;
84° E. Long. in the east; and the
equator in the south.
Green sea turtles originating from the
South Atlantic Ocean, bounded by
the following lines and coordinates:
along the northern and eastern
coasts of South America (east of 7.5°
N., 77° W.); 10.5° N., 77° W. in the
west; 19° N., 63.5° W. in the northwest; 19° N. Lat. in the northeast; 40°
S., 19° E. in the southeast; and 40°
S. Lat. in the south.
Green sea turtles originating from the
Southwest Indian Ocean, bounded by
the following lines: the equator to the
north; 84° E. Long. to the east; 40° S.
Lat. to the south; and 19° E. Long
(and along the eastern coast of Africa) in the west.
Green sea turtles originating from the
Southwestern Pacific Ocean, bounded by the following lines and coordinates: along the southern coast of
the island of New Guinea and the
Torres Strait (east of 142° E Long.);
13° S., 171° E. in the northeast; 40°
S., 176° E. in the southeast; and 40°
S., 142° E. in the southwest.
Sea turtle, green
Chelonia mydas .....
(East Pacific DPS).
Chelonia mydas .....
Sea turtle, green
(North Indian
DPS).
Chelonia mydas .....
Sea turtle, green
(South Atlantic
DPS).
Chelonia mydas .....
Sea turtle, green
(Southwest Indian
DPS).
Chelonia mydas .....
Sea turtle, green
(Southwest Pacific
DPS).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Sea turtle, green
(North Atlantic
DPS).
Chelonia mydas .....
*
*
*
*
Critical
habitat
ESA Rules
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
NA
17.42(b), 223.205,
223.206,
223.207.
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
NA
17.42(b), 223.205,
223.206,
223.207.
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
226.08
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
NA
17.42(b), 223.205,
223.206,
223.207.
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
NA
17.42(b), 223.205,
223.206,
223.207.
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
NA
17.42(b), 223.205,
223.206,
223.207.
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN
PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
NA
17.42(b), 223.205,
223.206,
223.207.
*
*
1 Species
17.42(b), 2223.205,
223.206,
223.207.
*
includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7,
1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
2Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, is limited to turtles while in the water.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
15337
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE
AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
5. The authority citation for part 224
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 224.101 Enumeration of endangered
marine and anadromous species.
6. Amend § 224.101(h) by revising the
entry for ‘‘Sea turtle, green’’ under Sea
Turtles to read as follows:
■
Species 1
Common name
*
SEA TURTLES 2
Scientific name
*
Sea turtle, green (Central South Pacific
DPS).
Chelonia mydas .........
Sea turtle, green (Central West Pacific
DPS).
Chelonia mydas .........
Sea turtle, green (Mediterranean DPS).
Chelonia mydas .........
*
*
*
*
Green sea turtles originating from the Central South Pacific Ocean, bounded by the
following coordinates: 9° N., 175° W. in
the northwest; 9° N., 125° W. in the northeast; 40° S., 96° W. in the southeast; 40°
S., 176° E. in the southwest; and 13° S.,
171° E. in the west.
Green sea turtles originating from the Central West Pacific Ocean, bounded by the
following coordinates: 41° N., 146° E. in
the northwest; 41° N., 169° E. in the northeast; 9° N., 175° W. in the east; 13° S.,
171° E. in the southeast; along the northern coast of the island of New Guinea;
and 4.5° N., 129° E. in the west.
Green sea turtles originating from the Mediterranean Sea, bounded by 5.5° W. Long.
in the west.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) The endangered species under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Commerce are:
Citation(s) for listing
determination(s)
Description of listed entity
*
*
*
Critical
habitat
*
ESA rules
*
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN PUBLISHED AS A
FINAL RULE].
NA
224.104
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN PUBLISHED AS A
FINAL RULE].
NA
224.104
[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN PUBLISHED AS A
FINAL RULE].
NA
224.104
*
*
1 Species
*
includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7,
1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
2 Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, is limited to turtles while in the water.
[FR Doc. 2015–06136 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Mar 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 55 (Monday, March 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15271-15337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06136]
[[Page 15271]]
Vol. 80
Monday,
No. 55
March 23, 2015
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification and Proposed Listing
of Eleven Distinct Population Segments of Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia
mydas) as Endangered or Threatened and Revision of Current Listings;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 15272]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 120425024-5022-02]
RIN 0648-XB089
Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification and Proposed
Listing of Eleven Distinct Population Segments of Green Sea Turtles
(Chelonia mydas) as Endangered or Threatened and Revision of Current
Listings
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; request for comments;
notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas; hereafter referred to as
the green turtle) is currently listed under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) as a threatened species, with the exception of the Florida and
Mexican Pacific coast breeding populations, which are listed as
endangered. We, NMFS and USFWS, find that the green turtle is composed
of 11 distinct population segments (DPSs) that qualify as ``species''
for listing under the ESA. We propose to remove the current range-wide
listing and, in its place, list eight DPSs as threatened and three as
endangered. We also propose to apply existing protective regulations to
the DPSs. We solicit comments on these proposed actions.
Although not determinable at this time, designation of critical
habitat may be prudent, and we solicit relevant information for those
DPSs occurring within U.S. jurisdiction. In the interim, we propose to
continue the existing critical habitat designation (i.e., waters
surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico) in effect for the North
Atlantic DPS.
This proposed rule also constitutes the 12-month finding on a
petition to reclassify the Hawaiian green turtle population as a DPS
and to delist that DPS. Although we find the Hawaiian green turtle
population to constitute a DPS (referred to in this proposed rule as
the Central North Pacific DPS), we do not find delisting warranted.
A public hearing will be held in Hawai`i. Interested parties may
provide oral or written comments at this hearing.
DATES: Comments and information regarding this proposed rule must be
received by close of business on June 22, 2015. A public hearing will
be held on April 8, 2015 from 6 to 8 p.m., with an informational open
house starting at 5:30 p.m. Requests for additional public hearings
must be made in writing and received by May 7, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2012-0154, by the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012-0154.
2. Click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields.
3. Enter or attach your comments.
OR
Mail: Submit written comments to Green Turtle Proposed
Listing Rule, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13535, Silver Spring, MD 20910;
or Green Turtle Proposed Listing Rule, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
North Florida Ecological Services Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite
200, Jacksonville, FL 32256.
OR
Public hearing: Interested parties may provide oral or
written comments at the public hearing to be held at the Japanese
Cultural Center, 2454 South Beretania Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i 96826.
Parking is available at the Japanese Cultural Center for $5.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by the Services. All comments received are a part
of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. The Services will accept
anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous). The proposed rule is available electronically at
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm and https://www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20factsheets/green-sea-turtle.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Schultz, NMFS (ph. 301-427-
8443, email jennifer.schultz@noaa.gov), or Ann Marie Lauritsen, USFWS
(ph. 904-731-3032, email annmarie_lauritsen@fws.gov). Persons who use a
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, and
7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited on the Proposed Listing
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal be as
accurate and effective as possible and informed by the best available
scientific and commercial information. Therefore, we request comments
or information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies,
the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed rule. We are seeking information and comments
on whether each of the 11 proposed green turtle DPSs qualify as DPSs,
whether listing of each DPS is warranted, and, if so, whether they
should be classified as threatened or endangered as described in the
``Listing Determinations Under the ESA'' section provided below.
Specifically, we are soliciting information on the following subjects
relative to green turtles within the 11 proposed DPSs: (1) Historical
and current population status and trends, (2) historical and current
distribution, (3) migratory movements and behavior, (4) genetic
population structure, (5) current or planned activities that may
adversely affect green turtles, (6) conservation efforts to protect
green turtles, and (7) our extinction risk analysis and findings. We
request that all data, information, and comments be accompanied by
supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or
reprints of pertinent publications. We will consider comments and new
information when making final determinations.
Public Comments Solicited on Critical Habitat
Though we are not proposing to designate critical habitat at this
time, we request evaluations describing the quality and extent of
existing habitats within U.S. jurisdiction for the proposed North
Atlantic, South Atlantic (U.S. Virgin Islands), Central South Pacific
(American Samoa), Central West Pacific (Commonwealth of the Northern
[[Page 15273]]
Mariana Islands (CNMI) and Guam), Central North Pacific, and East
Pacific DPSs, as well as information on other areas that may qualify as
critical habitat for these proposed DPSs. Specifically, we are
soliciting the identification of particular areas within the
geographical area occupied by these species that include physical or
biological features that are essential to the conservation of these
DPSs and that may require special management considerations or
protection (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)). Essential features may include,
but are not limited to, features specific to individual species'
ranges, habitats, and life history characteristics within the following
general categories of habitat features: (1) Space for individual growth
and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter;
(4) sites for breeding, reproduction and development of offspring; and
(5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative
of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of the
species (50 CFR 424.12(b)). Areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing should also be
identified, if such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(ii)). Unlike for occupied habitat, such
areas are not required to contain physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. ESA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h) specify that critical habitat shall not
be designated within foreign countries or in other areas outside of
U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, we request information only on potential
areas of critical habitat within locations under U.S. jurisdiction.
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to consider the
``economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant
impact'' of designating a particular area as critical habitat. Section
4(b)(2) also authorizes the Secretary to conduct a balancing of the
benefits of inclusion and the benefits of exclusion from a critical
habitat designation of a particular area, and to exclude any particular
area where the Secretary finds that the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of designation, unless excluding that area will result in
extinction of the species. Therefore, for features and areas
potentially qualifying as critical habitat, we also request information
describing: (1) Activities or other threats to the essential features
that could be affected by designating them as critical habitat
(pursuant to section 4(b)(8) of the ESA); and (2) the positive and
negative economic, national security and other relevant impacts,
including benefits to the recovery of the species, likely to result if
these areas are designated as critical habitat. We also seek
information regarding the conservation benefits of designating areas
within nesting beaches and waters under U.S. jurisdiction as critical
habitat. Data sought include, but are not limited to the following: (1)
Scientific or commercial publications, (2) administrative reports, maps
or other graphic materials, and (3) information from experts or other
interested parties. Comments and data particularly are sought
concerning the following: (1) Maps and specific information describing
the amount, distribution, and type of use (e.g., foraging or migration)
by green turtles, as well as any additional information on occupied and
unoccupied habitat areas; (2) the reasons why any habitat should or
should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by sections
3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the ESA; (3) information regarding the benefits
of designating particular areas as critical habitat; (4) current or
planned activities in the areas that might be proposed for designation
and their possible impacts; (5) any foreseeable economic or other
potential impacts resulting from designation, and in particular any
impacts on small entities; and (6) whether specific unoccupied areas
may be essential to provide additional habitat areas for the
conservation of the proposed DPSs. We seek information regarding
critical habitat for the proposed green turtle DPSs as soon as
possible, but no later than June 22, 2015.
Public Hearings
The Services will hold a public hearing in Hawai`i. Interested
parties may provide oral or written comments at this hearing. A public
hearing will be held on April 8, 2015 from 6 to 8 p.m., with an
informational open house starting at 5:30 p.m., at the Japanese
Cultural Center, 2454 South Beretania Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i 96826.
Parking is available at the Japanese Cultural Center for $5. If
requested by the public by May 7, 2015, additional hearings will be
held regarding the proposed listing of the green turtle DPSs. If
additional hearings are requested, details regarding location(s),
date(s), and time(s) will be published in a forthcoming Federal
Register notice.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Policies for Delineating Species Under the ESA
III. Listing Determinations Under the ESA
IV. Biology and Life History of Green Turtles
V. Overview of the Policies and Process Used To Identify DPSs
A. Discreteness Determination
1. Atlantic Ocean/Mediterranean Sea
2. Indian Ocean
3. Pacific Ocean
B. Significance Determination
1. North Atlantic
2. Mediterranean
3. South Atlantic
4. Southwest Indian
5. North Indian
6. East Indian-West Pacific
7. Central West Pacific
8. Southwest Pacific
9. Central South Pacific
10. Central North Pacific
11. East Pacific
C. Summary of Discreteness and Significance Determinations
VI. Listing Evaluation Process
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Eleven Green
Turtle DPSs
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Eleven Green Turtle DPSs
C. Conservation Efforts
D. Extinction Risk Assessments and Findings
VII. North Atlantic DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the North Atlantic
DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the North Atlantic DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
i. Gill Net and Trawl Fisheries
ii. Dredge Fishing
b. Channel Dredging
c. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic
d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
e. Effects of Cold Stunning
f. Contaminants and Marine Debris
C. Conservation Efforts for the North Atlantic DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the North
Atlantic DPS
VIII. Mediterranean DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Mediterranean DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Mediterranean DPS
[[Page 15274]]
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
i. Longline Fisheries
ii. Set Net (Gill Net) Fishing
iii. Trawl Fisheries
b. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic
c. Pollution
d. Effects of Climate Change
C. Conservation Efforts
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings
IX. South Atlantic DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the South Atlantic
DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the South Atlantic DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
c. Effects of Climate Change
C. Conservation Efforts for the South Atlantic DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the South
Atlantic DPS
X. Southwest Indian DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Southwest Indian
DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Southwest Indian DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the Southwest Indian DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Southwest
Indian DPS
XI. North Indian DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the North Indian DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the North Indian DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
i. Gill Net Fisheries
ii. Trawl Fisheries
b. Vessel Strikes
c. Beach Driving
d. Pollution
e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disaster
C. Conservation Efforts for the North Indian DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the North Indian
DPS
XII. East Indian-West Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the East Indian-West Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the East Indian-West Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the East Indian-
West Pacific DPS
XIII. Central West Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Central West
Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Central West Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Vessel Strikes
c. Pollution
d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central West Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Central West
Pacific DPS
XIV. Southwest Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters in the Southwest Pacific
DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Southwest Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Shark Control Programs
c. Boat Strikes and Port Dredging
d. Pollution and Marine Debris
e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the Southwest Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Southwest
Pacific DPS
XV. Central South Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Central South
Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Central South Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central South Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Central South
Pacific DPS
XVI. Central North Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Central North
Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Central North Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
[[Page 15275]]
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
i. Longline Fisheries
ii. Gillnet Fisheries
iii. Other Gear Types
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
c. Vessel Interactions
d. Effects of Climate Change
e. Effects of Spatial Structure
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central North Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Central North
Pacific DPS
XVII. East Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the East Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the East Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Pollution
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the East Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the East Pacific
DPS
XVIII. Proposed Determinations
XIX. Significant Portion of the Range
XX. Effects of Listing
A. Identifying Section 7 Conference and Consultation
Requirements
B. Critical Habitat
C. Take Prohibitions
D. Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a
Violation of Section 9 of the ESA
XXI. Peer Review
XXII. Classification
A. National Environmental Policy Act
B. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and
Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
I. Background
On July 28, 1978, NMFS and USFWS, collectively referred to as the
Services, listed the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) under the ESA (43 FR
32800). Pursuant to the authority that the statute provided, and prior
to the current language in the definition of ``species'' regarding
DPSs, the Services listed the species as threatened, except for the
Florida and Mexican Pacific Coast breeding populations, which were
listed as endangered. The Services published recovery plans for U.S.
Atlantic (https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm) and U.S.
Pacific (including the East Pacific) populations of the green turtle
(63 FR 28359, May 22, 1998). NMFS designated critical habitat for the
species to include waters surrounding Culebra Island, Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and its outlying keys (63 FR 46693, September 2, 1998).
On February 16, 2012, the Services received a petition from the
Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs to identify the Hawaiian green
turtle population as a DPS and ``delist'' the DPS under the ESA. On
August 1, 2012, NMFS, with USFWS concurrence, determined that the
petition presented substantial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted (77 FR 45571). Initiating a review
of new information in accordance with the DPS policy was consistent
with the recommendation made in the Services' 2007 Green Sea Turtle 5-
year Review. The Services initiated a status review to consider the
species across its range, determine whether the petitioned action is
warranted, and determine whether other DPSs could be recognized. The
Services decided to review the Hawaiian population in the context of
green turtles globally with regard to application of the DPS policy and
in light of significant new information since the listing of the
species in 1978.
The Services appointed a Status Review Team (SRT) in September
2012. SRT members were affiliated with NMFS Science Centers and the
Services' field, regional, and headquarters offices, and provided a
diverse range of expertise, including green turtle genetics,
demography, ecology, and management, as well as risk analysis and ESA
policy. The SRT was charged with reviewing and evaluating all relevant
scientific information relating to green turtle population structure
globally to determine whether any populations may qualify as DPSs and,
if so, to assess the extinction risk for each proposed DPS. Findings of
the SRT are detailed in the ``Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Status
Review under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' (hereinafter referred to
as the Status Review; NMFS and USFWS, 2014). The Status Review
underwent independent peer review by 14 scientists with expertise in
green turtle biology, genetics, or related fields, and endangered
species listing policy. The Status Review is available electronically
at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm.
This Federal Register document announces the 12-month finding on
the petition to identify the Hawaiian green turtle population as a DPS
and remove the protections of the ESA from the DPS, and includes a
proposed rule to revise the existing listings to identify 11 green
turtle DPSs worldwide and list them as threatened or endangered under
the ESA in place of the existing listings. Our determinations have been
made only after review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the species throughout its range and within
each DPS. This is similar to the action we took for loggerhead sea
turtles (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011).
The ESA gives us clear authority to make these listing
determinations and to revise the lists of endangered and threatened
species to reflect these determinations. Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA
authorizes us to determine by regulation whether ``any species,'' which
is expressly defined to include species, subspecies, and DPS, is an
endangered species or a threatened species based on certain factors.
Review of the status of a species may be commenced at any time, either
on the Services' own initiative--through a status review or in
connection with a 5-year review under Section 4(c)(2)--or in response
to a petition. Because a DPS is not a scientifically recognized entity,
but rather one that is created under the language of the ESA and
effectuated through our DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), we
have some discretion to determine whether the species should be
reclassified into DPSs and what boundaries should be recognized for
each DPS. Section 4(c)(1) gives us authority to update the lists of
threatened and endangered species to reflect these determinations. This
can include revising the lists to remove a species or reclassify the
listed entity.
II. Policies for Delineating Species Under the ESA
Section 3 of the ESA defines ``species'' as including ``any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds
when mature.'' The term ``distinct population segment'' is not
recognized in the scientific literature. Therefore, the Services
adopted a joint policy for recognizing DPSs under the ESA (DPS Policy;
61 FR 4722) on February 7, 1996. The DPS Policy requires the
consideration of three elements when evaluating the status of possible
DPSs: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the
remainder of the species to which it belongs; (2) the significance of
the population segment to the species to which it belongs; and (3) the
population segment's conservation status in relation to the
[[Page 15276]]
ESA's standards for listing. This is discussed further in the Status
Review, in the section entitled, ``Overview of Information and Process
Used to Identify DPSs.''
III. Listing Determinations Under the ESA
The ESA defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range
(section 3(6)), and a threatened species as one that is likely to
become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (section 3(20)). Thus, in the context
of the ESA, the Services interpret an ``endangered species'' to be one
that is presently in danger of extinction. A ``threatened species,'' on
the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely
to become so in the foreseeable future. In other words, the primary
statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the
timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either
presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).
When we consider whether a species might qualify as threatened
under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term ``foreseeable
future.'' It is appropriate to interpret ``foreseeable future'' as the
horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the
species can be reasonably relied upon. The foreseeable future considers
the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability
of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the
reliability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events
on the status of the species under consideration. Because a species may
be susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are
available, or which operate across different time scales, the
foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number
of years. For the green turtle, the SRT used a horizon of 100 years to
evaluate the likelihood that a DPS would reach a critical risk
threshold (i.e., quasi-extinction). In making the proposed listing
determinations, we applied the horizon of 100 years in our
consideration of foreseeable future under the scope of the definitions
of endangered and threatened species, pursuant to section 3 of the ESA.
The statute requires us to determine whether any species is
endangered or threatened as a result of any one or combination of the
following 5-factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence (section 4(a)(1)(A-E) of the ESA).
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make this determination
based solely on the best available scientific and commercial data
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and
taking into account any efforts being made by States or foreign
governments to protect the species.
IV. Biology and Life History of Green Turtles
A thorough account of green turtle biology and life history may be
found in the Status Review, which is incorporated here by reference.
The following is a succinct summary of that information.
The green turtle, C. mydas, has a circumglobal distribution,
occurring throughout tropical, subtropical, and, to a lesser extent,
temperate waters. Their movements within the marine environment are not
fully understood, but it is believed that green turtles inhabit coastal
waters of over 140 countries (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989). The
Status Review lists 468 known nesting sites worldwide, with 79 having
nesting aggregations with greater than 500 females. The largest green
turtle nesting aggregation, with an estimated number of nesting females
greater than 132,000, is Tortuguero, Costa Rica (Sea Turtle
Conservancy, 2013). There are 14 aggregations estimated to have 10,001-
100,000 nesting females: Quintana Roo, Mexico (Julio Zurita, pers.
comm., 2012); Ascension Island, UK (S. Weber, Ascension Island
Government, pers. comm., 2013); Poil[atilde]o, Guinea-Bissau (Catry et
al., 2009); Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles (Mortimer et al., 2011; Mortimer,
2012; J. Mortimer, unpubl. data.); Moh[eacute]li, Comoros Islands,
France (Bourjea, 2012); Mayotte, Comoros Islands (Bourjea, 2012);
Europa, Esparses Islands, France (Lauret-Stepler et al., 2007; Bourjea,
2012); Ras Al Hadd, Oman (AlKindi et al., 2008); Ras Sharma, Yemen
(PERSGA/GEF, 2004); Wellesley Group, Australia (Unpubl. data cited in
Limpus, 2009); Raine Island, Australia (Chaloupka et al., 2008a;
Limpus, 2009); Moulter Cay, Australia (Limpus, 2009); Capricorn Bunker
Group of Islands, Australia (Limpus et al., 2003); and Colola, Mexico
(Delgado-Trejo and Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012).
Most green turtles spend the majority of their lives in coastal
foraging grounds. These areas include fairly shallow waters in open
coastline and protected bays and lagoons. While in these areas, green
turtles rely on marine algae and seagrass as their primary diet
constituents, although some populations also forage heavily on
invertebrates. These marine habitats are often highly dynamic and in
areas with annual fluctuations in seawater and air temperatures, which
can cause the distribution and abundance of potential green turtle food
items to vary substantially between seasons and years (Carballo et al.,
2002).
At nesting beaches, green turtles rely on beaches characterized by
intact dune structures, native vegetation, little to no artificial
lighting, and 26 to 35[deg] C beach temperatures for nesting (Limpus,
1971; Salmon et al., 1992; Ackerman, 1997; Witherington, 1997; Lorne
and Salmon, 2007). Nests are typically laid at night at the base of the
primary dune (Hirth, 1997; Witherington et al., 2006). Complete removal
of vegetation, or coastal construction, can affect thermal regimes on
beaches and thus affect the incubation and resulting sex ratio of
hatchling turtles. Nests laid in these areas are at a higher risk of
tidal inundation (Schroeder and Mosier, 2000).
Hatchlings emerge from their nests en masse and almost exclusively
at night, presumably using decreasing sand temperature as a cue
(Hendrickson, 1958; Mrosovsky, 1968). Immediately after hatchlings
emerge from the nest, they begin a period of frenzied activity. During
this active period, hatchlings crawl to the surf, swim, and are swept
through the surf zone (Carr and Ogren, 1960; Carr, 1961; Wyneken and
Salmon, 1992). They orient to waves in the nearshore area and to the
magnetic field as they proceed further toward open water (Lohmann and
Lohmann, 2003).
Upon leaving the nesting beach and entering the marine environment,
post-hatchling green turtles begin an oceanic juvenile phase during
which they are presumed to primarily inhabit areas where surface waters
converge to form local downwellings that result in linear accumulations
of floating material, especially Sargassum sp. This association with
downwellings is well-documented for loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta
caretta), as well as for some post-hatchling green turtles
(Witherington et al., 2006; 2012). The smallest of oceanic green
turtles associating with these areas are relatively active, moving both
within Sargassum sp. mats and in nearby open water, which may limit the
ability of
[[Page 15277]]
researchers to detect their presence as compared to relatively immobile
loggerheads of the same life stage that associate with similar habitat
(Smith and Salmon, 2009; Witherington et al., 2012).
Oceanic-stage juvenile green turtles originating from nesting
beaches in the Northwest Atlantic appear to use oceanic developmental
habitats and move with the predominant ocean gyres for several years
before returning to their neritic (shallower water, generally to 200 m
depth, including open coastline and protected bays and lagoons)
foraging and developmental habitats (Musick and Limpus, 1997; Bolten,
2003). Larger neonate green turtles (at least 15-26 cm straight
carapace length; SCL) are known to occupy Sargassum sp. habitats and
surrounding epipelagic waters, where food items include Sargassum sp.
and associated invertebrates, fish eggs, and insects (Witherington et
al., 2012). Knowledge of the diet and behavior of oceanic stage
juveniles, however, is limited.
The neritic juvenile stage begins when green turtles exit the
oceanic zone and enter the neritic zone (Bolten, 2003). The age at
recruitment to the neritic zone likely varies with individuals leaving
the oceanic zone over a wide size range (summarized in Avens and
Snover, 2013). After migrating to the neritic zone, juveniles continue
maturing until they reach adulthood, and some may periodically move
between the neritic and oceanic zones (NMFS and USFWS, 2007; Parker et
al., 2011). The neritic zone, including both open coastline and
protected bays and lagoons, provides important foraging habitat, inter-
nesting habitat, breeding, and migratory habitat for adult green
turtles (Plotkin, 2003; NMFS and USFWS, 2007). Some adult females may
also periodically move between the neritic and oceanic zones (Plotkin,
2003; Hatase et al., 2006) and, in some instances, adult green turtles
may reside in the oceanic zone for foraging (NMFS and USFWS, 2007;
Seminoff et al., 2008; Parker et al., 2011). Despite these uses of the
oceanic zone by green turtles, much remains unknown about how
oceanography affects juvenile and adult survival, adult migration, prey
availability, and reproductive output.
Most green turtles exhibit slow growth rates, which has been
described as a consequence of their largely herbivorous (i.e., low net
energy) diet (Bjorndal, 1982). Consistent with slow growth, age-to-
maturity for green turtles appears to be the longest of any sea turtle
species (Chaloupka and Musick, 1997; Hirth, 1997). Published age at
sexual maturity estimates are as high as 35-50 years, with lower ranges
reported for known age turtles from the Cayman Islands (15-19 years;
Bell et al., 2005) and Caribbean Mexico (12-20 years; Zurita et al.,
2012) and some mark-recapture projects (e.g., 15-25 years in the
Eastern Pacific; Seminoff et al., 2002a). Mean adult reproductive
lifespan of green turtles from Australia's southern Great Barrier Reef
(GBR) has been estimated at 19 years using mark-recapture and survival
data (Chaloupka and Limpus, 2005). The maximum nesting lifespan
observed in a 27-year tag return dataset from Trindade Island, Brazil
was 16 years; however, nesting monitoring was discontinuous over time
(Almeida et al., 2011). Tag return data comprising 2,077 females
(42,928 nesting events, 1968-partial 2012 season) from continuous
monitoring at French Frigate Shoals (FFS), Hawai`i show maximum nesting
lifespans of 37-38 years (n=2), with many individuals (n=54) documented
nesting over a minimum of 25-35 years (I. Nurzia-Humburg, S. Hargrove,
and G. Balazs, NMFS, unpublished data, 2013).
V. Overview of the Policies and Process Used To Identify DPSs
The SRT considered a vast array of information in assessing whether
there are any green turtle population segments that satisfy the DPS
criteria of being both discrete and significant. In anticipation of
conducting a green turtle status review, NMFS contracted two post-
doctoral associates in 2011 to collect and synthesize genetic and
demographic information on green turtles worldwide. The SRT was
presented with, and evaluated, this genetic and demographic
information. Demographic information included green turtle nesting
information; morphological and behavioral data; movements, as indicated
by tagging (flipper and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags) and
satellite telemetry data; and anthropogenic impacts. Also discussed and
considered as a part of this analysis were oceanographic features and
geographic barriers.
A population may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one
of the following conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors; or (2) it is
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA (61 FR 4722,
February 7, 1996). According to the policy, quantitative measures of
genetic or morphological discontinuity can be used to provide evidence
for item (1). The SRT compiled a list of attributes that suggested
various population groups might be considered discrete, identified
potentially discrete units, and discussed alternative scenarios for
lumping or splitting these potentially discrete units. After arriving
at a tentative list of units, each member of the SRT was given 100
points that could be distributed among two categories: (1) The unit
under consideration is discrete, and (2) the unit under consideration
is not discrete. The spread of points reflects the level of certainty
of the SRT surrounding a decision to call the unit discrete. The SRT
determined that there are 11 discrete regional populations of green
turtles globally. Each of these was then evaluated for significance.
A population may be considered significant if it satisfies any one
of the following conditions: (1) Persistence of the discrete segment in
an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence
that loss of the discrete segment would result in a significant gap in
the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete segment
represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be
more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its
historical range; and (4) evidence that the discrete segment differs
markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics. Because condition (3) is not applicable to green
turtles, the SRT addressed conditions (1), (2) and (4). The SRT listed
the attributes that would make potential DPSs (those determined to be
discrete in the previous step) significant. As in the vote for
discreteness, members of the SRT were then given 100 points with which
to vote for whether each unit met the significance criterion in the
joint policy. All units that had been identified as discrete were also
determined to be significant.
For more discussion on the process the SRT used to identify DPSs,
see Section 3 of the Status Review document.
A. Discreteness Determination
In evaluating discreteness among the global green turtle
population, the SRT began by focusing on the physical separation of
ocean basins (i.e., Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans). The result
was an evaluation of data by major ocean basins, although it quickly
became clear that the Indian and Pacific
[[Page 15278]]
Ocean populations overlapped. The evaluation by ocean basin was not to
preclude any larger or smaller DPS delineation, but to aid in data
organization and assessment. We organized this section by ocean basin
to explain the discreteness determination process and results.
Within each ocean basin, the SRT started by evaluating genetic
information. The genetic data consisted of results from studies using
maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), biparentally inherited
nuclear DNA (nDNA) microsatellite (a section of DNA consisting of very
short nucleotide sequences repeated many times), and single nucleotide
polymorphism (a DNA sequence variation occurring commonly within a
population) markers. Next, the SRT reviewed tagging, telemetry and
demographic data, and additional information such as potential
differences in morphology. The SRT also considered whether the
available information suggests that green turtle population segments
are separated by vicariant barriers, such as oceanographic features
(e.g., current systems), or biogeographic boundaries.
Genetic information that was presented to the SRT resulted from a
global phylogenetic analysis (analysis based on natural evolutionary
relationships) based on sequence data from a total of 129 mtDNA
haplotypes (i.e., mtDNA sequences, which are inherited together)
identified from approximately 4,400 individuals sampled at 105 green
turtle nesting sites around the world (Jensen and Dutton, NMFS,
unpublished data; M. Jensen, NRC, pers. comm., 2013). Results indicated
that the mtDNA variation present in green turtles throughout the world
today occurs within eight major clades (i.e., a group consisting of an
ancestor and all its descendants) that are structured geographically
within ocean basins. These clades represent similarities between
haplotypes on evolutionary timescales as opposed to ecological
timescales. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of these clades.
There is divergence among individual haplotypes within each green
turtle clade (M. Jensen, NRC, pers. comm., 2013) and discrete
populations can exist within these clades.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 15279]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23MR15.000
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
1. Atlantic Ocean/Mediterranean Sea
Two of the eight major mtDNA clades, Clades I and II, are found in
the Atlantic/Mediterranean region. Clade I includes haplotypes
primarily found in turtles from the Mediterranean and the western North
Atlantic. Within Clade I, two strongly divergent groups of haplotypes
are found, with one group being restricted to the Mediterranean and the
other being restricted to the western North Atlantic. Mediterranean and
western North Atlantic turtles share only one specific haplotype that
has been found in only two individuals, indicating very strong long-
term isolation of females. As such, there is strong evidence that these
two geographically-separated groups of divergent haplotypes may be
considered discrete.
In addition to genetic evidence for discreteness, in the
Mediterranean, green turtles are spatially separated from populations
in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, with the nearest known nesting sites
outside the Mediterranean being several thousand kilometers away in the
Republic of Senegal (Senegal), and the North Atlantic population being
more than 8,000 km away. Further, no turtles tagged in the eastern
Mediterranean have been recovered farther west than the Tunisian
Republic (Tunisia) inside the Mediterranean. Nesting females from
Cyprus, Turkey, the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria), and the State of
Israel (Israel) have been satellite tracked to the Arab Republic of
Egypt (Egypt), Libya, and Turkey--with movements largely restricted to
the eastern Mediterranean (Godley et al., 2002; Broderick et al.,
2007). Post-nesting turtles from this region migrate primarily along
the coast from their nesting beach to their foraging and
[[Page 15280]]
overwintering grounds in the Mediterranean (Godley et al., 2002;
Broderick et al., 2007).
Demographic evidence of discreteness of Mediterranean green turtles
lies in the fact that Mediterranean green turtles are the second
smallest green turtles worldwide (the smallest being in the eastern
Pacific), with a mean nesting size in Alagadi, Cyprus of 92 cm Curved
Carapace Length (CCL; Broderick et al., 2003), compared with 95 cm to
110 cm CCL size range for most other populations.
In the North Atlantic, tag recovery and telemetry data indicate
that nesting females primarily reside within the North Atlantic. Some
nesting females tagged at Tortuguero, Costa Rica were recaptured in the
South Atlantic (Tro[euml]ng et al., 2005). There is some degree of
mixing of immature turtles on foraging pastures between the North and
South Atlantic; however, nesting sites in the eastern Caribbean carry
mostly mtDNA haplotypes from a different clade (II), indicating strong
long-term isolation. Tagging studies have identified juveniles from
this population in waters off Brazil and Argentina, but we found no
evidence of movement of mature individuals.
The second clade within the Atlantic Ocean basin, Clade II,
includes haplotypes found in all South Atlantic nesting sites, some
eastern Caribbean turtles, and some turtles in the southwest Indian
Ocean. With a few exceptions, green turtles in the South Atlantic carry
an mtDNA haplotype that is found nowhere else, indicating strong
isolation of matrilines over evolutionary time periods. The exceptions
to this pattern are: (1) One nesting site from the eastern Caribbean,
which exhibits a low frequency of a haplotype from the North Atlantic/
Mediterranean clade (Clade I); (2) nesting sites from the Gulf of
Mexico/Central America, which have a low frequency of Clade II
haplotypes; and (3) two nesting sites from southeast Africa, which have
high frequencies of Clade II haplotypes. The presence of a shared
haplotype in South Atlantic and southwest Indian Ocean rookeries
demonstrates for the first time a recent matrilineal link between
Atlantic and Indian Ocean green turtle populations (Bourjea et al.,
2007b). However, the SRT believes all these exceptions reflect
historical events rather than contemporary connectivity. This
interpretation is supported by satellite telemetry, which reveals
extensive movements of turtles within the South Atlantic region but no
evidence for migrations into other areas, other than rare instances of
movement into foraging areas in the North Atlantic. Long stretches of
cold water along the coasts of Patagonia and southwest Africa serve to
isolate South Atlantic turtles from populations in the Indian and
Pacific Oceans.
Foraging ground studies in the Atlantic have generally shown
regional structuring with strong stock contribution from nearby
regional nesting sites, but little mixing over long distances (Bolker
et al., 2007). Overall, the distribution of the two genetic haplotype
lineages (Clade I and Clade II) is very similar to what is seen for the
nesting sites and indicates a strong regional structuring with little
overlap (Bolker et al., 2007). However, a recent study showed that a
large proportion of juvenile green turtles in the Cape Verde Islands in
the eastern Atlantic originated from distant nesting sites across the
Atlantic, namely Suriname (38 percent), Ascension Island (12 percent)
and Guinea Bissau (19 percent), suggesting that, like loggerheads,
green turtles in the Atlantic undertake transoceanic developmental
migrations (Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2010). The fact that
long distance dispersal is only seen for juvenile turtles suggests that
larger adult-sized turtles return to forage within the region of their
natal nesting sites, thereby limiting the potential for gene-flow
across larger scales (Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2010).
In the South Atlantic, flipper tag recoveries have established
movement between feeding grounds and nesting sites in the Caribbean and
Brazil (Lima et al., 2003; Lima et al., 2008; Lima et al., 2012), and
telemetry data indicate that juvenile green turtles move from Argentina
to Uruguay and Brazil, from Uruguay to Brazil, and from the Guianas to
Brazil. Telemetry studies indicate that nesting females from the
eastern South Atlantic (west coast of Africa) are confined to the
eastern South Atlantic, and nesting females from the western South
Atlantic are confined to the western South Atlantic. In the eastern
South Atlantic, all tracked turtles remained in the general vicinity of
their release location. Nesting females from Ascension Island were
tracked to foraging grounds along the coast of Brazil.
Finally, demographic evidence for discreteness of South Atlantic
green turtles lies in the fact that the South Atlantic is home to the
largest green turtles in the world, with a mean nesting size of green
turtles at Atol das Rocas, Brazil of 118.6 cm CCL (n=738), compared
with 95 cm to 110 cm CCL size range for most other populations.
Based on the information presented above, the SRT concluded, and we
concur, that three discrete populations exist in the Atlantic Ocean/
Mediterranean: (1) North Atlantic, (2) Mediterranean, and (3) South
Atlantic. These three populations are markedly separated from each
other and from populations within the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean
basins as a consequence of physical (including both oceanographic
basins and currents), ecological, and behavioral factors. Information
supporting this conclusion includes genetic analysis, flipper tag
recoveries, and satellite telemetry.
2. Indian Ocean
Green turtles from the Indian Ocean exhibit haplotypes from Clades
II, III, IV, VI, and VII. In the southwest Indian Ocean, Bourjea et al.
(2007b) genetically assessed the population structure among 288 nesting
green turtles from 10 nesting sites. Overall, the southwest Indian
Ocean appears to have at least two genetic stocks: (1) The South
Mozambique Channel (Juan de Nova and Europa); and (2) the North
Mozambique Channel. As stated earlier, the authors recorded a high
presence of a common and widespread South Atlantic Ocean haplotype (CM-
A8) in the South Mozambique Channel. However, the observation that only
a single Atlantic haplotype has been observed and that it occurs in
high frequency among South Mozambique Channel rookeries suggests that
gene flow is not ongoing (Bourjea et al., 2007b). Nesting sites in the
North Mozambique Channel share several haplotypes (including CmP47 and
CmP49) with nesting sites in the eastern Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia
and the Western Pacific, indicating strong-connectivity with the
eastern Indian Ocean population. However, tagging and tracking data
document movements within the Southwest Indian Ocean but not between it
and the eastern Indian and western Pacific Oceans. Although there is
some evidence of trans-boundary movement between the southwest Indian
Ocean and the population in the North Indian Ocean, evidence from tag
returns indicates that most remain in the southwest Indian Ocean.
Indeed, some green turtles in Tanzania are probably resident, and
others are highly migratory, moving to and from nesting and feeding
grounds within the southwest Indian Ocean in Kenya, Seychelles,
Comoros, Mayotte, Europa Island and South Africa (Muir, 2005). From
2009 to 2011, 90 satellite transmitters deployed on nesting green
turtles at five nesting sites in the southwest Indian Ocean showed that
nearly 20 percent of the tracked turtles used Madagascar coastal
foraging grounds while more than 80 percent
[[Page 15281]]
used the east African coasts, including waters off north Mozambique and
south Tanzania. The SRT determined that spatial separation between the
southwest Indian Ocean and other Indo-Pacific populations, as well as
an apparent nesting gap, the lack of trans-boundary recoveries in
tagging, and localized telemetry, indicate discreteness from other
populations in the Indo-Pacific.
In the North Indian Ocean, limited information from only a single
nesting site (Jana Island, Saudi Arabia, n=27) exists on the genetic
structure (M. Jensen, NRC, pers. comm., 2013). Nonetheless, four mtDNA
haplotypes never reported from any other nesting site were identified
from Jana Island, and are highly divergent from other haplotypes in the
Indian Ocean. This population also appears to be isolated from other
Indian populations by substantial breaks in nesting habitat along the
Horn of Africa and along the entire eastern side of the Indian
subcontinent.
Tagging of turtles on nesting beaches of the North Indian Ocean
started in the late 1970s and indicates that some turtles in the North
Indian Ocean migrate long distances from distant feeding grounds to
nesting beaches while others are quite sedentary, but all stay within
the North Indian Ocean. Tagging studies have revealed that some turtles
nesting on Ras Al Hadd and Masirah, Oman can be found as far away as
Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the upper Gulf, and Pakistan
(Ross, 1987; Salm, 1991), and a green turtle tagged in Oman was found
in the Maldives (Al-Saady et al., 2005). No tagging has been carried
out on feeding grounds (Al-Saady et al., 2005).
A few green turtles in the North Indian Ocean have been fitted with
satellite transmitters and reported at www.seaturtle.org, but no data
have been published. One telemetered female green turtle remained in
the coastal areas of the Persian Gulf for 49 days (N. Pilcher, Marine
Research Foundation, pers. comm., 2013), and two nesting turtles were
telemetered at Masirah Island, Oman, both of which moved southward
along the Arabian Peninsula and were found in the Red Sea when the
transmissions ceased (Rees et al. 2012). Telemetry data for captive-
hatched and reared green turtles at Republic of Maldives (Vabbinfaru
Island, Male Atoll) have indicated wide movement patterns within the
Indian Ocean (N. Pilcher, Marine Research Foundation, pers. comm.,
2013).
In the eastern Indian Ocean, turtles mix readily with those in the
western Pacific. Genetic sampling in the eastern Indian and western
Pacific Ocean regions has been fairly extensive with more than 22
nesting sites sampled although, because there are a high number of
nesting sites in this region and there is complex structure, there
remain gaps in sampling relative to distribution (e.g., Thailand,
Vietnam, parts of Indonesia, and the Philippines). Most nesting sites
are dominated by haplotypes from Clade VII, but with some overlap of
Clades III and IV throughout the Indian Ocean--evidence of a complex
colonization history in this region. While one common haplotype is
shared across the Indian Ocean, substantial gaps in nesting sites along
the east coast of India and in the southern Indian Ocean serve to
isolate the eastern Indian-western Pacific population from those in the
north and southwest Indian Ocean. The Wallace Line (a boundary drawn in
1859 by the British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace that separates the
highly distinctive faunas of the Asian and Australian biogeographic
regions) and its northern extension separate this population from
populations to the east, which carry haplotypes primarily from Clade
IV. Nesting sites to the northern extreme (Taiwan and Japan) show more
complex patterns of higher mixing of divergent haplotypes, and the
placement of individual nesting sites within this area is somewhat
uncertain and may become better resolved when additional genetic data
are available.
Significant population substructuring occurs among nesting sites in
this area. Mixed-stock analysis of foraging grounds shows that green
turtles from multiple nesting beaches commonly mix at feeding areas
across northern Australia (Dethmers et al., 2006) and Malaysia (Jensen,
2010), with higher contributions from nearby large nesting sites.
Satellite tracking also shows green turtle movement throughout the
eastern Indian and western Pacific (Cheng, 2000; Dermawan, 2002;
Charuchinda et al., 2003; Wang, 2006).
Given the information presented above, the SRT concluded, and we
concur, that three discrete populations exist in the Indian Ocean, with
the third overlapping with the Pacific: (1) Southwest Indian, (2) North
Indian, and (3) East Indian-West Pacific. These three populations are
markedly separated from each other and from populations within the
Atlantic Ocean as a consequence of physical, ecological, and behavioral
factors. Information supporting this conclusion includes genetic
analysis, flipper tag recoveries, and satellite telemetry.
3. Pacific Ocean
The central west Pacific encompasses most of the area commonly
referred to as Micronesia as well as parts of Melanesia. Genetic
sampling in the central west Pacific has recently improved, but remains
challenging, given the large number of small island and atoll nesting
sites. At least five management units have been identified in the
region (Palau, Independent State of Papua New Guinea (PNG), Yap, CNMI/
Guam, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (Marshall Islands);
Dethmers et al., 2006; M. Jensen, NRC, pers. comm., 2013; Dutton et
al., 2014). The central west Pacific carries haplotypes from Clade IV,
while the populations to the west carry haplotypes predominantly from
Clade VII, so any mixing presumably reflects foraging migrations rather
than interbreeding. The boundary between the central west Pacific and
the East Indian-West Pacific populations is congruent with the northern
portion of the Wallace Line. Wide expanses of open ocean separate the
central west Pacific from the central north Pacific, and genetic data
provide no evidence of gene flow between the central west Pacific and
the central north Pacific over evolutionary time scales. Tagging
studies also have not found evidence for migration of breeding adults
to or from adjacent populations.
In the southwest Pacific, genetic sampling has been extensive for
larger nesting sites along the GBR, the Coral Sea and New Caledonia
(Dethmers et al., 2006; Jensen, 2010; Dutton et al., 2014). However,
several smaller nesting sites in this region have not been sampled
(e.g., Solomon Islands, Republic of Vanuatu (Vanuatu), Tuvalu, PNG,
etc.). The southwest Pacific population is characterized by haplotypes
from Clade V, which have been found only at nesting sites in this
population. It also has a high frequency of haplotypes from Clades III
and IV, as well as low frequency of haplotypes from Clades VI and VII,
making this area highly diverse (haplotypes from the widespread Clade
IV differ from those found in the central west and central south
Pacific).
