Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations

of the

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Green Turtle

(Chelonia mydas)
Cover Photograph Courtesy of George Balazs
RECOVERY PLAN FOR U.S. PACIFIC POPULATIONS OF THE 

GREEN TURTLE 

(Chelonia mydas) 

Prepared by the 

Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery Team 

for 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Silver Spring, Maryland 

and 

Pacific Region 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Portland, Oregon 

Approved: 

~ezal Direct 

Date: /2'-23-77 

Dm 

Adrni$?!~o~~es, National Marine Fisheries Service 

Date: 1li-i Tr 
Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover

and/or protect the species. Plans are prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and sometimes with the assistance of

recovery teams, contractors, State agencies and others. Objectives will only be attained and

funds expended contingently upon appropriations, priorities and other budgetary constraints. 

Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals of

any individuals or agencies, other than those of NMFS and the FWS which were involved in

the plan formulation. They represent the official positions of NMFS and the FWS only after

they have been approved by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries or the Regional Director. 

Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in

species status and the completion of recovery tasks.

Literature citations should read as follows:

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan

for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

Additional copies of this plan may be purchased from:

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service

5430 Grosvenor Lane

Suite 110

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

(301)492-6403 or 

1-800-582-3421

The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Green)

PREFACE ................................................................ iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................... iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................... v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... vi

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1

A. Geographic Scope .................................................. 1

B. Historical and Cultural Background ..................................... 4

C. Taxonomy ........................................................ 5

D. Description ....................................................... 5

E. Population Distribution and Size ....................................... 6

Nesting Grounds ................................................ 6

Insular and Pelagic Range ........................................ 8

F. Status .......................................................... 11

G. Biological Characteristics ........................................... 12

Migration and Movements ........................................ 12

Foraging Biology and Diet ........................................ 14

Growth ...................................................... 15

Reproduction .................................................. 16

Offshore Behavior .............................................. 17

Health Status .................................................. 17

H. Threats ......................................................... 18

Pacific Synopsis ............................................... 18

Regional Summaries ............................................ 20

U.S. West Coast ......................................... 20

American Samoa ......................................... 20

Hawaii ................................................. 20

Guam .................................................. 21

Republic of Palau ......................................... 21

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) ........... 22

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) ........................ 22

Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) ......................... 23

Unincorporated Islands .................................... 24

General Threat Information ....................................... 26

Nesting Environment ...................................... 26

1. Directed Take .................................... 26

2. Increased Human Presence ......................... 28

3. Coastal Construction .............................. 28

4. Nest Predation ................................... 29

5. Beach Erosion ................................... 30

 6. Artificial Lighting ................................. 31
ii

 7. Beach Mining .................................... 32

 8. Vehicular Driving on Beaches ....................... 33

 9. Exotic Vegetation ................................ 33

10. Beach Cleaning ................................. 33

11. Beach Replenishment ............................ 34

Marine Environment ....................................... 34

12. Directed Take ................................... 34

13. Natural Disasters ................................ 35

14. Disease and Parasites ............................ 36

15. Algae, Seagrass, and Reef Degradation .............. 36

16. Environmental Contaminants ....................... 37

17. Debris (Entanglement and Ingestion) ................. 39

18. Fisheries (Incidental Take) ......................... 40

19. Predation ...................................... 41

20. Boat Collisions .................................. 41

21. Marina and Dock Development ..................... 41

22. Dredging ....................................... 42

23. Dynamite “Fishing” ............................... 43

24. Oil Exploration and Development .................... 43

25. Power Plant Entrapment .......................... 43

26. Construction Blasting ............................. 43

I. Conservation Accomplishments ....................................... 44

Legislation .................................................... 44

Traditional Controls ............................................. 44

Protected Areas ................................................ 45

Other Plans and Regulations ...................................... 47

Headstart and Hatchery Programs ................................. 47

Sea Turtle Conservation and Management Plans ...................... 48

Research and Education ......................................... 48

Effectiveness of Conservation Accomplishments ...................... 48

II. RECOVERY ............................................................ 50

A. Recovery Objectives ................................................ 50

B. Step Down Outline and Narrative for Recovery ........................... 51

III. REFERENCES CITED .................................................... 64

IV. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ........................................... 73
iii

PREFACE

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

share responsibilities at the Federal level for the research, management, and recovery of Pacific

marine turtle populations under U.S. jurisdiction. To accomplish the drafting of this recovery plan,

NMFS appointed a team of professional biologists experienced with marine turtles in the Pacific

region. This document is one of six recovery plans (one for each of the five species plus one for

the regionally important population of the East Pacific green turtle). 