Traditional capture-mark-recapture studies (Limpus, 2009) and
genetic mixed-stock analysis (Jensen, 2010) show that turtles from
several different southwest Pacific nesting sites overlap on feeding
grounds along the east coast of Australia. This mixing in foraging
areas might provide mating opportunities between turtles from different
stocks as evidenced by the lack of differentiation found between the
northern and southern GBR nesting sites
[[Page 15282]]
for nuclear DNA (FitzSimmons et al., 1997). However, tagging,
telemetry, and genetic studies show movement of breeding adults occurs
mainly within the southwest Pacific.
In the central South Pacific, genetic sampling has been limited to
two nesting sites (American Samoa and French Polynesia) among the many
small isolated nesting sites that characterize this region, but they
both contain relatively high frequencies of Clade III haplotypes, which
are not found in the central west and southwest Pacific populations.
Nesting sites from this area share some haplotypes with surrounding
nesting sites, but at low frequency. There are also limited data on
mixed-stock foraging areas from this region. Flipper tag returns and
satellite tracking studies demonstrate that post-nesting females travel
the complete geographic breadth of this population, from French
Polynesia in the east to Fiji in the west, and sometimes even slightly
beyond (Tuato'o-Bartley et al., 1993; Craig et al., 2004; Maison et
al., 2010; White, 2012), as far as the Philippines (Trevor, 2009). The
complete extent of migratory movements is unknown. The central South
Pacific is isolated by vast expanses of open ocean from turtle
populations to the north (Hawai`i) and east (Galapagos), and in both of
these areas all turtle haplotypes are from an entirely different clade
(Clade VIII), indicating lack of genetic exchange across these
barriers.
The central North Pacific, which includes the Hawaiian Archipelago
and Johnston Atoll, is inhabited by green turtles that are
geographically discrete in their genetic characteristics, range, and
movements, as evidenced by genetic studies and mark-recapture studies
using flipper tags, microchip tags, and satellite telemetry. The key
nesting aggregations within the Hawaiian Archipelago have all been
genetically sampled. Mitochondrial DNA studies show no significant
differentiation (based on haplotype frequency) between FFS and Laysan
Island (P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2013). While the Hawaiian Islands
do share haplotypes with Revillagigedos Islands (CmP1.1 and CmP3.1) at
low frequency, the populations remain highly differentiated, and there
is little evidence of significant ongoing gene flow. The Frey et al.
(2013) analysis of mtDNA and nDNA in scattered nesting sites on the
main Hawaiian Islands (MHI; Molokai, Maui, Oahu, Lanai, and Kauai)
showed that nesting in the MHI might be attributed to a relatively
small number of females that appear to be related to each other and
demographically isolated from FFS.
Turtles foraging in the MHI originate from Hawaiian nesting sites,
with very rare records of turtles from outside the central North
Pacific (Dutton et al., 2008), and there is a general absence of
turtles from the Hawaiian breeding population at foraging areas outside
the central North Pacific. From 1965-2013, 17,536 green turtles
(juvenile through adult stages) were tagged. With only three
exceptions, the 7,360 recaptures of these tagged turtles have been
within the Hawaiian Archipelago. The three outliers involved recoveries
in Japan, the Marshall Islands, and the Philippines (G. Balazs, NMFS,
pers. comm., 2013).
Information from tagging at FFS, areas in the MHI, the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) to the northwest of FFS, and at Johnston Atoll
shows that reproductive females and males periodically migrate to FFS
for seasonal breeding from the other locations. At the end of the
season they return to their respective foraging areas. The reproductive
migrations of 19 satellite tracked green turtles (16 females and 3
males) all involved movements between FFS and the MHI. Conventional
tagging using microchips and metal flipper tags has resulted in the
documentation of 164 turtles making reproductive movements from or to
FFS and foraging pastures in the MHI, and 58 turtles from or to FFS and
the foraging pastures in the NWHI (G. Balazs, NMFS, unpubl. data).
Hawaiian green turtles also exhibit morphological features that may
make them discrete from other populations, possibly reflecting genetic
as well as ecological adaptations. In the Hawai`i population, and in
Australian populations, green turtles have a well-developed crop, which
has not been found in Caribbean or eastern Pacific populations of green
turtles (Balazs et al., 1998; J. Seminoff, NMFS, unpubl. data). In
addition, juvenile green turtles in Hawai`i have proportionally larger
rear flippers than those in the western Caribbean (Wyneken and Balazs,
1996; Balazs et al., 1998). These anatomical differences may reflect
adaptive variation to different environmental conditions. A crop that
holds food material in the esophagus would permit more food to be
ingested during each foraging event in a more dynamic feeding
environment, which is helpful along wind-swept rugged coastlines where
large waves crash ashore. Larger flippers would also aid in making them
stronger swimmers in this feeding environment, and during reproductive
migrations across rough pelagic waters, as opposed to calmer coastal
waters (Balazs et al., 1998).
The central North Pacific population and those in the central South
Pacific and central west Pacific appear to be separated by large
oceanic areas, and the central North Pacific and the eastern Pacific
populations are separated by the East Pacific Barrier, an oceanographic
barrier that greatly restricts or eliminates gene flow for most marine
species from a wide range of taxa (Briggs, 1974).
In the eastern Pacific, genetic sampling has been extensive and the
coverage in this region is substantial, considering the relatively
small population sizes of most eastern Pacific nesting sites, which
include both mainland and insular nesting. This sampling indicates
complete isolation of nesting females between the eastern and western
Pacific nesting sites. Recent efforts to determine the nesting stock
origins of green turtles assembled in foraging areas have found that
green turtles from several eastern Pacific nesting stocks commonly mix
at feeding areas in the Gulf of California and along the Pacific coast
in San Diego Bay, U.S. (Nichols, 2003; P. Dutton, NMFS, unpubl. data).
In addition, green turtles of eastern Pacific origin have been found,
albeit very rarely, in waters off Hawai`i (LeRoux et al., 2003; Dutton
et al., 2008), Japan (Kuroyanagi et al., 1999; Hamabata et al., 2009),
and New Zealand (Godoy et al., 2012). A recent study of juvenile green
turtles foraging at Gorgona Island in the Republic of Colombia
indicated a small number (5 percent) of turtles with the haplotype
CmP22, which was recently discovered to be common in nesting green
turtles from the Marshall Islands and American Samoa (Dutton et al.,
2014). This shows that, despite the isolation of nesting females
between the eastern and western Pacific, a small number of immature
turtles successfully cross the Pacific during developmental migrations
in both directions. However, it is important to point out that there is
no evidence of mature turtles inhabiting foraging or nesting habitat
across the Pacific from their region of origin.
Recent nDNA studies provide insights that are consistent with
patterns of differentiation found with mtDNA in the eastern Pacific.
Roden et al. (2013) found significant differentiation between FFS and
two eastern Pacific populations (the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands, Ecuador
and Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico) and greater connectivity between
Galapagos and Michoac[aacute]n than between FFS and either of the
eastern Pacific nesting sites.
Flipper tagging and satellite telemetry data show that dispersal
and reproductive migratory movements of
[[Page 15283]]
green turtles originating from the eastern Pacific region are generally
confined to that region. Long-term flipper tagging programs at
Michoac[aacute]n (Alvarado-D[iacute]az and Figueroa, 1992) and in the
Gal[aacute]pagos Islands (Green, 1984; P. Zarate, University of
Florida, pers. comm., 2012) produced 94 tag returns from foraging areas
throughout the eastern Pacific (e.g., Seminoff et al., 2002b). There
were two apparent groupings, with tags attached to turtles nesting in
the Gal[aacute]pagos largely recovered along the shores from Costa Rica
to Chile in the southeastern Pacific, and long-distance tag returns
from the Michoac[aacute]n nesting site primarily from foraging areas in
Mexico to Nicaragua. However, there was a small degree of overlap
between these two regions, as at least one Michoac[aacute]n tag was
recovered as far south as Colombia (Alvarado-D[iacute]az and Figueroa,
1992).
Satellite telemetry efforts with green turtles in the region have
shown similar results to those for flipper tag recoveries. A total of
23 long-distance satellite tracks were considered for the Status Review
(Seminoff, 2000; Nichols, 2003; Seminoff et al., 2008). Satellite data
show that turtles tracked in northeastern Mexico (Nichols, 2003; J.
Nichols, California Academy of Sciences, unpubl. data) and California
(P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2010) all stayed within the region,
whereas turtles tracked from nesting beaches in the Gal[aacute]pagos
Islands all remained in waters off Central America and the broader
southeastern Pacific Ocean (Seminoff et al., 2008).
Demographic evidence of discreteness is also found in morphological
differences between green turtles in the eastern Pacific and those
found elsewhere. The smallest green turtles worldwide are found in the
eastern Pacific, where mean nesting size is 82.0 cm CCL in
Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico (n=718, (Alvarado-D[iacute]az and Figueroa,
1992) and 86.7 cm CCL in the Gal[aacute]pagos (n=2708; (Z[aacute]rate
et al., 2003), compared to the 95 cm to 110 cm CCL size range for most
green turtles. In addition, Kamezaki and Matsui (1995) found
differences in skull morphology among green turtle populations on a
broad global scale when analyzing specimens representing west and east
Pacific (Japan and Gal[aacute]pagos), Indian Ocean (Comoros and
Seychelles), and Caribbean (Costa Rica and Guyana) populations. The
eastern Pacific was different from others based on discriminant
function analysis (used to discriminate between two or more naturally
occurring groups).
Given the information presented above, the SRT concluded, and we
concur, that there are five discrete populations entirely within the
Pacific Ocean: (1) Central West Pacific, (2) Southwest Pacific, (3)
Central South Pacific, (4) Central North Pacific, and (5) East Pacific.
These five populations are markedly separated from each other and from
populations within the Atlantic Ocean and Indian Oceans as a
consequence of physical, ecological, behavioral, and oceanographic
factors. Information supporting this conclusion includes genetic
analysis, flipper tag recoveries, and satellite telemetry.
Collectively, all observations above led the SRT to propose that
green turtles from the following geographic areas might be considered
``discrete'' according to criteria in the joint DPS policy:
(1) North Atlantic Ocean
(2) Mediterranean Sea
(3) South Atlantic Ocean
(4) Southwest Indian Ocean
(5) North Indian Ocean
(6) East Indian Ocean-West Pacific Ocean
(7) Central West Pacific Ocean
(8) Southwest Pacific Ocean
(9) Central South Pacific Ocean
(10) Central North Pacific Ocean
(11) East Pacific Ocean
B. Significance Determination
In accordance with the DPS Policy, the SRT next reviewed whether
the population segments identified in the discreteness analysis were
biologically and ecologically significant to the taxon to which they
belong, which is the taxonomic species C. mydas. Data relevant to the
significance question include ecological, behavioral, genetic and
morphological data. The SRT considered the following factors, listed in
the DPS Policy, in determining whether the discrete population segments
were significant: (1) Evidence that loss of the discrete segment would
result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (2) evidence
that the discrete segment differs markedly from other populations of
the species in its genetic characteristics; and (3) persistence of the
discrete segment in an unusual or unique ecological setting. The DPS
policy also allows for consideration of other factors if they are
appropriate to the biology or ecology of the species, such as unique
morphological or demographic characteristics, and unique movement
patterns.
1. North Atlantic
Green turtles in the North Atlantic differ markedly in their
genetic characteristics from other regional populations. They are
strongly divergent from the Mediterranean population (the only other
population within Clade I), and turtles from adjacent populations in
the eastern Caribbean carry haplotypes from a different clade. The
North Atlantic population has globally unique haplotypes. Therefore,
the loss of the population would result in significant genetic loss to
the species as a whole.
The green turtles within the North Atlantic population occupy a
large portion of one of the major ocean basins in the world; therefore,
the loss of this segment would represent a significant gap in the
global range of green turtles. Green turtles take advantage of the warm
waters of the Gulf Stream to nest in North Carolina at 34[deg] N.,
which is farther from the equator than any other nesting sites outside
the Mediterranean Sea. Tagging and telemetry studies show that the
North Atlantic green turtle population has minimal mixing with
populations in the South Atlantic and Mediterranean regions. The mean
size of nesting females in the North Atlantic, which could reflect the
ecological setting and/or be genetically based, is larger (average
101.7-109.3 cm CCL; (Guzm[aacute]n-Hern[aacute]ndez, 2001, 2006) than
those in the adjacent Mediterranean Sea (average 88-96 cm CCL), and
smaller than those at varying locations in the South Atlantic, such as
those at Isla Trindade, Brazil (average 115.2 cm CCL; Hirth, 1997;
Almeida et al., 2011), Atol das Rocas, Brazil (112.9-118.6 cm CCL;
Hirth, 1997; Bellini et al., 2013), and Ascension Island (average 116.8
cm CCL; Hirth, 1997).
Another factor indicating uniqueness of the North Atlantic
population is a typical 2-year remigration interval, as compared to 3-
year or longer intervals that are more common elsewhere (Witherington
et al., 2006).
2. Mediterranean
Mediterranean turtles differ markedly in their genetic
characteristics from other regional populations, with globally unique
haplotypes and strong divergence from the other population within Clade
I (the North Atlantic population). Therefore, the loss of the
population would result in significant genetic loss to the species as a
whole. Given this genetic distinctiveness and the distinctive
environmental conditions, it is likely that turtles from the eastern
Mediterranean have developed local adaptations that help them persist
in this area. Mediterranean females are smaller than those in any other
regional population except the Eastern Pacific, averaging 92.0 cm CCL
(Broderick et al., 2003) compared to the global average of 95 cm-110 cm
CCL.
The loss of the population would result in a significant gap in the
range
[[Page 15284]]
of the taxon. The population encompasses a large region, separated from
other regional populations by large expanses of ocean, and with an
apparent biogeographic boundary formed by the western Mediterranean.
Finally, the Mediterranean Sea appears to be a unique ecological
setting for the species. It is the most saline marine water basin in
the world (38 parts per thousand (ppt) or higher), is nearly enclosed,
and is outside the normal latitudinal range for the species, being the
farthest from the equator of any green turtle population. Although
similar information is not available for green turtles, it has been
postulated that the high salinity of sea water in the Mediterranean
acts as a ``barrier'' preventing loggerhead sea turtles from moving
among the areas of the Western Mediterranean, explaining why they do
not mix between the north and south Mediterranean as juveniles
(Revelles et al., 2008). All nesting sites within the Mediterranean are
between latitudes 31-40[deg] N., which not only affects temperature but
results in more seasonal variation in day length and environmental
conditions, which may have fostered local adaptations in green turtles
living there.
3. South Atlantic
The South Atlantic population has globally unique haplotypes.
Therefore, the loss of the population would result in significant
genetic loss to the species as a whole. The South Atlantic population
contains the only nesting site in the world associated with a mid-ocean
ridge. This unique ecological setting at Ascension Island, one of the
largest nesting sites within this population, ensures diverse nesting
habitats and promotes resilience for the species. This population spans
an entire hemispheric ocean basin, and its loss would result in a gap
of at least 12,000 km between populations off southeast Africa and
those in Florida, clearly a significant gap in the range of the taxon.
Brazil and Guinea Bissau may have acted as a refuge for Atlantic green
turtles during the Pleistocene period (Reece et al., 2005). The average
size of nesting females is larger here than in any other populations,
ranging from 112.9-118.6 cm CCL (Hirth, 1997; Almeida et al., 2011)
compared to 95-110 cm CCL worldwide, which could reflect an adaptation
to local environmental conditions such as habitat, availability of
food, water temperature, and population dynamics.
4. Southwest Indian
Within the Southwest Indian Ocean, strong upwelling in the
Mozambique Channel produces distinctive areas of high productivity that
support a robust turtle population, and complex current patterns in the
area create a distinctive ecological setting for green turtles.
Madagascar is one of the largest islands in the world and its proximity
to the African coast, along with a proliferation of nearby islands,
creates a complex series of habitats suitable for green turtles. Loss
of this population would leave a gap of over 10,000 km between
populations in southern India and those in west-central Africa. Nesting
turtles from this population are the largest within the Indian Ocean,
ranging from 103 cm (SCL)-112.3 cm (CCL) (Frazier, 1971; 1985) which
could reflect growth due to presence of a network of foraging areas and
localize migratory movements.
5. North Indian
The ecological setting for this region is unique for green turtles
in that it contains some of the warmest and highly saline waters in the
world, indicative of the partially enclosed marine habitats within this
system. The salinity in the North Indian Ocean varies from 32 to 37 ppt
comparable only to the Mediterranean Sea. Salinity in this region
varies with local and seasonal differences particularly in the Arabian
Sea (dense, high-salinity) and the Bay of Bengal (low-salinity).
Although genetic data are very limited for this population, with the
only sample being from the Persian Gulf, it has two groups of highly
divergent haplotypes that are not found anywhere else in the world
(i.e., markedly different genetic characteristics). The loss of this
population, and its globally unique haplotypes, which are not found in
any other population, would result in significant genetic loss to the
species as a whole. This population is isolated from other Indian Ocean
populations which would render its loss a significant gap in the range
of the species. Nesting turtles are smaller here than in other Indian
Ocean regions, possibly reflecting genetic adaptations to local
environmental conditions.
6. East Indian-West Pacific
This area of complex habitats at the confluence of the tropical
Indian and Pacific Oceans is a well-known hotspot for speciation and
diversification of both terrestrial and marine taxa. It is unique in
that it contains the most extensive continental shelf globally, and
particularly low salinity waters in the northeastern Indian Ocean. Loss
of green turtles from this vast area would create a substantial gap in
the global distribution and, because this population is located at the
center of the species' range, would strongly affect connectivity within
the species as a whole. Connectivity is important for the maintenance
of genetic diversity and resilience of the species. Genetic data
indicate the presence of ancestral haplotypes with significant mtDNA
diversity. The loss of this population, and its ancestral haplotypes,
would represent a significant genetic loss to the species. The wide
size range of nesting females within this population (82.1 cm-105.6 cm;
Charuchinda and Monanunsap, 1998; Cheng, 2000) is also an indication of
the high level of diversity within this population.
7. Central West Pacific
The Central West Pacific population is genetically significant in
that it has both globally unique haplotypes and ancestral haplotypes.
The Central West Pacific has no continental shelf habitats, with all
nesting occurring on small islands or atolls that are volcanic or
coralline limestone. There is an apparent oceanic boundary between the
Central West Pacific and the Central North Pacific population and an
apparent biogeographic boundary between the Central West Pacific and
the East Indian-West Pacific population. Loss of turtles from this
population would create a large gap near the center of the geographic
range of the species.
8. Southwest Pacific
Clade V haplotypes have only been found at nesting sites in the
Southwest Pacific population. In addition to these globally unique
haplotypes, the presence of the ancestral haplotypes and significant
mtDNA diversity make this population genetically significant.
Unlike most other populations in the Pacific Ocean, this population
includes island nesting sites in close proximity to coastal foraging
areas. The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is the largest coral reef system in
the world and was periodically isolated over geological time. It
provides expansive, year-round foraging habitat for green turtles and
supports one of the largest nesting sites in the world.
9. Central South Pacific
This population has globally unique haplotypes. Therefore, the loss
of the population would result in significant genetic loss to the
species as a whole. To a greater extent than in any other regional
population, nesting sites are widely dispersed among a large number of
small habitats on islands and atolls. Foraging areas are mostly coral
reef ecosystems, with seagrass beds in Tonga and Fiji being a notable
exception.
[[Page 15285]]
There is an apparent oceanic boundary with the Central North Pacific
population. Although turtles in this area are poorly studied, they may
have evolved adaptations to persist with this very diffuse
metapopulation structure. If green turtles were lost from this entire
area, it would create a significant gap in the range across the
southern Pacific Ocean.
10. Central North Pacific
Mitochondrial DNA in this extensively sampled region includes
globally unique haplotypes. Although two haplotypes are shared with
individuals in the Revillagigedos Islands in the East Pacific, there is
little evidence of significant ongoing gene flow. The loss of this
population would result in significant genetic loss to the species as a
whole.
This population has no continental-shelf habitat and all nesting
occurs on mid-basin pinnacles. Turtles in this population are known to
bask, a rare behavior for modern-day sea turtles, and have unique
morphological traits such as unusually large flippers, possibly
reflecting adaptations to their ecological setting. This is the most
isolated of all populations, with an apparent biogeographic boundary
with the Eastern Pacific population and oceanic boundaries with the
Central West and Central South Pacific populations. If all turtles were
lost from this vast geographic area, it would create a significant gap
in the global range of the species.
11. East Pacific
The two cold-water currents on the east side of the Pacific Ocean
(the Humboldt Current in the south and the California Current in the
north) leave a distinctive region of tropical ocean along the west
coasts of Mexico, Central America, and northern South America that is
known as the Eastern Pacific Zoogeographic Region (Briggs, 1974).
Perhaps as a result, some turtles in this area exhibit a unique
overwintering behavior similar to hibernation. This area also has a
very narrow continental shelf and low levels of seagrass, resulting in
a unique diet for green turtles (e.g., tunicates and red mangrove
fruits; Amorocho and Reina, 2007). This population has globally unique
haplotypes. Therefore, the loss of the population would result in
significant genetic loss to the species as a whole. Mean size of
nesting turtles in the East Pacific is smaller, at approximately 82 cm
CCL (Pritchard, 1971) than in any other population, which could reflect
an adaptation to local ecological conditions, as could the distinctive
``black'' phenotype. The Galapagos Island chain is one of the few areas
where green turtles bask (Hawai`i being the other). Loss of all turtles
from this population would leave a significant gap in the range of the
species as it occurs along much of the eastern boundary of the world's
largest ocean.
C. Summary of Discreteness and Significance Determinations
In summary, the 11 discrete populations identified in the
Discreteness Determination section were also determined to be
significant to the species, C. mydas. Each is genetically unique, and
many are identified by unique mtDNA haplotypes which could represent
adaptive differences. Some populations exist in unique or unusual
ecological settings influenced by local ecological and physical factors
which may also lead to adaptive differences and represent adaptive
potential. Some also possess unique morphological or other demographic
characteristics that render them significant. Most populations
represent a large portion of the species' range, and their loss would
result in a significant gap in the range of the species.
Based on the information provided in the Discreteness Determination
and Significance Determination sections above, the SRT identified the
following 11 potential green turtle DPSs (Figure 2): (1) North
Atlantic, (2) Mediterranean, (3) South Atlantic, (4) Southwest Indian,
(5) North Indian, (6) East Indian-West Pacific, (7) Central West
Pacific, (8) Southwest Pacific, (9) Central South Pacific, (10) Central
North Pacific, and (11) East Pacific. We concur with the findings of
the SRT and conclude that the 11 potential DPSs identified by the SRT
warrant delineation as DPSs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23MR15.001
[[Page 15286]]
VI. Listing Evaluation Process
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Eleven Green Turtle DPSs
In these sections, we describe the geographic range of each DPS. We
discuss its population parameters, which are derived from population
data and influence the persistence of the DPS. These population
parameters include: Abundance, growth rates or trends, spatial
structure, and diversity or resilience (McElhany et al., 2000). NMFS
has used this approach in numerous status reviews. USFWS uses a similar
approach, based on Shaffer and Stein (2000), to evaluate a species'
status in terms of its representation, resiliency, and redundancy; this
methodology has also been a widely accepted approach (Tear et al.,
2005). Though expressed differently, these two approaches rely on the
same conservation biology principles. Though this information is
presented separately from the assessment of threats under section
4(a)(1) of the ESA, population dynamics represent one aspect of the
other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of
the species that we consider under Factor E.
Complete population abundance and trend estimates do not exist for
any of the 11 DPSs. The data used in the Status Review and summarized
here represent the best scientific information available. The data are
more robust for some areas than for others. For each DPS, the primary
data available are collected on nesting beaches, either as counts of
nests or counts of nesting females, or a combination of both (either
direct or extrapolated). Information on abundance and trends away from
the nesting beaches is limited and often non-existent, primarily
because these data are, relative to nesting beach studies, logistically
difficult and expensive to obtain. Therefore, the primary and best
available information source for directly evaluating status and trends
of the DPSs is nesting data.
Nesting female abundance estimates for each nesting site or nesting
beach are presented in the Status Review for each potential DPS.
Accompanying this information is trend information in the form of bar
plots and Population Viability Analysis (PVA) models extending 100
years into the future for the 33 sites that met the criteria for
depicting the data this way, i.e., recent (<10 year old) data over a
given period of time (10 years for bar plots, 15 years for PVA) with
consistent protocols and effort during that time.
With regard to spatial structure, the SRT used information from
genetic, tagging, telemetry, and demographic data to identify
structuring and substructuring within each DPS. This informed the SRT
of metapopulation dynamics in order that it might consider these
dynamics in considerations about the future of the species, including
whether source populations and genetic diversity are being maintained.
With regard to diversity and resilience, the SRT considered the
extent of ecological variation, including the overall nesting spatial
range, diversity in nesting season, and diversity of nesting site
structure and orientation, e.g., whether nesting sites are insular or
continental, have a high or low beach face, and whether there are a
variety of types of sites. The SRT also considered demographic and
genetic diversity of the DPS which may indicate its ability to adapt
and thus its resilience. One of the considerations when looking at
diversity was the DPS's ability to adapt to climate change including,
but not limited to, sea level rise and warming of nesting beaches.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Eleven Green Turtle DPSs
Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
at 50 CFR part 424 set forth procedures for adding species to the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species. Under
section 4(a) of the ESA, the Services must determine whether a species
is threatened or endangered because of any of the following 5 factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
In this rulemaking, information regarding the status of each of the
11 green turtle DPSs is considered in relation to the five factors
provided in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. That information presented here
is a summary of the information in the Status Review. The reader is
directed to the subsection within each DPS section of the Status Review
titled ``Analysis of Factors Listed Under ESA Section 4(a)(1)'' for a
more detailed discussion of the factors.
C. Conservation Efforts
In evaluating the efficacy of protective efforts not yet
implemented or not yet proven to be effective, we rely on the Policy on
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions
(``PECE''; 68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003), issued jointly by the
Services. Information on conservation efforts for each DPS is
summarized from the Status Review. For a more detailed description of
conservation efforts, please see that document. When assessing
conservation efforts, the SRT assumed that all conservation efforts
would remain in place at their current levels. In our final
determinations, we considered the conservation benefits of continued
protections under the ESA.
D. Extinction Risk Assessments and Findings
To analyze the extinction risk of each DPS, the SRT collected and
presented information on the six critical assessment elements: (1)
Abundance, (2) growth rates/trends, (3) spatial structure, (4)
diversity/resilience, (5) five factor analysis/threats, and (6)
conservation efforts. Shortly after each presentation, the SRT voted
twice: A vote on the contribution of each critical assessment element
to extinction risk, and a vote on the overall risk of extinction to the
DPS (see section 3.3.4 of the Status Review for a more detailed
discussion of this process).
In the first vote, SRT members ranked the importance of each of the
four population parameters (Abundance, Trends, Spatial Structure,
Diversity/Resilience) by assigning them a value from 1 to 5 for each
DPS, with 1 indicating a very low risk and 5 indicating a very high
risk. SRT members then ranked the influence of the section 4(a)(1)
factors (threats) on the status of each DPS by assigning a value of 0
(neutral effect on status--this could mean that threats are not
sufficient to appreciably affect the status of the DPS, or that threats
are already reflected in the population parameters), -1 (threats
described in the 5-factor analysis suggest that the DPS will experience
some decline (<5 percent decline) in abundance within 100 years), or -2
(threats described in the 5-factor analysis suggest that the DPS will
experience significant decline (>=5 percent decline) in abundance
within 100 years). They then ranked the influence of conservation
efforts on the status of each DPS by assigning a value of 0 (neutral
effect on status--this could mean that conservation efforts are not
sufficient to appreciably affect the status of the DPS, or that
conservation efforts are already reflected in the population
parameters), +1 (activities described in Conservation Efforts suggest
that the DPS will experience <5 percent increase in abundance within
100 years), or +2 (activities described in Conservation Efforts suggest
that the DPS will experience >=5 percent increase in
[[Page 15287]]
abundance within 100 years). The SRT did note in discussions that none
of these elements is entirely independent. Abundance, growth rates,
spatial structure, and diversity/resilience are linked and often
dependent on each other. Past threats and conservation efforts affect
these four population parameters. To minimize ``double counting,'' the
SRT considered only those threats and conservation measures that are
unlikely to be reflected in the population parameters.
In the second vote, SRT members provided their expert opinion (via
vote) on the likelihood that each DPS would reach a critical risk
threshold (quasi-extinction) within 100 years. In the Status Review,
the SRT defined the critical risk threshold (quasi-extinction) as
follows: ``A DPS that has reached a critical risk threshold has such
low abundance, declining trends, limited distribution or diversity,
and/or significant threats (untempered by significant conservation
efforts) that the DPS would be at very high risk of extinction with
little chance for recovery.'' Generally, DPSs were considered to have
higher viability if they were composed of a number of relatively large
populations, distributed throughout the geographic range of the DPS,
and exhibited stable or increasing growth rates. DPSs were considered
to be at higher risk if they were composed of fewer robust populations
or with robust populations all concentrated in a small geographic area,
where they might be susceptible to correlated catastrophes. Any DPS
with low phenotypic and/or habitat diversity were also considered to be
at higher risk because the entire DPS could be vulnerable to persistent
environmental conditions (Limpus and Nicholls, 2000; Saba et al., 2008;
Van Houtan and Halley, 2011) or stochastic catastrophic events (Hawkes
et al., 2007; Van Houtan and Bass, 2007; Fuentes et al., 2011).
Each member was given 100 points to spread across risk categories,
reflecting their interpretation of the information for that DPS; the
voting results are available in the Status Review. The spread of points
is meant to reflect the amount of uncertainty in the risk threshold
bins. Risk categories were <1 percent, 1-5 percent, 6-10 percent, 11-20
percent, 21-50 percent, and >50 percent. We note that, presumably
because this species is such a long-lived species and, as such, it is
unlikely that it would go extinct within 100 years even if it was lost
in many places, every DPS received numerous points in the <1 percent
category, including those with the most depressed numbers and that face
the highest threats.
As noted above, the SRT estimated the likelihood that a population
would fall below a critical risk threshold within 100 years. The SRT
did not define the critical risk threshold quantitatively but instead
provided the following definition: ``A DPS that has reached a critical
risk threshold has such low abundance, declining trends, limited
distribution or diversity, and/or significant threats (untempered by
significant conservation efforts) that the DPS would be at very high
risk of extinction with little chance for recovery.''
While the SRT's review of the DPSs' statuses was rigorous and
extensive, the framework used does not allow us to easily or clearly
translate a particular critical risk category to an ESA listing status.
Structured expert opinion is a valid and commonly used method of
evaluating extinction risk and forms a useful starting point for our
analysis. However, in our judgment, the critical risk threshold
approach used for this status review does not directly correlate with
the ESA's definitions of endangered and threatened. The ESA defines an
``endangered species'' as ``any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' The
critical risk threshold, as defined by the SRT, is a condition worse
than endangered, because it essentially precludes recovery. Thus, while
the SRT votes informed our listing determinations, we did not equate a
particular critical risk category with an ESA listing status, and
therefore the votes were not the basis for those determinations.
However, to make our proposed listing determinations, we applied the
best available science that was compiled by the SRT in examining the
definitions of endangered and threatened species under section 3 of the
ESA.
After considering the extinction risk, the Services then reviewed
the present threats and threats anticipated in the foreseeable future
for each DPS. We examined the significant threats to each DPS, how
these threats affected that DPS, and how they were predicted to affect
the DPS in the foreseeable future. Our analysis weighed each factor
within the scope of the ESA's definitions of threatened and endangered
for each DPS.
Among other things, the Services also carefully considered where
current conditions or protections are present specifically because
green turtles are listed under the ESA, and whether those conditions
would likely exist absent such a listing. We note that the latter was
not considered by the SRT, meaning the SRT conducted all risk analyses
assuming all protections would remain in place.
VII. North Atlantic DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the North Atlantic DPS
The range of the North Atlantic DPS extends from the boundary of
South and Central America north along the coast to the northern extent
of the green turtle's range to include Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua,
Honduras, Belize, Mexico, and the United States. It then extends due
east across the Atlantic Ocean at 48[deg] N.; follows the coast south
to include the northern portion of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania
(Mauritania; to 19[deg] N.) on the African continent; and west along
the 19[deg] N. latitude to the Caribbean basin, turning south and west
at 63.5[deg] W., 19[deg] N., and due south at 7.5[deg] N., 77[deg] W.
to the boundary of South and Central to include Puerto Rico, the
Bahamas, Cuba, Turks and Caicos Islands, Republic of Haiti (Haiti),
Dominican Republic, Cayman Islands, and Jamaica. The North Atlantic DPS
includes the Florida breeding population, which was originally listed
as endangered (43 FR 32800, July 28, 1978). Critical habitat was
previously designated for areas within the range of this DPS (i.e.,
coastal waters surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico; 63 FR 46693,
September 2, 1998).
Green turtle nesting sites in the North Atlantic are some of the
most studied in the world, with time series exceeding 40 years in Costa
Rica and 35 years in Florida. Seventy-three nesting sites were
identified within the North Atlantic DPS, although some represent
numerous individual beaches. For instance, Florida nesting beaches were
listed by county with the numerous beaches in each county representing
one site and, for other U.S. beaches (from Texas to North Carolina),
each state's nesting beaches were represented as one site. There are
four regions that support high density nesting concentrations for which
data were available: Tortuguero, Costa Rica; Mexico (Campeche, Yucatan,
and Quintana Roo); Florida, United States; and Cuba. There is one
nesting site with >100,000 nesting females (Tortuguero at 131,751;
Chaloupka et al., 2008a; Sea Turtle Conservancy, 2013), one with
10,001-100,000 (Quintana Roo, Mexico at 18,257; Julio Zurita, pers.
comm. 2012) and six with 1,001-5,000: Cayo Largo, Cuba; Campeche,
Yucatan, and Veracruz, Mexico; and Brevard and Palm Beach Counties, FL,
United States. There are four with 501-1,000; Tamaulipas, Mexico;
Vieques, Puerto Rico; Martin and Indian River Counties,
[[Page 15288]]
FL, United States; nine with 101-500; 26 with <50; and 26 with numbers
unquantified. Seventy-nine percent of the nesting turtles in this DPS
nest at Tortuguero.
Of the nesting sites with long-term data sets, both Tortuguero and
the index beaches in Florida exhibit a strong positive trend in the
PVAs that were conducted on them, as does Isla Aguada, Mexico (one
beach in the Campeche group). Three beaches in Cuba (total of 489
nesting females) either showed no trend or a modest positive trend. One
beach in Mexico (El Cuyo, Yucatan) exhibited no trend.
Genetic sampling in the North Atlantic DPS has been generally
extensive with good coverage of large populations in this region;
however, some smaller Caribbean nesting sites are absent and coastal
nesting sites in the Gulf of Mexico are under-represented. Genetic
differentiation based on mtDNA indicated that there are at least four
independent nesting subpopulations in the North Atlantic DPS
characterized by shallow regional substructuring: (1) Florida
(Hutchinson Island; Lahanas et al., 1994), (2) Cuba (Guanahacabibes
Pen[iacute]nsula and Cayer[iacute]a San Felipe; Ruiz-Urquiola et al.,
2010), (3) Mexico (Quintana Roo; Encalada et al., 1996), and (4) Costa
Rica (Tortuguero; Lahanas et al., 1994). These nesting sites are
characterized by common and widespread haplotypes dominated by CM-A1
and/or CM-A3. A relatively low level of spatial structure is detected
due to shared common haplotypes, although there are some rare/unique
haplotypes at some nesting sites. Connectivity may indicate recent
shared common ancestry.
Green turtles nest on both continental and island beaches
throughout the range of the DPS (Witherington et al., 2006). Major
nesting sites are primarily continental with hundreds of lower density
sites scattered throughout the Caribbean. Green turtles nesting in
Florida seem to prefer barrier island beaches that receive high wave
energy and that have coarse sands, steep slopes, and prominent
foredunes. The greatest nesting is on sparsely developed beaches that
have minimal levels of artificial lighting. A high-low nesting pattern
for Florida and Mexico occurs during the same years; however, nesting
in Tortuguero, Costa Rica is not always in sync with Florida and Mexico
(e.g., 2011 was a high nesting year in Florida, but for Tortuguero the
high nesting year was 2010). The nesting season is similar throughout
the range of the DPS, with green turtles nesting from June to November
in Costa Rica (Bjorndal et al., 1999), and May through September in the
United States, Mexico, and Cuba (Witherington et al., 2006).
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the North Atlantic DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
Within the range of the North Atlantic DPS, nesting beaches
continue to be degraded from a variety of activities. Destruction and
modification of green turtle nesting habitat results from coastal
development, coastal armoring, beachfront lighting, erosion, sand
extraction, and vehicle and pedestrian traffic on nesting beaches
(Witherington and Bjorndal, 1991; Witherington, 1992; Witherington et
al., 1996; Lutcavage et al., 1997; Bouchard et al., 1998; Mosier, 1998;
Witherington and Koeppel, 2000; Mosier and Witherington, 2002; Leong et
al., 2003; Roberts and Ehrhart, 2007). In addition, sea level rise
resulting from climate change poses a threat to all nesting beaches.
Portions of the Southern United States and Caribbean are found be to
highly vulnerable to sea level rise (Melillo et al., 2014). For
instance, along the southern portion of the Florida coastline, one
climate change model predicted one meter of sea level rise by 2060,
resulting in the inundation of more than 50 percent of coastal wildlife
refuges (Flaxman and Vargas-Moreno, 2011). Most green turtle nesting in
the United States is concentrated along the southeastern coast of
Florida with more than 90 percent of nesting occurring from Brevard to
Broward counties (https://ocean.floridamarine.org/SeaTurtle/nesting/FlexViewer/). Loss of nesting habitat as a result of sea level rise
poses a threat to the population. Sea level rise is exacerbated by
coastal development and armoring, which prevents the beach from
migrating and causes nesting green turtles to abandon their nesting
attempts more frequently as a result of their encounter with such
structures (Mosier, 1998; Mosier and Witherington, 2000; Rizkalla and
Savage, 2011). Females might nest in sub-optimal habitats, where nests
are more vulnerable to erosion or inundation (Rizkalla and Savage
2011). As a result, nests would be subject to more frequent inundation,
exacerbated erosion, and increased moisture from tidal overwash, which
can potentially alter thermal regimes, an important factor in
determining the sex ratio of hatchlings.
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Green turtles in the post-hatchling and early-juvenile stages are
closely associated with Sargassum algae in the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico (Witherington et al., 2012), and vulnerable to ingesting
contaminants such as tar balls and plastics that aggregate in
convergent zones where Sargassum aggregates (Witherington, 2002).
Juvenile and adult green turtles and their nearshore foraging habitats
are also exposed to high levels of pollutants, such as agricultural and
residential runoff, and sewage which result in degraded foraging
habitat (Smith et al., 1992). Further, increased nutrient load in these
coastal waters causes eutrophication. Eutrophication is linked to
harmful algal blooms that result in the loss and degradation of
seagrass beds, and possibly fibropapilloma tumors in green turtles
(Milton and Lutz, 2003).
In Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and Panama, water quality is also
affected by sewage and industrial and agricultural runoff. Pollution
remains a major threat in the waters of Jamaica. Major sources of
pollution are industrial and agricultural effluent, garbage dumps and
solid waste, and household sewage (Greenway, 1977; Green and Webber,
2003).
Nearshore foraging habitats such as seagrass beds are affected by
propeller scarring, anchor damage, dredging, sand mining, and marina
construction throughout the range of the DPS (Smith et al., 1992; Dow
et al., 2007; Patr[iacute]cio et al., 2011). Sand placement projects
along the Florida coastline affect nearshore reefs as a result of
direct burial of portions of the reef habitat and loss of food sources
available to green turtles (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999).
The SRT found, and we concur, that the North Atlantic DPS of the
green turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both its
terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use
practices as considered above in Factor A. The increasing threats to
the terrestrial and marine habitats are not reflected in the current
trend for the North Atlantic DPS, as it was based on nesting numbers
and not on all current life stages. These increasing threats to the
population will become apparent when those life stages affected by the
threats return to nest, as the trend information is based solely on
numbers of nests. This lag time was considered in our analysis. For
example, a threat that affects the oceanic juvenile phase would not be
detected until those turtles return to nest, approximately 15 to 20
years later. The SRT also found, and we concur, that coastal
development, beachfront lighting, erosion, sand extraction, and sea
level rise increasingly impact nesting beaches of
[[Page 15289]]
this DPS and are increasing threats to the DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
A partial list of the countries within the range of the North
Atlantic DPS where ongoing intentional capture of green turtles occurs,
includes Costa Rica (Mangel and Tro[euml]ng, 2001; Gonzalez Prieto and
Harrison, 2012), Mexico (Seminoff, 2000; Gardner and Nichols, 2001;
Dirado et al., 2002; Guzm[aacute]n-Hern[aacute]ndez and Garc[iacute]a
Alvarado, 2011), Cuba (Fleming, 2001; F. Moncado, Ministerio de la
Industria Pesquera, pers. comm., 2013), Nicaragua (Lagueux, 1998;
Humber et al., 2014), the Bahamas (Fleming, 2001), Jamaica (Haynes-
Sutton et al., 2011), and the Cayman Islands (Fleming, 2001). Harvest
remains legal in several of these countries (Humphrey and Salm, 1996;
Wamukoya et al., 1996; Fleming, 2001; Fretey, 2001; Br[auml]utigam and
Eckert, 2006).
The commercial artisanal green turtle fishery in Nicaragua
continues to be a threat to the Tortuguero nesting population, the
largest remaining green turtle population in the Atlantic (Campbell and
Lagueux, 2005). Local demand for turtle meat in coastal communities
continues (Garland and Carthy, 2010). There is a legal turtle fishery
on the Caribbean coast that is located in the most important
developmental and foraging habitat for Caribbean green turtles
(Fleming, 2001; Campbell and Lagueux, 2005). The hunting of juvenile
and adult turtles continues both legally and illegally in many foraging
areas where green turtles originating from Florida nesting beaches are
known to occur (Chac[oacute]n, 2002; Fleming, 2001).
Direct take of eggs is also an ongoing threat in Panama (Evans and
Vargas, 1998). Green turtles nesting on Belize's beaches and foraging
along its coast are harvested in the Robinson Point area and sold in
markets and restaurants (Searle, 2003). Large numbers of green turtles
are captured in the area southeast of Belize, an area which may be an
important migratory corridor (Searle, 2004). There are important
feeding grounds in the Banc d'Arguin, Mauritania. While the frequency
of green turtle nesting in Mauritania is not known, green turtle nests
are reported as being harvested there (Fretey, 2001; Fretey and Hama,
2012).
Commercial harvest of green turtles was a factor that contributed
to the historic decline of this DPS. Current harvest of green turtles
and eggs, in a portion of this DPS, continues to be significant threat
to the persistence of this DPS.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
Fibropapillomatosis (FP) has been found in green turtle populations
in the United States (Hirama, 2001; Ene et al., 2005; Foley et al.,
2005; Hirama and Ehrhart, 2007), the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic,
Puerto Rico (Dow et al., 2007; Patr[iacute]cio et al., 2011), Cayman
Islands (Wood and Wood, 1994; Dow et al., 2007), Costa Rica
(Tortuguero; Mangel and Tro[euml]ng, 2001), Cuba (Moncada and Prieto,
2000), Mexico (Yucatan Peninsula; K. Lopez, pers. comm., as cited in
MTSG, 2004), and Nicaragua (Lagueux, 1998).
FP continues to be a major problem in some lagoon systems and along
the nearshore reefs of Florida. It is a chronic, often lethal disease
occurring predominantly in green turtles (Van Houtan et al., 2014). A
correlation appeared to exist between these degraded habitats and the
prevalence of FP in the green turtles that forage in these areas but no
direct link was established (Aguirre and Lutz, 2004; Foley et al.,
2005). Indeed, across green turtle populations, it is widely observed
that FP occurs most frequently in eutrophied and otherwise impaired
waterways (Herbst, 1994; Van Houtan et al., 2010). A recent study
establishes that eutrophication substantially increases the nitrogen
content of macroalgae, thereby promoting the latent herpes virus which
causes FP tumors in green turtles (Van Houtan et al., 2014) although it
is argued that there is no inferential framework to base this
conclusion (Work et al., 2014). Despite the high incidence of FP among
foraging populations, there is no conclusive evidence on the effect of
FP on reproductive success (Chaloupka and Balazs, 2005).
Harmful algal blooms, such as a red tide, also affect green turtles
in the North Atlantic DPS. In Florida, the species that causes most red
tides is Karenia brevis, a dinoflagellate that produces a toxin (Redlow
et al., 2002). Since 2007, there were two red tide events, one in 2007
along the east coast of Florida, and one in 2012 along the west coast
of Florida. Sea turtle stranding trends indicated that these events
were acting as a mortality factor (A. Foley, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, pers. comm., 2013). These events may impact a
population's present and future reproductive status.
Predators such as raccoons (Procyon lotor), feral hogs (Sus
scrofa), foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus and Vulpes vulpes), and
coyotes (Canis latrans) may take significant numbers of turtle eggs
(Stancyk, 1982; Allen et al., 2001). Nest protection programs are in
place at most of the major nesting beaches in the North Atlantic DPS,
although they are managed at varying levels and degrees of
effectiveness (Engeman et al., 2005). Predator species that are
particularly difficult to manage include red fire ants (Solenopsis
invicta) and jaguars (Panthera onca) (Wetterer, 2006; Prieto and
Harrison, 2012).
Although FP disease is of major concern, with increasing levels in
some green turtle populations in this DPS, it should be noted there is
uncertainty of the long-term survivability and effect on the
reproductive effort of the population. Predation is known to occur
throughout this DPS, and we find it to be a significant threat to this
DPS in the absence of well managed nest protection programs.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
At least 15 regulatory mechanisms that apply to green turtles
regionally (e.g., U.S. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act) or globally (e.g., Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) apply to green turtles
within the North Atlantic Ocean. The analysis of these existing
regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place at their
current levels.
In the United States, regulatory mechanisms that protect green
turtles are in place and include State, Federal, and international
laws. The green turtle was listed under the ESA in 1978, providing
relatively comprehensive protection and recovery activities to minimize
the threats to green turtles in the United States. Considering the
dependence of the species on conservation efforts, significant concerns
remain regarding the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms. The
development and implementation of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in the
shrimp trawl fishery was likely the most significant conservation
accomplishment for North Atlantic green turtles in the marine
environment since their 1978 ESA listing. In the southeast United
States and Gulf of Mexico, TEDs have been mandatory in shrimp and
flounder trawls for over a decade. These regulations are implemented
and enforced to varying degrees throughout the Gulf and U.S. Southeast
Atlantic. For example, the State of Louisiana prohibits enforcement of
TED regulations and tow time limits. In other States, enforcement of
TED regulations depends on available
[[Page 15290]]
resources, and illegal or improperly installed TEDs continue to
contribute to mortality of green turtles. Further, TEDs are not
required in all trawl fisheries, and green turtle mortality continues
in the Gulf of Mexico, where shrimp trawling is the highest (Lewison et
al., 2014). There are also regulatory mechanisms in place that address
the loss of nesting habitat, such as the Florida Administrative Code
Rule 62B-33.0155, which addresses threats from armoring structures.
However, these regulatory mechanisms allow for variances and armoring
permits continue to be issued along nesting beaches.
Other threats, such as light pollution on nesting beaches, marine
debris, vessel strikes, and continued direct harvest of green turtles
in places like Nicaragua, are being addressed to some extent by
regulatory mechanisms, although they remain a problem. In addition,
other regional and national legislation to conserve green turtles
(often all sea turtles) exists throughout the range of the DPS. The
extent to which threats have been reduced as a result of these efforts
is difficult to ascertain. When the SRT assessed conservation efforts,
it assumed that all conservation efforts would remain in place at their
current levels. The following countries have laws to protect green
turtles: The Bahamas, Belize, Bermuda, Canary Islands, Cayman Islands,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,
Jamaica, Mauritania, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and the United States
(including the commonwealth of Puerto Rico).
With regard to the United States, the key law currently protecting
green turtles is the ESA. This law has been instrumental in conserving
sea turtles, eliminating directed take of turtles in U.S. waters unless
authorized by permit and reducing indirect take. In addition, the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act has been
effective at mandating responsible fishing practices and bycatch
mitigation within fleets that sell fisheries products to the United
States, and the Marine Turtle Conservation Act authorizes a dedicated
fund to support marine turtle conservation projects in foreign
countries, with emphasis on protecting nesting populations and nesting
habitat. In addition, at least 12 international treaties and/or
regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the
North Atlantic DPS.
Outside of the United States, there are some national regulations
that address the harvest of green turtles as well as the import and
export of turtle parts. These regulations allow for the harvest of
green turtles of certain sizes, months, or for ``traditional'' use.
Gear restrictions and TED requirements exist in a few countries,
although the compliance level is unknown. Our Status Review did not
reveal regulatory mechanisms in place to specifically address marine
pollution, sea level rise, and other effects of climate change that
continue to contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Fisheries bycatch in artisanal and industrial fishing gear
continues to be a major threat to green turtles in the North Atlantic
DPS. The adverse impacts of bycatch on sea turtles has been documented
in marine environments throughout the world (National Research Council,
1990b; Epperly, 2003; Lutcavage et al., 1997). The lack of
comprehensive and effective monitoring and bycatch reduction efforts in
many pelagic and near-shore fisheries operations throughout the range
of the North Atlantic DPS still allows substantial direct and indirect
mortality (NMFS and USFWS, 2007).
i. Gill Net and Trawl Fisheries
Gill net fisheries may be the most ubiquitous of fisheries
operating in the neritic range of the North Atlantic DPS. In the United
States, some states (e.g., South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana,
and Texas) have prohibited gill nets in their waters, but there remain
active gill net fisheries in other U.S. states, in U.S. Federal waters,
Mexican waters, Central and South America, and the Northeast Atlantic.
Finfish fisheries accounted for the greatest proportion of turtle
bycatch (53 percent) in Cuba. In Jamaica, fish traps and gill nets are
the gear primarily identified in sea turtle bycatch. Purse seine and
gill nets are used commonly in the waters of the Dominican Republic
(Dow et al., 2007). In Costa Rica, gill nets, hook and line, and trawls
are the main gear types deployed (Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, 2004). Shark-netting operations in Panama are known
to capture green turtles (Meylan et al., 2013).
The development and implementation of TEDs in the U.S. shrimp trawl
fishery was likely the most significant conservation accomplishment for
North Atlantic green turtles in the marine environment since their 1978
ESA listing. In the southeast United States and Gulf of Mexico, TEDs
have been mandatory in shrimp and flounder trawls for over a decade.
However, compliance varies throughout the States, and green turtle
mortality continues in the Gulf of Mexico, where shrimp trawling is the
highest (Lewison et al., 2014). With the current regulations in place,
an estimated 3,000 green turtles are captured (1,400 killed) by shrimp
trawls each year in the Gulf and U.S. Southeast Atlantic (https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/section_7/freq_biop/documents/fisheries_bo/shrimp_biop_2014.pdf). These regulations are implemented
and enforced to varying degrees throughout the Gulf and U.S. Southeast
Atlantic (see discussion in Factor D).
ii. Dredge Fishing
Dredge fishing gear is the predominant gear used to harvest sea
scallops off the mid- and northeastern U.S. Atlantic coast. Sea scallop
dredges are composed of a heavy steel frame and cutting bar located on
the bottom part of the frame and a bag made of metal rings and mesh
twine attached to the frame. Turtles can be struck and injured or
killed by the dredge frame and/or captured in the bag, where they may
drown or be further injured or killed when the catch and heavy gear are
dumped on the vessel deck.
b. Channel Dredging
In addition to the destruction or degradation of habitat as
described in Factor A above, periodic dredging of sediments from
navigational channels can also result in incidental mortality of sea
turtles. Direct injury or mortality of green turtles by dredges has
been well documented in the southeastern and mid-Atlantic U.S.
(National Research Council, 1990b). From 1980 to 2013, 105 green
turtles were impacted as a result of dredging operations in the U.S
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Solutions, including modification of
dredges, have been successfully implemented to reduce mortalities and
injuries to sea turtles in the United States (73 FR 18984, April 8,
2008; 77 FR 20728, April 6, 2012), and NMFS imposes annual take limits
based on the expected number of green turtles impacted that will not,
directly or indirectly, appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival
and recovery of the green turtle in the wild.
c. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic
Boat strikes have been shown to be a major mortality source in
Florida (Singel et al., 2003). Vessel strikes are a growing concern
and, as human populations increase in coastal areas,
[[Page 15291]]
vessel strikes are likely to increase (NMFS and FWS, 2008). From 2005
to 2009, 18.2 percent of all stranded green turtles (695 of 3,818) in
the U.S. Atlantic (Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf of Mexico) were
documented as having sustained some type of propeller or collision
injuries (L. Belskis, NMFS, pers. comm., 2013). It is quite likely that
this is a chronic, albeit unreported, problem near developed coastlines
in other areas as well, such as Panama (e.g., Or[oacute]s et al.,
2005).
d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
While sea turtles have survived past eras that have included
significant temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected
to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly,
they may face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Climate change and sea level rise have the potential to affect green
turtles significantly in the North Atlantic DPS. North Atlantic turtle
populations could be affected by the alteration of thermal sand
characteristics of beaches (from warming temperatures), resulting in
the reduction or cessation of male hatchling production (Hawkes et al.,
2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009). Increased sea surface temperatures may
alter the timing of nesting for some stocks (Weishampel et al., 2004),
although the implications of changes in nesting timing are unclear.
Changes in sea temperatures will also likely alter seagrass,
macroalgae, and invertebrate populations in coastal habitats in many
regions (Scavia et al., 2002). Further, a significant rise in sea
level, as is projected for areas within the range of the North Atlantic
DPS (Flaxman and Vargas-Moreno, 2011), could significantly restrict
green turtle nesting habitat due to coastal development. Structures on
the landward side of the beach can effectively prevent access to
nesting habitat and reduce available nesting habitat (Mosier, 1998).
The increasing interaction between the structures and the hydrodynamics
of tide and current, due to sea level rise, often results in the
alteration of the beach profile seaward and in the immediate vicinity
of the structure (Pilkey and Wright, 1988; Terchunian, 1988; Tait and
Griggs, 1990; Plant and Griggs, 1992), increased longshore currents
that move sand away from the area, loss of interaction between the dune
and the beach berm, and concentration of wave energy at the ends of the
structure (Schroeder and Mosier, 1996). Impacts from global climate
change induced by human activities are likely to become more apparent
in future years (IPCC, 2007).
Periodic hurricanes and other weather events are generally
localized and rarely result in whole-scale losses over multiple nesting
seasons. However, storm intensity and frequency are predicted to
increase as a result of climate change (Melillo et al., 2014). The
negative effects of hurricanes on low-lying and/or developed shorelines
may be longer-lasting and a greater threat to the DPS overall when
combined with the effects of climate change, and particularly sea level
rise.
e. Effects of Cold Stunning
Cold stunning is the hypothermic reaction that occurs when sea
turtles are exposed to prolonged cold water temperatures. Cold stunning
of green turtles regularly occurs at several locations in the United
States, including Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts (Still et al., 2002);
Long Island Sound, New York (Meylan and Sadove, 1986; Morreale et al.,
1992); the Indian River Lagoon system and the panhandle of Florida
(Mendon[ccedil]a and Ehrhart, 1982; Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989;
Foley et al., 2007); and Texas inshore waters (Hildebrand, 1982;
Shaver, 1990). Cold-stunning events at these foraging areas
(Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989; McMichael et al., 2006) leads to
mortality of juvenile and adult green turtles, which may affect the
present and future green turtle population trend.
f. Contaminants and Marine Debris
Several activities associated with offshore oil and gas production,
including oil spills, operational discharge, seismic surveys, explosive
platform removal, platform lighting, and drilling and production
activities, are known to affect sea turtles (National Research Council,
1996; Davis et al., 2000; Viada et al., 2008; Conant et al., 2009; G.
Gitschlag, NMFS, pers. comm., 2007, as cited in Conant et al., 2009).
Oil spills near nesting beaches just prior to or during the nesting
season place nesting females, incubating egg clutches, and hatchlings
at significant risk from direct exposure to contaminants (Fritts and
McGehee, 1982; Lutcavage et al., 1997; Witherington, 1999), and have
negative impacts on nesting habitat. The Deepwater Horizon (Mississippi
Canyon 252) oil spill, which started April 20, 2010, discharged oil
into the Gulf of Mexico through July 15, 2010. Witherington et al.
(2012) note that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was particularly
harmful to pelagic juvenile green turtles. Due to their size, turtles
in these stages are more vulnerable as a result of ingesting
contaminants (Witherington, 2002).
Green turtles are affected by anthropogenic marine debris
(including discarded fishing gear) and plastics throughout the North
Atlantic DPS. Juvenile green turtles in pelagic waters are particularly
susceptible to these effects as they feed on Sargassum in which there
is a high occurrence of debris (Wabnitz and Nichols, 2010; Witherington
et al., 2012). In recent decades, there has been an increase in
stranded green turtles reported as affected by discarded fishery gear
throughout the southeastern United States (Teas and Witzell, 1996;
Adimey et al., 2014).
C. Conservation Efforts for the North Atlantic DPS
In the North Atlantic, nest protection efforts have been
implemented on two major green turtle nesting beaches, Tortuguero
National Park in Costa Rica and Florida, and progress has been made in
reducing mortality from human-related impacts on other nesting beaches.
Tortuguero National Park was established in 1976 to protect the nesting
turtles and habitat at this nesting beach, which is by far the largest
in the DPS and the western hemisphere. Since that time, the harvest of
nesting turtles on the beach has been reduced by an order of magnitude
(Bjorndal et al., 1999). At Tortuguero, Sea Turtle Conservancy
researchers and volunteers regularly monitor green turtle nesting
trends, growth rates and reproductive success, and also conduct sea
turtle lighting surveys, education, and community outreach.
In Florida, a key effort was the acquisition of the Archie Carr
National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in 1991 by Federal, State, Brevard
and Indian River counties, and a non-governmental organization, where
nesting densities range from 36 nests/km (22 nests/mi) to 262 nests/km
(419 nests/mi) (D. Bagley, University of Central Florida, pers. comm.,
2014; K. Kneifl, USFWS, pers. comm., 2014). Over 60 percent of the
available beachfront acquisitions for the Refuge have been completed as
the result of a multi-agency land acquisition effort. In addition, Hobe
Sound National Wildlife Refuge, as well as coastal national seashores
such as the Dry Tortugas National Park and Canaveral National Seashore,
military installations such as Patrick Air Force Base and Canaveral Air
Force Station, and State parks where green turtles regularly nest,
provide protection for nesting turtles. However, despite these efforts,
alteration of the coastline continues and, outside of publicly-owned
lands,
[[Page 15292]]
coastal development and associated coastal armoring remain serious
threats.
Considerable effort has been expended since the 1980s to document
and reduce commercial fishing bycatch mortality. In the Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico, measures (such as gear modifications, changes to
fishing practices, and time/area closures) are required to reduce sea
turtle bycatch in pelagic longline, mid-Atlantic gill net, Virginia
pound net, scallop dredge, and southeast shrimp and flounder trawl
fisheries. However, enforcement of regulations depends on available
resources, and bycatch continues to contribute to mortality. Since
1989, the United States has prohibited the importation of shrimp
harvested in a manner that adversely affects sea turtles.
As a result of conservation efforts, many of the intentional
impacts directed at sea turtles have been lessened. For example,
harvest of eggs and adults has been reduced at several nesting areas,
including Tortuguero, and an increasing number of community-based
initiatives are in place to reduce the take of turtles in foraging
areas. However, despite these advances, human impacts continue
throughout the North Atlantic. The lack of effective monitoring in
pelagic and near-shore fisheries operations still allows substantial
direct and indirect mortality, and the uncontrolled development of
coastal and marine habitats threatens to destroy the supporting
ecosystems of long-lived green turtles.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the North Atlantic DPS
In the North Atlantic DPS, there are several regions that support
high density nesting concentrations, including possibly the largest in
the world at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Green turtle nesting population
trends have been encouraging, exhibiting long-term increases at all
major nesting sites, including Tortuguero (Tro[euml]ng, 1998; Campbell
and Lagueux, 2005; Tro[euml]ng and Rankin, 2005) and Florida (Chaloupka
et al., 2008; B. Witherington, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, pers. comm., 2013). The North Atlantic DPS is characterized
by geographically widespread nesting at a diversity of sites, both
mainland and insular. The increasing threats are not reflected in the
current trend for the North Atlantic DPS as it was based on nesting
numbers and not all current life stages. These increasing threats to
the population will become apparent when those life stages affected by
the threats return to nest as the trend information is based solely on
numbers of nests. This lag time was considered in our analysis.
However, the 5-factor (section 4(a)(1) of the ESA) analysis revealed
continuing threats to green turtles and their habitat that affect all
life stages.
On nesting beaches, many portions of the DPS continue to be exposed
to, and are negatively impacted by, coastal development and associated
beachfront lighting, coastal armoring, and erosion as described in
Factor A above. Impacts from such development are further exacerbated
by existing and planned shoreline development and shoreline
engineering. The current and anticipated increase in armored shoreline
along high density nesting beaches, particularly in Florida, is a
substantial unresolved threat to the recovery and stability of this DPS
as it will result in the permanent loss of nesting habitat.
Nests and hatchlings are susceptible to predation which is
prevalent throughout the beaches within the range of the North Atlantic
DPS. Predation would be an increasing threat without nest protection
and predatory control programs in place.
Nesting beaches are also extremely susceptible to sea level rise,
which will exacerbate some of the issues described above in addition to
leading to the potential loss of nesting beaches. Along the
southeastern United States, one climate change model predicted a 1-
meter sea level rise by 2060, resulting in the inundation of more than
50 percent of coastal wildlife refuges (Flaxman and Vargas-Moreno,
2011). Green turtle nesting in Florida is concentrated along coastal
wildlife refuges in southern Florida such as Hobe Sound National
Wildlife Refuge and the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, with more
than 90 percent of nesting occurring along southeast Florida. This
increase in sea level will result in the permanent loss of current
green turtle nesting habitat. Loss of beach is expected to be worse as
a result of the increase in hurricane frequency and intensity (Flaxman
and Vargas-Moreno, 2011). The increasing threat of coastal erosion due
to climate change and sea level rise is expected to be exacerbated by
increasing human-induced pressures on coastal areas (IPCC, 2007).
In the water, fisheries bycatch, habitat degradation, direct
harvest, and FP are major threats to green turtles in the North
Atlantic DPS. Artisanal and industrial fishing gear, including drift
nets, set nets, pound nets, and trawls, still cause substantial direct
and indirect mortality of green turtles (NMFS and USFWS, 2007). In
addition, degradation and loss of foraging habitat due to pollution,
including agricultural and residential runoff, anchor damage, dredging,
channelization, and marina construction remains a threat to both
juvenile and adult green turtles. Many green turtles in this DPS remain
susceptible to direct harvesting. Current legal and illegal harvest of
green turtles and eggs for human consumption continues in the eastern
Atlantic and the Caribbean. A remaining threat is the directed harvest
of turtles in Nicaragua that nest at Tortuguero and thus belong to the
largest and arguably the most important population within the DPS
(although this population continues to increase in spite of the
harvest). However, potential degradation or loss of other, smaller
populations is also of concern, as these contribute to the diversity
and resilience of the DPS. Finally, the prevalence of FP has reached
epidemic proportions in some parts of the North Atlantic DPS. The
extent to which this will affect the long-term outlook for green
turtles in the North Atlantic DPS is unknown. Nesting trends across the
DPS continue to increase despite the high incidence of the disease.
While the Status Review indicates that the DPS shows strength in
many of the critical population parameters (abundance, population
trends, spatial structure, and diversity/resilience), as indicated
above, numerous threats continue to act on the DPS, including habitat
degradation (coastal development and armoring, loss of foraging
habitat, and pollution), bycatch in fishing gear, continued turtle and
egg harvesting, FP, and climate change. Importantly, the analysis of
threats in the Status Review was conducted assuming current management
regimes would continue.
Many of the gains made by the species over the past few decades are
a direct result of ESA protections in the United States, as well as
protections by U.S. States and local jurisdictions and other countries
within the DPS range that are influenced by the species' ESA status.
Because the green turtle is currently listed under the ESA, take
can only be authorized in the United States through the processes
provided in sections 7 and 10 of the ESA and their implementing
regulations. In the southeastern United States, threats to nesting
beaches and nearshore waters include: Sand placement on nesting beaches
and associated impacts to nearshore hardbottom habitat; groin, jetty
and dock construction; and other activities. Any such activities that
are currently funded, permitted and/or authorized by Federal agencies
are subject to consultation with USFWS and NMFS,
[[Page 15293]]
and therefore are subject to reasonable and prudent measures to
minimize effects of these activities as well as conservation
recommendations associated with those consultations. Federally-managed
fisheries are also subject to interagency consultation under section 7
of the ESA. During the consultation process NMFS and USFWS have an
opportunity to work with the action agency to design practices to
minimize effects on green turtles, such as when the activity occurs in
areas or habitats used mostly by green turtles (i.e., seagrass beds and
nesting beaches). Activities that affect green turtles and do not
involve Federal agencies, such as beach driving, some beach armoring,
and research, must comply with section 10 of the ESA to avoid violating
the statute. Section 10 permits require avoiding, minimizing, and
mitigating impacts to green turtles to the extent possible. In addition
to the above requirements, the requirement for use of TEDs in fisheries
within the United States and in fisheries outside of the United States
that export wild-caught shrimp to the United States is tied to listing
under the ESA.
This DPS has exhibited increases at major nesting sites, and has
several stronghold populations. Green turtles in the U.S. Atlantic have
increased steadily since being protected by the ESA (Suckling et al.,
2006). ESA driven programs such as land acquisition, nest protection,
development of the TEDs, and educational programs provide a
conservation benefit to green turtles. The species is conservation
dependent or conservation-reliant in that even when biological recovery
goals are achieved, maintenance of viable populations will require
continuing, species-specific intervention (Scott et al., 2010). Without
alternate mechanisms in place to continue certain existing conservation
efforts and protections, threats would be expected to increase and
population trends may be curtailed or reversed. Considering the
conservation dependence of the species, significant concerns remain
regarding the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (one of the five
section 4(a)(1) factors (Factor D), especially when we evaluate the
status of the DPS absent the protections of the ESA.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the North Atlantic DPS as
threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction
presently because of the increasing nesting population trends and
geographically widespread nesting at a diversity of sites; however,
continued threats are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable
future.
VIII. Mediterranean DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Mediterranean DPS
The Mediterranean Sea is a virtually enclosed basin occupying an
area of approximately 2.5 million square kilometers. The Mediterranean
DPS is bounded by the entire coastline of the Mediterranean Sea,
excluding the Black Sea. The westernmost border of the range of this
DPS is marked by the Strait of Gibraltar (Figure 2).
Nesting in the Mediterranean occurs mostly in the eastern
Mediterranean, with three nesting concentrations in Turkey, Cyprus, and
Syria. Currently, approximately 452 to 2,051 nests are laid in the
Mediterranean each year--about 70 percent in Turkey, 15 percent in
Cyprus, and 15 percent in Syria, with trace nesting in Israel, Egypt,
the Hellenic Republic (Greece), and Lebanon (Kasparek et al., 2001;
Rees et al., 2008; Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010). There are no sites
with greater than 500 nesting females. These numbers are depleted from
historical levels (Kasparek et al., 2001). In terms of distribution of
nesting sites in the Mediterranean, there are 32 sites, with Akyatan,
Turkey being the largest nesting site, hosting 25 percent of the total
annual nesting (35-245 nesting females; T[uuml]rkozan and Kaska, 2010).
There are seven sites for which 10 years or more of recent data are
available for annual nesting female abundance (a criterion for
presenting trends in a bar graph). Of these, only one site--West Coast,
Cyprus--met our standards for conducting a PVA. Of the seven sites,
five appeared to be increasing, although some only slightly, and two
had no apparent trend. However, while the Mediterranean DPS appears to
be stable or increasing, it is severely depleted relative to historical
levels. This dynamic is particularly apparent along the coast of
Palestine/Israel, where 300-350 nests were deposited each year in the
1950s (Sella, 1995) compared to a mean of eight nests each year from
1993 to 2008 (Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010).
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the
Mediterranean has been extensive and the coverage in this region is
substantial. Within the Mediterranean, rookeries are characterized by
one dominant haplotype CM-A13 and a recent study showed no population
substructuring between several rookeries in Cyprus and Turkey (Bagda et
al., 2012). However, analysis using unpublished data from additional
rookery samples in Cyprus shows evidence for two stocks: Cyprus
(Karpaz, North Cyprus and Lara Bay; Bagda et al., 2012; Dutton
unpublished data, 2013); and Turkey (Akayatan, Alata, Kazanli, Samandag
and Yumurtal[inodot]k; Bagda et al., 2012). The demography of green
turtles in the Mediterranean appears to be consistent among the various
nesting assemblages (Broderick and Godley, 1996; Broderick et al.,
2002a). This consistency in parameters such as mean nesting size,
inter-nesting interval, clutch size, hatching success, nesting season,
and clutch frequency suggests a low level of population structuring in
the Mediterranean. Mediterranean turtles have not been detected
foraging outside the Mediterranean (e.g., Lahanas et al., 1998;
Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2010). Despite years of flipper
tagging (Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, 1995, 2010; Y. Kaska,
Pamukkale University, pers. comm., 2013), few tag recoveries have been
reported. However, satellite tracking revealed that post-nesting
turtles migrate primarily along the coast from their nesting beach to
foraging grounds, increasing the likelihood of interacting with
fisheries (Broderick et al., 2002a).
With regard to diversity and resilience, the overall spatial range
of the DPS is limited. Green turtle nesting is found primarily in the
eastern Mediterranean (Turkey, Syria, Cyprus, Lebanon, Israel, and
Egypt: Kasparek et al., 2001). The nesting season is consistent
throughout the range of this DPS (June to August; Broderick et al.,
2002a), thus limiting the temporal buffering against climate change in
terms of impacts due to storms and other seasonal events. The fact that
turtles nest on both insular and continental sites suggests some degree
of nesting diversity, but with the sites so close together, the
benefits of this diversity may be minimal.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Mediterranean DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
In the Mediterranean, destruction and modification of green turtle
nesting habitat result from coastal development and construction,
beachfront lighting, sand extraction, beach erosion, vehicular and
pedestrian traffic, and beach pollution (Kasparek et al., 2001; Casale
and Margaritoulis, 2010). These activities may directly affect the
amount and suitability of nesting habitat available to nesting females
and thus affect the nesting success of green turtles, as well as the
survivability of
[[Page 15294]]
eggs and hatchlings. In Turkey, coastal construction on Samanda[gbreve]
and Kazanli beaches is of concern, particularly from associated
lighting and human activities on the beach (T[uuml]rkozan and Kaska,
2010). In Cyprus, the increased construction of beachfront hotels and
other properties in some areas in recent years, as well as the
associated increase in beachfront lighting and human activity on the
beach, is decreasing the quality of nesting habitat (Demetropoulos and
Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al., 2010). In Turkey and Latakia
beach in Syria, beach erosion and sand extraction also pose a problem
to green turtle nesting habitat (T[uuml]rkozan and Kaska, 2010; Rees et
al., 2010).
Nesting beaches in the eastern Mediterranean are exposed to high
levels of pollution and marine debris, in particular the beaches of
Cyprus, Turkey, and Egypt (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004). In Turkey, marine
debris washing ashore is a substantial problem and has degraded nesting
beaches, especially Akyatan and Samanda[gbreve] beaches. In Syria, Jony
and Rees (2008) reported that beaches contain a large amount of plastic
litter that washes ashore or is blown in from dumps located in the
beach dunes; this litter has been documented as accumulating in such
large amounts that it can hinder nesting females from locating suitable
nesting sites and cause emergent hatchlings to have difficulty crawling
to the sea (Rees et al., 2010). In Cyprus, marine debris has also been
a significant problem on some beaches, although organized beach clean-
ups in recent years have greatly reduced the amount of litter on the
beach (Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al.,
2010).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Dynamite fishing and boat anchors affect green turtles and their
habitat in the Mediterranean. Khalil et al. (2009) reported that
dynamite fishing offshore of nesting beaches is a common problem in
Lebanon. Illegal dynamite fishing also occurs year round in Libya
(Hamza, 2010), and, although illegal, explosions at sea that are likely
due to dynamite fishing have been reported off the coast of Syria
(Saad, unpubl. data, as cited in Rees et al., 2010). Further, the
Mediterranean is a site of intense tourist activity, and corresponding
boat anchoring also may affect green turtle foraging habitat in the
neritic environment.
Because the Mediterranean is an enclosed sea, organic and inorganic
wastes, toxic effluents, and other pollutants rapidly affect the
ecosystem (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004). The Mediterranean has been declared a
``special area'' by the MARPOL Convention (International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships), in which deliberate petroleum
discharges from vessels are banned, but numerous repeated offenses are
still thought to occur (Pavlakis et al., 1996).
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Overutilization for commercial purposes likely was a factor that
contributed to the historical declines of this DPS. Egg collection and
turtle harvest for individual consumption still occurs in Egypt (Clarke
et al., 2000; Nada and Casale, 2008). A study found that the open
selling of sea turtles in Egypt generally has been curtailed due to
enforcement efforts, but a high level of intentional killing for the
black market or for direct personal consumption still exists (Nada and
Casale, 2008). Several hundred turtles are currently estimated to be
slaughtered each year in Egypt (Nada and Casale, 2008). In Syria and
Egypt, as reported for other countries, green turtles incidentally
captured by fishers are sometimes eaten (Nada and Casale, 2008; Rees et
al., 2010). Small quantities of stuffed turtles and juvenile turtle
carapaces, presumably of Syrian origin, have been observed for sale in
Latakia and Damascus (Rees et al., 2010).
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
Nest and hatchling predation likely was a factor that contributed
to the historical decline of the Mediterranean DPS. There have been no
records of FP or other diseases in green turtles in this DPS. In this
DPS, green turtle eggs and hatchlings are subject to depredation by
wild canids (i.e., foxes (Vulpes vulpes), golden jackals (Canis
aureus), feral and domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), and ghost
crabs (Ocypode cursor; van Piggelen and Strijbosch, 1993; Brown and
MacDonald, 1995; Aureggi et al., 1999, 2005; Simms et al., 2002;
Akcinar et al., 2006; Jony and Rees, 2008; Khalil et al., 2009; Aureggi
and Khalil, 2010; Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et
al., 2010; Rees et al., 2010).
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
There are at least 13 international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms that pertain to the Mediterranean, and nearly all countries
lining the Mediterranean have some level of national legislation
directed at sea turtle protection. The SRT analysis of these existing
regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place at their
current levels.
Regulatory mechanisms are in place throughout the range of the DPS
that address the direct capture of green turtles for most of the
countries within this DPS. Most Mediterranean countries have developed
national legislation to protect sea turtles and nesting habitats
(Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010). The following countries have laws to
protect green turtles: Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Israel,
Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey. In addition, at
least 13 international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms apply to
the conservation of green turtles in the Mediterranean DPS. National
protective legislation generally prohibits intentional killing,
harassment, possession, trade, or attempts at these (Margaritoulis et
al., 2003). In addition, some countries have site-specific legislation
or conservation designation for turtle habitat protection. These are
implemented to various degrees throughout the range of the DPS. There
are some national regulations, within this DPS, that specially address
the harvest of green turtles.
In western Cyprus, Lara-Toxeftra beaches have been afforded
protection through the Fisheries Law and Regulations since 1989
(Margaritoulis, 2007). In northern Cyprus, four beaches (Alagadi Beach,
Karpaz Peninsular, South Karpaz, and Akdeniz) have been designated as
Special Protected Areas (Fuller et al., 2010). These four areas include
the third and fifth most important green turtle nesting beaches in the
Mediterranean (Kasparek et al., 2001). In Syria, establishment of a
protected area at Latakia beach, the most important green turtle
nesting beach in the country, is being sought but is facing strong
opposition from the tourism sector (Rees et al., 2010). While it is
important to recognize the success of these protected areas, we must
also note that the protection has been in place for some time and the
threats to the species remain (particularly from increasing tourism
activities). It is unlikely that the protective measures discussed here
are sufficient for the conservation of the species in the
Mediterranean.
Regulatory mechanisms are not in place in many countries within
this DPS to address the major threat of sea turtle bycatch. Some of the
countries in which this DPS is located limit the number and type of
fishing licenses issued but sea turtle bycatch is not considered in
these authorizations. It is unlikely that bycatch mortality can be
sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in
[[Page 15295]]
the near future because of the diversity and magnitude of the fisheries
operating in the DPS, the lack of comprehensive information on fishing
distribution and effort, limitations on implementing demonstrated
effective conservation measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations
on enforcement capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive
bycatch reduction technologies. Our Status Review did not reveal
regulatory mechanisms in place to specifically address coastal
development, marine pollution, sea level rise, and effects of climate
change that continue to contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture of sea turtles in artisanal and commercial
fisheries is a significant threat to the survival of green turtles in
the Mediterranean. Fishing practices alone have been estimated to
result in over 150,000 sea turtle captures per year, with approximately
50,000 mortalities (Lucchetti and Sala, 2009; Casale, 2011) and sea
turtle bycatch in multiple gears in the Mediterranean is considered
among the most urgent conservation priorities globally (Wallace et al.,
2010).
i. Longline Fisheries
In the Mediterranean, surface longline fisheries are a source of
green turtle bycatch (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004). Incidental captures have
been reported from Cyprus (Godley et al., 1998), Turkey (Godley et al.,
1998), Italy (Laurent et al., 2001), and Egypt (Nada, 2001;
Cami[ntilde]as, 2004). In Egypt, based on fleet data and catch rates
reported by fishers during the 2000s, the total number of sea turtles
(i.e., all species) bycaught in longlines was estimated to be over
2,200 per year (Nada and Casale, 2008). Fishers also reported that some
of the caught turtles are dead, and the incidence of mortality is
particularly high in longlines and gill nets.
ii. Set Net (Gill Net) Fishing
Casale (2008) considered mortality by set nets to be 60 percent,
with a resulting estimate of 16,000 turtles killed per year. However, a
breakdown of these estimates by turtle species is not available. Most
of these turtles are likely juveniles, with an average size of 45.4 cm
CCL (n=74, Casale, 2008).
iii. Trawl Fisheries
Green turtles have been reported as incidentally captured in bottom
trawls in Egypt (Nada and Casale, 2011), Greece (Margaritoulis et al.,
2003), Tunisia (Laurent et al., 1990), Turkey (Laurent et al., 1996;
Oru[ccedil], 2001), Syria, Israel, and Libya (Casale et al., 2010), but
are likely also captured by bottom trawlers in other neritic foraging
areas in the eastern Mediterranean (Casale et al., 2010). Laurent et
al. (1996) estimated that approximately 10,000 to 15,000 sea turtles
were being captured annually by bottom trawling in the eastern
Mediterranean. Although most of the turtles taken were loggerheads,
they estimated that the number of green turtles taken was 1,000 to
3,000 annually in Turkey and Egypt alone. More recently, Casale (2011)
compiled available trawl bycatch data throughout the Mediterranean and
reported that Italy and Tunisia have the highest level of sea turtle
bycatch, potentially over 20,000 captures per year combined, and
Croatia, Greece, Turkey, Libya, Greece, and Egypt each have an
estimated 1,900 or more sea turtle captures per year. Further, Albania,
Algeria, Cyprus, Morocco, Slovenia, Spain, and Syria may each capture a
few hundred sea turtles per year (Casale, 2011). Available data suggest
the annual number of sea turtle captures by all Mediterranean trawlers
may be greater than 39,000 (Casale, 2011). Although most of the turtles
reported by Casale (2011) as taken by bottom trawlers were undoubtedly
loggerheads, a few thousand were likely green turtles based on earlier
reports (Laurent et al., 1990; Laurent et al., 1996; Oru[ccedil], 2001;
Margaritoulis et al., 2003; Nada and Casale, 2008).
b. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic
Propeller and collision injuries from boats and ships are becoming
more common for sea turtles in the Mediterranean, although it is
unclear as to whether the events, or just the reporting of the
injuries, are increasing. Speedboat and jet-ski impacts are of
particular concern in areas of intense tourist activity, such as
Greece, Turkey, and Syria. Boats operating near sea turtle nesting
beaches during the nesting season are likely to either cause females to
abandon nesting attempts or cause their injury or death
(Cami[ntilde]as, 2004). Males may also be affected in high-use boating
areas where sea turtle mating occurs (Demetropoulos, 2000; Rees et al.,
2010).
c. Pollution
Unattended or discarded nets, floating plastics and bags, and tar
balls are of particular concern in the Mediterranean (Cami[ntilde]as,
2004; Margaritoulis, 2007). Monofilament netting appears to be the most
dangerous waste produced by the fishing industry (Cami[ntilde]as,
2004).
The discharge of chemical substances, including highly toxic
chromium compounds from a soda-chromium factory close to the Kazanli
nesting beach in Turkey, is cause for concern (Kasparek et al., 2001;
Venizelos and Kasparek, 2006).
d. Effects of Climate Change
Both the marine and terrestrial realms will be influenced by
temperature increases and will likely undergo alterations that will
adversely affect green turtles. Mediterranean turtle populations could
be affected by the alteration of thermal sand characteristics (from
global warming), resulting in the reduction or cessation of male
hatchling production (Kasparek et al., 2001; Cami[ntilde]as, 2004;
Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009). In northern Cyprus,
green turtle hatchling sex ratios are already thought to be highly
female biased (approximately 95 percent female; Wright et al., 2012).
This, in tandem with predicted future rises in temperatures, is cause
for concern (Fuller et al., 2010). As temperatures increase, there is
also concern that incubation temperatures will reach levels that exceed
the thermal tolerance for embryonic development, thus increasing embryo
and hatchling mortality (Fuller et al., 2010). Further, a significant
rise in sea level would restrict green turtle nesting habitat in the
eastern Mediterranean. While sea turtles have survived past eras that
have included significant temperature fluctuations, future climate
change is expected to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles
cannot adapt quickly they may face local to widespread extirpations
(Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts from global climate change induced by
human activities are likely to become more apparent in future years
(IPCC, 2007).
In summary, within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch and
marine pollution that occurs throughout the range of the Mediterranean
DPS are significant threats to this DPS. In addition, boat strikes and
changes likely to result from climate change are an increasing threat
to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts
Regional and national efforts are underway to conserve green
turtles (often all sea turtles) throughout the range of the DPS. The
extent to which threats have been reduced as a result of these efforts
is difficult to ascertain.
Green turtle nesting primarily occurs in Turkey, Cyprus, and Syria,
and a
[[Page 15296]]
notable proportion of nesting in those areas is protected through
various mechanisms. In Turkey, three important green turtle nesting
beaches (Alata, Kazanli, and Akyatan) were all designated as protected
areas by the Turkish Ministry of Culture, while two other beaches
(Belek and G[ouml]sku Delta) also have some level of protected status
(Kasparek et al., 2001; Fuller et al., 2010). These five protected
beaches represent approximately 60 percent of nesting in Turkey (see
Canbolat et al., 2009 and Fuller et al., 2010).
There has been success within these protected areas, but as the
protection has been in place for some time and the threats to the
species remain (particularly from increasing tourism activities), it is
unlikely that the protective measures discussed here are sufficient for
the conservation of the species in the Mediterranean.
Marine debris is also a significant problem on many green turtle
nesting beaches in the eastern Mediterranean, in particular the nesting
beaches of Cyprus and Turkey (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004; Demetropoulos and
Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al., 2010; T[uuml]rkozan and Kaska,
2010). Although organized beach clean-ups in recent years on some
beaches in Cyprus have greatly reduced the amount of litter on the
beach (Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al.,
2010), it is still an overall pervasive problem.
Protection of marine habitats is in the early stages in the
Mediterranean, as in other areas of the world. Off the Lara-Toxeftra
nesting beaches in western Cyprus, a marine protection zone extends to
the 20-m isobath (i.e., 20-m depth line) as delineated by the Fisheries
Regulation (Margaritoulis, 2007; Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou,
2010). As mentioned above, establishment of a protected area at Latakia
beach in Syria is being sought and would include protection of a
section of sea offshore; however, it is facing strong opposition from
the tourism sector (Serra, 2008; Rees et al., 2010).
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings
The Mediterranean DPS is characterized by low green turtle nesting
abundance at 32 different locations, with many of these sites having
only one or two known nesting females and none having greater than 245
nesting females. While some of these sites show stable or increasing
trends, the extremely low nesting abundance of this DPS compared to
historical abundance creates an intrinsically high risk to the long-
term stability of the population. The spatial range of the population
is limited to the eastern Mediterranean, and the nesting season is
consistent throughout this DPS (June to August; Broderick et al.,
2002a), thus limiting the temporal buffering against climate change in
terms of impacts due to storms and other seasonal events. The fact that
turtles nest on both insular and continental sites suggests some degree
of nesting diversity but, with the sites so close together, the
benefits of this diversity may be minimal. Mitochondrial DNA studies
have identified two stocks but, in general there is low population
substructuring in the Mediterranean.
The five-factor analysis in the Status Review reveals numerous
significant threats to green turtles within the range of the DPS.
Coastal development, beachfront lighting, erosion resulting from sand
extraction, illegal harvest, detrimental fishing practices, and marine
pollution both at nesting beaches and important foraging grounds are
continuing concerns across the Mediterranean DPS, and are
insufficiently tempered by conservation efforts. Current illegal
harvest of green turtles for human consumption continues as a moderate
threat to this DPS. Fishery bycatch occurs throughout the Mediterranean
Sea, particularly bycatch mortality of green turtles in pelagic
longline, set net, and trawl fisheries. Additional threats from boat
strikes, which are becoming more common, and changes likely to result
from climate change will negatively affect this DPS.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Mediterranean DPS as
endangered. Based on its low nesting abundance, limited spatial
distribution, and exposure to increasing threats, we find that this DPS
is presently in danger of extinction throughout its range.
IX. South Atlantic DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the South Atlantic DPS
The South Atlantic DPS's range boundary begins at the border of
Panama and Colombia at 7.5[deg] N., 77[deg] W., heads due north to
10.5[deg] N., 77[deg] W., then northeast to 19[deg] N., 63.5[deg] W.,
and along 19[deg] N. latitude to Mauritania in Africa, to include the
U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean. It extends along the coast of
Africa to South Africa, with the southern border being 40[deg] S.
latitude.
Green turtle nesting occurs on beaches along the western coast of
Africa from southern Mauritania to South Africa, in the middle of the
South Atlantic on Ascension Island, in the Caribbean portion of the
South Atlantic including Caribbean South America, and along eastern
South America down through Brazil (Figure 2). In the eastern South
Atlantic, significant sea turtle habitats have been identified,
including green turtle feeding grounds in Corisco Bay, Equatorial
Guinea/Gabon (Formia, 1999); Congo (Bal et al., 2007; Girard et al.,
2014); Mussulo Bay, Angola (Carr and Carr, 1991); and Principe Island
(SWOT, 2010). In the western South Atlantic, juvenile and adult green
turtles utilize foraging areas throughout the Caribbean areas of the
South Atlantic, often resulting in interactions with fisheries
occurring in those same waters (Dow et al., 2007). While no nesting
occurs as far south as Uruguay and Argentina, both countries have
important foraging grounds for South Atlantic green turtles (Lopez-
Mendilaharsu et al., 2006; Lezama, 2009; Gonz[aacute]lez Carman et al.,
2011; Prosdocimi et al., 2012; Rivas-Zinno, 2012). Within the range of
the South Atlantic DPS, there are a total of 51 nesting sites (some
being individual beaches and others representing multiple nesting
beaches) that can be roughly divided into four regions: western Africa,
Ascension Island, Brazil, and the South Atlantic Caribbean (including
Colombia, the Guianas, and Aves Island in addition to the numerous
small, insular nesting sites). Much of the South Atlantic is data poor
with only occasional or incomplete nesting surveys. Therefore, for 37
of the 51 identified nesting areas of this DPS, we were not able to
estimate nesting female abundance, even for relatively large nesting
sites such as French Guiana. Of the nesting sites for which an estimate
could be derived, three account for the bulk of the nesting:
Poil[atilde]o, Guinea-Bissau (29,016 nesting females; Catry et al.,
2009); Ascension Island, UK (13,417 nesting females; S. Weber,
Ascension Island Government, pers. comm., 2013); and the Galibi
Reserve, Suriname (9,406 nesting females; Schulz, 1975; Weijerman et
al., 1998). There are two sites with >10,000 nesting females
(Poil[atilde]o and Ascension Island); one site with 5,001-10,000
nesting females (Suriname); three sites with 1,001-5,000 nesting
females (Trindade Island, Brazil (2,016; Almeida et al., 2011; Projecto
Tamar, 2011); Aves Island, Venezuela (2,833; Prieto et al., 2012); and
Matapica Reserve, Suriname (3,661; A. Turney, pers. comm., 2012). There
are three sites with 501-1,001 nesting females, three sites with 101-
500, two sites with 51-100, and 37 unquantified sites. Poil[atilde]o
[[Page 15297]]
accounts for almost 46 percent of the total number of nesting females.
Long-term monitoring data for this DPS are relatively scarce. There
are three sites for which 10 or more years of recent data are available
for annual nesting female abundance (a criterion for presenting trends
in a bar graph in the Status Review): (1) Ascension Island, UK; (2)
Galibi and Matapica Reserves, Suriname; and (3) Atol das Rocas, Brazil.
Together, the first two sites represent approximately 26,759 nesting
females (42 percent of the population), while the third site has only
275 nesting females (Bellini et al., 2013). Ascension Island, and
Galibi and Matapica Reserves have exhibited substantial increases since
the 1970s. Although they did not meet the criteria for presenting bar
graphs, there are indications of trends at other beaches in the South
Atlantic, such as increasing trends at Isla Trindade, Brazil, and Aves
Island, Venezuela, and decreasing trends at Bioko Island, Equatorial
Guinea.