While similar in format to previously drafted sea turtle recovery plans for the Atlantic,

Caribbean, and Hawaii, the unique nature of the wider Pacific region required some modification

of the recovery plan format. The geographic scope of the present plan is much larger than any

previously attempted and considers areas from the western coastal United States extending to

Guam. Furthermore, the amount of jurisdictional overlap between nations, commonwealths,

territories and compact-of-free-association-states and their various turtle populations required a

broader management perspective than has been attempted previously. Finally, sea turtles have

not been studied as comprehensively in the Pacific as in other U.S. areas, and thus there are

many areas in the Pacific where basic biological and ecological information must be obtained for

management purposes. Thus, these plans have more extensive text on the general biology of the

turtles, so that they might act as a resource to managers seeking a handy reference to the

species. The plans are also subdivided into U.S. jurisdictional areas (i.e., the various territories

and the commonwealth), so that local managers can address issues within their respective regions

more easily. 

Because of the previously noted aspects of marine turtle distribution in the Pacific (e.g., wide

geographic range, multiple jurisdictions), the Recovery Team relied on the input and involvement

of a large number of advisers, as can be noted by the lengthy Acknowledgments section. It is

hoped that the resulting document is one that acts as a pragmatic guide to recovering the

threatened and endangered sea turtle populations in the Pacific Ocean.

The members of the Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery Team and the authors of this document are:

Scott A. Eckert, Ph.D. (Team Leader)

Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute

Javier Alvarado, Ph.D.

Universidad de Michoacan, Mexico

George Balazs

National Marine Fisheries Service

Richard Byles, Ph.D.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Peter Craig, Ph.D.

Office of Wildlife and Marine Resources,

Government of American Samoa

Peter Dutton, Ph.D.

Texas A&M University

Karen Eckert, Ph.D.

Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation

Network (WIDECAST)

John Engbring

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

James Maragos, Ph.D.

East-West Center

Robert Pitman

National Marine Fisheries Service

Susan Pultz

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

James I. Richardson. Ph.D.

University of Georgia
iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The team wishes to thank and acknowledge the following technical advisors and contributors to

these recovery plans:

David Aldan, Department of Natural Resources, Saipan, MP 

Pablo Arenas, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

Representative Mariano W. Carlos, Palau 

Chuck Cook, The Nature Conservancy

Donald David, FSM

Gerry Davis, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, Dept. Agriculture, Guam

Oscar DeBrum, former Chief Secretary, RMI

Adrienne Farago, SPREP/RMTCP, Western Samoa

Michael Guilbeaux, Georgia Sea Turtle Cooperative

Vincent Hachiglou, Marine Resources Management Division, Yap State Government

Heidi Hirsh, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam

Paul Holthus, IUCN Biodiversity Program

Luciana Honigman, The Nature Conservancy

Noah Idechong, Division of Marine Resources, Palau

John Iou, Marine Resources Management Division, Yap State Government

Bruce Jensen, Pacific Magazine

Harry Kami, Hilo, Hawaii

Angela Kay Kepler, Athens, Georgia

Steve Kolinski, Marine Resources Management Division, Yap State Government

Colin Limpus, Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, Australia

Becky Madraisau, Micronesian Mariculture Demonstration Center, Republic of Palau

B. Renè Màrquez-M., P.N.I.T.M./INP, Mexico 

Donna McDonald, Ocean Planet Research

Ken McDermond, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu

Jeffery Miller, Queensland Department of Environment & Heritage, Australia

Susan Miller, South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP)

Karen Miller McClune, Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute

Moses Nelson, Marine Resources Division, FSM

Peter Oliver, RMI

Arnold Palacios, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dept. of Natural Resources, CNMI

Peter Pritchard, Florida Audubon Society

Georgita Ruiz, Colonia Irrigacion, Mexico

Laura Sarti, Universidad Naçional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico

Fumihiko Sato, Ogasawara Marine Center, Japan

Katsufumi Sato, Kyoto University, Japan

Asterio Takesy, Secretary of Resources and Development, FSM

Natasha Tuato’o-Bartley, Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, American Samoa