With regard to spatial structure, the phylogenic relationship of
the eastern Caribbean nesting sites indicates that, despite the close
proximity of other Caribbean nesting sites, they are more closely
related to the nesting sites in the South Atlantic (M. Jensen, NRC,
unpubl. data). Green turtle nesting sites found in Brazil, Ascension
Island, and West Africa have shallow structuring and are dominated by a
common and widespread haplotype, CM-A8, that is found in high frequency
across all nesting sites in the South Atlantic (Bjorndal et al., 2006;
Formia et al., 2006). A recent study showed that a large proportion of
juvenile green turtles foraging in Cape Verde in the eastern Atlantic
originated from distant nesting sites across the Atlantic, namely
Suriname (38 percent), Ascension Island (12 percent), and Guinea Bissau
(19 percent), suggesting that, like the loggerheads, green turtles in
the Atlantic undertake transoceanic developmental migrations
(Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2010). The fact that long distance
dispersal is only seen for juvenile turtles suggests that larger adult-
sized turtles return to forage within the region of their natal nesting
sites, thereby limiting the potential for gene flow across larger
scales (Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2010). Important foraging
grounds in the western South Atlantic, such as those off of Brazil,
Uruguay and Argentina, are shared by turtles from various nesting
assemblages in the western South Atlantic and Ascension Island.
Important foraging grounds in the eastern South Atlantic, such as the
Gulf of Guinea, are shared by turtles from the eastern South Atlantic
as well as juveniles from Suriname and Ascension Island.
Overall, many demographic parameters of green turtles in the South
Atlantic appear to vary widely among the various nesting assemblages.
However, this variability in parameters such as remigration interval,
clutch size, hatching success, sex ratio, and clutch frequency is not
separated out regionally within the range of the DPS and therefore does
not necessarily suggest a high level of population structuring. Average
sizes of nesting females are the largest reported for females globally
(Hirth, 1997; Almeida et al., 2011; Bellini et al., 2013).
With regard to diversity and resilience, the overall range of the
DPS is extensive and varied, with both insular and continental nesting.
Ascension Island, one of the largest nesting sites, is isolated and
protected in the middle of the South Atlantic, and appears to have
migratory connections to nesting sites on the eastern and western ends
of the DPS's range. The insular sites vary quite a bit in terms of
potential impacts from sea level rise and tropical weather. Aves
Island, one of the largest Caribbean nesting sites within the range of
the South Atlantic DPS is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise as
it is a very low-lying island.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the South Atlantic DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
At continental sites in the South Atlantic DPS destruction and
modification of sea turtle nesting habitat (for green turtles and other
species) result from coastal development and construction, placement of
erosion control structures and other barriers to nesting, beachfront
lighting, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction, beach
erosion, beach sand placement, beach pollution, removal of native
vegetation, and planting of non-native vegetation (D'Amato and
Marczwski, 1993; Marcovaldi and dei Marcovaldi, 1999; Naro-Maciel et
al., 1999; Broderick et al., 2002b; Marcovaldi et al., 2002; Formia et
al., 2003; Tanner, 2013).
In very low-lying islands such as Aves, rising sea levels and
increased storms could result in a loss of nesting habitat, thus
potentially eliminating their functionality as nesting beaches.
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
On the western side of the South Atlantic, the Brazil Current Large
Marine Ecosystem (LME) region is characterized by the Global
International Waters Assessment (GIWA) as suffering severe impacts in
the areas of pollution, coastal habitat modification, and
overexploitation of fish stocks (Marques et al., 2004). The Patagonian
Shelf LME is moderately affected by pollution, habitat modification,
and overfishing (Mugetti et al., 2004). In the Canary Current LME, the
area is characterized by the GIWA as severely impacted in the area of
modification or loss of ecosystems or ecotones and health impacts, but
these impacts are decreasing (https://www.lme.noaa.gov). The Celtic-
Biscay Shelf LME is affected by alterations to the seabed, agriculture,
and sewage (Vald[eacute]z-Gonz[aacute]lez and Ram[iacute]rez-Bautista,
2002). The Gulf of Guinea has been characterized as severely impacted
in the area of solid wastes by the GIWA; this and other pollution
indicators are increasing (https://www.lme.noaa.gov). On the eastern
side of the South Atlantic, the Benguela Current LME has been
moderately impacted by overfishing, with future conditions expected to
worsen by the GIWA (Prochazka et al., 2005).
In Brazil, green turtles in degraded coastal areas that have
ingested plastic debris have been found to have diets that are lower in
diversity and quality (Santos et al., 2011). Off the northwestern coast
of Suriname run-off from rice production and other agricultural
activities is a problem (Reichart and Fretey, 1993) and likely would
have similar impacts. The reduction of carrying capacity for green
turtles in seagrass beds impacted by anchor damage in popular bays in
the U.S. Virgin Islands has also been documented (Williams, 1988).
Likewise, sediment contamination from coastal and upstream industrial
sites has been recognized in the Caribbean, including St. Croix (Ross
and DeLorenzo, 1997), and has the potential to impact green turtle
habitat as well as the turtles themselves. Such coastal degradation has
been seen throughout the Caribbean areas that fall within the range of
the South Atlantic DPS (Dow et al., 2007).
In summary, we find that the South Atlantic DPS of the green turtle
is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both its terrestrial and
marine habitats as a result of land and water use practices as
considered above in Factor A. However, sufficient data are not
available to assess the significance of
[[Page 15298]]
these threats to the persistence of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Overutilization for commercial purposes likely was a factor that
contributed to the historical declines of this DPS. Although legal and
illegal collection of eggs and harvest of turtles persists as a threat
to this DPS, it does not appear to be a significant threat to its
resilience. Eggs are taken for human consumption in Brazil, but the
amount is considered minor when compared to historical rates of egg
collection (Marcovaldi and dei Marcovaldi, 1999; Marcovaldi et al.,
2005; Almeida and Mendes, 2007). Use of sea turtles, including green
turtles, for medicinal purposes occasionally occurs in northeastern
Brazil (Alvez and Rosa, 2006; Braga-Filho and Schiavetti, 2013). Egg
harvest occurred in the Galibi area until 1967 when a ban was enacted.
Subsequently, a controlled harvest was allowed until the early 2000s
via permit with poaching continuing at approximately 100 to 450 nests
per year (Reichart and Fretey, 1993).
Throughout the Caribbean areas of the South Atlantic DPS, harvest
of green turtle eggs and turtles, both illegal and legal, continues
(Dow et al., 2007). Among the British Caribbean territories within the
South Atlantic DPS (including Anguilla, Turks and Caicos, the British
Virgin Islands, and Montserrat) there are legal sea turtle fisheries,
with anywhere from a few (Montserrat) to over a thousand (Turks and
Caicos) green turtles taken per year (Godley et al., 2004).
Turtles are harvested along the west African coast and, in some
areas, are considered a significant source of food and income due to
the poverty of many residents (Formia et al., 2003; Tom[aacute]s et
al., 2010). In the Bijag[oacute]s Archipelago (Guinea-Bissau), all sea
turtles are protected by national law, but enforcement is limited and
many turtles are killed by locals for consumption (Catry et al., 2009).
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
FP is highly variable in its presence and severity throughout the
range of the DPS, with areas of lower water quality, especially due to
nutrient enrichment, often being the sites with the most prevalent and
most severe cases of FP. In Brazilian waters, FP has been documented
but is highly variable among sites (Williams and Bunkley-Williams,
2000). FP has been confirmed among green turtles of Africa's Atlantic
coast, from Gabon and Equatorial Guinea (Formia et al., 2013), Guinea-
Bissau (Catry et al., 2009), Gambia, and Senegal (Barnett et al.,
2004), the Congo and Principe Island (Girard et al., 2013). The
prevalence varies greatly among locations.
Eggs and nests in Brazil experience depredation, primarily by foxes
(Dusycion vetulus; Marcovaldi and Laurent, 1996). Nests laid by green
turtles in the southern Atlantic African coastline experience predation
from local wildlife and feral animals, such as jackals (Canus sp.; Weir
et al., 2007). Shark predation on green turtles, especially by tiger
sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier), has been documented off northeastern Brazil
at a frequency high enough to indicate that green turtles may be an
important food source for tiger sharks off Brazilian waters
(Bornatowski et al., 2012). Predation on nesting females can also occur
from large predators, such as jaguars (Panthera onca) in Suriname
(Autar, 1994). On Ascension Island predation by domestic and feral cats
(Felus sp.) and dogs (Canus sp.), frigate birds (Fregata minor), land
crabs (subphylum Crustacea), and fish (class Osteichthyes) have all
been cited as mortality sources for hatchling green turtles (Broderick
et al., 2002a). On the Bijag[oacute]s Archipelago nest predation by
monitor lizards (Varanus sp.) was highly variable, with green turtle
nests experiencing 76 percent predation rates on Jo[atilde]o Vieira (da
Silva Ferreira, 2012). On the southern beaches of Bioko in the Gulf of
Guinea, predation on eggs and hatchlings can come from a wide variety
of species, such as ghost crabs (family Ocypodidae), ants (family
Formicidae), monitor lizards, monkeys (suborder Haplorrhini),
porcupines (order Rodentia), vultures (family Accipitridae) and crows
(Corvus sp.), in addition to village dogs (Tom[aacute]s et al., 1999).
Although disease and predation are known to occur, quantitative
data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats
on the persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
There are at least 20 national and international treaties and/or
regulatory mechanisms that pertain to the South Atlantic DPS.
Regulatory mechanisms that address the direct capture of green turtles
for most of the countries within this DPS are implemented to various
degrees throughout the range of the DPS, with some countries having no
commitment to the implementation of the regulation. The main threats to
South Atlantic green turtles include fishery bycatch, marine debris and
pollution, habitat destruction affecting eggs and hatchlings at nesting
beaches, and nest and hatchling predation. Most South Atlantic
countries, including those in South America, the Caribbean, and Africa,
have developed national legislation and have various projects sponsored
by governments, local communities, academic institutions, and non-
governmental organizations to protect sea turtles and nesting and
foraging habitats to varying degrees (Dow et al., 2007; Formia et al.,
2003). The consistency and effectiveness of such programs likely vary
greatly across countries and over time based on resource availability
and political stability. In addition, some countries have site specific
legislation or conservation designation for turtle habitat protection.
Regional and national legislation to conserve green turtles (often all
sea turtles) exists throughout the range of the DPS. The extent to
which threats have been reduced as a result of these efforts is
difficult to ascertain. The following countries have laws to protect
green turtles: Angola, Argentina, Ascension Island, Benin, Brazil,
British Virgin Islands, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, French Guiana,
Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Guyana, Ivory Coast,
Liberia, Namibia, Nigeria, St. Helena, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal,
Sierra-Leone, South Africa, Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks
and Caicos Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Uruguay, Venezuela.
The Status Review described limited regulatory mechanisms to
address bycatch, such as TED requirements; however, there are no
widespread regulations to address bycatch as a result of the gill net
fisheries. A variety of countries operate industrial trawling off
Guinea-Bissau. The national government does not have any requirements
for TED use in their waters. There is also extensive illegal fishing
occurring (Catry et al., 2009). While the Bolama-Bijag[oacute]s
Biosphere Reserve covers the entire archipelago and provides some
protection through the management of the reserve and the survey work
patrolling the areas, limited enforcement and resource shortages limit
the effectiveness of the reserve. It is unlikely that bycatch
mortality, discussed in more detail in Factor E, can be sufficiently
reduced across the range of the DPS in the near future because of the
diversity and magnitude of the fisheries operating in the DPS, the lack
of comprehensive information on fishing distribution and effort,
[[Page 15299]]
limitations on implementing demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations on enforcement
capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies.
The Status Review did not reveal any regulatory mechanisms in place
to specifically address coastal development, marine pollution, sea
level rise, and effects of climate change that continue to contribute
to the extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Green turtles are incidentally captured throughout the South
Atlantic DPS in pelagic and demersal longlines, drift and set gill
nets, bottom and mid-water trawls, fishing dredges, pound nets and
weirs, haul and purse seines, pots and traps, and hook and line gear.
There is also substantial documentation of the interaction of
small-scale artisanal gill net fisheries with green turtles in their
foraging grounds along the western South Atlantic, with green turtles
documented as the most common species stranded throughout the coast of
Brazil (Marcovaldi et al., 2009); Lima et al., 2010; Barata et al.,
2011; L[oacute]pez-Barrera et al., 2012). Similarly, artisanal gill net
fisheries in the coastal waters of the Rio de la Plata area of Uruguay
were estimated to have captured 1,861 green turtles over the 13-month
duration of a study, despite a time-area closure during the ``peak''
season identified in Lezama (2009).
Incidental captures of juvenile green turtles have also been
documented on important foraging grounds off Argentina, especially
Samboromb[oacute]n Bay and El Rinc[oacute]n, primarily from gill nets
used by the artisanal fisheries, but also from shrimp nets and other
artisanal fishing gear (Gonz[aacute]lez Carman et al., 2011). Green
turtles utilizing foraging grounds off Argentina have been demonstrated
to be primarily from the Ascension Islands nesting beaches, although
individuals from Trindade Island, Suriname, and Aves Island nesting
assemblages were also utilizing the Argentine foraging grounds
(Prosdocimi et al., 2012). Therefore impacts to green turtles off
Argentina affect a variety of nesting assemblages within the western
and central South Atlantic.
A variety of countries operate industrial trawling off Guinea-
Bissau. The national government does not have any requirements for TED
use in their waters. There is also extensive illegal fishing occurring
(Catry et al., 2009). While the Bolama-Bijag[oacute]s Biosphere Reserve
covers the entire archipelago and provides some protection through the
management of the reserve and the survey work patrolling the areas,
limited enforcement and resource shortages limit the effectiveness of
the reserve.
In Ghana and the Ivory Coast, fish stocks have been reduced through
overfishing and environmental degradation, and many fishers that
incidentally catch sea turtles will keep and kill the turtle to feed
their families (Tanner, 2013). Since 2001, a push has been made to
generate alternative sources of income for the local populations of the
Ivory Coast and to employ ex-poachers to patrol the beaches
(Pe[ntilde]ate et al., 2007).
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
Various studies have shown high prevalence of marine debris
ingestion by green turtles in the western South Atlantic, in some cases
occurring in 100 percent of the individuals examined (Bugoni et al.,
2001; Tourinho et al., 2010; Guebert-Bartholo et al., 2011; Murman,
2011).
Oil exploration and extraction within the Gulf of Guinea rapidly
increased since the discovery of oil reserves in the 1980s and 1990s
(Formia et al., 2003), with the associated activities and potential for
oil spills and other pollution creating a threat to the important
foraging areas and nesting beaches for green turtles in the area.
c. Effects of Climate Change
As in other areas of the world, climate change and sea level rise
have the potential to affect green turtles in the South Atlantic.
Effects of climate change include, among other things, increased sea
surface temperature, the alteration of thermal sand characteristics of
beaches (from warming temperatures), which could result in the
reduction or cessation of male hatchling production (Hawkes et al.,
2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009), and a significant rise in sea level,
which could significantly restrict green turtle nesting habitat. In
very low-lying islands such as Aves, rising sea levels and increased
storms could potentially eliminate its functionality as a nesting
beach. Some beaches will likely experience lethal incubation
temperatures that will result in losses of complete hatchling cohorts
(Fuentes et al., 2010; Fuentes et al., 2011; Glen and Mrosovsky, 2004).
While sea turtles have survived past eras that have included
significant temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected
to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change induced by human activities are
likely to become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007).
In summary, within Factor E, we find that bycatch that occurs
throughout the South Atlantic, particularly bycatch mortality of green
turtles from nearshore gill net fisheries, continues to be a
significant threat to this DPS. In addition, changes likely to result
from climate change are also an increasing threat to this DPS and
likely a significant threat to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the South Atlantic DPS
The main in-water threat to green turtles in the South Atlantic DPS
is incidental capture in fisheries, although marine debris and
pollution are also threats. The main threat on beaches is habitat
destruction, followed by hatchling predation. Most South Atlantic
countries, including those in South America, the Caribbean, and Africa,
have developed national legislation and have various projects sponsored
by governments, local communities, academic institutions, and non-
governmental organizations to protect sea turtles, and nesting and
foraging habitats to varying degrees (Dow et al., 2007; Formia et al.,
2003). The consistency and effectiveness of such programs likely vary
greatly across countries and over time based on resource availability
and political stability. In addition, some countries have site specific
legislation or conservation designation for turtle habitat protection.
When assessing conservation efforts, we assumed that all conservation
efforts would remain in place at their current levels.
Conservation through education is a widely-used and valuable tool
throughout nations within the range of the South Atlantic DPS and
around the world. Such education initiatives can be highly successful.
In Akassa, Nigeria, a dedicated, intensive conservation education
program by the Akassa Community Development Project resulted in sea
turtles being recognized locally as an essential part of the area's
natural heritage. This has resulted in the majority of the nests in
Akassa being protected, and when live stranded turtles are found, they
are released (Formia et al., 2003). However, in areas where the
utilization of sea turtles is deeply ingrained in the local culture,
such as the La Guajira region of
[[Page 15300]]
Colombia (Patino-Martinez et al., 2012), changing people's attitudes
about the use of sea turtles can be a long, slow process.
In the Caribbean, green turtle conservation on the nesting beach
varies widely among the 22 nations and territories. However, programs
at the three largest nesting sites--Aves Island, French Guiana, and
Suriname--with over 500 crawls per year (Dow et al., 2007), provide
protection to a significant proportion of nesting in the area.
In South America, outside of the Caribbean, Brazil is the only
nation with substantial green turtle nesting. In Brazil, the primary
nesting areas are monitored by Projeto TAMAR, the national sea turtle
conservation program, and many detrimental human activities are
restricted by various state and Federal laws (Marcovaldi and dei
Marcovaldi, 1999; Marcovaldi et al., 2002; 2005). Nevertheless, tourism
development in coastal areas in Brazil is high, and Projeto TAMAR works
toward raising awareness of turtles and their conservation needs
through educational and informational activities at their Visitor
Centers that are dispersed throughout the nesting areas (Marcovaldi et
al., 2005; Marcovaldi 2011). Since 1990, TAMAR has worked along green
turtle foraging areas such as Almofala and Ubatuba (Marcovaldi et al.,
2002).
The South Atlantic Association is a multinational group that
includes representatives from Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina that meets
bi-annually to share information and develop regional action plans to
address threats, including bycatch. In 2001, the Brazilian Plan for
Reduction of Incidental Sea Turtle Capture in Fisheries was created to
address incidental capture of the five species in the country
(Marcovaldi et al., 2002, 2006). This national plan includes various
activities to mitigate bycatch, including time-area restrictions of
fisheries, use of bycatch reduction devices, and working with fishers
to successfully release live-captured turtles. In Uruguay, all sea
turtles are protected from human impacts, including fisheries bycatch,
by presidential decree (Decreto Presidencial 144/98). The Karumbe
conservation project in Uruguay has been working on assessing in-water
threats to marine turtles for several years (see https://cicmar.org/proyectos/promacoda), with the objective of developing mitigation plans
in the future. In Argentina, various conservation organizations are
working toward assessing bycatch of green turtles and other sea turtle
species in fisheries, with the objective of developing mitigation plans
for this threat (https://www.prictma.com.ar).
Green turtle nesting occurs on many beaches along the western coast
of Africa, and there have been, and continue to be, sea turtle projects
in many of the nations in the area ranging from research to public
awareness to government conservation efforts (see Formia et al., 2003
for a regional synopsis). The largest nesting assemblages occur on
Poil[atilde]o, Bijag[oacute]s Archipelago, Guinea Bissau, and on Bioko
Island, Equatorial Guinea. While conservation efforts on the beaches
have been established, issues with enforcement capabilities and
resources make consistent protection problematic (Catry et al., 2009;
Formia et al., 2003; Tom[aacute]s et al., 2010). Since 2001, a push has
been made to generate alternative sources of income for the local
populations of the Ivory Coast and to employ ex-poachers to patrol the
beaches (Pe[ntilde]ate et al., 2007).
Green turtle conservation efforts on Ascension Island have involved
extensive monitoring, outreach, and research. The group Turtles in the
UK Overseas Territories promotes the conservation, research, and
management of marine turtle populations and their habitats, and has
worked extensively on Ascension Island (https://www.seaturtle.org/mtrg/projects/tukot/ascension.shtml). Additionally, there are legal
prohibitions protecting sea turtles on Ascension.
Overall, conservation efforts for green turtles in the South
Atlantic DPS are inconsistent. While there are numerous and varied
conservation efforts, especially on the primary nesting beaches, many
issues remain due to limited enforcement of existing laws and marine
protected areas as well as extensive fishery bycatch, especially in
coastal waters. The effectiveness and consistency of conservation
measures will need to be increased substantially to prevent the further
decline, and allow the recovery, of this DPS in the future.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the South Atlantic DPS
Nesting abundance for this DPS is relatively high, with large
rookeries spread out geographically, the two largest at Poil[atilde]o,
Guinea-Bissau, and Ascension Island, UK. Population trends within
rookeries are inconsistent and, in many cases, the data are limited and
a trend could not be determined, even for major rookeries. While some
nesting beaches such as Ascension Island, Aves Island, and Galibi
appear to be increasing, others such as Poil[atilde]o, Trindade, and
Atol das Rocas seem to be stable or do not have sufficient data to make
a determination. Bioko, Equatorial Guinea, appears to be in decline.
The diversity/resilience of the DPS is bolstered by the widespread
nature of the rookeries, but a potential concern is the domination of
the DPS by insular nesting sites, which has the potential to reduce the
resilience of the DPS in the face of sea level rise and increasing
tropical storm activity.
The 5-factor analysis in the Status Review revealed numerous
continuing threats to green turtles within the South Atlantic DPS.
Habitat destruction and degradation both at nesting beaches and
important foraging grounds is a continuing concern, though inconsistent
across the DPS. Overutilization (harvest) of green turtles within the
South Atlantic was likely a primary factor in past declines. While
reduced from those levels due to increased legal protections, harvest
is still thought to be fairly extensive in some areas of western
Africa. Fishery bycatch also continues to be a major concern throughout
the range of the DPS, near nesting beaches and foraging areas as well
as on the high seas. Despite increasing legal protections for sea
turtles within the DPS, the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms is a noted issue. While many international and national laws
purporting to protect sea turtles exist, limitations in resources and
political will create a situation of inconsistent or sometimes
nonexistent practical measures to enforce those laws. Increasing
awareness and conservation efforts by governments, local communities,
non-governmental organizations, and industries have helped to reduce
threats, but efforts remain inconsistent and often resource limited.
While the Status Review indicates that the DPS shows strength in
many of the critical population parameters, there are still concerns
about the impacts of ongoing threats. The increasing threats are not
reflected in the current trend for the South Atlantic DPS as it was
based on nesting numbers and not all current life stages. These
increasing threats to the population will only become apparent when
those life stages affected by the threats return to nest and the
beaches are consistently monitored, as the trend information is based
solely on numbers of nests. This lag time and nesting data were
considered in our analysis.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the South Atlantic DPS as
threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction
presently because of high nesting abundance and
[[Page 15301]]
geographically widespread nesting at a diversity of sites; however, the
continued threats are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable
future.
X. Southwest Indian DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Southwest Indian DPS
The range of the Southwest Indian DPS has as its western boundary
the shores of continental Africa from the equator, just north of the
Kenya-Somalia border, south to the Cape of Good Hope (South Africa),
and extends south from there along 19[deg] E. longitude to 40[deg] S.,
19[deg] E. Its southern boundary extends along 40[deg] S. latitude from
19[deg] E. to 84[deg] E., and its eastern boundary runs along 84[deg]
E. longitude from 40[deg] S. latitude to the equator. Its northern
boundary extends along the equator from 84[deg] E. to the continent of
Africa just north of the Kenya-Somalia border (Figure 2). Nesting
occurs along the east coast of Africa as far south as 25[deg] S., the
north, west, and south coasts of Madagascar, and scattered offshore
islands in the southwest Indian Ocean (Figure 8.1 in the Status
Review). Foraging occurs along the east coast of Africa, around
Madagascar where numerous seagrass beds are found, and on shallow banks
and shoals throughout the region, including those associated with
virtually every island in Seychelles (Mortimer, 1984; Mortimer et al.,
1996). Small and immature turtles are also concentrated in Mozambique
around Bazaruto and Inhassoro and in Maputo Bay (Bourjea, 2012). Along
the coast of Kenya, an aerial survey in 1994 indicated that sea turtles
are widely distributed within the 20-m isobaths mainly within seagrass
beds and coral reefs (Frazier, 1975; Wamukoya et al., 1996; Okemwa et
al., 2004). The eastern seaboard of South Africa serves as a feeding
and developmental area for green turtles (Bourjea, 2012).
For the DPS, there are 14 nesting sites with some measure of
abundance, four of which have more than 10,000 nesting females: Europa
(Eparses Islands, France; 25,500; Lauret-Stepler et al., 2007; Bourjea,
2012), Aldabra Atoll (Seychelles; 16,000 (Mortimer et al., 2011;
Mortimer, 2012; J. Mortimer unpubl. data)), Moh[eacute]li (Comoros;
15,000 (Bourjea, 2012), and Mayotte (France; 12,000; Bourjea et al.,
2007a; Bourjea, 2012). Les Glorieuses has 5,001-10,000 nesting females
(6,000; Lauret-Stepler et al., 2007; Bourjea, 2012). Five sites have
1,001-5,000 nesting females: Tromelin Island; 4,500 (Lauret-Stepler et
al., 2007; Bourjea, 2012); Kenya; 1,500 (Okemwa et al., 2004);
Tanzania; 1,500 (Muir, 2005; Bourjea, 2012); Mauritius; 1,800 (Bourjea,
2012); and Assumption, Cosmoledo, Astove, and Farquhar in the
Seychelles; ~2,000 (J. Mortimer unpubl. data). There are four sites
with <500 nesting females: Madagascar; Mozambique; Amirantes Group,
Seychelles; and Inner Islands of the Seychelles; and 23 more sites with
unquantified numbers of nesting females. The largest nesting site,
Europa, accounts for approximately 30 percent of all nesting.
Green turtles in the Southwest Indian Ocean were exploited for many
decades (Hughes, 1974; Frazier, 1980, 1982; Mortimer et al., 2011);
however, the species has successfully recovered at some nesting beaches
in the recent years and trend data show increasing trends, albeit
largely at protected sites (Bourjea, 2012). At protected nesting sites
with long-term monitoring, five out of six monitoring sites have shown
increase in nesting activities (Europa, Glorieuses, Mayotte,
Moh[eacute]li, and Aldabra), whereas a declining trend has been
reported for Tromelin Island (Bourjea, 2012). There are three nesting
sites with greater than 10 years of recent monitoring data: Les
Glorieuses, Europa and Tromelin, Eparses Islands, the trends of which
are discussed above. No sites met our standards for conducting a PVA.
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Southwest
Indian DPS has been fairly extensive and nesting sites are relatively
well represented, with the exception of the northern nesting sites.
Mitochondrial DNA studies indicate a moderate degree of spatial
structuring within this DPS, with connectivity between proximate
nesting sites (see below). Overall, the Southwest Indian DPS appears to
have at least two genetic stocks: (1) The South Mozambique Channel
consisting of Juan de Nova and Europa; and (2) the numerous nesting
sites in the North Mozambique Channel consisting of Nosy Iranja,
Mayotte, Moh[eacute]li, Glorieuses, Cosmoledo, Aldabra, Farquhar, also
including Tromelin located east of Madagascar (Bourjea et al., 2006).
Satellite telemetry data are available for green turtles that nest at
some nesting beaches within the range of this DPS. Green turtles
nesting along the East African coast confine their migration to along
the coast. This is in contrast to those nesting on islands (e.g.,
Comoros, Eparses, and Seychelles), which reach the East African or
Malagasy coast via `migration corridors' or along mid-oceanic seagrass
beds. This behavior is believed to be mainly attributable to the fact
that those areas are characterized by a network of large seagrass beds
(Bourjea, 2012).
With regard to diversity and resilience, nesting in the Southwest
Indian DPS occurs throughout the range of this DPS on islands, atolls,
and on the main continent of Africa in Kenya. The nesting substrate can
be variable as some of the nesting beaches are volcanic islands and the
atolls are made of coralline sand. Nesting occurs throughout the year
with peaks that vary among nesting sites (Dalleau et al., 2012;
Mortimer, 2012). The fact that turtles nest on both insular and
continental sites, in variable substrates and at different peak seasons
suggests a high degree of nesting diversity and indicates some
resiliency.
The genetic structure of this DPS is characterized by high
diversity and a mix of unique and rare haplotypes, as well as common
and widespread haplotypes. These common and widespread haplotypes (CM-
A8, CmP47 and CmP49) make up the majority of the haplotypes present in
the Southwest Indian DPS and appear to be ancestral haplotypes (based
on presence in the South Atlantic and Southwest Pacific DPSs). The
Southwest Indian Ocean represents a genetic hotspot with 0.3 to 6.5
percent (mean = 4.2 percent) estimated sequence divergence among the
seven haplotypes identified. These haplotypes belong to three highly
diverged genetic clades of haplotypes and highlights the complex
colonization history of the region. There have been no nDNA studies
from this region, nor are there studies published on genetic stock
composition at foraging areas within the range of the Southwest Indian
DPS.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Southwest Indian DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
Habitat degradation is reported as an important source of
additional mortality for this DPS, although the exact scale of habitat
destruction at nesting beaches often is undocumented (Bourjea, 2012).
In particular, habitat destruction due to development of the coastline
and dredging or land-fill in foraging areas is a threat to green
turtles throughout the Seychelles (Mortimer et al., 1996). Increases in
tourism and human population growth on Mayotte Island may lead to
further negative impacts upon this coastal environment (Bourjea et al.,
2007). The possible negative effects of artificial lighting at a main
nesting beach on Aldabra are of concern at the Seychelles (Mortimer et
al., 2011), although it is currently being addressed
[[Page 15302]]
(J. Mortimer, Seychelles Dept. of Environment, pers. comm., 2014).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
In Moh[eacute]li, Comoros Islands, habitat degradation due to
sedimentation, sand extraction, and coral reef/seagrass bed degradation
is also a concern (Ahamada, 2008). Similar situations are reported for
Tanzania (Bourjea, 2012) and Madagascar (Ciccione et al., 2002;
Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994 as cited in Bourjea, 2012).
For both the terrestrial and the neritic/oceanic zones, we believe
that sufficient data are not available to assess the significance of
these threats to the persistence of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Legal and illegal collection of eggs and harvest of turtles
throughout the Southwest Indian DPS for human consumption persists as a
threat to this DPS. Egg poaching has been reported for Comoros Islands
(Ahamada, 2008; Bourjea, 2012); Mozambique (Costa et al., 2007; Videira
et al., 2008); Tanzania (Bourjea, 2012); Madagascar (Rakotonirina and
Cooke, 1994; Ciccione et al. 2002 as cited in Bourjea, 2012; Lilette,
2006 as cited in Bourjea, 2012); and Kenya (Bourjea, 2012). Egg
exploitation has affected green turtle populations in the Maldives
(Seminoff et al., 2004). Illegal egg collection in Mauritius seems to
be an important source of mortality but no data are available.
Nesting green turtle numbers in the Seychelles have increased at
protected sites, but declined where there has been heavy poaching, as
on the developed islands of Mah[eacute], Praslin, and La Digue
(Bourjea, 2012). On Assumption Island and Aldabra, the number of
nesting females was known to have decreased due to overharvesting
(Mortimer, 1984), but they have been protected at Aldabra since 1968
(J. Mortimer, pers. comm., Seychelles Dept. of Environment, 2014).
Areas of particularly heavy exploitation of green turtles include
foraging locations in the Western Indian Ocean such as Madagascar
(Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994; Mbindo, 1996; Bourjea, 2012). Artisanal
fisheries, such as beach seines and gill nets, have been reported to
take tens of thousands of turtles annually (Hughes, 1981; Rakotonirina,
1987; Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994; Lilette, 2006; Humber et al.,
2010). This exploitation affects turtles nesting in the Eparses
Islands, where poaching and illegal trade at international foraging
grounds are also a threat (Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994; Lauret-Stepler
et al., 2007). Similarly, commercial and small-scale fisheries at
foraging grounds along the east African coast, mainly Tanzania and
Kenya, affect green turtles nesting on Mayotte, Comoros Islands
(Bourjea et al., 2007). Intentional capture of green turtles continues
in the Seychelles (Seminoff et al., 2004) and in the east coast of
Africa (Baldwin et al., 2003; Louro et al., 2006).
In summary, current legal and illegal collection of eggs and
harvest of turtles persists as a threat throughout this DPS. The
killing of nesting females continues to threaten the stability of green
turtle populations in many areas affecting the DPS by reducing adult
abundance and egg production.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
The prevalence of FP in the Southwest Indian DPS is not known. FP
is extremely rare among green turtles in Seychelles (J.A. Mortimer,
unpublished data). Side striped jackals (Canis adustus) and honey
badgers (Melivora capensis) are known to depredate nests on the
mainland coast of East Africa (Baldwin et al., 2003).
However, quantitative data are not sufficient to assess the degree
of impact of these threats on the persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
There are at least 15 national and international treaties and/or
regulatory mechanisms that pertain to the Southwest Indian DPS. The
analysis of these existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would
remain in place at their current levels; however, some are not
realizing their full potential because they are not adequately
enforced.
Regulatory mechanisms that address the direct capture of green
turtles are implemented to various degrees throughout the range of the
DPS with some countries having no commitment to the implementation of
the regulation. Existing regulatory mechanisms to address bycatch and
coastal development are not implemented adequately as evident by the
high level of bycatch within this DPS.
In addition to broad-reaching international instruments, the
following countries have laws to protect green turtles: Mozambique,
Republic of Seychelles, Comoros Islands, Mayotte Island, and the French
Eparses Islands. However, these regulatory mechanisms are not range-
wide and do not address the loss of the nesting beach, overutilization,
and bycatch that are significant threats to this DPS. The Status Review
revealed a lack of existing regulatory mechanisms to address sea level
rise, and effects of climate change that continue to contribute to the
extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Quantifying the magnitude of the threat of fisheries on green
turtles in the Southwest Indian DPS is very difficult given the low
level of observer coverage and dearth of investigations into bycatch
conducted by countries that have large fishing fleets. Sea turtles are
caught in demersal and pelagic longlines, trawls, gill nets, and seines
(Peterson, 2005; Louro et al., 2006; Costa et al., 2007; Fennessy and
Isaksen, 2007; Peterson et al., 2007; 2009). Bycatch is a concern along
the east coast of Africa and in many island Exclusive Economic Zones
(EEZs), including the Seychelles, Mayotte, Comoros, Tanzania, Kenya,
and South Africa. (Mortimer et al., 1996; Bourjea et al., 2007a;
Bourjea, 2012).
b. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
Effects of climate change include, among other things, increased
sea surface temperatures, the alteration of thermal sand
characteristics of beaches (from warming temperatures), which could
result in the reduction or cessation of male hatchling production
(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009), and a significant rise
in sea level, which could significantly restrict green turtle nesting
habitat. In the Southwest Indian DPS, climate change could have
profound long-term impacts on nesting populations because much of the
nesting occurs in low-lying islands and atolls. The pending sea level
rise from climate change is a potential problem, as this will inundate
nesting sites and decrease available nesting habitat (Daniels et al.,
1993). While sea turtles have survived past eras that have included
significant temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected
to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change induced by human activities are
likely to become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007).
In summary, within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch that
occurs throughout the range of the DPS, particularly bycatch of green
turtles from long lining operations, small
[[Page 15303]]
prawn trawl fishery, and coastal gill nets, can affect juvenile to
adult size turtles. In addition, climate change and natural disasters
are expected to be an increasing threat to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the Southwest Indian DPS
Nine countries of the southwest Indian Ocean developed and signed
the Indian Ocean Southeast Asian Marine Turtle Memorandum of
Understanding (IOSEA; www.ioseaturtles.org): Comoros in June 2001,
United Republic of Tanzania in June 2001, Kenya in May 2002, Mauritius
in July 2002, Madagascar in January 2003, Seychelles in January 2003,
South Africa in February 2005; and Mozambique and France (Indian Ocean)
in December 2008. IOSEA aims to develop and assist countries of the
region in the implementation of the IOSEA regional strategy for
management and conservation of sea turtles and their habitats.
Accordingly, IOSEA has been successfully coordinating and closely
monitoring region-wide conservation efforts in the Indian Ocean for
years. This has included the development of a state-of-the-art online
reporting facility, satellite tracking, genetic regional database,
flipper tag inventory, and a global bibliographic resource.
Also within the Southwest Indian DPS, the Western Indian Ocean-
Marine Turtle Task Force plays a role in sea turtle conservation. This
is a technical, non-political working group comprised of specialists
from eleven countries: Comoros, France (La R[eacute]union), Kenya,
Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa,
United Kingdom and Tanzania, as well as representatives from
intergovernmental organizations, academic, and non-governmental
organizations within the region.
The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) is playing an increasingly
constructive role in turtle conservation. In 2005, the IOTC adopted
Resolution 05/08, superseded by Resolution 09/06 on Sea Turtles, which
sets out reporting requirements on interactions with sea turtles and
accordingly provides an executive summary per species for adoption at
the Working Party on Ecosystem and By-catch and then subsequently at
the Scientific Committee. In 2011, IOTC developed a ``Sea Turtle
Identification Card'' to be distributed to all long-liners operating in
the Indian Ocean (https://www.iotc.org/).
Although there is considerable uncertainty in anthropogenic
mortalities, especially in the water, the DPS may have benefitted from
conservation efforts at the nesting beaches.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Southwest Indian DPS
The Southwest Indian DPS is characterized by relatively high levels
of green turtle nesting abundance and increasing trends. The overall
nesting range for the Southwest Indian DPS occurs throughout the range
of this DPS on islands, atolls, and on the main continent of Africa in
Kenya. The fact that turtles nest on both insular and continental
sites, and nesting substrate can be variable as some of the nesting
beaches are volcanic islands and the atolls are made of coralline sand,
suggests a high degree of nesting diversity. Nesting also occurs
throughout the year with peaks that vary among rookeries (Dalleau et
al., 2012; Mortimer, 2012). The genetic structure of this DPS is
characterized by high diversity and a mix of unique and rare
haplotypes, as well as common and widespread haplotypes. However, the
five-factor analysis in the Status Review revealed continuing threats
to green turtles and their habitat within the range of the DPS.
Nesting beaches throughout the range of this DPS are susceptible to
coastal development and associated beachfront lighting, erosion, and
sea level rise. Coral reef and seagrass bed degradation continues in
portions of the range of the DPS affecting foraging turtles. Direct
capture of juvenile and adult turtles continues to take place using a
variety of gear types in artisanal and industrial fisheries.
The Southwest Indian DPS is protected by various international
treaties and agreements as well as a few national laws, and there are
protected beaches throughout the range of this DPS. As a result of
these designations and agreements, many of the intentional impacts
directed at sea turtles have been lessened, such as the harvest of eggs
and adults in several nesting areas, although the extent to which they
are reduced is not clear.
While the Status Review indicates that the DPS shows strength in
many of the critical population parameters, there are still concerns
about threats to the DPS from fisheries interactions, direct harvest
(eggs and adults), and climate change.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Southwest Indian DPS
as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction
presently because of the high nesting abundance and geographically
widespread nesting at a diversity of sites; however, the continued
threats are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable future.
XI. North Indian DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the North Indian DPS
The range of the North Indian DPS begins at the border of Somalia
and Kenya north into the Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Persian Gulf and east
to the Gulf of Mannar off the southern tip of India and includes a
major portion of India's southeastern coast up to Andra Pradesh. The
southern and eastern boundaries are the equator (0[deg]) and 84[deg]
E., respectively, which intersect in the southeast corner of the range
of the DPS. It is bordered by the following countries (following the
water bodies from west to east): Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Sudan,
Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates,
Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka
(Figure 2).
Nesting is concentrated primarily in the northern and western
region of the range of the North Indian DPS from the Arabian Peninsula
to the Pakistani-Indian border, with smaller but significant nesting
colonies occurring in Sri Lanka, India's Lakshadweep Island group, and
the Red Sea. Nesting in the Arabian Gulf occurs in low numbers.
Seagrass beds are extensive within the range of the DPS, although a
comprehensive understanding of juvenile and adult foraging areas is
lacking. There are extensive foraging areas in the Arabian Gulf, on the
coasts of Oman and Yemen, Gulf of Aden, and in the Red Sea (Ross and
Barwani, 1982; Salm, 1991; Salm and Salm, 2001). Barr al Hickman, along
the Sahil al Jazit coastline in Oman, is one of the most important
known foraging grounds for green turtles. Although development of dense
seagrass beds is limited seasonally due to monsoons, the Arabian Sea
coast's foraging areas are extensive (Jupp et al., 1996 as cited in
Ferreira et al., 2006). Juvenile green turtles have been sighted and
captured year-round in the lagoons in Agatti and Kavaratti. These
Lakshadweep lagoons are known to be important developmental habitat for
green turtles in this DPS (Tripathy et al., 2002; Tripathy et al.,
2006).
Thirty-eight total nesting sites were identified by the SRT, some
being individual beaches and others representing multiple nesting
beaches, although nesting data is more than a decade old for the vast
majority of these sites. Nonetheless, our best estimates indicate that,
of the 38 sites, two have >10,000 nesting females (Ras Sharma,
[[Page 15304]]
Yemen; 18,000 (PERSGA/GEF, 2004) and Ras Al Hadd, Oman; 16,184 (Ross,
1979; AlKindi et al., 2008)); one has 5,001-10,000 nesting females
(Kamgar Beach at Ormara, Pakistan; 6,000 (Groombridge et al., 1988));
five have 1,001-5,000 nesting females (Saudi Arabian Gulf Islands;
2,410 (Al-Merghani et al., 2000; Pilcher, 2000); north coast of Ras Al
Hadd, Oman; 1,875 (Salm et al., 1993); Ra's Jifan to Ra's Jibsh, Oman;
1,500 (Ross, 1979; AlKindi et al., 2008); Masirah Island, Oman; 1,125
(Grobler et al., 2001); and Gujarat, India; 1,125 (Sunderraj et al.,
2006a, 2006b; K. Shanker pers. comm., 2013); 15 sites have 101-500
nesting females; 10 have fewer than 50; and one is unquantified. The
largest site, Ras Sharma in Yemen, accounts for 33 percent of the
nesting females. Daran Beach, Jiwani, Pakistan, with an estimated 371
nesting females (Waqas et al., 2011), and Zabargard Island, Egypt, with
an estimated 444 nesting females (Hanafy, 2012; El-Sadek et al., 2013),
are the only sites for which 10 or more years of recent data are
available for annual nesting female abundance (the standards for
representing trends in bar plot in this report). It is difficult to
ascertain any trend from these data. No sites met the standards for
PVA. However, some other sites were examined, with caveats, as follows.
Nesting at Ras Al Hadd appears to have increased from approximately
6,000 females nesting each year for the period 1977 to 1979 (Ross and
Barwani, 1982) through the late 1980s (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989),
to the estimate of 16,184 nesting females, as calculated from 21,578
nests found in 2007 (AlKindi et al., 2008). Declines are evident at
Hawkes Bay and Sandspit, Pakistan, where a mean of approximately 1,300
nests were deposited annually from 1981 to 1985 (Groombridge and
Luxmoore, 1989) and a mean of approximately 600 nests were laid from
1994 to 1997 (Asrar, 1999). At Gujarat, India, 866 nests were deposited
in 1981 (Bhaskar, 1984) and 461 nests in 2000 (Sunderraj et al., 2006);
however, because there are only two data points, it is not possible to
determine a trend. At Ras Sharma, counts of nightly nesting females
during peak nesting season in 1966 and 1972 (30-40 females; Hirth,
1968; Hirth and Hollingsworth, 1973) versus the same index during the
peak of the 1999 nesting season (15 females; Saad, 1999) are suggestive
of a decline. Again the lack of multiple-year data sets for both
Gujarat and Ras Sharma preclude trend assessment.
With regard to spatial structure, only one stock from this DPS (in
Saudi Arabia) has been characterized genetically based on limited
sampling; however, it was found to be very distinct from other nesting
sites elsewhere in the Indian Ocean based on mtDNA analysis. There are
no studies of foraging grounds within the range of the North Indian DPS
to provide information on the distribution or the mixing of turtles
outside of this DPS. A few flipper tag recoveries have been reported
with no reported recoveries outside of the range of the North Indian
DPS. Adult females from Egypt, Sri Lanka, and Oman were satellite
tagged and tracked during post-nesting migrations, and all remained
within the range of the North Indian DPS. The satellite telemetry data
for nesting females in Sri Lanka provided some information on possible
foraging locations which were within the inshore waters of southern Sri
Lanka and the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve, although sample size
was limited (Richardson et al., 2013). Satellite telemetry for nesting
females in Kuwait verified nesting in Qaru Island. These turtles
migrated to the shallow seas in Saudi Arabia (Rees et al., 2013).
With regard to diversity and resilience, the demography of green
turtles in the North Indian DPS appears to vary among nesting
assemblages, suggesting a complex population structuring in the North
Indian DPS. The population is moderately dispersed within the range of
the North Indian DPS, although the greatest nesting is concentrated in
the northern and western region of the DPS's range, with about 72
percent of the nesting concentrated in Oman and Yemen. The nesting
season varies widely within the range of the DPS. The peak nesting
season in Ras Sharma, Yemen is July, in Gujarat, India, it is from
August to March (Sunderraj et al., 2006), and in Oman, nesting occurs
year-round.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the North Indian DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
One of the largest green turtle nesting populations within this DPS
is concentrated on the nesting beaches of Ras Al Hadd, Oman (Ross,
1979). Ras Al Hadd, Ras al Jinz, and the numerous smaller nesting
beaches south of it are protected from development as part of the Ras
Al Hadd Nature Reserve. However, upland light pollution is negatively
impacting these otherwise suitable nesting habitats (E. Possardt,
USFWS, pers. comm., 2013). The most important green turtle nesting
beaches in Yemen fall within the Ras Sharma Protected Area, and this
nesting habitat is secure from beach development threats.
Light pollution is increasing near the Karan Island, Saudi Arabia
site from oil rig developments, but the impact on hatchlings and
nesting females is unknown (J. Miller, Biological Research and
Education Consultants, pers. comm., 2013). At Ras Baridi, one of the
main nesting beaches in Saudi Arabia, uncontrolled particulate
emissions from a large cement factory has coated the beaches at times
and poses a threat to hatchlings because they are unable to emerge from
the nest due to the hardened sand (PERSGA/GEF, 2004; Pilcher, 1999).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Trawling occurs throughout much of the range of the North Indian
DPS and has the potential to destroy bottom habitat in these areas.
Marine pollution, including direct contamination and structural habitat
degradation, affects green turtle neritic and oceanic habitat. The most
dramatic example of the threats to sea turtles and their habitat from
oil pollution in the region is the Gulf War oil spill in the Arabian
Gulf in 1991, which is estimated to be the largest oil spill in history
at the time of the 2010 report (ABC, 2010).
In the Arabian Gulf, extensive seagrass beds provide important
foraging sites for green turtles within waters of Bahrain, United Arab
Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, but these are being degraded and
lost from the continual threat of dredging, siltation, and land
reclamation (Pilcher, 2000, 2006; Al-Muraikhi et al., 2005; Abdulqader,
2008; Al-Abdessalaam et al., 2008).
In the waters surrounding the Lakshadweep islands in India, there
exist high densities of green turtles that, without the natural level
of control from the top predators such as tiger sharks, can cause an
increase in grazing pressure and reduce the amount of healthy seagrass
beds available (Kelkar et al., 2013).
In summary, we find that the North Indian DPS of the green turtle
is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both its terrestrial and
marine habitats as a result of land and water use practices. Beach and
marine pollution are an increasing threat to this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Directed take of eggs and turtles by humans occurs at the primary
green
[[Page 15305]]
turtle nesting beaches and in waters off of Saudi Arabia (Al-Merghani
et al., 1996; Pilcher, 2000), Yemen (K. Nasher, Sana'a University,
pers. comm., 2013), Oman (R. Baldwin, Five Oceans LLC, pers. comm.,
2013), Djibouti and Somalia (PERSGA 2001; van de Elst, 2006; Galair,
2009; van de Giessen, 2011; Witsen, 2012), Eritrea (Howe et al., 2004;
Pilcher, 2006; Teclemariam et al., 2009), the Islamic Republic of Iran
(Mobaraki, 2004; 2007; 2011), India (Sunderraj et al., 2006), and Sri
Lanka (Rajakaruna et al., 2009; Turtle Conservation Project, 2009).
Directed take of nesting females is also still common at nesting
beaches in Yemen (K. Nasher, Sana'a University, pers. comm., 2013). In
spite of wildlife protection laws, green turtles are still killed
opportunistically for food in Oman (R. Baldwin, Five Oceans LLC, pers.
comm., 2013).
Illegal and legal capture of sea turtles and the collection of
turtle eggs is fairly widespread in the Djibouti and Somalia region of
the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, and turtle meat, oil and eggs are an
important source of subsidiary food for artisanal fishers (PERSGA,
2001; van de Elst, 2006; Galair, 2009; van de Giessen, 2011; Witsen,
2012). Harvesting of sea turtle eggs and meat for consumption by local
communities and fishers occurs at a subsistence level in Eritrea (Howe
et al., 2004; Pilcher, 2006; Teclemariam et al., 2009); however, the
pressure on green turtle populations is reported to be high because
they are prized for their meat products (Teclemariam et al., 2009). Egg
harvesting has also been reported as a threat impacting green turtles
in the Islamic Republic of Iran, with eggs being used for both
consumption (in some cases as an aphrodisiac) and for use in
traditional medicines (Mobaraki, 2004; 2007; 2011).
In spite of wildlife protection laws, green turtles are still
killed opportunistically for trade in the Bay of Mannar between India
and Sri Lanka (Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2006). In India, green turtle
export was banned in the 1980s; however, subsistence harvesting
continues (Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2006). An increase in the number of
green turtles killed by fishers has been reported in Agatti Island,
Lakshadweep, India. The cause for the killing has been linked to
increases in green turtles within the area. The perception is that
green turtles damage fishing gear and overgraze seagrass thereby
reducing catch levels (Arthur et al., 2013).
In summary, current legal and illegal collection of eggs and
harvest of turtles throughout the range of the North Indian DPS for
human consumption persists as a threat to this DPS. The harvest of
nesting females continues to threaten the stability of green turtle
populations in many areas affecting the DPS by reducing adult abundance
and egg production.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
The prevalence of FP in the North Indian DPS is not known.
Predation of hatchlings and eggs by red foxes (Vulpes vulpes arabica)
is common at the Ras al Jinz, Oman green turtle nesting beach
(Mendon[ccedil]a et al., 2010), and depredation by feral dogs has been
identified as a major threat at sea turtle nesting beaches in Pakistan
(Asrar, 1999; Firdous, 2001) and the main green turtle nesting beach at
Ras Sharma (Stanton, 2008). On two Egyptian Red Sea beaches (Ras
Honkorab and Om Al-Abath beaches, which are both within Wadi Gimal
National Park limits), predation is reported to be very high with only
a few nests surviving (Mancini, 2012). The most common predators
observed on these two beaches in Egypt were desert foxes (V. zerda) and
dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), but ghost crabs were regularly observed
near nests as well. In Qatar, depredation of eggs and hatchlings by
foxes has been identified as a key source of turtle mortality (Al-
Muraikhi et al., 2005; Pilcher, 2006). Along the beaches of Gujarat in
India, dogs, jackals, monitor lizards, crabs, crows, and possibly
hyenas and feral pigs depredate nests and eat hatchings (Sunderraj et
al., 2006).
Although disease and predation are known to occur, quantitative
data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats
on the persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
There are several international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms that pertain to the North Indian DPS, and nearly all
countries lining the North Indian DPS have some level of national
legislation directed at sea turtle protection. The following countries
have laws to protect green turtles: Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea,
India, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. In
addition, at least 14 international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the North
Indian DPS.
Within the last decade, since the establishment of the Jeddah
Convention (The Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea
and Gulf of Aden Environment), there is more of an effort to strengthen
participation in international and regional agreements (PERSGA, 2010).
The analysis of these existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all
would remain in place at their current levels. The overall
effectiveness and enforcement of these laws varies among the countries
and relies on each country's priorities. Often the enforcement of these
laws is done in collaboration with non-governmental agencies such as
HEPCA in the Red Sea (https://www.hepca.org/).
Regulatory mechanisms that address the direct capture of green
turtles are implemented to various degrees throughout the range of the
DPS with some countries having no regulation in place. Our Status
Review reported no widespread regulations for the gill net and trawl
fisheries to address the threat of bycatch. The Status Review revealed
a lack of existing regulatory mechanisms to address coastal
development, sea level rise, and effects of climate change that
continue to contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Sea turtle bycatch from gill nets, trawls, and longline fisheries
is a significant cause of sea turtle mortality for the North Indian
DPS, although there are fewer bycatch data than for other regions of
the world (Wright and Mohanty, 2002; Project GloBAL, 2007; Bourjea et
al., 2008; Abdulqader, 2010; Wallace et al., 2010). The magnitude of
trawl, gill net, and longline fisheries within the range of the North
Indian DPS is great with no substantive sea turtle protection measures
in place to reduce sea turtle bycatch mortality. Along the coast of Ras
Al Hadd, one of the densest nesting beaches of this DPS, fishery
related mortality is particularly high where green turtles are
incidentally caught in fishing gear (Salm, 1991).
i. Gill Net Fisheries
Gill nets are widely deployed and used throughout the region and
known to kill thousands of sea turtles in some regions (Project GloBAL,
2007). Two member Indian Ocean Tuna Commission parties, Iran and Kenya,
alone reported the use of 12,023 gill nets in the Indian Ocean in 2012.
In Lakshadweep and Tamil Nadu, India, the most common net fisheries
(i.e., gill net, shore seine, anchor net and drag nets) are known to
incidentally catch green turtles (Tripathy et al., 2006; Bhupathy and
Saravanan, 2006).
[[Page 15306]]
Incidental capture of sea turtles in fishing nets (presumably in
gill nets or set nets) has been identified as the main cause of
mortality of juvenile green turtles within Iranian and the United Arab
Emirates foraging areas (Mobaraki, 2007; Al-Abdessalaam et al., 2008).
In Qatar, entrapment of turtles in fishing nets has been identified as
a key source of mortality (Al-Muraikhi et al., 2005).
ii. Trawl Fisheries
Shrimp trawling occurs in many countries throughout the range of
the North Indian DPS including Pakistan, India, Bahrain, and Saudi
Arabia. In Yemen, trawling is believed to be a significant threat to
sea turtles, mainly hawksbill and greens; however, no data are
available (Bourjea et al., 2008). Pakistan and India require the use of
TEDs to meet the requirements of U.S. Public Law 101-162, section 609
for exporting shrimp to the United States, but the level of compliance
is unclear (E. Possardt, USFWS, pers. obs. 2013). Nowhere else within
the range of the North Indian DPS are TEDs being used and it can be
assumed that significant sea turtle bycatch occurs. One documented
assessment of the impact of trawling on sea turtles in this region is
from Bahrain where trawls were reported to capture over 300 sea turtles
annually, mostly greens (Abdulqader and Miller, 2012; Abdulqader,
2010).
b. Vessel Strikes
Boat strikes have been identified as a major cause of sea turtle
mortality in the United Arab Emirates (Al-Abdessalaam et al., 2008) and
Qatar (Al-Muraikhi et al., 2005). Boat strikes of sea turtles also have
been identified as a regular occurrence in Iran and seem to be
increasing in some areas (Mobaraki, 2011). Boat strikes are undoubtedly
a regular occurrence throughout the Arabian Gulf and other important
green turtle foraging grounds within the range of the North Indian DPS
and, cumulatively, are likely significant, but quantification is
lacking.
c. Beach Driving
Beach driving by fishers who haul and launch boats from Ras al Jinz
beach in Oman is highly problematic, and hatchling turtles are likely
being caught in ruts, struck or run over. However, no assessment has
been conducted to determine the extent of impacts on nesting turtles
and hatchlings (E. Possardt, USFWS, pers. comm., 2013).
d. Pollution
Pollution has been identified as a main threat to sea turtles in
Iran (Mobaraki, 2007) and Pakistan (Firdous, 2001); however, no
specific information about the type of pollution was provided. In Sri
Lanka, Kapurusinghe (Kapurusinghe, 2006) stated that polluted inland
water flows into Beira Lake and subsequently the sea, and that garbage,
including polythene and plastics, dumped on beaches in some areas is
washed into the sea, where it can be lethal to sea turtles. In Gujarat,
India, the increase in ports and shipping traffic results in problems
from oil spills, garbage, and other pollutants such as fertilizers and
cement (Surderraj et al., 2006).
e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
Similar to other areas of the world, climate change and sea level
rise have the potential to affect green turtles in the North Indian
DPS. Effects of climate change include, among other things, increased
sea surface temperatures, the alteration of thermal sand
characteristics of beaches (from warming temperatures), which could
result in the reduction or cessation of male hatchling production
(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009), and a significant rise
in sea level, which could significantly restrict green turtle nesting
habitat. In addition, cyclones such as those occurring in consecutive
years in 1998 and 1999 in Kachchch, India, cause severe erosion of the
nesting beach (Surderraj et al., 2006) and, when combined with the
effects of sea level rise, may have increased cumulative impacts in the
future. While sea turtles have survived past eras that have included
significant temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected
to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change induced by human activities are
likely to become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007).
Within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch (longline, gill net,
and trawl fishing) occurs throughout the range of the DPS and is a
significant threat to this DPS. In addition, pollution, vessel strikes,
climate change and natural disasters are expected to be an increasing
threat to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the North Indian DPS
In 2012, the IOTC began requiring its 31 contracting Parties to
report sea turtle bycatch and to use safe handling and release
techniques for sea turtles on longline vessels. The IOTC and IOSEA also
recently completed an ``Ecological Risk Assessment and Productivity--
Susceptibility Analysis of sea turtles overlapping with fisheries in
the IOTC region.'' One conclusion was that green turtles account for 50
88 percent of artisanal and commercial gill nets bycatch. Two methods
of estimating total bycatch were used, and resulted in an annual gill
net bycatch estimate of 29,488 sea turtles within the IOTC region.
While conservation efforts for the North Indian DPS are extensive
and expanding, they still remain inadequate to ensure the long-term
viability of the population. Efforts have been largely focused on the
nesting beaches, and there are only recent efforts underway to
understand the extent of green turtle interactions with gill nets and
trawlers and the resulting cumulative effects from bycatch--one of the
major threats to this DPS. Concerted efforts to identify and protected
critical foraging grounds is also lacking.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the North Indian DPS
The North Indian DPS has a high level of green turtle nesting
abundance with two of the largest nesting assemblages of green turtles
in the world nesting in Yemen and Oman. The North Indian DPS also has
expansive, largely undeveloped nesting beaches, and many of these
beaches are protected from development as nationally designated
reserves or protected areas, although threats still remain. The North
Indian DPS also features extensive coastal seagrass beds distributed
throughout the region, which provide abundant foraging grounds for this
species. Nesting beaches are distributed broadly throughout the region.
Coastal development, beachfront lighting, fishing practices, and
marine pollution at nesting beaches and important foraging grounds are
continuing concerns across the DPS. Current illegal harvest of green
turtles and eggs for human consumption is a continuing but limited
threat to this DPS. Fishery bycatch occurs throughout the North Indian
DPS, particularly bycatch mortality of green turtles from gill nets and
trawl fisheries, and the cumulative mortality from these fisheries is
probably the greatest threat to this DPS. Additional threats from boat
strikes, which are becoming more common, and expected impacts of
climate change, will negatively affect this DPS.
Conservation efforts are substantial but uneven in the range of the
North Indian DPS and focused almost entirely on nesting beaches. The
ability for some countries to sustain or develop needed
[[Page 15307]]
conservation programs in the context of political instability within
the region is of concern. Further, our analysis did not consider the
scenario in which current laws or regulatory mechanisms were not
continued. Given the conservation dependence of the species, without
mechanisms in place to continue conservation efforts in this DPS, some
threats could increase and population trends could be affected.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the North Indian DPS as
threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction
presently because of high nesting abundance in protected areas;
however, the continued threats are likely to endanger the DPS within
the foreseeable future.
XII. East Indian-West Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the East Indian-West Pacific
DPS
The western boundary for the range of the East Indian-West Pacific
DPS is 84[deg] E. longitude from 40[deg] S. to where it coincides with
India near Odisha, northeast along the shoreline and into the West
Pacific Ocean to include Taiwan extending east at 41[deg] N. to
146[deg] E. longitude, south and west to 4.5[deg] N., 129[deg] E., then
south and east to West Papua in Indonesia and the Torres Straits in
Australia. The southern boundary is 40[deg] S. latitude, encompassing
the Gulf of Carpentaria (Figure 2).
Green turtle nesting is widely dispersed throughout the range of
the East Indian-West Pacific DPS, with important nesting sites
occurring in Northern Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak
Turtle Islands), Peninsular Malaysia, and the Philippine Turtle
Islands. The in-water range of the East Indian-West Pacific DPS is
similarly widespread with shared foraging sites throughout the range of
the DPS. The largest nesting site lies within Northern Australia, which
supports approximately 25,000 nesting females (Limpus, 2009).
Nonetheless, populations are substantially depleted from historical
levels.
There are 58 known nesting sites, although we note that the nesting
female estimates for many of these sites are over a decade old. The
largest, Wellesley Group, lies in northern Australia and supports
approximately 25,000 nesting females (EPA Queensland Turtle
Conservation Project unpublished data cited in Limpus, 2009). Five
sites have 5,001-10,000 nesting females: Bilang-Bilangan, Indonesia
(7,156; Reischig et al., 2012); Sabah Turtle Island Park, Malaysia
(7,011; de Silva, 1982; Basintal, 2002; P. Bastinal pers. comm., 2011);
Ningaloo, North West Cape, Australia (6,269; Prince, 2003; Markovina,
2008; Bool et al., 2009; Gourlay et al., 2010; Kelliher et al., 2011);
Baguan Island, Philippines (5,874; Pawikan Conservation Project, 2013);
and Pangumbahan, Indonesia (5,199; Muhara and Herlina, 2012). Seven
sites have 1,001-5,000 nesting females: Sangalaki (2,740; Reischig et
al., 2012), Enu (2,048; Dethmers, 2010), Mataha (1,652; Reischig et
al., 2012), and Belambangan Island, Indonesia (1,736; Dermawan, 2002);
Terranganu (1,875; Chan, 2010) and Sarawak Turtle Island, Malaysia
(1,155; Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989; Chan 2006; Chan, 2010); and
Lihiman, Philippines (1,217; Pawikan Conservation Project, 2013). Eight
sites have 501-1,000 nesting females, 30 have <500 nesting females, and
seven are unquantified.
Green turtle populations within the range of the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS have experienced apparent declines at some nesting sites,
and increases at others in the past several decades. For instance, in
Southeast Asia, data suggest that populations have declined in the Gulf
of Thailand, Vietnam, and the Berau Islands, Meru Betiri National Park,
Pangumbahan, Thamihla Kyun, and perhaps Enu Island, all in Indonesia,
although the lack of recent and/or multiple year data prevents an
assessment of the current trends at these sites. At Sipadan, Sarawak
and Terengganu in Malaysia, nesting appears to be stable, although
Terengganu might be decreasing. Nesting has remained stable in the
Philippine Turtle Islands and may have increased at the Sabah Turtle
Islands, Malaysia. In Western Australia, data are not sufficient to
draw any conclusions regarding long-term trends, although these sites,
together with the Wellesley Group in Northern Australia (the largest
nesting site), may constitute the most important green turtle nesting
concentration in the Indian Ocean.
When examining spatial structure for the East Indian-West Pacific
DPS, the SRT examined three lines of evidence: genetic data, flipper
and satellite tagging, and demographic data. Genetic sampling in the
East Indian-West Pacific DPS has occurred at 22 nesting sites. There
appears to be a complex population structure, even though there are
gaps in sampling relative to distribution. Overall, this region is
dominated by a few common and widespread haplotypes and has varying
levels of spatial structure characterized by the presence of rare/
unique haplotypes at most nesting sites. There is significant
population substructuring.
Tagging and tracking studies have been geared to studying
internesting migrations, and defining the range of internesting
habitats and post-nesting migrations. Green turtles that were satellite
tracked from Pulau Redang, Terengganu indicate migrations to the South
China Sea and Sulu Sea areas (Liew, 2002). Cheng (2000) reported
movements of eight post-nesting green turtles from Wan-An Island,
Taiwan that were satellite tracked, and which distributed widely on the
continental shelf to the east of mainland China. Satellite telemetry
studies conducted from 2000 to 2003 demonstrated that the green turtles
nesting at Taipin Tao are a shared natural resource among the nations
in the southern South China Sea. Female green turtles tracked in the
same area travelled long distances in a post-nesting migration, ending
in the Sulu Sea in the Philippines and the Malaysia Peninsula with
distances that ranged from 456 to 2,823 km (Charuchinda et al., 2002)
and in the coastal region of Japan (Wang, 2006). Waayers and
Fitzpatrick (2013) found that in the Kimberly region of Australia, the
green turtle appears to have a broad migration distribution and
numerous potential foraging areas.
Mixed stock analysis of foraging grounds shows that green turtles
from multiple nesting beach origins commonly mix at feeding areas in
foraging grounds across northern Australia (Dethmers et al., 2010) and
Malaysia (Jensen, 2010) with higher contributions from nearby large
nesting sites. There is evidence of low frequency contribution from
nesting sites outside the range of the DPS at some foraging areas.
The demography of green turtles in the East Indian-West Pacific DPS
varies throughout the nesting assemblages. This variation in parameters
such as mean nesting size, remigration interval, internesting interval,
clutch size, hatching success, and clutch frequency suggests a high
level of population structuring in this DPS.
With regard to diversity and resilience, nesting and foraging areas
are widespread within the range of this DPS, providing a level of
population resilience through habitat diversity. The nesting season
varies throughout the range of the DPS, with nesting from June to
August in the inner Gulf of Thailand, peak nesting from March to July
on Derawan Island (Charuchinda and Monanunsap, 1998; Abe et al., 2003;
Aureggi et al., 2004; Adnyana et al., 2008), year-round nesting in
Thameela Island, Myanmar and Aru, Indonesia (although peaking from
November to March; (Dethmers, 2010; Lwin, 2009),
[[Page 15308]]
and peak nesting from November to March in Aru, Indonesia (Dethmers,
2010), Sukamade, southeastern Java (Arinal, 1997), Barrow Island, and
western Australia (Pendoley, 2005). Nesting occurs on both insular and
continental sites, yielding a degree of nesting diversity. Limited
information also suggests that there are two types of nesting females
within the DPS: Those with high site fidelity which nest regularly at
one site, such as the Sabah Turtle Islands; and those with low site
fidelity such as at Ishigaki Island which select different nesting
sites allowing for increased diversity and resilience for the DPS
(Basintal, 2002; Abe et al., 2003).
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the East Indian-West Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
In the East Indian-West Pacific DPS, the majority of green turtle
nesting beaches are extensively eroded. Nesting habitat is degraded due
to a variety of human activities largely related to tourism. Coastal
development and associated artificial lighting, sand mining, and marine
debris affect the amount and quality of habitat that is available to
nesting green turtles. However, there are sanctuaries and parks
throughout the region where nests are protected to various degrees.
Most of the beaches in Vietnam have a large amount of marine
debris, which includes glass, plastics, polystyrenes, floats, nets, and
light bulbs. This debris can entrap turtles and impede nesting
activity.
In Australia, the majority of green turtle nesting along the
beaches of the Gulf of Carpentaria occurs outside of the protection of
the National Park. Other minor nesting sites lie within the protected
lands of the Indigenous Protected Areas (Limpus, 2009). In Western
Australia, the impacts to nesting and hatchling green turtles by
independent turtle watchers as well as off-road vehicles has increased
in the Ningaloo region as the number of visitors has increased over the
years (Waayers, 2010). Nesting turtles and hatchlings are routinely
disturbed by people with their cars and flashlights (Kelliher et al.,
2011). Burn-off flares associated with oil and gas production on the
Northwest shelf of Australia are in sufficiently close proximity to the
green turtle nesting beaches to possibly cause hatchling disorientation
(Pendoley, 2000)
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Green turtles forage in the seagrass beds around the Andaman and
Nicobar Islands in India. Some of these seagrass beds in the South
Andaman group are no longer viable foraging habitat because of
siltation and degradation due to waste disposal, a byproduct of the
rapid increase in tourism (Andrews, 2000). Green turtles that forage
off the waters of the Bay of Bengal in south Bangladesh also face
depleted foraging habitat from divers collecting seagrass for
commercial purposes and by anchoring of commercial ships, ferries, and
boats in this habitat (Sarkar, 2001). In the nearshore waters of
Thailand, seagrass beds are partially protected since fishing gear such
as trawls are prohibited (Charuchinda et al., 2002). In the waters
surrounding the islands of Togean and Banggai in Indonesia, the use of
dynamite and potassium cyanide are common, and this type of fishing
method destroys green turtle foraging habitat (Surjadi and Anwar,
2001).
Seagrass beds are found throughout the nearshore areas of Vietnam's
mainland coast and islands (Ministry of Fisheries, 2003). Destructive
fishing practices have been and possibly continue to be a major threat
to this habitat in 21 of Vietnam's 29 provinces (Asia Development Bank,
1999 as cited in the Ministry of Fisheries, 2003) and in the waters of
Indonesia (Cruz, 2002; Dethmers, 2010). Although these destructive
fishing practices are prohibited by legislation passed in 1989,
enforcement may not be sufficient to prevent these practices from
occurring. Green turtle foraging habitat is under increased threat from
decreased water quality through river run-off and development (Ministry
of Fisheries, 2003).
In summary, within Factor A, we find that coastal development,
beachfront lighting, erosion resulting from sand mining, and sea level
rise, are a significant threat to a large portion of this DPS. The
extent of fishing practices, depleted seagrass beds, and marine
pollution is broad with high levels occurring in waters where high
numbers of green turtles are known to forage and migrate are
significant threats to the persistence of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
The green turtle populations within this DPS have been declining
throughout their range. Populations throughout Asia have been depleted
by long-term harvests of eggs and adults, and by by-catch in the ever-
growing fisheries (Shanker and Pilcher, 2003). On St. Martins Island,
Bangladesh, over-exploitation has brought the nesting turtles to near
extinction (Hasan, 2009). Nesting females continue to be killed in
countries within Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean (Fleming, 2001;
Fretey, 2001; Cruz, 2002). Despite substantial declines in green turtle
nesting numbers, egg harvest remains legal in several of the countries
within the range of this DPS. Some countries have protections in place;
however, harvest continues due to lack of enforcement.
In Myanmar and Thailand, hatcheries are set up to protect a portion
of the eggs. However, these hatcheries retain hatchlings for several
days for tourism purposes, thus reducing the likelihood of hatchling
survival (Charuchinda et al., 2002).
Turtle nesting numbers have decreased in peninsular Malaysia and
the Philippines due to more than 40 years of overharvesting of eggs and
females (Siow and Moll, 1982; de Silva, 1982; Limpus, 1995; Cruz,
2002). In order to provide some protection for turtles, all three Sabah
Turtle Islands were acquired and protected by the Sabah State
Government in the 1970s (de Silva, 1982). After more than 20 years of
conservation efforts (1970-1990), the population had still not shown
signs of recovery (Limpus et al., 2001).
Local islanders in Indonesia have traditionally considered turtles,
especially green turtles, as part of their diet (Hitipeuw and Pet-
Soede, 2004 as cited in FAO, 2004). Illegal egg harvesting continues,
but there is an increased effort to fully protect green turtles from
harvest on the islands of Bilang-Bilangan and Mataha in Indonesia
(Reischig et al., 2012).
Despite legal protections for sea turtles, at-sea poaching of
turtles is a continuing problem in Southeast Asia, especially by
Hainanese and Vietnamese vessels. The poaching occurs in a wide-ranging
area of the region, and has moved as turtle stocks have been depleted,
with vessels being apprehended off Malaysia, Indonesia, and the
Philippines (Pilcher et al., 2009 as cited in Lam et al., 2011).
In Australia, green turtles are harvested by Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islanders for subsistence purposes. There is a widespread use of
motorized aluminum boats in contrast to the traditional dugout canoes
powered by paddles or sail. The total harvest of green turtles by
indigenous people across northern and Western Australia is probably
several thousand annually (Kowarsky, 1982; Henry and Lyle, 2003 as
cited in Limpus, 2009).
[[Page 15309]]
The indigenous harvest of eggs may be unsustainable in northeast Arnhem
Land (Kennett and Yunupingu, 1998).
Current legal and illegal collection of eggs and harvest of turtles
occur throughout the East Indian-West Pacific DPS and persists as a
significant threat to this DPS. The harvest of nesting females
continues to threaten the stability of green turtle populations in many
areas affecting the DPS by reducing adult abundance and reducing egg
production.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
FP has been found in green turtles in Indonesia (Adnyana et al.,
1997), Japan (Y. Matsuzawa, Japanese Sea Turtle Association, pers.
comm., 2004), the Philippines (Nalo-Ochona, 2000), Western Australia
(Raidal and Prince, 1996; Aguirre and Lutz, 2004), and on PhuQuoc in
Vietnam (Ministry of Fisheries, 2003). Epidemiological studies indicate
rising incidence of this disease (George, 1997), thus the above list
will likely grow in the future.
The best available data suggest that current nest and hatchling
predation on the East Indian-West Pacific DPS is prevalent and may be
an increasing threat without nest protection and predatory control
programs in place. Depredation of nests by feral animals is also
widespread in many South Asian areas (Sunderraj et al., 2001; Islam,
2002). Nest predation by feral pigs and dogs is a major threat on the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India (Fatima et al., 2011). Monitor
lizards are also a significant and widespread predator in some areas
(Andrews et al., 2006). Dog predation is a major threat to the green
turtle nests on Sonadia Island in Bangladesh (Islam et al., 2011).
Jackals, foxes, wild boars, and monitor lizards also predate green
turtle nests and hatchlings along the beaches of Bangladesh, and dogs
also kill or injure nesting females in Bangladesh (Andrews et al.,
2006). Lizards and ghost crabs are the natural predators of green
turtle nests in Thailand (Chantrapornsyl, 1993). In Malaysia, crabs
(Ocypode spp.) predate green turtle eggs (Ali and Ibrahim, 2000), and
gold-ringed cat snakes or mangrove snakes (Boigadendrophila), (Asiatic)
reticulated pythons (Python reticulatus), monitor lizards (Varanus
sp.), and house mice (Mus musculus) predate hatchlings (Hendrickson,
1958). Monitor lizards, crabs, and ants predate eggs and hatchlings on
the beaches of Vietnam (as cited in ``Sea Turtle Migration-Tracking and
Coastal Habitat Education Program--An Educator's Guide'' https://www.ioseaturtles.org/Education/seaturtlebooklet.pdf). In Japan, raccoon
dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and weasels (Mustela itatsi) are a
threat to nests (Kamezaki et al., 2003). In Taiwan, snakes predate the
nests (Cheng et al., 2009). On the North West Cape and the beaches of
the Ningaloo coast of mainland Australia, a long established feral
European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) population historically preyed heavily
on eggs and is thought to be responsible for the lower numbers of
nesting turtles on the mainland beaches (Baldwin et al., 2003; Kelliher
et al., 2011).
Although disease and predation are known to occur, quantitative
data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats
on the persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Although conservation efforts to protect some nesting beaches and
marine habitat are underway, more widespread and consistent protection
is needed. There are at least 16 national and international treaties
and/or regulatory mechanisms that pertain to the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS. The analysis of these existing regulatory mechanisms
assumed that all would remain in place at their current levels. The
following countries have laws to protect green turtles: Australia,
Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India,
Indonesia, Japan, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, and
Vietnam. In addition, at least 17 international treaties and/or
regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the
East Indian-West Pacific DPS. However, some regulatory mechanisms,
including laws and international treaties, are not realizing their full
potential because they are not enforced, or do not apply in all
countries occupied by the DPS.
Regulatory mechanisms are in place throughout the range of the DPS
that address the direct capture of green turtles for most of the
countries within this DPS. These are implemented to various degrees
throughout the range of the DPS. There are some national regulations
within this DPS that specially address the harvest of green turtles,
while a few regulations are limited in that they only apply to certain
size classes, or times of year, or allowed for traditional use.
Fishery bycatch throughout the range of the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS (see Factor E), as well as anthropogenic threats to nesting
beaches and foraging grounds (Factor A) and eggs/turtles and foraging
(Factors A, B, C, and E), are substantial. Although national and
international governmental and non-governmental entities in the East
Indian-West Pacific DPS are currently working toward reducing green
turtle bycatch as well as egg and turtle harvest, it is unlikely that
this source of mortality can be sufficiently reduced across the range
of the DPS in the near future. This is due to the lack of bycatch
reduction in commercial and artisanal fisheries operating within the
range of this DPS, the lack of comprehensive information on fishing
distribution and effort, limitations on implementing demonstrated
effective conservation measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations
on enforcement capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive
bycatch reduction technologies. Beaches and in-water habitat throughout
the range of the DPS are under various levels of protection, depending
in part on the clarity of regulations and consistency of funding for
enforcement.
In summary, although regulatory mechanisms are in place that should
address direct and incidental take of green turtles within this DPS,
these regulatory mechanisms are not implemented throughout the range of
this DPS. These mechanisms are not sufficiently implemented to address
the direct harvest of green turtles and are insufficient to address the
major threat of bycatch which remains a significant risk to this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a
significant threat to the survival of green turtles in the East Indian-
West Pacific DPS. Green turtles may be caught in drift and set gill
nets, bottom and mid-water trawling, fishing dredges, pound nets and
weirs, and haul and purse seines.
Bycatch in fisheries using gears such as trawlers, drift nets, and
purse seines is thought to be one of the main causes of decline in the
green turtle population in Thailand and Malaysia. The rapid expansion
of fishing operations is largely responsible for the increase in adult
turtle mortality due to bycatch (Settle, 1995). The most used fishing
gears in the waters of Thailand are trawling and drift gill nets. Heavy
fishing is the main threat to foraging sea turtles (Chan et al., 1988;
Chantrapornsyl, 1993; Liew, 2002).
Gill nets and set bag nets are the two major fishing gears used in
the Bay of Bengal, and green turtles are likely captured during these
fishing operations (Hossain and Hoq, 2010). Along the
[[Page 15310]]
coast of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the main type of fishery is gill
nets and purse seines with thousands of turtles killed annually by
fisheries operations including the shark fishery (Chandi et al., 2012;
Shanker and Pilcher, 2003). In 1994, Bhaskar estimated at least 600
green turtles were killed as a result of the shark fishery in this
area. Over the last decade, there has been an increase in the large
predator fishing industry. Green turtle mortality can be expected to be
much higher than that estimated in the 1990s as a result of these
current operations (Namboothri et al., 2012).
Trawl fishing is also common in Bangladesh. No green turtle
stranding information is available to determine the fishery threat
level to the green turtle population; however, it is expected to be
high as TEDs are not used and the population has declined (Ahmed et
al., 2006; Khan et al., 2006). On the Turtle Islands in the
Philippines, there have been an increased number of dead turtles as a
result of fishing activities, such as shrimp trawlers and demersal nets
(Cruz, 2002).
One of the main threats to green turtles in Vietnam and Indonesia
is the incidental capture from gill and trawl nets and the
opportunistic capture by fishers. Hundreds of green turtles are
captured by fisheries per year in Vietnam (Ministry of Fisheries, 2003;
Hamann et al., 2006a; Dethmers, 2010).
In Indonesia, green turtles were recorded as one of the main
species caught in the longline fisheries. Trawl gear is still allowed
in the Arafura Sea, posing a major threat to green turtles (Dethmers,
2010). Shrimp trawl captures in Indonesia are high because of the
limited use of TEDs (Zainudin et al., 2008).
The estimated bycatch of the Japanese large-mesh drift net fishery
in the North Pacific Ocean in 1990-1991 was 1,501 turtles, of which 248
were estimated to be green turtles (Wetherall et al., 1993). Wetherall
et al. (1993) report that the actual mortality of sea turtles taken in
the Japanese and Taiwanese large-mesh fisheries may have been between
2,500 and 9,000 per year.
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
Pollution from oil spills, as well as from agricultural and organic
chemicals, is a major threat to the waters used by green turtles in the
Bay of Bengal (Sarkar, 2001). The result of human population growth in
China has been an increased amount of pollutants in the coastal system.
Discharges from untreated sewage have occurred in Xisha Archipelago (Li
et al., 2004 as cited in Chan et al., 2007). Concentrations of nine
heavy metals (iron, manganese, zinc, copper, lead, nickel, cadmium,
cobalt, and mercury) and other trace elements were found in liver,
kidney, and muscle tissues of green turtles collected from Yaeyama
Islands, Okinawa, Japan (Anan et al., 2001). The accumulation of
cadmium found in the green turtles is likely due to accumulations of
this heavy metal in the plant materials on which they forage (Sakai et
al., 2000).
In the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, discarded fishing nets have
been found to cause a high number of turtle deaths with the majority
being green turtles (Chatto et al., 1995).
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
Effects of climate change include, among other things, increased
sea surface temperatures, the alteration of thermal sand
characteristics of beaches (from warming temperatures), which could
result in the reduction or cessation of male hatchling production
(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009), and a significant rise
in sea level, which could significantly restrict green turtle nesting
habitat. While sea turtles have survived past eras that have included
significant temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected
to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change induced by human activities are
likely to become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007).
Natural environmental events, such as cyclones and hurricanes, may
affect green turtles in the East Indian-West Pacific DPS. Typhoons have
been shown to cause severe beach erosion and negatively affect hatching
success at green turtle nesting beaches in Japan, especially in areas
already prone to erosion.
In summary, within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch,
particularly from drift net and purse seine fisheries, occur throughout
the East Indian-West Pacific DPS, with localized high levels of
mortality in waters where juvenile to adult turtles are known to forage
and migrate are a persistent risk to this DPS. In addition, vessel
collisions, marine pollution, changes likely to result from climate
change, and natural disasters are expected to be an increasing threat
to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the East Indian-West Pacific DPS
There are numerous ongoing conservation efforts in this region.
Hatcheries have been set up throughout the region to protect a portion
of the eggs laid and prevent complete egg harvesting. In addition,
bycatch reduction efforts have been made in some areas, protected areas
are established throughout the region, and monitoring, outreach and
enforcement efforts have made progress in sea turtle conservation.
Despite these conservation efforts, considerable uncertainty in the
status of this DPS lies with inadequate efforts to measure bycatch in
the region, a short time-series of monitoring on nesting beaches, and
missing vital rates data necessary for population assessments.
In India, since 1978, the Centre for Herpetology/Madras Crocodile
Bank Trust has conducted sea turtle surveys and studies in the islands.
In a bilateral agreement, the Governments of the Philippines and
Malaysia established The Turtle Island Heritage Protected Area (TIHPA),
made up of nine islands (six in the Philippines and three in Malaysia).
The TIHPA is one of the world's major nesting grounds for green
turtles. Management of the TIHPA is shared by both countries. One of
the nesting beaches for this DPS, Australia's Dirk Hartog Island, is
part of the Shark Bay World Heritage Area and recently became part of
Australia's National Park System. This designation may facilitate
monitoring of nesting beaches and enforcement of prohibitions on direct
take of green turtles and their eggs. Conservation efforts on nesting
beaches have included invasive predator control.
Illegal trade of turtle parts continues to be a problem in the East
Indian-West Pacific DPS. In order to reduce this threat, the Vietnamese
Government, with assistance from IUCN, WWF, TRAFFIC and the Danish
Government, formulated a Marine Turtle Conservation Action Plan in 2010
to expand awareness to fishers and enforcement officers, and to
confiscate sea turtle products (Stiles, 2009; Ministry of Fisheries
2010). The level of effectiveness and progress of this program is not
known.
TEDs are now in use in Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines,
Indonesia and Brunei, expanded by initiatives of the South East Asian
Fisheries Development Center (Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, 2004). In 2000, the use of TEDs in the Northern
Australian Prawn Fishery was made mandatory. Prior to the use of TEDs,
this fishery took between 5,000 and 6,000 sea turtles as bycatch
annually, with a mortality rate estimated to be 40 percent (Poiner and
Harris, 1996). Since the mandatory use of TEDs has been in effect, the
annual bycatch of sea turtles in the Northern
[[Page 15311]]
Australian Prawn Fishery has dropped to fewer than 200 sea turtles per
year, with a mortality rate of approximately 22 percent (based on
recent years). Initial progress has been made to measure the threat of
incidental capture of sea turtles in other artisanal and commercial
fisheries in the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean (Lewison et al., 2004;
Limpus, 2009); however, the data remain inadequate for population
assessments.
As in other DPSs, persistent marine debris poses entanglement and
ingestion hazards to green turtles. In 2009, Australia's Department of
the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts published a threat
abatement plan for the impacts of marine debris on vertebrate marine
life (https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d945695b-a3b9-4010-91b4-914efcdbae2f/files/marine-debris-threat-abatement-plan.pdf).
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS
The East Indian-West Pacific DPS is characterized by a relatively
large geographic area with widespread nesting reported in 58 different
locations throughout the range of the DPS. Although the numerous
nesting sites have relatively high abundance of nesting females,
decades of harvesting and habitat degradation have led to a drastic
decline in the sea turtle populations within this DPS in the last
century. Population trends at many of the higher abundance rookeries
are decreasing, though there appears to be an increasing trend on Sabah
in Malaysia and on Baguan in the Philippines, presumably due to
effective conservation efforts.
Continued harvest, coastal development, beachfront lighting,
erosion, fishing practices, and marine pollution both at nesting
beaches and important foraging grounds are all continuing concerns
across the range of the DPS. Harvest of turtles and eggs for human
consumption continues as a high threat to this East Indian-West Pacific
DPS. Coastal development, largely due to tourism, is an increasing
threat in many areas. Fishery bycatch occurs throughout the range of
the DPS, particularly bycatch mortality of green turtles from pelagic
longline, set net, and trawl fisheries. Additional threats due to
climate change, such as loss of habitat due to sea level rise and
increased ratio of female to male turtles, negatively impact this DPS.
Conservation efforts have been effective in a few areas but are lacking
or not effective in most.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of
extinction presently because of high nesting abundance and
geographically widespread nesting at a diversity of sites; however, the
continued threats are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable
future.
XIII. Central West Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Central West Pacific DPS
The range of the Central West Pacific DPS has a northern boundary
of 41[deg] N. latitude and is bounded by 41[deg] N., 169[deg] E. in the
northeast corner, going southeast to 9[deg] N., 175[deg] W., then
southwest to 13[deg] S., 171[deg] E., west and slightly north to the
eastern tip of Papua New Guinea, along the northern shore of the Island
of New Guinea to West Papua in Indonesia, northwest to 4.5[deg] N.,
129[deg] E. then to West Papua in Indonesia, then north to 41[deg] N.,
146[deg] E. It encompasses the Republic of Palau (Palau), FSM, New
Guinea, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Guam, the CNMI, and a
portion of Japan (Ogasawara; Figure 2).
Green turtle nesting occurs at low levels throughout the geographic
distribution of the DPS (approximately 51 sites), with isolated
locations having higher nesting activity. Only two populations are
known to have >1,000 nesting turtles, with all the rest having fewer
than 400 nesting females, for a total number of known nesting females
of approximately 6,500. The highest numbers of females nesting in this
DPS are located in Gielop and Iar Island, Ulithi Atoll, Yap, Federated
States of Micronesia (FSM; 1,412) or 22 percent of the population
2013); Chichijima (1,301) and Hahajima (394), Ogasawara, Japan; Bikar
Atoll, Marshall Islands (300); and Merir Island, Palau (441; (NMFS and
USFWS, 1998; Bureau of Marine Resources, 2005; Barr, 2006; Palau Bureau
of Marine Resources, 2008; Maison et al., 2010; H. Suganuma,
Everlasting Nature of Asia, pers. comm., 2012; J. Cruce, Ocean Society,
pers. comm., 2013). There are numerous other populations in the FSM,
Solomon Islands, Palau, Guam, and the CNMI. Historical baseline nesting
information in general is not widely available in this region, but
exploitation and trade of green turtles throughout the region is well-
known (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989).
Green turtles departing nesting grounds within the range of this
DPS travel throughout the western Pacific Ocean. Green turtles are
found in coastal waters in low to moderate densities at foraging areas
throughout the range of the DPS. Aerial sea turtle surveys show that an
in-water population exists around Guam (Division of Aquatic and
Wildlife Resources, 2011). In-water green turtle density in the
Marianas Archipelago is low and mostly restricted to juveniles (Pultz
et al., 1999; Kolinski et al., 2005; Kolinski et al., 2006; Palacios,
2012a). In-water information in this DPS overall is particularly
limited.
There is insufficient long-term and standardized monitoring
information to adequately describe abundance and population trends for
many areas of the Central West Pacific DPS. The available information
suggests a nesting population decrease in some portions of the DPS like
the Marshall Islands, or unknown trends in other areas such as Palau,
Papua New Guinea, the Marianas, Solomon Islands, or the FSM (Maison et
al., 2010). There is only one site for which 15 or more years of recent
data are available for annual nesting female abundance, one of the
standards for performing a PVA. This is at Chichijima, Japan, one of
the major green turtle nesting concentrations in Japan (Horikoshi et
al.,1994). Although the PVA has limitations, it shows a continuing
upward trend for the population. The population has increased in
abundance from a mean of approximately 100 annual nesting females in
the late 1970s/early 1980s to a mean of approximately 500 annual
nesting females since 2000. Chaloupka et al. (2008a) reports an
estimated annual population growth rate of 6.8 percent per year for the
Chichijima nesting site.
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Central
West Pacific has recently improved, but remains challenging given the
large number of small islands and atoll nesting sites. Stock structure
analysis indicated that nesting sites separated by more than 1,000 km
were significantly differentiated from each other while neighboring
nesting sites within 500 km showed no genetic differentiation (Dutton
et al., 2014). Based on mtDNA analyses, there are four independent
stocks within the DPS (Dethmers et al. 2006; Jensen 2010; Dutton et al.