Itaru Uchida, Port of Nagoya Public Aquarium, Japan 

Richard Wass, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Phil Williams, National Marine Fisheries Service
v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CCL curved carapace length

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora

CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

DAWR Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

ENSO El Niño - Southern Oscillation

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act

ETP Eastern Tropical Pacific

FENA females estimated to nest annually 

FSM Federated States of Micronesia

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

HSWRI Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute

IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

INP Instituto Nacional de Pesca

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature

MHI Main Hawaiian Islands

MIMRA Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority

MMDC Micronesian Mariculture Demonstration Center

MRMD Marine Resources Management Division, Yap State government 

mtDNA mitochondrial DNA

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service (Soil Conservation Service)

NWHI Northwest Hawaiian Islands

PNG Papua New Guinea

RMI Republic of the Marshall Islands

SCL straight carapace length

SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric 

SPREP South Pacific Regional Environment Program

TAMU Texas A & M University

TED Turtle Excluder Device 

UNAM Universidad Naçional Autonoma de Mexico

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USVI U.S. Virgin Islands

WIDECAST Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network
vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current Status: The green turtle is listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA) throughout its Pacific Range, except for the Endangered population nesting on the Pacific

coast of Mexico which is covered under the Recovery Plan for the East Pacific green turtle. In

reviewing this species’ current status, the Recovery Team found that, outside of Hawaii, the green

turtle populations have seriously declined and should probably be classified as Endangered. By

far, the most serious threat to these stocks is from direct take of turtles and eggs, both within U.S.

jurisdiction and on shared stocks that are killed when they migrate out of U.S. jurisdiction (e.g.,

nesting turtles from American Samoa migrate to Fiji and French Polynesia to feed). In Hawaii,

green turtle populations appear to have a somewhat less dire status, probably due to effective

protection at the primary nesting areas of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands and better enforcement

of regulations prohibiting take of the species. However, the relatively recent increase in the

incidence of the tumorous disease, fibropapillomatosis, in the Hawaiian green turtle threatens to

eliminate improvements in the status of the stock. Another serious threat to green turtle

populations throughout the Pacific is associated with increasing human populations and

development. In particular, human development is having an increasingly serious impact on green

nesting beaches.

Goal: The recovery goal is to delist the species.

Recovery Criteria: To consider de-listing, all of the following criteria must be met:

1) All regional stocks that use U.S. waters have been identified to source beaches based on

reasonable geographic parameters. 

2) Each stock must average 5,000 (or a biologically reasonable estimate based on the goal

of maintaining a stable population in perpetuity) females estimated to nest annually (FENA)

over six years. 

3) Nesting populations at "source beaches" are either stable or increasing over a 25-year

monitoring period.

4) Existing foraging areas are maintained as healthy environments. 

5) Foraging populations are exhibiting statistically significant increases at several key foraging

grounds within each stock region.

6) All Priority #1 tasks have been implemented.

7) A management plan to maintain sustained populations of turtles is in place.

8) International agreements are in place to protect shared stocks. 

Actions Needed: Eight major actions are needed to achieve recovery (not in order of priority).
vii

1) Stop the direct harvest of green sea turtles and eggs, through education and law

enforcement actions.

2) Eliminate the threat of fibropapillomas to green turtle populations.

3) Reduce incidental harvest of green turtles by commercial and artisanal fisheries.

4) Determine population size and status through regular nesting beach and in-water

censuses.

5) Identify stock home ranges using DNA analysis.

6) Support conservation and biologically viable management of green turtle populations in

countries that share U.S. green turtle stocks.

7) Identify and protect primary nesting and foraging areas for the species.

8) Eliminate adverse effects of development on green turtle nesting and foraging habitats.

9) Control non-native predators of eggs and hatchlings, e.g., mongoose, feral cats, and pigs,

in the Hawaiian population.
1

RECOVERY PLAN FOR U.S. PACIFIC POPULATIONS OF THE

GREEN TURTLE (Chelonia mydas)

Written by the

U.S. Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery Team

I. INTRODUCTION 

A. Geographic Scope 

Defining the geographic range of a population of sea turtles in the Pacific Ocean is difficult.

Sea turtles are highly migratory, and the life histories of all species exhibit complex movements

and migrations through geographically disparate habitats. Because the U.S. Pacific Sea Turtle

Recovery