2014).
With respect to tagging and telemetry, there are records of turtles
flipper tagged in the Philippines nesting in the FSM; a turtle tagged
in Japan was recorded nesting in the FSM; turtles tagged in the Japan
Archipelago and China were recorded nesting in the Ogasawara islands
(Suganuma, pers. comm., Ogasawara Marine Center, Everlasting Nature of
Asia, unpublished data); and turtles tagged in the FSM were recaptured
in the Philippines, Marshall
[[Page 15312]]
Islands, and Papua New Guinea (Palau BMR, 2008; Cruce, 2009). Satellite
telemetry shows that nesting females migrate to areas both within and
outside of the range of the Central West Pacific DPS. For example,
satellite tracks show turtles moving from the Mariana Islands to the
Philippines and Japan, and others moving from the Chichijima Islands of
Ogasawara to the main islands of Japan (Hatase et al., 2006; Japan
Fisheries Resource Conservation Association, 1999). Green turtles have
also been shown to move from the FSM to the Philippines and to the west
(G. Balazs, NMFS, unpublished data; Kolinski, et al., unpublished
data.)
Demographic data availability is limited and somewhat variable for
many nesting sites in the range of this DPS. Variability in parameters
such as remigration interval, clutch size, hatching success, and clutch
frequency is not separated out regionally within the DPS and,
therefore, does not necessarily suggest a high level of population
structuring.
With regard to diversity and resilience, the overall range of the
DPS is relatively widespread, which lends some resilience. However,
nesting generally occurs at what appear to be low numbers, except in
several locations, and only on islands and atolls throughout the range
of the DPS. Nesting information is limited for some areas, but occurs
from November to August in Palau; from March through September in the
FSM; and May to August in Ogasawara, Japan. Some turtles travel outside
the bounds of the range of this DPS, into the East Indian/West Pacific
DPS presumably to forage.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Central West Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
In the Central West Pacific Ocean, some nesting beaches have become
severely degraded from a variety of activities. Destruction and
modification of green turtle nesting habitat results from coastal
development and construction, placement of barriers to nesting,
beachfront lighting, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction,
beach erosion, beach pollution, removal of native vegetation, and
presence of non-native vegetation.
Human populations are growing rapidly in many areas of the insular
Pacific and this expansion is exerting increased pressure on limited
island resources. The most valuable land on most Pacific islands is
often located along the coastline, particularly when it is associated
with a sandy beach. For instance, construction (and associated
lighting) on the islands of Saipan, Tinian, and Rota in the CNMI, is
occurring at a rapid rate in some areas and is resulting in loss or
degradation of green turtle nesting habitat (NMFS and USFWS, 1998).
In the FSM, construction of houses and pig pens on Oroluk beaches
in Pohnpei State interferes with turtle nesting by creating barriers to
nesting habitat (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Buden, 1999). Nesting habitat
destruction is also a major threat to Guam turtles and has resulted
mainly from construction and development due to increased tourism (NMFS
and USFWS, 1998; Project GloBAL, 2009a). Coastal construction is a
moderate problem on Majuro Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall
Islands (NMFS and USFWS, 1998); however, it is unknown to what extent
nesting beaches are being affected. On the outer atolls of the Marshall
Islands, beach erosion has been aggravated by airfield and dock
development, and by urban development on Majuro and Kwajalein Atolls.
In the Republic of Palau, increasing nesting habitat degradation from
tourism and coastal development has been identified as a threat to sea
turtles (Eberdong and Klain, 2008; Isamu and Guilbeaux, 2002), although
the extent and significance of the impacts are unknown.
Also in the CNMI, the majority of the nesting beaches on Tinian are
on military-leased land, where the potential for construction impacts
exists (CNMI Coastal Resources Management Office, 2011). Increased
public use of nesting beaches is a threat to sea turtle nesting habitat
throughout the CNMI. Public use of beaches includes a variety of
recreational activities, including picnicking, swimming, surfing,
playing sports, scuba diving and snorkeling access (CNMI Coastal
Resources Management Office, 2011). Beach driving is a pastime on
Saipan and could threaten green turtle nesting habitat (NMFS and USFWS,
1998; Palacios, 2012a; Wusstig, 2012).
Expected U.S. military expansion plans for this region are likely
to include relocation of thousands of military personnel to Guam and
increased training exercises in the CNMI (CNMI Coastal Resources
Management Office, 2011).
In the Ogasawara Islands of Japan, nighttime tourist and resident
activity on beaches to view and photograph nesting turtles is a
problem, resulting in harassment of nesting turtles and increased
aborted nesting attempts (Ishizaki et al., 2011).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Fishing methods not only incidentally capture green turtles and
destroy bottom habitat (including seagrasses) but may also deplete
invertebrate and fish populations and thus alter ecosystem dynamics.
Dynamite fishing occurs in the FSM (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Government of
the Federated States of Micronesia, 2004) and the Marshall Islands (Hay
and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005). Dynamite fishing, as well as use of fish
poisons, occurs in Papua New Guinea, although these practices are small
scale and relatively isolated (Berdach and Mandeakali, 2004). Coral
reefs and seagrass beds within the urban centers of the four states of
the FSM (Pohnpei, Yap, Chuuk, and Kosrae; NMFS and USFWS, 1998) and
Saipan have been reported as being degraded by hotels, golf courses,
and general tourist activities (Project GloBAL, 2009b), presumably as a
result of runoff and other impacts. Coastal development in Guam has
resulted in sedimentation, which has damaged Guam's coral reefs and,
presumably, food sources for turtles (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Coral
reefs and seagrass habitat off the lagoon shoreline of the Kwajalein
Atoll islands and Majuro Atoll have been degraded by coastal
construction, dredging, boat anchoring, and/or eutrophication from
sewage and runoff from landfills, grave sites, and pig and chicken pens
(NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Hay and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005).
Dredging and filling as well as sand extraction have contributed to
changes to longshore processes and coastal erosion in the Marshall
Islands, FSM, Kiribati's Gilbert Islands chain, and Palau (Smith et
al., 1997; NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Government of the Federated States of
Micronesia, 2004; Hay and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005; Pacific News Center,
2012).
Marine pollution, including direct contamination and structural
habitat degradation, can affect green turtle neritic and oceanic
habitat. In Palau, environmental contamination in the form of sewage
effluent is a problem around Koror State, particularly Malakal Harbor,
and nearby urban areas (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). In the Solomon Islands,
sewage discharges from land and discharges of garbage, bilge water, and
other pollutants from ships have been identified as sources of
pollution to the coastal and marine environments (Solomon Islands
Ministry of Environment Conservation and Meteorology, 2008). Land-based
activities, including logging, plantation
[[Page 15313]]
development, and mining, often cause excessive sedimentation of
nearshore waters (Sulu et al., 2000).
Environmental contamination was identified as a minor problem in
the Marshall Islands in 1998 (NMFS and USFWS, 1998) and around Wake
Island (Defense Environmental Network and Information Exchange,
undated). Rudrud et al. (2007) found that there is a high probability
of green turtles being exposed to toxicants remaining in the Marshall
Islands from past wars and weapons testing (e.g., foraging on algae
growing on toxic surfaces, resting near irradiated shipwrecks).
In summary, we find that the Central West Pacific DPS of the green
turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both its
terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use
practices as considered above in Factor A. Destruction and modification
of green turtle nesting habitat resulting from coastal development and
construction, beachfront lighting, vehicular and pedestrian traffic,
beach erosion, and pollution are significant threats to the persistence
of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Directed take of eggs is a known ongoing problem in the Central
West Pacific in the CNMI, FSM, Guam, Kiribati (Gilbert Islands chain),
Papua, Papua New Guinea, Marshall Islands, and Palau (Eckert, 1993;
Guilbeaux, 2001; Hitipeuw and Maturbongs, 2002; Philip, 2002). In
addition to the collection of eggs from nesting beaches, the killing of
nesting females continues to threaten the stability of green turtle
populations. Ongoing harvest of nesting adults has been documented in
the CNMI (Palacios, 2012a), FSM (Cruce, 2009), Guam (Cummings, 2002),
Papua (Hitipeuw and Maturbongs, 2002), Papua New Guinea (Maison et al.,
2010), and Palau (Guilbeaux, 2001). Mortality of turtles in foraging
habitats is also problematic for recovery efforts. Ongoing intentional
capture of green turtles in their marine habitats has been documented
in southern and eastern Papua New Guinea (Limpus et al., 2002) and the
Solomon Islands (D. Broderick, 1998; Pita and Broderick, 2005).
Green turtles have long been harvested for their meat in the
Ogasawara Islands, and records show a rapid decline in the sea turtle
population between 1880 and 1920 (Horikoshi et al., 1994; Ishizaki,
2007). Currently, sea turtle harvest is strictly regulated with a
harvest limit of 135 mature turtles per year (Ishizaki, 2007).
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
The potential effects of FP and endoparasites also exist for green
turtles found in the Central West Pacific Ocean, but the impacts to the
population are unknown.
The loss of eggs to non-human predators is a severe problem in some
areas. These predators include domestic animals, such as cats, dogs,
and pigs, as well as wild species such as rats, mongoose, birds,
monitor lizards, snakes, and crabs, ants, and other invertebrates
(Suganuma et al., 1996; NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Maturbongs, 2000;
Cummings, 2002; Wilson et al., 2004; Cruce, 2008).
Although disease and predation are known to occur, quantitative
data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats
on the persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Regional and national legislation to conserve green turtles (often
all sea turtles) exists throughout the range of the DPS. National
protective legislation generally prohibits intentional killing,
harassment, possession, trade, or attempts at these; however, a lack of
or inadequate enforcement of these laws appears to be pervasive. The
following countries have laws to protect green turtles: CNMI, FSM,
Guam, Japan (Ogasawara Islands), Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru,
Palau, Papua, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and United States
(Wake Island). In addition, at least 17 international treaties and/or
regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the
Central West Pacific DPS. These are implemented to various degrees
throughout the range of the DPS. There are some national regulations,
within this DPS, that specially address the harvest of green turtles
while a few regulations are limited in that they only apply to turtles
of certain sizes, times of years, or allow for harvest for tradition
use.
On December 12, 2008, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission issued a Conservation and Management Measure (2008-03;
https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2008-03/conservation-and-management-sea-turtles) to reduce sea turtle mortality during fishing operations,
collect and report information on fisheries interactions with turtles,
and encourage safe handling and resuscitation of turtles. This measure
requires purse seine vessels to avoid encircling turtles and to release
entangled turtles. It also requires longline vessels to use line
cutters and dehookers to release turtles. However, enforcement
mechanisms are not explicit, and the level of compliance is uncertain.
Additional regulatory mechanisms are not in place in many countries
within this DPS to address the major threat of bycatch within this DPS.
It is unlikely that bycatch mortality can be sufficiently reduced
across the range of the DPS in the near future because of the diversity
and magnitude of the fisheries operating in the DPS, the lack of
comprehensive information on fishing distribution and effort,
limitations on implementing demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations on enforcement
capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies. Although conservation efforts to protect some nesting
beaches are underway, more widespread and consistent protection would
speed recovery. Some regulatory mechanisms, including laws and
international treaties, are not realizing their full potential because
they are not enforced adequately, or do not apply in all countries
occupied by the DPS.
The Status Review revealed a lack of existing regulatory mechanisms
to address coastal development, pollution, sea level rise, and effects
of climate change that continue to contribute to the extinction risk of
this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a
threat to the survival of green turtles in the Central West Pacific.
Sea turtles may be caught in longline, pole and line, and purse seine
fisheries.
Within the Marshall Islands, Palau, the FSM, and the Solomon
Islands, a purse-seine fishery for tuna and a significant longline
fishery operate, and sea turtles have been captured in both fisheries
with green turtle mortality occurring (Oceanic Fisheries Programme,
2001; McCoy, 2003; Hay and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005; McCoy, 2007a; McCoy,
2007b; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, 2008).
Numerous subsistence and small-scale commercial fishing operations
occur along Saipan's western coast and along both the Rota and Tinian
coasts (CNMI Coastal Resources Management Office, 2011). Incidental
catch of turtles in Guam's coastal waters by commercial fishing vessels
likely also occurs (NMFS
[[Page 15314]]
and USFWS, 1998). In 2007, 222 fishing vessels (200 purse-seiners and
22 longliners) had access to Papua New Guinea waters (Kumoru, 2008).
Although no official reports have been released on sea turtle bycatch
within these fisheries (Project GloBAL, 2009c), sea turtle interactions
with both fisheries have been commonly observed (Kumoru, 2008).
However, the level of mortality is unknown.
b. Vessel Strikes
The impacts of vessel strikes in the Central West Pacific are
unknown, but not thought to be of great consequence, except possibly in
Palau where high speed skiffs constantly travel throughout the lagoon
south of the main islands (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). However, green
turtles have been documented as occasionally being hit by boats in Guam
(Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, 2012).
c. Pollution
In the FSM, debris is dumped freely and frequently off boats and
ships (including government ships). Landfill areas are practically
nonexistent in the outer islands and have not been addressed adequately
on Yap proper or on Chuuk and Pohnpei. The volume of imported goods
(including plastic and paper packaging) appears to be increasing (NMFS
and USFWS, 1998). In Palau, entanglement in abandoned fishing nets has
been identified as a threat to sea turtles (Eberdong and Klain, 2008).
In the Marshall Islands, debris and garbage disposal in coastal waters
is a serious problem on Majuro Atoll and Ebete Island (Kwajalein
Atoll), both of which have inadequate space, earth cover, and shore
protection for sanitary landfills. This problem also exists to a lesser
extent at Daliet Atoll (NMFS and USFWS, 1998).
A study of the gastrointestinal tracts of 36 slaughtered green
turtles in the Ogasawara Islands of Japan in 2001 revealed the presence
of marine debris (e.g., plastic bag pieces, plastic blocks,
monofilament lines, Styrofoam pieces) in the majority of the turtles
(Sako and Horikoshi, 2003).
d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
Over the long term, Central West Pacific turtle populations could
be affected by the alteration of thermal sand characteristics (from
global warming), resulting in the reduction or cessation of male
hatchling production (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004; Hawkes et al., 2009;
Kasparek et al., 2001; Poloczanska et al., 2009). Further, a
significant rise in sea level would restrict green turtle nesting
habitat in the Central West Pacific. Coastal erosion has been
identified as a high risk in the CNMI due to the existence of
concentrated human population centers near erosion-prone zones, coupled
with the potential increasing threat of erosion from sea level rise
(CNMI Coastal Resources Management Office, 2011). In the FSM, Yap
State's low coralline atolls are extremely vulnerable to rises in sea
levels and will be adversely affected if rises occur (NMFS and USFWS,
1998). These risks are high for all beaches in the Central West
Pacific. Interestingly, Barnett and Adger (2003) identified projected
increases in sea-surface temperature, and not sea level rise, as the
greatest long-term risk of climate change to atoll morphology and thus
to atoll countries like those in the Central West Pacific. They state
that coral reefs, which are essential to the formation and maintenance
of the islets located around the rim of an atoll, are highly sensitive
to sudden changes in sea-surface temperature. Thus, climate change
impacts could have profound long-term impacts on green turtle nesting
in the Central West Pacific, but it is not possible to project the
impacts at this point in time.
Natural environmental events such as cyclones and hurricanes may
affect green turtles in the Central West Pacific DPS. These storm
events have been shown to cause severe beach erosion with likely
negative effects on hatching success at many green turtle nesting
beaches, especially in areas already prone to erosion. Shoreline
erosion occurs naturally on many islands in the atolls of the Marshall
Islands due to storms, sea level rise from the El Ni[ntilde]o-Southern
Oscillation, and currents (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Some erosion of
nesting beaches at Oroluk was reported in 1990 after passage of Typhoon
Owen (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). However, effects of these natural events
may be exacerbated by climate change. While sea turtles have survived
past eras that have included significant temperature fluctuations,
future climate change is expected to happen at unprecedented rates, and
if turtles cannot adapt quickly they may face local to widespread
extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts from global climate change
induced by human activities are likely to become more apparent in
future years (IPCC, 2007).
In summary, within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch continues
to threaten this DPS. In addition, changes likely to result from
climate change and natural disasters are increasing threats to this
DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central West Pacific DPS
Very few areas that host important green turtle nesting or foraging
aggregations have been designated as protected areas within the Central
West Pacific. However, at least one country, Palau, has site-specific
conservation for sea turtle habitat protection. Two nationally mandated
protected areas, Ngerukewid Islands Wildlife Preserve and Ngerumekaol
Spawning Area, exist within Koror State, and restrictions are placed on
entry and fishing within established boundaries.
Marine debris is a problem on some green turtle nesting beaches and
foraging areas in the Central West Pacific, in particular on the
nesting beaches of the CNMI (Palacios, 2012a; 2012b) and in the
nearshore foraging areas of the FSM, Marshall Islands, and Palau (NMFS
and USFWS, 1998; Eberdong and Klain, 2008). Organized beach clean-ups
on some CMNI beaches have been conducted to help mitigate this impact
(Palacios, 2012b).
Overall, it appears that international and national laws to protect
green turtles may be insufficient or not implemented effectively to
address the needs of green turtles in the Central West Pacific. This
minimizes the potential success of existing conservation efforts.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Central West Pacific
DPS
The Central West Pacific DPS is characterized by a relatively small
nesting population spread across a relatively expansive area roughly
2,500 miles wide (Palau to the Marshall Islands) and 2,500 miles long
(Ogasawara, Japan to the Solomon Islands). This DPS is dominated by
insular nesting. Fifty-one known nesting sites were analyzed, although
many had very old data (20-30 years old). Sixteen sites were identified
but numbers of nesting females were ``unquantified,'' and another 21
had fewer than 100 nesting females. Only two sites had more than 1,000
nesting females (1,412 and 1,301). Further study of this DPS would
improve our understanding of it.
The limited available information on trends suggests a nesting
population decrease in some areas, an increase in one Japanese nesting
site, and unknown trends in others. The second largest nesting site in
this DPS (Chichijima, Japan) shows positive growth. The dispersed
location of nesting sites and lack of concentration of nesting provides
a level of habitat diversity and population resilience which reduces
[[Page 15315]]
overall extinction risk, as does widely varied nesting seasons;
however, the contribution of this characteristic to such diversity and
resilience is reduced by the small size of many of these sites and the
threats faced in each of the nesting and foraging areas.
Human populations are growing rapidly in many areas of the insular
Pacific and this expansion is accompanied by threats to green turtle
nesting habitat resulting from coastal development and construction,
beachfront lighting, degradation of waters and seagrass beds off of
populated areas, and sand extraction. Destructive fishing methods (use
of dynamite and poisons) not only incidentally capture green turtles,
but also deplete invertebrate and fish populations and thus alter
ecosystem dynamics. Fishery bycatch, particularly bycatch mortality of
green turtles from longline, pole and line, and purse seine fisheries,
continue as threats to this DPS. In addition, legal and illegal harvest
of green turtles and eggs for human consumption remains a significant
threat in many areas of this DPS. Finally, changes likely to result
from climate change and natural disasters could have profound long-term
impacts on green turtle nesting in the Central West Pacific.
Although regulatory mechanisms are in place that should address
direct and incidental take of Central West Pacific green turtles, these
regulatory mechanisms are insufficient or are not being implemented
effectively to address the population trajectories of green turtles.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Central West Pacific
DPS as endangered. Based on its low nesting abundance and exposure to
increasing threats, we find that this DPS is presently in danger of
extinction throughout its range.
XIV. Southwest Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters in the Southwest Pacific DPS
The range of the Southwest Pacific DPS extends from the western
boundary of Torres Strait, to the eastern tip of Papua New Guinea and
out to the offshore coordinate of 13[deg] S., 171[deg] E.; the eastern
boundary runs from this point southeast to 40[deg] S., 176[deg] E.; the
southern boundary runs along 40[deg] S. from 142[deg] E. to 176[deg]
E.; and the western boundary runs from 40[deg] S., 142[deg] E north to
Australian coast then follows the coast northward to Torres Strait
(Figure 2).
Green turtle nesting is widely dispersed throughout the Southwest
Pacific Ocean at 12 total nesting sites, although it should be noted
that, perhaps more so than in other DPSs, proximate nesting beaches
were grouped for analysis because nesting populations are small, with
the exception of a few sites, including Raine Island, where the
majority (>90 percent) of the nesting in the northern GBR occurs. While
it would be possible to split the nesting aggregations into more than
100 different sites, because many of the most recent estimates are
aggregated (Limpus, 2009), we followed this tendency and aggregated
nesting within broad regional areas. The bulk of this DPS nests within
Australia's Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and eastern Torres
Strait. The northern GBR and Torres Strait support some of the world's
highest concentrations of nesting (Chaloupka et al., 2008a). Nesting
abundance in the northern GBR is not directly counted throughout the
nesting season largely because of the remoteness of the site and the
sheer numbers of turtles that may nest on any given night. Raine
Island, with estimates of annual nesting females varying from 4,000-
89,000 (Seminoff et al., 2004; NMFS and U.S. FWS, 2007; Chaloupka et
al., 2008a; Limpus, 2009) (note the Status Review used an estimate of
25,000 nesting females), Moulter Cay, with 15,965 nesting females
(Limpus et al., 2003; Limpus, 2009), and the rest of the Capricorn
Bunker Group with 31,249 nesting females (Limpus, 2009) represent the
three sites with >10,000 nesting females. Heron Island is the index
nesting beach for the southern GBR, and nearly every nesting female on
Heron Island has been tagged since 1974 (Limpus and Nicholls, 2000).
Heron Island (4,891 nesting females; Chaloupka et al., 2008a; Limpus,
2009), Bramble Cay in the northern GBR (1,660; Limpus et al., 2003;
Limpus 2009), and Huon, Leleizour and Fabre in New Caledonia (1,777;
Limpus, 2009) represent the sites with 1,001-5,000 nesting females.
There are three sites with 501-1,000: The Coral Sea (all sites; 1,000;
Limpus, 2009), No. 8 Sandbank in northern GBR (637; Limpus et al.,
2003; Limpus 2009), and other northern GBR sites, including Murray
Islands, other outer islands, most inner shelf cays and the mainland
coast (535; Limpus 2009). Bamboo Bay in Vanuatu (165; MacKay and Petro,
2013) and No. 7 Sandbank in the northern GBR represent the two sites
with nesting females in the 101-500 category. The rest of the southern
GBR (represented here as one site) is unquantified.
The Raine Island and Heron Island sites both have high inter-annual
variability and slightly increasing linear trends. These were the only
two nesting areas for which 15 or more years of recent data are
available for annual nesting female abundance, one of the standards for
performing a PVA in the Status Review. Both show a continued increasing
trend, though the Raine Island PVA indicates that there is a 9.1
percent probability that this population will fall below the trend
reference point (50 percent decline) at the end of 100 years, and a 0.4
percent probability that it will fall below the absolute abundance
reference (100 females per year) at the end of 100 years. However,
extra caution must be used when interpreting results of the Raine
Island PVA, because it only represents females observed during one
sampling event on one night. The Heron Island PVA indicates that there
is a 17.5 percent probability that the magnitude of adult females
associated with Heron Island nesting will fall below the trend
reference point (50 percent decline) at the end of 100 years, and an
8.3 percent probability that this population will fall below the
absolute abundance reference (100 females per year) at the end of 100
years. It should be noted that PVA modeling has important limitations,
and does not fully incorporate other key elements critical to the
decision making process such as spatial structure or threats. It
assumes all environmental and anthropogenic pressures will remain
constant in the forecast period and it relies on nesting data alone.
Although long robust time series are not available for New
Caledonia, recent and historical accounts do not suggest a significant
decline in abundance of green turtles nesting in New Caledonia (Maison
et al., 2010). The trend at Vanuatu has not been documented (Maison et
al., 2010).
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Southwest
Pacific DPS has been extensive for larger nesting sites along the GBR,
the Coral Sea, and New Caledonia; however, there are several smaller
nesting sites in this region that still need to be sampled (e.g.
Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, and Papua New Guinea). Within this
DPS, four regional genetic stocks have been identified in the Southwest
Pacific Ocean; northern GBR, southern GBR, Coral Sea (Dethmers et al.,
2006; Jensen, 2010), and New Caledonia (Dethmers et al., 2006; Dutton
et al., 2014). Mixed stock analysis of foraging grounds shows that
green turtles from multiple nesting beach origins commonly mix in
foraging grounds along the GBR and Torres Strait regions (Jensen,
2010), but with the vast majority originating from nesting sites within
the GBR. There is
[[Page 15316]]
evidence of low frequency contribution from nesting sites outside the
range of the DPS at some foraging areas.
With regard to diversity and resilience, nesting beach monitoring
along with flipper and satellite tagging show the spatial structure of
this DPS is largely consistent with viable populations. Nesting can
occur year-round in the most northerly nesting sites, but a distinct
peak occurs in late December to early January for all Australian
nesting sites. Foraging is widely dispersed throughout the range of
this DPS (Limpus, 2009). There are various factors that lead to
resilience in nesting in the Southwest Pacific DPS: it is widely
dispersed throughout the region, there is more than one major nesting
site, there is evidence of some connectivity between nesting sites
within each of the four regional stocks but no connectivity among
regional stocks, and there is continental and insular nesting. Nesting,
however, is not evenly distributed throughout the range of the DPS, and
some of the densest nesting occurs on Raine Island, which has habitat-
based threats.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Southwest Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
Destruction and modification of green turtle nesting habitat in the
Southwest Pacific DPS result from beach erosion, beach pollution,
removal of native vegetation, and planting of non-native vegetation, as
well as natural environmental change (Limpus, 2009). Coastal
development and construction, placement of erosion control structures
and other barriers to nesting, and vehicular traffic minimally impact
green turtles in this DPS (Limpus, 2009). Artificial light levels have
increased significantly for green turtles in minor nesting sites of the
northern GBR and remained relatively constant for the mainland of
Australia (part of southern GBR) south of Gladstone (Kamrowski et al.,
2014). Most of the nests at the documented nesting sites within this
DPS occur within the protected habitat, but there is still concern
about the viability of nesting habitat (Limpus, 2009). Total
productivity is limited by reduced nesting and hatching success, which
at Raine Island appear to be depressed due to habitat issues. At Raine
Island, mean nesting success (i.e., probability that a clutch will be
laid when a turtle comes ashore for a nesting attempt) can be as low as
3.3 percent (Limpus et al., 2007). Reduced recruitment can be caused by
flooding of egg chambers by ground water, dry collapsing sand around
egg chambers, and underlying rock which prevents appropriately deep egg
chambers (Limpus et al., 2003). In the 1996 to 1997 breeding season,
for example, flooding of nests caused a near total loss of viable eggs,
and flooding has been a regular event in subsequent years (Limpus et
al., 2003; Limpus, 2009). Death of nesting females occurs on Raine
Island when they enter the elevated interior of the island due to
crowding on the beach and return along a different route, encountering
hazards such as small cliffs, over which they wander and roll onto
their backs. Nightly mortality ranges from 0 to over 70 per night and
is highest when nesting the previous night exceeds 1,000 (Limpus et
al., 2003). Understanding the root cause of changes to Raine Island
nesting habitat is challenging and is the aim of several Australian and
State Government research and monitoring projects. These habitat-based
threats (particularly related to hatchling production) constitute
serious threats to this DPS, given the large abundance of turtles
nesting in the northern GBR.
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Threats to habitat in the neritic and/or oceanic zones in the
Southwest Pacific DPS include fishing practices, channel dredging, and
marine pollution, although the internesting habitat adjacent to the
nesting sites with the highest documented nesting levels in this DPS is
protected by the Great Barrier Reef Coastal Marine Park and the
adjacent Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Limpus, 2009). Protection for
marine turtles in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area has been
increasing since the mid-1990s (Dryden et al., 2008).
In summary, we find that the Southwest Pacific DPS of the green
turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both its
terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use
practices as considered above in Factor A. Groundwater intrusion on
high density beaches, artificial lighting, fishery practices, channel
dredging, and marine pollution are continual threats to the persistence
of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Southwest Pacific DPS turtles are vulnerable to harvest throughout
Australia and neighboring countries such as New Caledonia, Fiji,
Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, and Indonesia (Limpus, 2009). Cumulative
annual harvest of green turtles that nest in Australia may be in the
tens of thousands, and it appears likely that historical native harvest
may have been in the same order of magnitude (Limpus, 2009). The
Australian Native Title Act (1993) gives Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islanders a legal right to hunt sea turtles in Australia for
traditional, communal, non-commercial purposes (Limpus, 2009). Although
indigenous groups, governments, wildlife managers and scientists work
together with the aim of sustainably managing turtle resources (Maison
et al., 2010 citing K. Dobbs, Queensland Parks Authority, pers. comm.,
2010), traditional harvest remains a threat to green turtle
populations. However, quantitative data are not sufficient to assess
the degree of impact of harvest on the persistence of this DPS.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
Low levels of FP-associated turtle herpes virus is common in green
turtles in some but not all semi-enclosed waters like Moreton Bay and
Repulse Bay in Australia, more infrequent in nearshore open waters, and
rare in off-shore coral reef habitats (Limpus, 2009). Mortality and
recovery rates from this virus are not quantified but stranded,
infected turtles are regularly encountered in south Queensland (Limpus,
2009).
Primary hatchling and egg predators of this DPS include crabs,
birds, fish, and mammals. The magnitude of egg predation is not well
documented, but within Australia the highest levels of vertebrate
predation on eggs occur in other species, primarily loggerheads
(Environment Australia, 2003). In Vanuatu, nest predation by feral dogs
is a primary threat (Maison et al., 2010). Survivorship of hatchlings
in the southern GBR during the transition from nest to sea (accounting
for crab and bird predation) may be quite high (Limpus, 1971), but
survivorship of hatchlings as they transition across the reef flat from
the water's edge to deep water is likely considerably lower (Gyuris,
1994 as cited in Limpus, 2009). Similar survivorship estimates are not
available for the northern GBR, but survival during the nest to sea
transition is expected to be low and variable, depending on the
predator assemblage. Although many birds co-occur with sea turtle
hatchlings in the northern GBR, only some birds, like the rufous night
heron (Nycticorax caledonicus), are important predators (Limpus et al.,
2003). Terrestrial crabs that occur throughout the northern GBR have
been observed feeding on turtle hatchlings and eggs, but crabs are
generally of low density (Limpus et al., 2003). Shark
[[Page 15317]]
predation on hatchlings as well as adults has been documented (Limpus
et al., 2003).
Although disease and predation are known to occur, quantitative
data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats
on the persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Regulatory mechanisms are in place throughout the range of the DPS
that address the direct capture of green turtles within this DPS. There
are regulations, within this DPS, that specially address the harvest of
green turtles while a few regulations are limited in that they only
apply to certain times of year or allow for traditional use. Australia,
New Caledonia and Vanuatu, the only countries with nesting aside from
the Coral Sea Islands, which are a territory of Australia, have laws to
protect green turtles. National protective legislation generally
regulates intentional killing, possession, and trade (Limpus, 2009;
Maison et al., 2010). In addition, at least 17 international treaties
and/or regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles
in the Southwest Pacific DPS.
The majority of nesting beaches (and often the associated
internesting habitat) are protected in Australia, which is the country
with the vast majority of the known nesting.
In Australia, the conservation of green turtles is governed by a
variety of national and territorial legislation. Conservation began
with 1932 harvest restrictions on turtles and eggs in Queensland in
October and November, south of 17[deg] S., and by 1968 the restriction
extended all year long for all of Queensland (Limpus, 2009). As
described in the preceding section, other conservation efforts include
sweeping take prohibitions, implementation of bycatch reduction devices
and safer dredging practices, improvement of shark control devices, and
safer dredging practices, and the development of community based
management plans with Indigenous groups. Australia has undertaken
extensive marine spatial planning to protect nesting turtles and
internesting habitat surrounding important nesting sites. The GBR's
listing on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization's World Heritage List in 1981 has increased the protection
of habitats within the GBR World Heritage Area (Dryden et al., 2008).
In New Caledonia, 1985 fishery regulations contained some regional
sea turtle conservation measures, and these were expanded in 2008 to
include the EEZ, the Main Island, and remote islands (Maison et al.,
2010). In Vanuatu, new fisheries regulations in 2009 prohibit the take,
harm, capture, disturbance, possession, sale, purchase of or
interference, import, or export of green turtles Maison et al., 2010).
There are several regulatory mechanisms in place that should
address incidental take of green turtles within this DPS; however,
these regulatory mechanisms are not realizing their full potential
because they are not enforced at the local level. The analysis of these
existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place
at their current levels.
The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address impacts
to nesting beach habitat and overutilization is a continuing concern
for this DPS. Other threats with inadequate regulatory mechanisms
include incidental bycatch in fishing gear, boat strikes, port
dredging, debris, national defense, and toxic compounds. Lack of
implementation or enforcement by some nations renders regulatory
mechanisms less effective than if they were implemented in a more
consistent manner across the target region. It is unlikely that bycatch
mortality can be sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in
the near future because of the diversity and magnitude of the fisheries
operating in the DPS, the lack of comprehensive information on fishing
distribution and effort, limitations on implementing demonstrated
effective conservation measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations
on enforcement capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive
bycatch reduction technologies.
The Status Review did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in place to
specifically address threats to nesting beaches, eggs, hatchlings,
juveniles, and adults through harvest and incidental harm occur
throughout the range of the Southwest Pacific DPS. Some threats, such
as inundation of nests at Raine Island and sea level rise, cannot be
controlled through individual national legislation and persist as a
threat to this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a
threat to the survival of green turtles in the Southwest Pacific Ocean.
The primary gear types involved in these interactions include trawl
fisheries, longlines, drift nets, and set nets. These are employed by
both artisanal and industrial fleets, and target a wide variety of
species including prawns, crabs, sardines, and large pelagic fish.
Nesting turtles of the Southwest Pacific DPS are vulnerable to the
Queensland East Coast Trawl Fisheries and the Torres Strait Prawn
Fishery, and to the extent other turtles forage west of Torres Strait,
they are also vulnerable (Limpus, 2009). In 2000, the use of TEDs in
the Northern Australian Prawn Fishery became mandatory, due in part to
several factors: (1) Objectives of the Australian Recovery Plan for
Marine Turtles, (2) requirements of the Australian Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act for Commonwealth fisheries
to become ecologically sustainable, and (3) the 1996 U.S. import
embargo on wild-caught prawns taken in a fishery without adequate
turtle bycatch management practices (Robins et al., 2002).
Australian and international longline fisheries capture green
turtles. Precise estimates of international capture of Southwest
Pacific Ocean DPS green turtles by the international longline fleet are
not available, but they are thought to be larger than the Australian
component (DEWHA, 2010). In addition to threats from prawn trawls,
green turtles may face threats from other fishing gear (summarized from
Limpus, 2009). Take of green turtles in gill nets (targeting
barramundi, salmon, mackerel, and shark) in Queensland and the Northern
Territory has been observed but not quantified. Untended ``ghost''
fishing gear that has been intentionally discarded or lost due to
weather conditions may entangle and kill many hundreds of green turtles
annually.
b. Shark Control Programs
Green turtles are captured in shark control programs, but protocols
are in place to reduce the impact. The Queensland Shark Control Program
is managed by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and
Fisheries (Limpus, 2009) and has been operating since 1962 (Gribble et
al., 1998). In 1992, their operations began to be modified to reduce
mortality of non-target species (Gribble et al., 1998). Observed green
turtle annual mortality during 1998-2003 was 2.7 per year (Limpus,
2009). Green turtles have been captured in the New South Wales shark-
meshing program since 1937, but total capture for all turtle species
from 1950 through 1993 is roughly five or fewer turtles per year (Krogh
and Reid, 1996).
[[Page 15318]]
Post-release survival does not appear to have been monitored in any of
the monitoring programs.
c. Boat Strikes and Port Dredging
The magnitude of mortality from boat strikes may be in the high
tens to low hundreds per year in Queensland (Limpus, 2009). This threat
affects juvenile and adult turtles and may increase with increasing
high-speed boat traffic in coastal waters. The magnitude of mortality
from port dredging in Queensland may be in the order of tens of turtles
or less per year (Limpus, 2009).
d. Toxic Compounds and Marine Debris
Toxic compounds and bioaccumulative chemicals threaten green
turtles in the Southwest Pacific DPS. Poor health conditions
(debilitation and death) have been reported in the southern Gulf of
Carpentaria for green turtles, many of which had unusual black fat
(Kwan and Bell, 2003; Limpus, 2009). Heavy metal concentrations have
also been reported in Australia (Dight and Gladstone, 1994; Reiner,
1994; Gordon et al., 1998; Limpus, 2009), but the health impact has not
been quantified. The magnitude of mortality from ingestion of synthetic
material in Queensland is expected to be at least tens of turtles
annually (Limpus, 2009).
e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
Green turtle populations could be affected by the effects of
climate change on nesting grounds (Fuentes et al., 2011) as well as in
marine habitats (Hamann et al., 2007; Hawkes et al., 2009). Potential
effects of climate change include changes in nest site selection, range
shifts, diet shifts, and loss of nesting habitat due to sea level rise
(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009). Climate change will
likely also cause higher sand temperatures leading to increased
feminization of surviving hatchlings (i.e., changes in sex ratio), and
some beaches will likely experience lethal incubation temperatures that
will result in losses of complete hatchling cohorts (Glen and
Mrosovsky, 2004; Fuentes et al., 2010; Fuentes et al., 2011). While sea
turtles have survived past eras that have included significant
temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected to happen
at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly they may
face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts
from global climate change induced by human activities are likely to
become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007).
In a study of the northern GBR nesting assemblages, Bramble Cay and
Milman Islet were vulnerable to sea-level rise, and almost all sites in
the study were expected to be vulnerable to increased temperatures by
2070 (Fuentes et al., 2011). Similar data are not available for other
nesting sites.
The Southwest Pacific DPS contains some atolls, as well as coral
reef areas that share some ecological characteristics with atolls.
Barnett and Adger (2003) state that coral reefs, which are essential to
the formation and maintenance of the islets located around the rim of
an atoll, are highly sensitive to sudden changes in sea-surface
temperature. Thus, climate change impacts could have long-term impacts
on green turtle ecology in the Southwest Pacific DPS, but it is not
possible to project the impacts at this point in time.
In summary, within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch that
occurs throughout the range of the DPS, particularly bycatch mortality
of green turtles from pelagic longline, drift nets, set net, and trawl
fisheries, is a continued risk to this DPS. Additional threats from
boat strikes, marine pollution, changes likely to result from climate
change, and cyclonic storm events are pose an increasing risk to the
persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the Southwest Pacific DPS
Conservation efforts for the Southwest Pacific DPS have resulted in
sweeping take prohibitions, implementation of bycatch reduction
devices, improvement of shark control devices, and safer dredging
practices. Australia, in particular, has undertaken extensive marine
spatial planning to protect nesting turtles and internesting habitat
surrounding some of the largest and most important nesting sites in the
DPS.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Southwest Pacific
DPS
The Southwest Pacific DPS is characterized by relatively high
levels of green turtle nesting abundance (>80,000 nesting females) and
contains the GBR, the largest coral reef system in the world, as well
as continental coastline, islands, and atolls. The trends in nesting
female abundance at the two index beaches (Raine Island and Heron
Island, Australia) are stable or increasing. The spatial structure of
this DPS extends over a large geographic area, with several large
nesting sites spread within the range of this DPS, and includes both
continental and insular nesting, thereby providing a level of habitat
diversity and population resilience. This region has high genetic
diversity resulting from a mix of highly divergent lineages, some of
which are among the oldest lineages found in C. mydas. There are
concerns about climate change in general and the nesting habitat at
Raine Island in particular, where nests are sometimes flooded and
nesting female mortality can range from 1-70 per night due to
overcrowding.
The threats to this Southwest Pacific DPS include directed harvest,
incidental bycatch in fisheries, shark control programs, boat strikes,
port dredging, debris, activities associated with national defense,
disease, predation, toxic compounds, and climate change. Conservation
efforts have resulted in sweeping take prohibitions, implementation of
bycatch reduction devices, improvement of shark control devices, and
safer dredging practices. Australia, in particular, has undertaken
extensive marine spatial planning to protect nesting turtles and
internesting habitat surrounding important nesting sites. In the
southern GBR threats are well managed, harvest is low, and the
population increasing; however, in the northern GBR there are concerns
for Raine Island and harvest is a cause for concern. In the Coral Sea
there are few known threats and it is remote and well managed from
human threats. Although the DPS shows strength in many of the critical
elements, there are still concerns about numerous threats including
climate change and habitat degradation.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Southwest Pacific DPS
as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction
presently because of high nesting abundance and geographically
widespread nesting at a diversity of sites; however, the continued
threats are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable future.
XV. Central South Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Central South Pacific
DPS
The range of the Central South Pacific DPS extends north and east
of New Zealand to include a longitudinal expanse of 7,500 km--from
Easter Island, Chile in the east to Fiji in the west, and encompasses
American Samoa, French Polynesia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati,
Tokelau, Tonga, and Tuvalu. Its open ocean polygonal boundary endpoints
are (clockwise from the northwest-most extent): 9[deg] N., 175[deg] W.
to 9[deg] N., 125[deg] W. to 40[deg] S., 96[deg] W. to 40[deg] S.,
176[deg] E., to 13[deg] S., 171[deg] E., and back to 9[deg] N.,
175[deg] W. (Figure 2).
Nesting occurs sporadically throughout the geographic distribution
[[Page 15319]]
of the DPS at low levels. Green turtles departing nesting grounds
within the range of this DPS travel throughout the South Pacific Ocean.
Post-nesting green turtles tagged in the early 1990s from Rose Atoll
returned to foraging grounds in Fiji and French Polynesia (Craig et
al., 2004). Nesting females tagged in French Polynesia migrated west
after nesting to various sites in the western South Pacific (Tuato'o-
Bartley et al., 1993). In addition to nesting beaches, green turtles
are found in coastal waters (White and Galbraith, 2013; White, 2013),
but in-water information for this DPS is particularly limited.
Based on available data, we estimate there are approximately 2,800
nesting females in this DPS at 59 nesting sites. The most abundant
nesting area was Scilly Atoll, French Polynesia, which in the early
1990s was estimated to host 300-400 nesting females annually (Balazs et
al., 1995), and has an estimated total nesting female abundance of
1,050 breeding females, roughly one-third of all nesting females in the
DPS (although this number is dated, it is used in the Status Review as
it is the most recent data and the best available). However, Scilly
Atoll was last monitored in the early 1990s (Balazs et al., 1995), and
abundance has reportedly declined as a result of commercial
exploitation (Conservation International Pacific Islands Program,
2013). There are six other sites with 101-500 nesting females according
to the best available data, although the estimate for Nukunonu, Tokelau
is from the 1970s. Many nesting areas (21 of 58, or 36 percent) only
have qualitative information that nesting is present, indicating that
there is still much to learn about green turtle nesting in this region.
As these unquantified nesting sites most likely each have a female
abundance in the 1-100 range, their collective sum is probably fewer
than 700 nesting females. Historical baseline nesting information in
general is not widely available in this region, but exploitation and
trade of green turtles throughout the region is well-known (Groombridge
and Luxmoore, 1989).
No long-term monitoring programs are currently available at beaches
in this population, and no single site has had standardized surveys for
even 5 continuous years. Most nesting areas are in remote, low-lying
atolls that are logistically difficult to access. Partial and
inconsistent monitoring from the largest nesting site in this DPS,
Scilly Atoll, suggests significant nesting declines from persistent and
illegal commercial harvesting (Petit, 2013). Historically, 100-500
females nested annually at Canton Island, Kiribati (Balazs, 1975b) but,
as of 2002, it had an estimated 29 nesting females. Nesting abundance
is reported to be stable to increasing at Tongareva Atoll (White and
Galbraith, 2013). It is also reported to be stable to increasing at
Rose Atoll, Swains Atoll, Tetiaroa, Tikehau, and Maiao. However, these
sites are of relatively low abundance and in sum represent less than 16
percent of the population abundance at Scilly Atoll alone.
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Central
South Pacific is limited and many of the small isolated nesting sites
that characterize this region have not been covered. Mitochondrial DNA
studies indicate there are at least two genetic stocks in American
Samoa and French Polynesia (Dutton et al., 2014), which have unique
haplotypes (Dutton et al., 2014). Flipper tag returns and satellite
tracking studies demonstrate that post-nesting turtles travel the
complete geographic breadth of the range of this DPS, from French
Polynesia in the east to Fiji in the west, and sometimes even slightly
beyond (Tuato'o-Bartley et al., 1993; Craig et al., 2004; Maison et
al., 2010; White, 2012), even as far as the Philippines (Trevor, 2009).
Limited demographic information suggests a low level of population
structuring within this DPS (Tuato'o-Bartley et al., 1993; Craig et
al., 2004; White, 2012; White and Galbraith, 2013).
With regard to diversity and resilience, the Central South Pacific
has a broad geographical area, but the nesting sites themselves exhibit
little diversity. Most nesting sites are located in low-lying coral
atolls or oceanic islands and thus are subject to loss of habitat due
to sea level rise. Local nesting density is sparse spatially, typically
spread over >10 km stretches of beach and is also low in terms of
abundance. Only one nesting site (Scilly Atoll with 1,050 females;
Balazs et al., 1995) has a nesting female abundance exceeding 250, and
this estimate is 20 years old. Foraging areas are mostly coral reef
ecosystems, with seagrass beds in Tonga and Fiji being a notable
exception.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Central South Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
Nesting in the Central South Pacific DPS is geographically
widespread with the majority of nesting sites being remote and not
easily accessed, and at low-lying oceanic islands or coral atolls. The
largest nesting site for this DPS is believed to be at Scilly Atoll in
French Polynesia. Balazs et al. (1995) report that the earliest human
settlement at Scilly Atoll in French Polynesia appears to have occurred
around 1952. It is unclear how much of an effect human habitation of
the atoll has had, or is having, on the nesting habitat for the turtle.
In the populated islands of American Samoa, such as Tutuila,
continuous incremental loss of habitat has occurred due to varied
activities of human populations (Tuato'o-Bartley et al., 1993; NMFS and
USFWS, 1998; Saili, 2005). Indeed, human population growth and
attendant village expansion and development on Tutuila Island have
resulted in decreasing usage of some Tutuila beaches by nesting turtles
and pre-emption of some green turtle nesting beaches (Tuato'o-Bartley
et al., 1993). Turtles on Tutuila, possibly disoriented by land-based
lights, are subject to mortality from cars (A. Tagarino, American Samoa
DMWR, pers. comm., 2013). Lighting is a potential problem affecting the
quality of the nesting habitat on Ofu nesting beach as well (Tagarino,
2012). The main nesting site in American Samoa is Rose Atoll, which is
uninhabited and therefore without current threats to terrestrial
habitat.
In Samoa, degradation of habitat through coastal development and
natural disasters as cited in SPREP (SPREP, 2012) remains a threat (J.
Ward, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Samoa, pers.
comm., 2013).
In Kiribati, historical destruction (bulldozing) of the vegetation
zone next to the nesting beach on Canton Island in the Phoenix Islands
occurred during World War II and may have negatively affected the
availability of a portion of nesting beach area (Balazs, 1975). The
remoteness of these islands and minimal amount of study of sea turtles
in this area makes recent information on nesting beach condition and
threats difficult to obtain.
In the Cook Islands, the major nesting site for green turtles,
Tongareva Atoll, is uninhabited and there are not likely threats
related to development or human disturbance (White, 2012b). However,
elsewhere in the Cook Islands, sand extraction (for building purposes)
and building developments are reported as potential threats to sea
turtles; for instance, the best potential site at Tauhunu motu on
Manihiki appears to be no longer used for nesting (White, 2012a).
Weaver (1996) notes that sea turtles are negatively affected in Fiji by
modification of nesting beaches. Coastal erosion in Tonga and Tuvalu is
reported
[[Page 15320]]
as a major problem for turtle nesting (Alefaio and Alefaio, 2006; Bell
et al., 2010).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Little is known regarding the status of the foraging habitat and
threats found in French Polynesia (Balazs et al., 1995). NMFS and USFWS
(1998) noted that degradation of coral reef habitats on the south side
of Tutuila Island, American Samoa is occurring due to sedimentation
from erosion on agricultural slopes and natural disasters. Ship
groundings are also potential threats to habitat in American Samoa. For
example, a ship grounded at Rose Atoll in 1993, damaging reef habitat
and spilling 100,000 gallons of fuel and other contaminants (USFWS,
2014). In the nearby neighboring country of Samoa, coastal and marine
areas have been negatively impacted by pollution (Government of Samoa,
1998).
Fiji appears to be an important foraging area for green turtles of
this DPS. Sea turtles have been negatively affected by alteration and
degradation of foraging habitat and to some extent pollution or
degradation of nearshore ecosystems (Batibasaga et al., 2006). Jit
(2007) also suggests that sea turtles in Fiji are threatened by
degradation of reefs and seagrass beds. Given that turtles outside of
Fiji appear to use this foraging habitat, negative effects to this
foraging area have important implications for the entire DPS. Tourism
development on the eastern coast of Viti Levu could negatively impact
sea turtle foraging sites (Jit, 2007).
In Tonga, marine habitat is being affected by anthropogenic
activities. Heavy sedimentation and poor water quality have killed
patch reefs; high nutrients and high turbidity are negatively impacting
seagrasses; and human activities are negatively impacting mangroves
(Prescott et al., 2004).
Although Palmyra Atoll is now protected, it was altered by U.S.
military activities during World War II through dredging, connection,
and expansion of islets (Sterling et al., 2013).
In summary, as to Factor A, we find that the Central South Pacific
DPS of the green turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in
both its terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water
use practices. Pollution persists and loss of beach due to coastal
development is significant threats to this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Human consumption has had a significant impact on green turtles in
the Central South Pacific DPS. Hirth and Rohovit (1992) report that
exploitation of green turtles for eggs, meat, and parts has occurred
throughout the South Pacific Region, including American Samoa, Cook
Islands, Fiji Islands, French Polynesia, and Kiribati. Allen (2007)
notes that in Remote Oceania (which includes this DPS) sea turtles were
important in traditional societies but, despite this, have experienced
severe declines since human colonization approximately 2,800 years ago.
At western contact, some of the islands supported sizable human
populations resulting in intense pressures on local coastal fisheries.
At Scilly Atoll in French Polynesia local residents (approximately
20 to 40 people) are allowed to take 50 adults per year from a nesting
population that could be as low as 300-400 (M. S. Allen, 2007; Balazs
et al., 1995). Balazs et al. (1995) reported that declines in nesting
green turtles at the important areas of Scilly, Motu-one, and Mopelia,
among the highest density nesting sites in the DPS, have occurred due
to commercial exploitation for markets in Tahiti, as well as
exploitation due to human habitation. Illegal harvest of sea turtles
has been reported for French Polynesia by Te Honu Tea (2007). Brikke
(2009) conducted a study on Bora Bora and Maupiti islands and reported
that sea turtle meat remains in high demand and that fines are rarely
imposed.
Directed take in the marine environment has been a significant
source of mortality in American Samoa, and turtle populations have
seriously declined (Tuato'o-Bartley et al., 1993; NMFS and USFWS,
1998). Although take of sea turtle eggs or sea turtles is illegal (the
ESA applies in this territory), turtles from American Samoa migrate to
other countries (e.g., Fiji, Samoa, French Polynesia) where turtle
consumption is legal or occurs illegally (Craig, 1993; Tuato'o-Bartley
et al., 1993).
Turtles have been traditionally harvested for food and shells in
the country of Samoa, and over-exploitation of turtles has negatively
affected local populations (Government of Samoa, 1998). Unsustainable
harvest (direct take for meat) remains a major threat to green turtles
in Samoa (J. Ward, Government of Samoa, pers. comm. 2013).
In Fiji, Weaver (1996) identified the contemporary harvest and
consumption of turtles by humans for eggs, meat, and shells as a
significant threat for sea turtles. This includes commercial harvest,
as well as subsistence and ceremonial harvest. In Kiribati (e.g.,
Phoenix Islands), an unknown number of turtles are caught as bycatch on
longlines and eaten (Obura and Stone, 2002). Poaching has been reported
for Caroline Atoll, but to what extent it currently occurs is unknown
(Teeb'aki, 1992).
In Tonga, Bell et al. (1994) report that collection of eggs for
subsistence occurs. Prescott et al. (2004) and Havea and MacKay (2009)
also note that it is still a practice on islands where turtles nest.
Bell et al. (2009) report that in Tonga sea turtles are harvested and
live turtles are often seen transported from outer islands to the main
island, Tongatapu. It is unclear if this harvest is sustainable,
especially given the increased catch rates in Tungua for the commercial
market (Havea and MacKay, 2009).
In Tuvalu, harvest of sea turtles for their meat has been cited as
a major threat (Alefaio and Alefaio, 2006; Ono and Addison, 2009). In
the Cook Islands, turtles are sometimes killed during nesting at
Palmerston and Rakahanga, while nesting and fishing on Nassau, and
while nesting at Manihiki, Tongareva, and probably at other atolls
(White, 2012). In Tokelau, Balazs (1983) reported human take of both
sea turtle eggs from nests and adult males and females while
copulating, nesting, or swimming (by harpoon).
In summary, within Factor B current legal and illegal collection of
eggs and harvest of turtles throughout the Central South Pacific DPS
persist as a threat to this DPS. The threat to the stability of green
turtle populations posed by harvesting nesting females is particularly
significant due to the small number of nesting females within this DPS.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
While FP is recorded elsewhere in the Pacific, it does not appear
to be a threat in the Central South Pacific DPS (Utzurrum, 2002; A.
Tagarino, American Samoa DMWR, pers. comm., 2013). The best available
data suggest that current nest and hatchling predation on several
Central South Pacific DPS nesting beaches and in-water habitats is a
potential threat to this DPS.
Predation of green turtles (e.g., by sharks) occurs in French
Polynesia; however, the extent of such predation is unknown. In
American Samoa, Polynesian rats (Rattus exultans) were an issue at Rose
Atoll prior to a 1993 eradication (USFWS, 2014), but no longer appear
to be a problem. Crabs are
[[Page 15321]]
reported to eat hatchlings at Rose Atoll (Ponwith, 1990; Balazs, 1993;
Pendleton pers. comm., USFWS, 2013). On Swains Island, feral pig
activity has been documented and may be a threat to nests on the island
(Tagarino and Utzurrum, 2010). Predation of green turtles by sharks has
been reported at Rose Atoll and Palmyra Atoll; however, the extent of
such predation is unknown (Graeffe, 1873; Sachet, 1954; Balazs, 1999;
Sterling et al., 2013). The main threat to wildlife on Rose Atoll is
thought to be the introduction (or possible reintroduction) of exotic
species (K. Van Houtan, NMFS, pers. comm., 2013).
In Samoa, feral animal predation on turtle nests and eggs remains a
threat (SPREP, 2012; J. Ward, Government of Samoa, pers. comm., 2013).
In other areas, predation is likely a contributing threat to green
turtles. Introduced animals, including feral cats, rats, and feral
pigs, are reported problems for wildlife (Teeb'aki, 1992) and may
threaten green turtles on certain islands in Kiribati such as
Kiritimati. In Tokelau, identified predators that may constitute a
terrestrial threat to turtles include hermit crabs, ghost crabs,
Polynesian rats, frigate birds (Fregata ariel, F. minor), and reef
herons (Egretta sacra; Balazs, 1983). Feral pigs, rats, crabs, possibly
some sea birds, and large fish are potential predators of sea turtles
(eggs and hatchlings) in the Cook Islands (White, 2012). Pigs are
reported on Mauke, although their impact on sea turtles is unquantified
(Bradshaw and Bradshaw, 2012).
Although predation is known to occur, quantitative data are not
sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats on the
persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Lack of regulatory mechanisms and/or adequate implementation and
enforcement is a threat to the Central South Pacific DPS. The analysis
of these existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain
in place at their current levels. Regulatory mechanisms that address
the direct capture of green turtles for most of the countries within
this DPS specifically address the harvest of green turtles, while a few
regulations are limited in that they only apply during certain times of
the year or allow for traditional harvest.
Numerous countries have reserves (French Polynesia, Kiribati,
Samoa, and the U.S. Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument),
national legislation, and/or local regulations protecting turtles.
These include the foreign Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia,
Kiribati, Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, and the U.S.
territories of Wake, Baker, Howland and Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef
and Palmyra Atoll. In some places such as Tokelau and Wallis and
Futuna, information on turtle protection was either unclear or could
not be found. At least 17 international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the Central
South Pacific DPS.
Green turtles in American Samoa are fully protected under the ESA.
Green turtles are also protected by the Fishing and Hunting Regulations
for American Samoa (24.0934), which prohibit the import, export, sale,
possession, transport, or trade of sea turtles or their parts and take
(as defined by the ESA) and carry additional penalties for violations
at the local government level (Maison et al., 2010). Additionally, an
American Samoa Executive Order in 2003 established the territorial
waters of American Samoa as a sanctuary for sea turtles and marine
mammals, in 2003; American Samoa declared its submerged lands a Whale
and Turtle Sanctuary. It is not known how effective implementation of
these protections is in American Samoa. The NOAA National Marine
Sanctuary of American Samoa is comprised of six protected areas,
covering 35,175 km\2\ of nearshore coral reef and offshore open ocean
waters across the Samoan Archipelago. Additionally, Rose Atoll Marine
National Monument was established in 2009 and encompasses the Rose
Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. These protected areas should provide
some level of protection for green turtles and their habitat; however
the effectiveness of these monuments for this species is unknown.
Regulatory mechanisms are apparently inadequate to curb a continued
loss of nesting habitat and degradation of foraging habitat due to
human activities and coastal development on populated islands of
American Samoa, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Fiji, and the Cook Islands.
Turtles continue to be harvested for food and shells, and are used in
commercial, subsistence, and ceremonial capacities. Rudrud (2010)
suggests that traditional laws in Polynesia may have historically
limited green turtle consumption to certain people (chiefs, priests) or
special ceremonies. However, as the societies of this region have been
affected by Western culture and modernization of traditions have been
altered; traditional laws have lost their effectiveness in limiting
negative effects of harvest on sea turtles.
There are protected areas, within this DPS, that should provide
some level of protection for green turtles and their habitat; however
the effectiveness of these monuments for this species is unknown. The
Status Review did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in place to
specifically address coastal development, marine pollution, sea level
rise, and effects of climate change that continue to contribute to the
extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a
significant threat to the survival of green sea turtles throughout the
Central South Pacific DPS. The primary gear types involved in these
interactions include longlines and nets.
Incidental capture in line, trap, or net fisheries presents a
threat to sea turtles in American Samoa (Tagarino, 2011). Subsistence
gill nets have been known to occasionally catch green turtles.
Additionally, longline fishing is considered a threat to Central South
Pacific green turtles. In 2010, the American Samoa longline fishery was
estimated to have interacted with an average of 33 green turtles
annually, with a 92 percent mortality rate, triggering reinitiation of
a section 7 consultation; the current incidental take statement allows
45 green sea turtle interactions (41 mortalities) every three years
(https://www.fpir.noaa.gov/Library/PUBDOCs/biological_opinions/622-NMFS-ASLL_Am_to_Pelagics_FMP_Biop_FINAL_9-16-10.pdf).
In Fiji, green turtles are killed in commercial fishing nets;
however, the exact extent and intensity of this threat is unknown
(Rupeni et al. 2002). Jit (2007) and McCoy (2008) report that green
turtle bycatch is occurring in longline tuna fisheries in Fiji. The
exact level of interaction with green turtles is unclear.
In the Cook Islands, longline fishery regulations require fishers
to adopt the use of circle hooks and to follow ``releasing hooked
turtles'' guidelines (Goodwin, 2008), although it is unclear how
effective these regulations are. McCoy (2008) suggests that sea turtle
bycatch is occurring in tuna fisheries in the Cook Islands; however, no
information is provided on possible extent of sea turtle take or the
species that are possibly taken.
[[Page 15322]]
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
Direct or indirect disposal of anthropogenic waste introduces
potentially lethal materials into green turtle foraging habitats. Green
turtles will ingest plastic, monofilament fishing line, and other
marine debris (Bjorndal et al., 1994), and the effects may be lethal or
non-lethal, resulting in varying effects that may increase the
probability of death (Balazs, 1985; Carr, 1987; McCauley and Bjorndal,
1999). Marine debris presents a threat to green turtles in American
Samoa (Aeby et al., 2008; USFWS, 2014; Tagarino et al., 2008). It is
potentially hazardous to adults and hatchlings and is present at Rose
Atoll (USFWS, 2014). It is also a threat at nearby inhabited islands.
Pago Pago Harbor in American Samoa is seriously polluted, and
uncontrolled effluent contaminants have impaired water quality in some
coastal waters (Aeby et al., 2008). Effects to coastal habitat (e.g.,
reefs) from sedimentation related to development and runoff are
significant potential threats in American Samoa, and human population
pressures place strains on shoreline resources (Aeby et al., 2008).
Ship groundings (e.g., at Rose Atoll in 1993) that damage reef
habitat and spill fuel and other contaminants, degradation of coastal
waters due to silt-laden runoff from land and nutrient enrichment from
human discharges and wastes, and contamination by heavy metals and
other contaminants are threats to green turtles in American Samoa (NMFS
and USFWS, 1998; USFWS, 2014).
In Fiji, Weaver (1996) identified potential threats to sea turtles
from heavy metals and industrial waste, organic loadings in coastal
areas, plastic bags, and leachate poisoning of seagrass foraging areas.
In the Cook Islands, White (2012) noted possible issues with oil, tar,
or toxic chemicals and terrestrial run-off into lagoons at Rarotonga,
and Bradshaw and Bradshaw (2012) note pollution (e.g., accumulation of
plastics on the beach) on Mauke (M.White, unpubl. data,
www.honucookislands .com).
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
Climate change has the potential to greatly affect green turtles.
Potential impacts of climate change on green turtles include loss of
beach habitat from rising sea levels, repeated inundation of nests,
skewed hatchling sex ratios from rising incubation temperatures, and
abrupt disruption of ocean currents used for natural dispersal (Fish et
al., 2005, 2008; Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change induced by human activities are
likely to become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007).
A recent study of 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific
(including Kiribati and Tuvalu), demonstrated that 14 percent of
islands decreased in area over a 19-60 year time span (Webb and Kench,
2010). This occurred in a region considered most vulnerable to sea-
level rise (Nicholls and Cazenave, 2010) during a period in which sea-
levels rose 2 mm per year.
Catastrophic natural environmental events, such as cyclones or
hurricanes, may affect green turtles in the Central South Pacific
Ocean, and may exacerbate issues such as decreased available habitat
due to sea level rise. These types of events may disrupt green turtle
nesting activity (Van Houtan and Bass, 2007), even if just on a
temporary scale.
In summary, within Factor E, we find that incidental fishery
bycatch, interactions with recreational and commercial vessels, marine
pollution as well as the increasing threat of climate change, and major
storm events are expected to be an increasing threat to the persistence
of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central South Pacific DPS
There are many islands and atolls in the range of this DPS spread
across an expansive area. Conservation efforts, such as establishment
of protected areas, exist that are beneficial to green turtles.
It is unclear how well conservation efforts such as protected areas
and the national legislation relating to green turtles are working. It
appears that the remoteness of some of the areas is providing the most
conservation protection for certain threats.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Central South
Pacific DPS
The Central South Pacific DPS is characterized by geographically
widespread nesting at very low levels of abundance, mostly in remote
low-lying oceanic atolls. Nesting is reported in 57 different
locations, although some abundance numbers are 20 years old or older.
By far the highest nesting abundance estimate is from Scilly Atoll,
French Polynesia (1,050 nesting females), but this estimate is from
1991 data and abundance of nesting females has reportedly significantly
declined in the past 30 years as a result of commercial exploitation.
There are also no long-term monitoring programs that have been active
in this DPS for even a 5-year period. While the dispersed location of
nesting sites might provide a level of habitat diversity and population
resilience which reduces overall extinction risk, this contribution is
reduced by the low population size of these sites (only Scilly Atoll
has over 225 nesting females) and overall population size of fewer than
3,000 nesting females.
Chronic and persistent illegal harvest is a concern in the Central
South Pacific DPS, and sea level rise is a threat that is expected to
increase in the future. Indeed, climate change may affect this DPS more
than any other because nearly all nesting sites exist on low-lying
atolls. Sea level rise is expected to exacerbate beach erosion,
inundations, and storm surge on small islands (IPCC, 2007). The loss of
habitat as a result of climate change could be accelerated due to a
combination of other environmental and oceanographic changes such as an
increase in the intensity of storms and/or changes in prevailing
currents, both of which could lead to increased beach loss via erosion
(Kennedy et al., 2002; Meehl et al., 2007).
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Central South Pacific
DPS as endangered. Based on its low nesting abundance and exposure to
increasing threats, we find that this DPS is presently in danger of
extinction throughout its range.
XVI. Central North Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Central North Pacific
DPS
The range of the Central North Pacific DPS covers the Hawaiian
Archipelago and Johnston Atoll. It is bounded by a four-sided polygon
with open ocean extents reaching to 41[deg] N., 169[deg] E. in the
northwest corner, 41[deg] N., 143[deg] W. in the northeast, 9[deg] N.,
125[deg] W. in southeast, and 9[deg] N., 175[deg] W. in the southwest
(Figure 2). The Hawaiian Archipelago is the most geographically
isolated island group on the planet. From 1965 to 2013, 17,536 green
turtles were tagged, including all post-pelagic size classes from
juveniles to adults. With only three exceptions, the 7,360 recaptures
of these tagged turtles have been made within the Hawaiian Archipelago.
The three outliers involved a recovery in Japan, one in the Marshall
Islands and one in the Philippines.
The principal nesting site for green turtles in the Central North
Pacific DPS is FFS, where 96 percent of the population (3,710 of 3,846
nesting females) currently nests (Balazs, 1980; Lipman and Balazs,
1983). However, nesting was historically abundant at
[[Page 15323]]
various sites across the archipelago as recently as 1920 (Kittinger et
al., 2013), and remnant nesting aggregations may have existed in the
MHIs as recently as the 1930s, but were no longer present in the 1970s
(Balazs, 1976). Current nesting by green turtles occurs in low numbers
(3-36 nesting females at any one site) throughout the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) at Laysan, Lisianski, Pearl and Hermes Reef,
and very uncommonly at Midway. Since 2000, green turtle nesting on the
MHI has been identified in low numbers (1-24) on seven islands (Frey et
al., 2013; Kittinger et al., 2013; NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries
Science Center, unpublished data, 2013). Green turtles in the Central
North Pacific DPS bask on beaches throughout the NWHI and in the MHI.
Since nesting surveys were initiated in 1973, there has been a
marked increase in annual green turtle nesting at East Island, FFS,
where approximately 50 percent of the nesting on FFS occurs (Balazs and
Chaloupka, 2004, 2006). During the first 5 years of monitoring (1973-
1977), the mean annual nesting abundance was 83 females, and during the
most recent 5 years of monitoring (2009-2012), the mean annual nesting
abundance was 464 females (Balazs and Chaloupka, 2006; G. Balazs, NMFS,
unpublished data). This increase over the last 40 years corresponds to
an annual increase of 4.8 percent.
Information on in-water abundance trends is consistent with the
increase in nesting (Balazs, 2000; Balazs et al., 2005; Balazs et al.,
1996). This linkage is to be expected since genetics, satellite
telemetry, and direct observation show that green turtles from the
nesting beaches in the FFS nesting site remain resident to foraging
pastures throughout the archipelago (Balazs, 1976; Craig and Balazs,
1995; Keuper-Bennett and Bennet, 2000; P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm.,
2013). The number of immature green turtles residing in foraging areas
of the eight MHI has increased (Balazs et al., 1996). In addition,
although the causes are not totally clear, there has been a dramatic
increase in the number of basking turtles in the Hawaiian Islands over
the last 2 decades, both in the southern foraging areas of the main
islands (Balazs et al., 1996) as well as at northern foraging areas at
Midway Atoll (Balazs et al., 2005).
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Central
North Pacific DPS has been extensive and representative, given that
there are few nesting populations in this region. Results of mtDNA
analysis indicate a low level of spatial structure with regard to minor
nesting around the MHI and the NWHI, and the same haplotypes occur
throughout the range of the DPS. Within the NWHI, studies show no
significant differentiation (based on mtDNA haplotype frequency)
between FFS and Laysan Island (P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2013). An
analysis by Frey et al. (2013) of the low level of scattered nesting on
the MHI (Moloka`i, Maui, O`ahu, Lana`i and Kaua`i; mtDNA and nDNA)
showed that nesting in the MHI might be attributed to a relatively
small number of females that appear to be related to each other, and
demographically isolated from FFS. Frey et al. (2013) suggest that the
nesting population at the MHI may be the result of a few recent
founders that originated from the FFS breeding population. Demographic
studies of green turtles do not reveal any structuring of traits within
the DPS.
With regard to diversity and resilience, because nesting in the
Central North Pacific DPS is unusually concentrated at one site, there
is little diversity in nesting areas. Balazs (Balazs, 1980) reported
that the distribution of green turtles in the Hawaiian Archipelago has
been reduced within historical times, and Kittinger et al. (2013)
suggest that a significant constriction in the spatial distribution of
important reproduction sites presents a challenge to the population's
future and makes this DPS highly vulnerable. Further, the primary
nesting site, FFS, is a low-lying coral atoll that is susceptible to
erosion, geomorphological changes and sea level rise, and has already
lost significant nesting area (Baker et al., 2006).
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Central North Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
In Hawai`i, most nesting currently occurs in the NWHI, although
nesting is increasing in the MHI, as is basking of green turtles.
Coastal development and construction, vehicular and pedestrian traffic,
beach pollution, tourism, and other human related activities are
current threats to nesting and basking habitat in the MHI. These
threats will affect more green turtles in this DPS if nesting increases
in the MHI. Human populations are growing rapidly in many areas of the
insular Pacific, including Hawai`i, and this expansion is exerting
increased pressure on limited island resources.
Climatic changes in the NWHI pose threats through reduction in area
of nesting beaches critical to this DPS (Baker et al., 2006). Baker et
al. (2006) examined the potential effects of sea level rise in the NWHI
and found that the primary nesting area for the Central North Pacific
population will be negatively impacted by sea level rise through
possible loss of nesting habitat. For example, Whale-Skate Island at
French Frigate Shoals was formerly a primary green turtle nesting site
for this DPS, but the island has subsided and is no longer available
for nesting (Kittinger et al., 2013). Trig, Gin, and Little Gin could
lose large portions of their area, concentrating nesting even further
at East Island (Baker et al., 2006).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Impacts to the quality of coastal habitats in the MHI are a threat
to this DPS and are expected to continue and possibly increase with an
increasing human population and annual influx of millions of tourists.
Loss of foraging habitat or reduction in habitat quality in the MHI due
to nearshore development is a threat to this DPS. Marina construction,
beach development, siltation of forage areas, contamination of forage
areas from anthropogenic activities, resort development or activities,
increased vessel traffic, and other activities are all considered
threats to this population and its habitat (Bowen et al., 1992; NMFS
and USFWS, 1998; Friedlander et al., 2006; Wedding and Friedlander,
2008; Wedding et al., 2008; Van Houtan et al., 2010). Seagrass and
coral reef habitat of Moloka`i has been degraded from upland soil
erosion and siltation, and coral reefs of Hawai`i, Kaua`i, Lana`i,
Maui, and O`ahu have been degraded by sedimentation, sewage, or coastal
construction (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). In general, MHI coral reefs have
suffered from land-based sources of pollution, overfishing,
recreational overuse, and alien and invasive species (Friedlander et
al., 2005). Vessel groundings (mechanical damage to habitat and reef-
associated organisms) and related release of contaminants (e.g., fuel,
hazardous substances, etc.) are a threat to Central North Pacific green
turtle habitat (Keller et al., 2009). It is difficult to predict the
exact number or severity of vessel groundings expected in any future
year, but key nesting and foraging habitat for green sea turtles occurs
in the areas of the MHI and the NWHI where commercial and recreational
boating occurs (Keller et al., 2009).
During the last century, habitat on Johnston Atoll was affected by
military activities such as nuclear testing and chemical weapons
incineration. The lingering effects of these activities
[[Page 15324]]
include water contamination from nutrients, dioxins, plutonium, and a
subsurface plume of PCB-contaminated petroleum product (Balazs, 1985).
In summary, within Factor A, we find that the loss of nesting beach
habitat is a threat to the DPS in the NWHI. We find that coastal
development and construction, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, beach
pollution, tourism, and other human related activities are threats in
the MHI. Climate change, marina construction, contamination of forage
areas from anthropogenic activities, resort development or activities,
increased vessel traffic are significant, increasing threats posing a
risk to the persistence of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Harvest of green turtles has been illegal since green turtles were
listed under the ESA in 1978. It is possible that human take today is
underreported, as anecdotal information suggests that some degree of
illegal take occurs throughout the MHI. The extent of such take is
unknown; however, it is believed that current illegal harvest of green
turtles for human consumption continues in a limited way, although
Federal and State cooperative efforts and existing legislation appear
to be minimizing the threat.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
The FP disease affects green turtles found in the Central North
Pacific Ocean (Francke et al., 2013). This disease results in internal
and/or external tumors (fibropapillomas) that may grow large enough to
hamper swimming, vision, feeding, and potential escape from predators.
FP appears to have peaked in some areas of Hawai`i, remained the same
in some regions, and increased in others (Van Houtan et al., 2010).
Environmental factors may be significant in promoting FP, and
eutrophication (increase in nutrients) of coastal marine ecosystems may
promote this disease (Van Houtan et al., 2010). FP remains an important
concern in some green turtle populations. This is particularly true
given the continued, and possibly future increasing, human impacts to,
and eutrophication of, coastal marine ecosystems that may promote this
disease. However, its effects on reproductive effort are uncertain.
Ghost crabs (Ocypode spp.) prey on hatchlings at FFS (Niethammer et
al., 1997) at approximately 5 percent (Balazs, 1980). Large grouper
(Epinephelus tauvina), sea birds, and sharks are documented natural
predators of green turtles in Hawai`i; however, the extent of predation
is unknown (Balazs, 1995; Balazs and Kubis, 2007; Francke, 2013).
Mongoose, rats, dogs, feral pigs, and cats--all introduced
species--that exist on the MHI are known to prey on eggs and
hatchlings, although the impact on the current low level of nesting is
unclear (nesting in the MHI is extremely low compared to historical
levels). If nesting in the MHI increases, the importance of the threat
from these potential predators would increase.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Regulatory mechanisms that protect green turtles are in place and
include State, Federal, and international laws. The analysis of these
existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place
at their current levels. Numerous Federal and State governmental and
non-governmental efforts at public education, protection and monitoring
of green turtles contribute to the conservation of the Central North
Pacific DPS. At least 16 international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the Central
North Pacific.
Nesting occurs exclusively within the United States. Monitoring and
protective efforts are ongoing for both nesting areas (in the NWHI and
where nesting is occurring in the MHI) and in nearshore waters.
Regulatory mechanisms in U.S. jurisdiction are in place through the
ESA, MSA and the State of Hawai`i that currently address direct and
incidental take of Central North Pacific green turtles, and these
regulatory mechanisms have been an important factor in the encouraging
trend in this DPS.
The Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument was established
in January 2009, and is cooperatively managed by the Secretary of
Commerce (NOAA) and the Secretary of the Interior (USFWS), with the
exception of Wake Island and Johnston Atoll, which are currently
managed by the Department of Defense. The areas extend 92.6 km from the
mean low water lines around emergent islands and atolls and include
green turtle habitat. Commercial fishing is prohibited within the
limits of the Monument, and recreational fishing requires a permit. On
September 27, 2014, President Obama issued Presidential Proclamation
9173 to expand the Pacific Remote Islands Monument to incorporate
waters and submerged lands at Jarvis Island, Wake Island, and Johnston
Atoll to the seaward limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Proclamation 9173 prohibits commercial fishing in expanded areas of the
Monument, and directs the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to
ensure that recreational and non-commercial fishing continue to be
managed as sustainable activities in the Monument. The protected areas
provide some protection to sea turtles and their habitat through
permitted access and its remoteness.
A commercial ban on turtle harvest was put into place by the State
of Hawai`i in 1974, 4 years before the green turtle was listed under
the ESA. Since 1978, green turtles have been protected by the ESA. They
are also protected by the Hawai`i Revised Statutes, Chapter 195D
(Hawai`i State Legislature, accessed Sept. 10, 2010) and Hawai`i
Administrative Rules, 13-124 (Hawai`i Administrative Rules, accessed
Sept. 10, 2010), which adopt the same definitions, status designations,
and prohibitions as the ESA and carry additional penalties for
violations at the State government level. These two statutes have been,
and currently are, key tools in efforts to recover and protect this
DPS, and both have provided for comprehensive protection and recovery
activities that have been sufficiently effective to improve the status
of green turtles in Hawai`i significantly. The ESA and Hawai`i statutes
are not, however, redundant. For example, the ESA requires Federal
agencies to consult with the Services on their actions that may affect
green turtles.
Current monitoring, conservation efforts, and legal enforcement
have been effective and promote the persistence of the Central North
Pacific DPS, which occurs almost exclusively in U.S. waters. It is
important to note, however, that the analysis by the SRT did not
consider the scenario in which current laws or regulatory mechanisms
were not continued. Under the ESA, regulatory measures provide
protections that are not provided entirely by State protections. For
instance, if the DPS was delisted and the protections of the ESA were
no longer in place, many on-the-ground conservation and monitoring
actions and, importantly, financial resources that are afforded by the
ESA (e.g., section 6) would not continue. In addition, the taking of
green turtles in the United States requires authorization under
sections 7 or 10 of the ESA and their implementing regulations. For
example, activities that affect green turtles and do not involve
Federal agencies, such as coastal development, construction, and
research, must comply with section 10 of the ESA to avoid violating the
statute. Section 10
[[Page 15325]]
permits require avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts to green
turtles to the extent possible. Federal actions (i.e., those
authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal agencies), are subject to
consultation with the Services under section 7 of the ESA; those
resulting in take of green turtles are required to minimize effects.
These actions include, but are not limited to, federally regulated
fisheries and management and research activities within the federally-
protected Papah[amacr]naumoku[amacr]kea Marine National Monument in the
NWHI.
The threat of bycatch in international fisheries is not adequately
regulated, although bycatch in domestic Federal fisheries has been
addressed to a greater extent. In addition, some threats to the
species, such as climate change, are either not able to be regulated
under the ESA, or not regulated sufficiently to control or even slow
the threat.
The Status Review did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in place to
specifically address marine pollution, sea level rise, and effects of
climate change that continue to contribute to the extinction risk of
this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
The SRT identified incidental capture in fisheries as a significant
threat to green turtles of the Central North Pacific DPS. The primary
gear types involved in these interactions include longlines and nets.
These are employed by both artisanal and industrial fleets, and target
a variety of species.
i. Longline Fisheries
Pacific longline fisheries capture green turtles as bycatch in
longline gear (line, hooks), and these interactions can result in
mortality (NMFS, 2012). U.S. longline fisheries are required to comply
with sea turtle mitigation measures (50 CFR 665.812), including the use
of circle hooks, dehookers, line clippers, and crewmember training,
that have reduced green sea turtle interactions to negligible levels.
However, while exact numbers are not available, it is estimated that,
at a minimum, 100 green turtles from the Central North Pacific DPS are
captured and killed annually by foreign longlines (NMFS, 2012).
ii. Gillnet Fisheries
Interactions between Central North Pacific green turtles and
nearshore fisheries in the MHI can result in entanglement, injury, and
mortality. Balazs et al. (1987) documented sea turtle mortality
resulting from bycatch in fishing gear over 25 years ago in Hawai`i.
While gill nets are regulated by the state of Hawai`i, fishers are only
required to inspect them completely every two hours, so entanglement
and drowning does occur (NMFS, 2012). Each year green sea turtles are
incidentally entangled in net gear, some of these resulting in
mortality (e.g., Francke, 2013); however the reported strandings in the
MHI are believed to be a smaller subset of the actual level of
interaction with this gear.
iii. Other Gear Types
Hook-and-line fishing from shore or boats also hooks and entangles
green turtles (Francke et al., 2013; NMFS, 2012). Interactions with
nearshore recreational fisheries are identified in the NMFS stranding
database as those turtles that strand as a result of interactions with
fish hooks and fishing line. Nearshore fishery interactions have
increased over time (Francke, 2013; Francke et al., 2013; Ikonomopoulou
et al., 2013). While current public outreach efforts by NMFS and its
partners attempt to reduce the magnitude of impact on green turtles
from hook-and-line fishing, injury or mortality from the hooking or
from the effects of line remaining on turtles that are cut free or
break the line remains an issue (https://pifscblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/marine-turtle-response-achieves-significant-milestone/).
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
The ingestion of and entanglement in marine debris is another
anthropogenic threat to Central North Pacific green turtles throughout
their range. Marine debris is common in the MHI and a direct threat to
sea turtles (Wedding and Friedlander, 2008). Stranding information for
this DPS shows that entanglement in lost or discarded fishing line is
one of the causes of green turtle strandings and mortality in the MHI.
In the NWHI, marine debris is also a threat in the terrestrial and
marine environment. In 1996, it was estimated that between 750 and
1,000 tons of marine debris were on reefs and beaches in the NWHI, and
the source of much of the debris is fishing nets discarded or lost in
the northeastern Pacific Ocean (Keller et al., 2009). Turtles in the
MHI encounter pollution as a result of coastal development, runoff, and
waste water (point source and non-point source pollution; Friedlander
et al., 2008).
c. Vessel Interactions
As in other parts of the world, boating activities are a threat to
turtles within this DPS (Francke et al., 2013). Chaloupka et al.
(2008b) report that 2.5 percent of green turtle strandings (N = 3,745)
were caused by boat strike in the Hawaiian Archipelago from 1982 to
2003. Additionally, boat traffic has been shown to exclude green
turtles from preferred coastal foraging pastures (Seminoff et al.,
2002c), which may negatively affect their nutritional intake.
Vessel groundings (mechanical damage to habitat and reef-associated
organisms) and related release of contaminants (e.g., fuel, hazardous
substances, etc.) are a threat not only to Central North Pacific green
turtle habitat, but directly to the turtles themselves. Thirteen
reported vessel groundings have occurred in the NWHI in the last 60
years (Keller et al., 2009). Vessel traffic and presence can also have
negative effects through habitat damage from anchors, waste discharge,
light and noise (Keller et al., 2009).
d. Effects of Climate Change
As in other areas of the world, climate change and sea level rise
have the potential to negatively affect green turtles in the Central
North Pacific DPS. Climate change influences on water temperatures,
ocean acidification, sea level and related changes in coral reef
habitat, wave climate and coastal shorelines are expected to continue
(Friedlander et al., 2008). Keller et al. (2009) suggest that sea level
rise, changing storm dynamics, sea surface temperatures, and ocean
acidification are key threats for the NWHI, and that evidence of sea
level rise has already begun to adversely affect terrestrial and ocean
habitat. Tiwari et al. (2010) argued that East Island itself is still
not yet at carrying capacity, in the sense of crude nesting area and
current nesting densities. Yet entire islands have been submerged in
recent history (i.e., Whale-Skate in the late 1990s), resulting in the
loss of a primary nesting site at FFS (Baker et al., 2006). It is
likely that sea level rise will lead to increased erosion of nesting
beaches and significant loss of habitat (Baker et al., 2006; IPCC,
2007); however, it remains unclear how nesting habitat loss and natal
homing traits will influence future nesting in this DPS.
As temperatures increase, there is concern that incubation
temperatures could reach levels that exceed the thermal tolerance for
embryonic development, thus increasing embryo and hatchling mortality
(Balazs and Kubis, 2007; Fuller et al., 2010). Niethammer et al.
(Niethammer 1997) note that given that the FFS nesting colony is on the
northern extreme of green turtle breeding range, small changes in beach
conditions (e.g., microhabitats of nests) may have severe
[[Page 15326]]
consequences on nesting. Changes in global temperatures could also
affect juvenile and adult distribution patterns. Possible changes to
ocean currents and dynamics may result in negative effects to natural
dispersal during a complex life cycle (Van Houtan and Halley, 2011),
and possible nest mortality linked to erosion may result from increased
storm frequency (Van Houtan and Bass, 2007) and intensity (Keller et
al., 2009).
While sea turtles have survived past eras that have included
significant temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected
to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change induced by human activities are
likely to become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007).
e. Effects of Spatial Structure
While the nesting population trajectory in the Central North
Pacific DPS is positive and encouraging, the DPS exhibits moderately
low levels of abundance (3,846 nesting females), and more than 96
percent of nesting occurs at one site in the NWHI (FFS). Therefore,
survival of this DPS is currently highly dependent on successful
nesting at FFS (Niethammer et al., 1992). The concentrated nature and
relatively small size of the nesting population make it vulnerable to
random variation and stochasticities in the biological and physical
environment, including natural catastrophes, as well as changes in
climate and resulting effects such as sea level rise. This increases
its risk of extinction, even though the DPS may currently have positive
population growth (e.g., Meffe et al., 1994; Primack, 1998; Balazs and
Kubis, 2007; Hunter and Gibbs, 2007). That said, aside from sea level
rise, FFS is relatively isolated from anthropogenic threats, as it
occurs within the Papah[amacr]naumoku[amacr]kea Marine National
Monument, a remote Monument that has controlled access for activities
that occur within it. The regional range expansion into nesting areas
in the MHI provide increased spatial diversity and may buffer against
the loss of nesting sites at FFS; however, nesting areas in the MHI are
exposed to anthropogenic threats.
Within Factor E, we find that incidental bycatch in fishing gear,
marine pollution, interactions with recreational and commercial
vessels, climate change, beach driving, and major storm events all
negatively affect green turtles in the Central North Pacific DPS. The
consideration of climate change, and the fact that the one isolated
atoll, where approximately 96 percent of green turtles within this DPS
nest, is extremely vulnerable to sea level rise, increase the risk of
extinction for this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central North Pacific DPS
The State of Hawai`i's efforts to conserve green turtles include:
Wildlife regulations; coordination of stranding response and specimen
storage on the islands of Maui, Hawai`i, and Kaua`i; issuance and
management of special activity permits; statewide outreach and
education activities; and nest monitoring on Maui (Department of Land
and Natural Resources, 2013). Hawai`i Division of Aquatic Resources
staff responds to stranded turtle reports and issues special use
permits to researchers and educators. The Division of Conservation and
Resources Enforcement investigates reports of illegal poaching,
provides support and security at some nest sites and strandings, and
addresses complaints from the public regarding turtle disturbances.
With regard to conservation areas, the
Papah[amacr]naumoku[amacr]kea Marine National Monument in the NWHI is a
conservation area established in 2006 that encompasses coral reefs,
islands and shallow water environments. It comprises several previously
existing Federal conservation areas, including the NWHI Coral Reef
Ecosystem Reserve, Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, Hawaiian
Islands National Wildlife Refuge, NWHI Marine Refuge, State Seabird
Sanctuary at Kure Atoll and the Battle of Midway National Memorial. The
Monument is administered jointly by three co-trustees: NOAA, the USFWS,
and the State of Hawai`i. The Monument's mission is to carry out
seamless integrated management to ensure ecological integrity and
achieve strong, long-term protection and perpetuation of NWHI
ecosystems, Native Hawaiian culture, and heritage resources for current
and future generations. Commercial fishing is prohibited in the
Monument and all other human activities require a permit.
Overall, conservation efforts have been successful in this DPS, as
exhibited by the increasing trend in the green turtle population.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Central North
Pacific DPS
The Central North Pacific DPS is characterized by geographically
concentrated nesting (96 percent of nesting occurs at one location) and
moderately low levels of abundance (3,846 nesting females). Such a low
number is the result of chronic historical exploitation, which
extirpated 80 percent of historically major nesting grounds (Kittinger
et al., 2013). The DPS is geographically and chronologically well-
sampled, with no sites where nesting is unquantified, and very little
chance there are undocumented nesting locations. Time series analysis
of nesting female abundance over 40 years at FFS shows a marked
increase in nesting since surveys were initiated in 1973, with an
encouraging annual rate of increase of 4.8 percent. However, 96 percent
of nesting now occurs at one atoll (FFS)--where sea level rise is a
significant concern--and no more than 40 females nest at any of the
other 11 sites. Information on in-water abundance trends is consistent
with the increase in nesting.
The Status Review indicates that the DPS shows strength in its
population trend, but that there are concerns about overall abundance,
spatial structure, and diversity/resilience. Indeed, in spite of the
positive trends in the last few decades, the unprecedented
concentration of nesting at one site and moderately low population size
raise serious concerns about the resilience of this DPS, particularly
its ability to adapt to future climate scenarios. Ninety-eight percent
of the population nests are low lying atolls (96 percent nesting in a
single low-lying atoll), making them extremely vulnerable to sea level
rise--some effects of which have already been witnessed. Keller et al.
(2009) suggest that sea level rise, changing storm dynamics, sea
surface temperatures, and ocean acidification are key threats for the
NWHI. Current and projected maps of four islands in the NWHI predicted
a sea level rise ranging from 9 cm to 88 cm by 2100, with a projected
loss of nesting beach at approximately 15 to 26 percent (IPCC, 2001).
Further, sea level rise is expected to continue at a rate exceeding
that observed during 1971-2010 as a result of increased ocean warming
and increased loss of glacier and ice sheet mass (IPCC, 2013). Baker et
al. (2006) examined the potential effects of sea level rise in the NWHI
and found that the primary nesting area for the Central North Pacific
population is threatened by sea level rise through possible loss of
nesting habitat. They note that one formerly significant nesting site--
Whale-Skate Island--is now completely submerged. They further note that
the islets of Trig, Gin and Little Gin could lose large portions
[[Page 15327]]
of their area, concentrating nesting even further at East Island. In
contrast, Tiwari et al. (2010) argued that East Island itself is still
not yet at carrying capacity, in the sense of crude nesting area and
current nesting densities. It remains unclear how catastrophic nesting
habitat loss and natal homing traits will influence future nesting in
this DPS. Habitat degradation resulting from the release of
contaminants contained in landfills and other areas of the NWHI could
also occur as the islands erode or are flooded from sea level rise
(Keller et al., 2009). Other effects of climate change include
increasing temperatures at nesting beaches that may affect hatchling
sex ratios and embryonic development (Balazs and Kubis, 2007; Fuller et
al., 2010b). Making this an even greater concern is that climate change
and the resultant sea level rise are difficult to regulate and
certainly cannot be sufficiently regulated through the ESA to slow its
effects.
In summary, despite an upward trend in population abundance, the
Central North Pacific DPS is characterized by geographically
concentrated nesting and low levels of abundance (3,846 nesting
females). The lack of redundancy in nesting sites and the low nesting
numbers at these sites lead to low resilience within this DPS. The
consideration of climate change, and the fact that the one isolated
atoll, where approximately 96 percent of green turtles within this DPS
nest, is extremely vulnerable to sea level rise, increase the risk of
extinction.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Central North Pacific
DPS as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction
presently because of the increasing nesting trend; however, the
continued threats coupled with a small and narrowly distributed nesting
population are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable
future.
XVII. East Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the East Pacific DPS
The range of the East Pacific DPS extends from the California/
Oregon border (41 [deg]N) southward along the Pacific coast of the
Americas to central Chile (40 [deg]S). Green turtles originating from
this DPS regularly strand along the shoreline of Oregon and Washington.
The northern and southern boundaries of this DPS extend from the
aforementioned locations in the United States and Chile to 142 [deg]W
and 96 [deg]W, respectively. The offshore boundary of this DPS is a
straight line between these two coordinates. This DPS encompasses the
Revillagigedos Archipelago, Mexico and the Gal[aacute]pagos
Archipelago, Ecuador (Figure 2). The East Pacific DPS also includes the
Mexican Pacific coast breeding population, which is currently listed as
endangered (43 FR 32800, July 28, 1978).
Green turtle nesting is widely dispersed in the Eastern Pacific
Ocean. We identified 40 total nesting sites for which abundance
information is available, although there are sporadic nesting events in
other areas with undocumented abundance. The largest nesting
aggregation is found in Colola, Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico, with 11,588
nesting females, or nearly 58 percent of the total nesting population
(Delgado-Trejo and Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012). The second largest site is
in the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands, Ecuador, where nesting at the four
primary nesting sites (Quinta Playa and Barahona (Isabela Island), Las
Bachas (Santa Cruz Island), and Las Salinas (Baltras Island)) has been
stable to slightly increasing since the late 1970s, and was last
estimated at 3,603 nesting females in 2005 (Z[agrave]rate et al., 2006;
Z[agrave]rate, unpubl. data). Other nesting areas are found in
Micho[aacute]can, including Bahia Maruata (1,149; Delgado-Trejo and
Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012) and Motin de Oro (240; Delgado-Trejo and
Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012); Clarion and Socorro Islands in the
Revillagigedos Archipelago, Mexico (500; Blanco and Santidri[aacute]n,
2011); and 26 sites throughout the Pacific Coast of Costa Rica,
including Playa San Jose in the Bat Islands (498; L. Fonseca, unpubl.
data), Playa Colorada (498; L. Fonseca, unpubl. data), Nombre Jesus
(450; Blanco and Santidri[aacute]n, 2011), Playa Cabuyal (273; P.
Santidri[aacute]n-Tomillo, Leatherback Trust, pers. comm., 2013), Playa
Zapotillal (150; Blanco and Santidri[aacute]n, 2011) and Playa Nancite
(123; Fonseca et al., 2011). Low level nesting (fewer than 100 nesting
females) occurs elsewhere in Mexico, Costa Rica, mainland Ecuador,
Colombia, Guatemala, and Peru, although the last two are unquantified
(G. Tiburcios-Pintos, Minicipio de Los Cabos, pers. comm., 2012; S.
Kelez, ecOceanica, pers. comm., 2012).
Nesting at the largest beach in the range of this DPS (Colola,
Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico) has shown an upward trend since 1996. The
observed increase at Colola may have resulted from the onset of nesting
beach protection in 1979--as is suggested by the similarity in timing
between the onset of beach conservation and the age-to-maturity for
green turtles in Pacific Mexico. The initial upward turn in annual
nesting was seen in 1996, about 17 years after the initiation of a
nesting beach protection program (Cliffton et al., 1982; Alvarado-
D[iacute]az et al., 2001), and growth data from the Gulf of California
suggest that green turtles in this DPS mature at 15-25 years (Seminoff
et al., 2002a). Although not a clear cause of the increasing nesting
trend, the consistency in timing is nonetheless compelling. The
presidential decree protecting all sea turtles of Mexico (Pesca, 1990)
certainly helped the situation, but this occurred much later than the
start of nesting beach conservation. It is more likely that this
national legislation has had its greatest positive impact at the
foraging areas, where green turtle hunting was once rampant.
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the eastern
Pacific has been extensive and the coverage in this region is
substantial considering the relatively low population sizes of most
eastern Pacific nesting sites. Within this DPS there is significant
population substructuring. Four regional genetic stocks have been
identified in the eastern Pacific (P. Dutton, NMFS, unpubl. data):
Revillagigedos Archipelago (Mexico), Michoac[aacute]n (Mexico), Costa
Rica, and the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands (Ecuador). There is a relatively
high level of spatial structure and the presence of rare/unique
haplotypes at each nesting site stock. Green turtles from multiple
nesting beach origins commonly mix at feeding areas in the Gulf of
California (Nichols, 2003; P. Dutton, NMFS, unpubl. data). A recent
study using nuclear single nucleotide polymorphisms (a DNA sequence
variation occurring commonly within a population) and microsatellite
markers investigated the genetic stock structure among five Pacific
green turtle nesting populations. They found significant structure
between their two eastern Pacific sample sites (Gal[aacute]pagos and
Mexico), suggesting that male-mediated gene flow between regional
nesting stocks is limited (Roden et al., 2013).
Flipper tag recoveries show 94 tag returns from foraging areas that
were applied at two primary nesting sites, Michoac[aacute]n Mexico and
the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands, Ecuador. Two apparent groupings suggest
some North/South structure. Forty-nine satellite tracks of green
turtles in the eastern Pacific show apparent track clustering in
Northwest Mexico to Southern United States, and in the Southeast
Pacific, from the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands to the high seas and to the
Central American mainland. There are too few satellite tracks to
provide solid information on spatial structure. Within-region variation
in demographic features also suggests a level of spatial structure for
the East Pacific DPS. Among all nesting
[[Page 15328]]
assemblages in the East Pacific DPS, the Revillagigedos Islands stands
out as uniquely different from the remaining areas.
With regard to diversity and resilience, the East Pacific DPS has
substantial nesting at both insular and continental nesting sites. The
presence of year round nesting at some sites, and non-overlapping
nesting seasons at others, suggest that the nesting phenology of green
turtles in this DPS may help buffer in geologic time against climate
change, both in terms of increased mean incubation temperatures on
beaches and in terms of impact to storms and other seasonal events. The
nesting season in Michoac[aacute]n runs from October through January
(Alvarado-D[iacute]az and Figueroa, 1990); in the Revillagigedos
Islands nesting occurs from March through November with a peak in
April/May (Awbrey et al., 1984; Brattstrom, 1982) and in the
Gal[aacute]pagos, nesting occurs year-round with a peak from January to
March (Z[aacute]rate et al., 2013). Year-round nesting has also been
confirmed for some areas in Costa Rica.
There is a range of beach shade levels depending on the nesting
beach. At some sites such as those in the Revillagigedos Islands and
beaches in Mexico, the beaches have little vegetation and nests are
commonly laid in full-sun areas. On the other hand, the beaches in
Costa Rica are highly shaded and nests are commonly deposited deep in
the coastal scrub bushes and trees. There are also intermediate sites,
such as those in the Gal[aacute]pagos, which have a mix of full sun and
shade sites on any given beach. While the exposed beaches are more
likely to suffer from the impacts of climate change, those in shaded
areas may be subjected to less heating.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the East Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
The largest threat on nesting beaches in the East Pacific DPS is
reduced availability of habitat due to heavy armament and subsequent
erosion. In addition, while nesting beaches in Costa Rica,
Revillagigedos Islands, and the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands are less
affected by coastal development than green turtle nesting beaches in
other regions around the Pacific, several of the secondary green turtle
nesting beaches in M[eacute]xico suffer from coastal development. For
example, effects of coastal development are especially acute at
Maruata, a site with heavy tourist activity and foot traffic during the
nesting season (Seminoff, 1994). Nest destruction due to human presence
is also a threat to nesting beaches in the Galap[aacute]gos Islands
(Z[aacute]rate et al., 2006). However, such threats vary by site
(Z[aacute]rate, 2012). Insular sites have very low levels of human
interference at nesting beaches, although turtles may be affected in
foraging areas. The low impacts at insular nesting sites suggest that
these areas may serve as nesting refugia if management regimes change
and/or poaching at continental sites increases.
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
With respect to environmental degradation in the marine
environment, coastal habitats along the continental and insular shores
of the eastern Pacific are relatively pristine, although green turtles
in San Diego Bay, at the north edge of their range, have high levels of
contaminants (Komoroske et al., 2011; 2012). However, the nutrient flow
and structure within seagrass communities in many coastal areas are
likely modified today due to the depletion of green turtles which,
during times of higher abundance, would have been keystone consumers in
these habitats (Bjorndal, 1980; Thayer et al., 1992; Seminoff et al.,
2012b). Although the impacts of ongoing and proposed human activities
are difficult to quantify, recent human population increases in many
areas underscore the need to develop and implement management
strategies that balance development and economic activities with the
needs of green turtles.
In summary, within Factor A we find that the East Pacific DPS of
the green turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both its
terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use
practices. We also find that coastal development, beachfront lighting,
and heavy foot traffic consistently affect hatchlings and nesting
turtles on a small portion of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
In some countries and localities within the range of the East
Pacific DPS, harvest of green turtle eggs is legal, while in others it
is illegal but persistent due to lack of enforcement. The impact of egg
harvest is exacerbated by the high monetary value of eggs, consistent
market demand, and severe poverty in many of the countries in the
Eastern Pacific Region where sea turtles are found. Egg harvest is a
major conservation challenge at several sites in Costa Rica, including
Nombre de Jesus and Zapotillal Beaches, where 90 percent of the eggs
were taken by egg collectors during one particular study (Blanco,
2010). Egg harvest is also believed to occur at unprotected nesting
sites in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua (NMFS and USFWS,
2007). Indeed, green turtles are hunted in many areas of northwest
Mexico despite legal protection (Nichols et al., 2002; Seminoff et al.,
2003; J. Seminoff, NMFS, pers. obs., 2012). Mancini and Koch (2009)
describe a black market that killed tens of thousands of green turtles
each year in the Eastern Pacific Region.
Sea turtles were, and continue to be, harvested primarily for their
meat, although other products have served important non-food uses. Sea
turtle oil was for many years used as a cold remedy and the meat, eggs
and other products have been highly-valued for their aphrodisiacal
qualities, beliefs that strongly persist in the countries bordering the
East Pacific DPS.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
FP is virtually non-existent in green turtles within the East
Pacific DPS (Koch et al., 2007), and predation occurs at low levels. In
the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands there is depredation on eggs and
hatchlings by feral pigs (Sus sp.) and beetles (order Coleoptera),
although predation levels are not reported (Z[aacute]rate et al., 2003;
2006). There are accounts of jaguars (Panthera onca) killing adult
female green turtles (L. Fonseca, National University of Costa Rica,
unpubl. data, 2009) at beaches in Costa Rica, but this is not a major
problem for the DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The following countries have laws to protect green turtles: Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and the United States. In addition, at
least 10 international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms apply to
the conservation of green turtles in the East Pacific DPS. Overall,
regulatory mechanisms for green turtles in the East Pacific DPS are
inconsistent. While there are numerous substantive and/or improving
conservation efforts, especially on the primary nesting beaches, and
this may be reflected in the recent increases in the number of nesting
females, many concerns remain due to limited enforcement of existing
laws and marine protected areas as well as extensive fishery bycatch,
especially in coastal waters. The analysis of existing regulatory
mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place at their current
[[Page 15329]]
levels; however, some regulatory mechanisms, including laws and
international treaties, are not realizing their full potential because
they are not enforced adequately in all countries occupied by the DPS.
While most of the major nesting beaches are monitored, some of the
management measures in place are inadequate and may be inappropriate.
On some beaches, hatchling releases are coordinated with the tourist
industry or nests are being trampled on or are unprotected. The largest
threat on the nesting beaches, reduced availability of habitat due to
heavy armament and subsequent erosion, is just beginning to be
addressed, but without immediate attention may ultimately result in the
demise of the highest density beaches. Further, it is suspected that
there are substantial impacts from illegal, unreported, and unregulated
fishing, which we are unable to mitigate without additional fisheries
management efforts and international collaborations. While conservation
projects for this population have been in place since 1978 for some
important areas, efforts in other areas are still being developed to
address major threats, including fisheries bycatch and long-term
nesting habitat protection.
Bycatch has not been thoroughly evaluated but it is largely known
that most fishermen either improperly implement TEDs or remove them
entirely from their trawls. As was the case with sea turtle meat and
egg collection, an almost total lack of enforcement of bycatch
mitigation measures by local authorities only helps to confound the
problem. Additionally, TEDs are not a requirement for artisanal
shrimping boats which, with today's technology, are becoming more
`industrial' in ability and have been reported to catch large numbers
of sea turtles. It is unlikely that bycatch mortality can be
sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in the near future
because of the diversity and magnitude of the fisheries operating in
the DPS, the lack of comprehensive information on fishing distribution
and effort, limitations on implementing demonstrated effective
conservation measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations on
enforcement capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch
reduction technologies.
The Status Review did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in place to
specifically address impacts to the nesting beach, marine pollution,
sea level rise, and effects of climate change that continue to
contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a
significant threat to the survival of green turtles throughout the
Eastern Pacific Ocean. The primary gear types involved in these
interactions include longlines, drift nets, set nets, and trawl
fisheries. These are employed by both artisanal and industrial fleets,
and target a wide variety of species including tunas (Thunnus sp.),
sharks (class Chondrichthyes), sardines (Sardinella sp.), swordfish
(Xiphias gladius), and mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus).
In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, particularly areas in the southern
portion of the range of this DPS, significant bycatch has been reported
in artisanal gill net and longline shark and mahi mahi fisheries
operating out of Peru (Kelez et al., 2003; Alfaro-Shigueto et al.,
2006) and, to a lesser extent, Chile (Donoso and Dutton, 2010). The
fishing industry in Peru is the second largest economic activity in the
country and, over the past few years, the longline fishery has rapidly
increased. During an observer program in 2003/2004, 588 sets were
observed during 60 trips, and 154 sea turtles were taken as bycatch.
Green turtles were the second most common sea turtle species in these
interactions. In many cases, green turtles are kept on board for human
consumption; therefore, the mortality rate in this artisanal longline
fishery is likely high because sea turtles are retained for future
consumption or sale.
Koch et al. (2006) reported green turtle bycatch-related dead
strandings numbering in the hundreds in Bahia Magdalena. In Baja
California Sur, Mexico, from 2006-2009 small-scale gill-net fisheries
caused massive green turtle mortality at Laguna San Ignacio, where
Mancini et al. (2012) estimated that over 1,000 turtles were killed
each year in nets set for guitarfish.
Bycatch in coastal areas occurs principally in shrimp trawlers,
gill nets and bottom longlines (e.g., Orrego and Arauz, 2004). However,
since 1996, all countries from Mexico to Ecuador declared the use of
TEDs as mandatory for all industrial fleets to meet the requirements to
export shrimp to the United States under the U.S. Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Helvey and Fahy, 2012). Since
then, bycatch has not been thoroughly evaluated but it is widely
believed that most fishers either improperly implement TEDs or remove
them entirely from their trawls.
Additionally, TEDs are not required for artisanal shrimping boats,
which with today's technology, are becoming more `industrial' in
ability and have been reported to catch large numbers of sea turtles
(A. Zavala, Universidad de Sinaloa, pers. comm., 2012). Bottom-set
longlines and gill nets, both artisanal and industrial, also interact
frequently with sea turtles, and can have devastating mortality rates,
such as has been the case in artisanal fisheries of Baja California,
Mexico (Peckham et al., 2007). In purse seine fisheries, which
typically target tuna and other large pelagic fish species, the highest
rate of turtles are captured with ``log sets'' around natural floating
objects or Fish Aggregation Devices (Hall, 1998).
b. Pollution
Other threats such as debris ingestion (Seminoff et al., 2002c) and
boat strikes (P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2012; NMFS stranding
records, unpubl.) also affect green turtles in the Eastern Pacific. Red
tide poisoning is also a threat to this species (Delgado-Trejo and
Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012).
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
Effects of climate change include, among other things, sea surface
temperature increases, the alteration of thermal sand characteristics
of beaches (from warming temperatures), which could result in the
reduction or cessation of male hatchling production (Hawkes et al.,
2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009), and a significant rise in sea level,
which could significantly restrict green turtle nesting habitat. While
sea turtles have survived past eras that have included significant
temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected to happen
at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly they may
face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts
from global climate change induced by human activities are likely to
become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007). However, at the
primary nesting beach in Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico (Colola), the beach
slope aspect is extremely steep and the dune surface at which the vast
majority of nests are laid is well-elevated. This site is likely
buffered against short-term sea level rise as a result of climate
change. In addition, many nesting sites are along protected beach
faces, out of tidal surge pathways. For example, multiple nesting sites
in Costa Rica and in the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands are on beaches that
are protected from major swell coming in from the ocean.
[[Page 15330]]
Within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch that occurs
throughout the eastern Pacific Ocean, particularly bycatch mortality of
green turtles from nearshore gill net fisheries, is a significant
threat to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the East Pacific DPS
There are a multitude of NGOs and conservation networks whose
efforts are raising awareness about sea turtle conservation.
Protection of green turtles is provided by local marine reserves
throughout the region. In addition, sea turtles may benefit from the
following broader regional efforts: (1) The Eastern Tropical Pacific
(ETP) Marine Corridor (CMAR) Initiative supported by the governments of
Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, and Ecuador, which is a voluntary
agreement to work towards sustainable use and conservation of marine
resources in these countries' waters; (2) the ETP Seascape Program
managed by Conservation International that supports cooperative marine
management in the ETP, including implementation of the CMAR; (3) the
IATTC and its bycatch reduction efforts that are among the world's
finest for regional fisheries management organizations; (4) the IAC,
which is designed to lessen impacts on sea turtles from fisheries and
other human impacts; and (5) the Permanent Commission of the South
Pacific (Lima Convention), which has developed an ``Action Plan for Sea
Turtles in the Southeast Pacific.''
There are indications that wildlife enforcement branches of local
and national governments are stepping up their efforts to enforce
existing laws, although successes in stemming sea turtle exploitation
through legal channels are few and far between.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the East Pacific DPS
The East Pacific DPS is characterized by moderate levels of green
turtle nesting abundance (>20,000 nesting females) occurring in three
primary regions, with Mexico having the largest number of nesting
females at several sites (13,664 nesting females), followed by the
Gal[aacute]pagos, Ecuador (3,603 nesting females), and Costa Rica
(2,826 nesting females distributed among 26 nesting sites). Although
trend information is lacking for the vast majority of sites, 25 years
of monitoring at Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico--the largest nesting
aggregation in this DPS--shows an increasing trend since the
population's low point in the mid-1980s. In addition to Mexico, data
from the Gal[aacute]pagos Archipelago suggest a stable trend, and the
largest-ever nesting numbers reported in Costa Rica suggest this site
may be on the increase as well.
Genetic and demographic data show some substructuring among the
populations, and nesting is well-distributed in the East Pacific DPS,
occurring from the tip of the Baja California Peninsula to northern
Peru. Such a broad latitudinal range may be advantageous to green
turtles in this DPS in the face of global climate change. Likewise,
with year round nesting at several sites and non-overlapping nesting
seasons at others, it appears that this DPS may benefit from nesting
season temporal diversity in relation to population resilience. Lastly,
nesting at both continental and insular sites provides a degree of
diversity as well as resilience, with some insular sites providing
relatively threat-free nesting refugia within this DPS's range.
Nevertheless, green turtles continue to be affected by a variety of
threats within the range of the East Pacific DPS. These include harvest
of eggs and turtles for food and non-food uses, bycatch in coastal and
offshore marine fisheries gear, coastal development, beachfront
lighting, and heavy foot traffic. Although the situation has improved
to some extent, the harvest of turtles and their eggs continues
throughout much of the range, although more problematic outside of the
Gal[aacute]pagos Islands, particularly in Central America (egg harvest)
and Mexico (harvest of foraging turtles). Mortality from diseases such
as FP is not a problem in the Eastern Pacific, but depredation by
natural predators is a very large concern, particularly in the
Gal[aacute]pagos and, to a lesser extent, in Costa Rica. Green turtle
interactions and mortalities with coastal and offshore fisheries in the
eastern Pacific region are of concern and are considered an impediment
to green turtle recovery in the East Pacific DPS. Yet despite these
concerns, the largest nesting sites appear to be increasing.
Conservation actions, national laws, and international instruments
have provided the foundation for what appears to be an ongoing
population recovery in the region, particularly in Mexico, although
work remains to ensure continued recovery. Further, our analysis did
not consider the scenario in which current laws or regulatory
mechanisms were not continued. Given the conservation dependence of the
species, without mechanisms in place to continue conservation efforts
and funding streams in this DPS, some threats could increase and
population trends could be affected.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the East Pacific DPS as
threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction
presently because of high nesting abundance and increasing trends;
however, the continued threats from coastal and offshore fisheries are
likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable future.
XVIII. Proposed Determinations
Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the Services make listing
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and
taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or
foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and
conserve the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)). We have reviewed the best
available scientific and commercial information, including information
included in the petition, the status review report, and other published
and unpublished information; and we have consulted with species experts
and individuals familiar with green turtles and their habitat.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information,
we identify 11 green turtle DPSs: Central North Pacific, North
Atlantic, Mediterranean, South Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North
Indian, East Indian-West Pacific, Central West Pacific, Southwest
Pacific, Central South Pacific, and East Pacific. We find that the
purposes of the Act would be furthered by managing this wide-ranging
species as separate units under the DPS authority, in order to allow
for enhanced protections where needed. Based on a review of the five
factors contained in ESA section 4(a)(1), we find that the best
available science supports the listing status of ``endangered'' for
three of the DPSs and therefore conclude that the species as a whole no
longer meets the definition of a ``threatened species'' throughout its
range. We propose to remove the current species-wide listing and to
list 11 DPSs as threatened or endangered. We propose to list the North
Atlantic, South Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North Indian, East Indian-
West Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central North Pacific, and East
Pacific DPSs as threatened, and the Mediterranean, Central West
Pacific, and Central South Pacific DPSs as endangered for the reasons
described above for each DPS.
Regarding the February 16, 2012 petition from the Association of
Hawaiian Civic Clubs to identify the Hawaiian green turtle population
as a DPS and ``delist'' the DPS under the
[[Page 15331]]
ESA, as described above we conclude that the petitioned entity
qualifies as a DPS (Central North Pacific DPS), but that the DPS should
be listed as threatened for the reasons discussed above. We therefore
deny the petition seeking its delisting.
XIX. Significant Portion of the Range
Under the ESA and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. See the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014). Under that policy,
we only need to consider whether listing may be appropriate on the
basis of the ``significant portion of its range'' language if the
rangewide analysis does not lead to a determination to list as
threatened or endangered. Because we have determined that each DPS of
green turtle is either threatened or endangered throughout all of its
range, no portion of its range can be ``significant'' for purposes of
the definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.''
XX. Effects of Listing
Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA include, but are not limited to, recovery
plans and actions (prepared pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1536(f)) and the
actions recommended in them; designation of critical habitat if prudent
and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)); Federal agency
requirements to consult with the Services and to ensure its actions are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)); and prohibitions on taking (16
U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the species' plight through listing
promotes conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign
entities, private groups, and individuals. Should the proposed listings
be made final, a recovery plan or plans may be developed, unless we
find that such plan would not promote the conservation of the species.
A. Identifying Section 7 Conference and Consultation Requirements
Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(4)) of the ESA and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR 402) require Federal agencies to
confer with the Services on actions likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of species proposed for listing, or that result in the
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
proposed species is ultimately listed, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal
agencies to consult with the Services on any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out if those actions may affect the listed species or
its critical habitat; Federal agencies must insure that such actions
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical
habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2); 50 CFR 402). Because green turtles are
currently listed throughout their range, requirements for initiating
consultation will not change if the current listing is reclassified and
revised to reflect recognition of multiple DPSs. Examples of Federal
actions that affect green turtles include, but are not limited to:
Dredging and channelization, beach and nearshore construction, pile-
driving, water quality standards, power plants, vessel traffic,
military activities, and fisheries management practices.
B. Critical Habitat
Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA defines critical habitat as ``(i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed . . . on which are found those physical or
biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species
and (II) which may require special management considerations or
protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed . . . upon a
determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)).'' Section 3(3) of the
ESA also defines the terms ``conserve,'' ``conserving,'' and
``conservation'' to mean ``to use and the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to this chapter Act are no longer necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).''
Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) of the ESA, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species. Designations of critical habitat must be based on
the best scientific data available and must take into consideration the
economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). The
Services' regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation
of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following
situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other
human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected
to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
The identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected
to increase the degree of threat from human activity, such as take of
turtles or eggs. In the absence of finding that the designation of
critical habitat would increase threats to a species, a finding that
designation may be prudent is warranted if there are any benefits to a
critical habitat designation. Here, the potential benefits of
designation would include (1) Triggering consultation under section 7
of the ESA for Federal actions in unoccupied designated critical
habitat; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most essential
features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or
county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from
causing inadvertent harm to the species.
Because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat
will not likely increase the degree of threat to the species and may
provide some measure of benefit, we determine that designation of
critical habitat may be prudent for the green turtle, subject to review
of information in connection with the designation.
Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) state that critical habitat
is not determinable when one or both of the following situations
exists: (1) Information sufficient to perform required analysis of the
impacts of the designation is lacking; or (2) the biological needs of
the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of
an area as critical habitat. At this point, we are still in the process
of acquiring the information needed to assess the critical habitat
designation. Accordingly, we find designation of critical habitat to be
not determinable at this time.
A final regulation designating critical habitat is generally due
concurrently with a final regulation listing a species as endangered or
threatened (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)). The statute does not mandate that
the proposed rule to designate critical habitat has to be published
concurrent with the proposed listing rule, and thus a proposed rule
designating critical habitat may be
[[Page 15332]]
published following the proposed listing rule (but at least 90 days
before the intended effective date of the rule (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(5)(A)). Upon a finding that designation of critical habitat is
not determinable, the Services have an additional year to finalize a
proposed critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). In
effect, then, the Services have up to one year following final listing
of the species to finalize a critical habitat designation where such
habitat is initially not determinable. To ensure that the Services may
make a timely proposal based on the best scientific and commercial
information available, we invite public input on features and areas
that may meet the definition of critical habitat for the DPSs proposed
for listing that occur in U.S. waters or its territories. These include
the North Atlantic (southeastern United States and Puerto Rico), South
Atlantic (U.S. Virgin Islands), Central South Pacific (American Samoa),
Central West Pacific (CNMI and Guam), Central North Pacific, and East
Pacific DPSs (California).
The Services previously designated critical habitat for green
turtles in waters surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico from the mean
high water line seaward to 3 nautical miles (5.6 km; 63 FR 46693,
September 2, 1998). These waters include Culebra's outlying Keys,
including Cayo Norte, Cayo Ballena, Cayos Geniqu[iacute], Isla
Culebrita, Arrecife Culebrita, Cayo de Luis Pe[ntilde]a, Las Hermanas,
El Mono, Cayo Lobo, Cayo Lobito, Cayo Botijuela, Alcarraza, Los
Gemelos, and Piedra Steven, and are within the range of the North
Atlantic DPS.
The ESA does not speak directly to the status of designated
critical habitat when the agency later amends a species listing by
dividing it into constituent DPSs. Notably, critical habitat does not
lose its biological and conservation relevance to the relevant listed
DPS (here, the North Atlantic) simply because the species listing is
amended. Moreover, carrying forward an existing critical habitat
designation can enhance the protection provided to the listed DPS
because the carried-forward designation protects habitat features
essential to the species' recovery from destruction or adverse
modification in section 7 consultations. Given that Congress has not
spoken directly to this issue in the statute, we find that the benefits
of designated critical habitat, the ESA's broad purpose to conserve the
ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend, and
taking a reasonable precautionary approach, the ESA should be construed
to provide in these circumstances for keeping existing critical habitat
designation in place as a transitional matter until the designation is
re-promulgated or amended through a further rulemaking. Therefore,
critical habitat remains in effect for the listed North Atlantic DPS in
order to preserve its conservation value, as the designated critical
habitat continues to support the DPS's important biological functions
(e.g., foraging habitat, developmental habitat, and shelter/refuge from
predators). The Services have not designated critical habitat within
the range of the other ten green turtle DPSs.
C. Take Prohibitions
All of the take prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA (16
U.S.C. Sec. 1538(a)(1)) will automatically apply to the three DPSs
proposed to be listed as endangered, the Mediterranean, Central West
Pacific and Central South Pacific, if the proposal to list them as
endangered is finalized. These include prohibitions against importing,
exporting, engaging in foreign or interstate commerce, or ``taking'' of
the species. ``Take'' is defined under the ESA as ``to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt
to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1532(19)).'' These
prohibitions apply to any ``person'' (as defined by the ESA) subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States, including in the United States,
its territorial sea, or on the high seas. Certain exceptions apply to
employees of the Services, other Federal land management agencies, and
State conservation agencies. In addition, 50 CFR part 224.104 would
apply to the proposed endangered DPSs. Some of the current provisions
apply only to areas in the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Atlantic; however,
future provisions may apply to any endangered DPS, without regard to
its geographic boundaries.
In the case of threatened species, ESA section 4(d) authorizes the
Secretary to issue regulations deemed necessary and appropriate for the
conservation of species. The Services already have in place take
prohibitions and exceptions that apply to threatened species of sea
turtles, set forth at 50 CFR 17.42(b), 223.205, 223.206, and 223.207.
These existing take prohibitions and exceptions will continue to remain
in effect and apply to those DPSs listed as threatened, which are the
North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North Indian, East
Indian-West Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central North Pacific, and East
Pacific DPSs.
Pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, we may issue permits to carry
out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered and threatened
wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are
codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR 223.206. With regard to endangered
wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For
scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the ESA.
D. Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation
of Section 9 of the ESA
On July 1, 1994, the Services published a policy (59 FR 34272) that
requires us to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time
a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within a species' range. We will
identify, to the extent known at the time of the final rule, those
specific activities that, although they may appear to pose impacts to
the species, will not be considered likely to result in violation of
section 9, as well as activities that will be considered likely to
result in violation. Based on currently available information, we
conclude that the activities most likely to violate the section 9
prohibitions against ``take'' of endangered green turtle DPSs include,
but are not limited to, the following: (1) Importation or exportation
of any part of a green turtle or green turtle eggs; (2) directed take
of green turtles, including fishing for, capturing, handling, or
possessing green turtles, eggs, or parts; (3) sale of green turtles,
eggs, or parts; (4) destruction or modification of green turtle
habitat, including nesting beaches, beaches used for basking, and
developmental, foraging habitat, and migratory habitat that actually
kills or injures green turtles (50 CFR 222.102); and (5) indirect take
of green turtles in the course of otherwise lawful activities, such as
fishing, dredging, coastal construction, vessel traffic, and discharge
of pollutants. We emphasize that whether a violation results from a
particular activity depends upon the facts and circumstances of each
incident. The mere fact that an activity may fall within one of these
categories does not mean that the specific activity will cause a
violation; due to such factors as location and scope, specific actions
may not result in direct or indirect adverse effects on the species.
Further, an
[[Page 15333]]
activity not listed may in fact result in a violation. We also
emphasize that because the green turtle is currently listed, we do not
anticipate changes in the activities that would constitute a violation
of section 9. Possible exceptions include those actions affecting the
breeding populations in Florida and the Pacific coast of Mexico, which
were heretofore listed as endangered. Under the final rule, these
populations would become part of the threatened North Atlantic and East
Pacific DPSs, respectively, and therefore will be protected by the
existing protective regulations.
XXI. Peer Review
The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. In December
2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing minimum peer
review standards, a transparent process for public disclosure of peer
review planning, and opportunities for public participation. The OMB
Bulletin, implemented under the Information Quality Act (Public Law
106-554), is intended to enhance the quality and credibility of the
Federal government's scientific information, and applies to influential
or highly influential scientific information disseminated on or after
June 16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we
obtained independent peer review of the status review report from 15
independent specialists in the academic and scientific community. All
peer reviewer comments were addressed prior to dissemination of the
final status review report and publication of this proposed rule.
XXII. Classification
A. National Environmental Policy Act
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 829 (6th Cir.
1981), NOAA has concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to
the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6). Similarly, USFWS has
determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact
statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection with
regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the ESA. USFWS published a
notice outlining its reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
B. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork
Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process.
In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-
information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this proposed
rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism
assessment is not required. In keeping with the intent of the
Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful
dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, this proposed
rule will be given to the relevant state agencies in each state in
which the species is believed to occur, and those states will be
invited to comment on this proposal. We have considered, among other
things, Federal, State, and local conservation measures. As we proceed,
we intend to continue engaging in informal and formal contacts with the
State, and other affected local or regional entities, giving careful
consideration to all written and oral comments received.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.
Dated: March 11, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Dated: February 25, 2015.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 17, 223, and
224 are proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h) revise the entry for ``Sea turtle, green'', which
is in alphabetical order under REPTILES, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) The ``List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' is provided
below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
---------------------------------------------------- population where Critical
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat Special rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Reptiles
* * * * * * *
Sea turtle, green (Central Chelonia mydas Central North Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR NA 17.42(b),
North Pacific DPS). Pacific Ocean. originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
the Central PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
North Pacific FINAL RULE].
Ocean, bounded
by the following
coordinates:
41[deg] N.,
169[deg] E. in
the northwest;
41[deg] N.,
143[deg] W. in
the northeast;
9[deg] N.,
125[deg] W. in
the southeast;
and 9[deg] N.,
175[deg] W. in
the southwest.
[[Page 15334]]
Sea turtle, green (Central Chelonia mydas Central South Green sea turtles E [INSERT FR NA 224.104
South Pacific DPS). Pacific Ocean. originating from CITATION WHEN
the Central PUBLISHED AS A
South Pacific FINAL RULE].
Ocean, bounded
by the following
coordinates:
9[deg] N.,
175[deg] W. in
the northwest;
9[deg] N.,
125[deg] W. in
the northeast;
40[deg] S.,
96[deg] W. in
the southeast;
40[deg] S.,
176[deg] E. in
the southwest;
and 13[deg] S.,
171[deg] E. in
the west.
Sea turtle, green (Central West Chelonia mydas Central West Green sea turtles E [INSERT FR NA 224.104
Pacific DPS). Pacific Ocean. originating from CITATION WHEN
the Central West PUBLISHED AS A
Pacific Ocean, FINAL RULE].
bounded by the
following
coordinates:
41[deg] N.,
146[deg] E. in
the northwest;
41[deg] N.,
169[deg] E. in
the northeast;
9[deg] N.,
175[deg] W. in
the east;
13[deg] S.,
171[deg] E. in
the southeast;
along the
northern coast
of the island of
New Guinea; and
4.5[deg] N.,
129[deg] E. in
the west.
Sea turtle, green (East Indian- Chelonia mydas Eastern Indian Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR NA 17.42(b),
West Pacific DPS). and Western originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
Pacific Oceans. the Eastern PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
Indian and FINAL RULE].
Western Pacific
Oceans, bounded
by the following
lines and
coordinates:
41[deg] N. Lat.
in the north,
41[deg] N.,
146[deg] E. in
the northeast;
4.5[deg] N.,
129[deg] E. in
the southeast;
along the
southern coast
of the island of
New Guinea;
along the
western coast of
Australia (west
of 142[deg] E.
Long.); 40[deg]
S. Lat. in the
south; and
84[deg] E. Long.
in the east.
Sea turtle, green (East Pacific Chelonia mydas East Pacific Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR NA 17.42(b),
DPS). Ocean originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
the East Pacific PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
Ocean, bounded FINAL RULE].
by the following
lines and
coordinates:
41[deg] N.,
143[deg] W. in
the northwest;
41[deg] N. Lat.
in the north;
along the
western coasts
of the Americas;
40[deg] S. Lat.
in the south;
and 40[deg] S.,
96[deg] W. in
the southwest.
Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Mediterranean Sea Green sea turtles E [INSERT FR NA 224.104
(Mediterranean DPS). originating from CITATION WHEN
the PUBLISHED AS A
Mediterranean FINAL RULE].
Sea, bounded by
5.5[deg] W.
Long. in the
west.
Sea turtle, green (North Chelonia mydas North Atlantic Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR 226.208 17.42(b),
Atlantic DPS). Ocean originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
the North PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
Atlantic Ocean, FINAL RULE].
bounded by the
following lines
and coordinates:
48[deg] N. Lat.
in the north,
along the
western coasts
of Europe and
Africa (west of
5.5[deg] W.
Long.); north of
19[deg] N. Lat.
in the east;
19[deg] N.,
63.5[deg] W. in
the south;
10.5[deg] N.,
77[deg] W. in
the west; and
along the
eastern coasts
of the Americas
(north of
7.5[deg] N.,
77[deg] W.).
Sea turtle, green (North Indian Chelonia mydas North Indian Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR NA 17.42(b),
DPS). Ocean originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
the North Indian PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
Ocean, bounded FINAL RULE].
by: Africa and
Asia in the west
and north;
84[deg] E. Long.
in the east; and
the equator in
the south.
[[Page 15335]]
Sea turtle, green (South Chelonia mydas South Atlantic Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR NA 17.42(b),
Atlantic DPS). Ocean originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
the South PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
Atlantic Ocean, FINAL RULE].
bounded by the
following lines
and coordinates:
along the
northern and
eastern coasts
of South America
(east of
7.5[deg] N.,
77[deg] W.);
10.5[deg] N.,
77[deg] W. in
the west;
19[deg] N.,
63.5[deg] W. in
the northwest;
19[deg] N. Lat.
in the
northeast;
40[deg] S.,
19[deg] E. in
the southeast;
and 40[deg] S.
Lat. in the
south.
Sea turtle, green (Southwest Chelonia mydas Southwest Indian Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR NA 17.42(b),
Indian DPS). Ocean originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
the Southwest PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
Indian Ocean, FINAL RULE].
bounded by the
following lines:
the equator to
the north;
84[deg] E. Long.
to the east;
40[deg] S. Lat.
to the south;
and 19[deg] E.
Long (and along
the eastern
coast of Africa)
in the west.
Sea turtle, green (Southwest Chelonia mydas Southwestern Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR NA 17.42(b),
Pacific DPS). Pacific Ocean originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
the Southwestern PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
Pacific Ocean, FINAL RULE].
bounded by the
following lines
and coordinates:
along the
southern coast
of the island of
New Guinea and
the Torres
Strait (east of
142[deg] E
Long.); 13[deg]
S., 171[deg] E.
in the
northeast;
40[deg] S.,
176[deg] E. in
the southeast;
and 40[deg] S.,
142[deg] E. in
the southwest.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
3. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec. 223.201-202
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
Sec. 223.206(d)(9).
0
4. Amend the table in Sec. 223.102(e) by revising the entry ``Sea
turtle, green'' under Sea Turtles to read as follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(e) The threatened species under the jurisdiction of the Secretary
of Commerce are:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Citation(s) for listing Critical
Description of listed determination(s) habitat ESA Rules
Common name Scientific name entity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sea Turtles \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea turtle, green (Central North Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION NA 17.42(b), 223.205,
Pacific DPS). originating from the WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Central North Pacific FINAL RULE].
Ocean, bounded by the
following coordinates:
41[deg] N., 169[deg] E. in
the northwest; 41[deg] N.,
143[deg] W. in the
northeast; 9[deg] N.,
125[deg] W. in the
southeast; and 9[deg] N.,
175[deg] W in the
southwest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15336]]
Sea turtle, green (East Indian-West Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION NA 17.42(b), 223.205,
Pacific DPS). originating from the WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Eastern Indian and Western FINAL RULE].
Pacific Oceans, bounded by
the following lines and
coordinates: 41[deg] N.
Lat. in the north, 41[deg]
N., 146[deg] E. in the
northeast; 4.5[deg] N.,
129[deg] E. in the
southeast; along the
southern coast of the
island of New Guinea;
along the western coast of
Australia (west of
142[deg] E. Long.);
40[deg] S. Lat. in the
south; and 84[deg] E.
Long. in the east.
Sea turtle, green (East Pacific DPS) Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION NA 17.42(b), 223.205,
originating from the East WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Pacific Ocean, bounded by FINAL RULE].
the following lines and
coordinates: 41[deg] N.,
143[deg] W. in the
northwest; 41[deg] N. Lat.
in the north; along the
western coasts of the
Americas; 40[deg] S. Lat.
in the south; and 40[deg]
S., 96[deg] W. in the
southwest.
Sea turtle, green (North Atlantic Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION 226.08 17.42(b), 2223.205,
DPS). originating from the North WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Atlantic Ocean, bounded by FINAL RULE].
the following lines and
coordinates: 48[deg] N.
Lat. in the north, along
the western coasts of
Europe and Africa (west of
5.5[deg] W. Long.); north
of 19[deg] N. Lat. in the
east; 19[deg] N.,
63.5[deg] W. in the south;
10.5[deg] N., 77[deg] W.
in the west; and along the
eastern coasts of the
Americas (north of
7.5[deg] N., 77[deg] W.).
Sea turtle, green (North Indian DPS) Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION NA 17.42(b), 223.205,
originating from the North WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Indian Ocean, bounded by: FINAL RULE].
Africa and Asia in the
west and north; 84[deg] E.
Long. in the east; and the
equator in the south.
Sea turtle, green (South Atlantic Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION NA 17.42(b), 223.205,
DPS). originating from the South WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Atlantic Ocean, bounded by FINAL RULE].
the following lines and
coordinates: along the
northern and eastern
coasts of South America
(east of 7.5[deg] N.,
77[deg] W.); 10.5[deg] N.,
77[deg] W. in the west;
19[deg] N., 63.5[deg] W.
in the northwest; 19[deg]
N. Lat. in the northeast;
40[deg] S., 19[deg] E. in
the southeast; and 40[deg]
S. Lat. in the south.
Sea turtle, green (Southwest Indian Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION NA 17.42(b), 223.205,
DPS). originating from the WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Southwest Indian Ocean, FINAL RULE].
bounded by the following
lines: the equator to the
north; 84[deg] E. Long. to
the east; 40[deg] S. Lat.
to the south; and 19[deg]
E. Long (and along the
eastern coast of Africa)
in the west.
Sea turtle, green (Southwest Pacific Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION NA 17.42(b), 223.205,
DPS). originating from the WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Southwestern Pacific FINAL RULE].
Ocean, bounded by the
following lines and
coordinates: along the
southern coast of the
island of New Guinea and
the Torres Strait (east of
142[deg] E Long.); 13[deg]
S., 171[deg] E. in the
northeast; 40[deg] S.,
176[deg] E. in the
southeast; and 40[deg] S.,
142[deg] E. in the
southwest.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
\2\Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, is
limited to turtles while in the water.
[[Page 15337]]
PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
5. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
0
6. Amend Sec. 224.101(h) by revising the entry for ``Sea turtle,
green'' under Sea Turtles to read as follows:
Sec. 224.101 Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(h) The endangered species under the jurisdiction of the Secretary
of Commerce are:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Citation(s) for Critical
Description of listed listing habitat ESA rules
Common name Scientific name entity determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sea Turtles \2\
Sea turtle, green (Central Chelonia mydas.. Green sea turtles [INSERT FR NA 224.104
South Pacific DPS). originating from the CITATION WHEN
Central South PUBLISHED AS A
Pacific Ocean, FINAL RULE].
bounded by the
following
coordinates: 9[deg]
N., 175[deg] W. in
the northwest;
9[deg] N., 125[deg]
W. in the northeast;
40[deg] S., 96[deg]
W. in the southeast;
40[deg] S., 176[deg]
E. in the southwest;
and 13[deg] S.,
171[deg] E. in the
west.
Sea turtle, green (Central Chelonia mydas.. Green sea turtles [INSERT FR NA 224.104
West Pacific DPS). originating from the CITATION WHEN
Central West Pacific PUBLISHED AS A
Ocean, bounded by FINAL RULE].
the following
coordinates: 41[deg]
N., 146[deg] E. in
the northwest;
41[deg] N., 169[deg]
E. in the northeast;
9[deg] N., 175[deg]
W. in the east;
13[deg] S., 171[deg]
E. in the southeast;
along the northern
coast of the island
of New Guinea; and
4.5[deg] N.,
129[deg] E. in the
west.
Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas.. Green sea turtles [INSERT FR NA 224.104
(Mediterranean DPS). originating from the CITATION WHEN
Mediterranean Sea, PUBLISHED AS A
bounded by 5.5[deg] FINAL RULE].
W. Long. in the west.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
\2\ Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, is limited to turtles while in the water.
[FR Doc. 2015-06136 Filed 3-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
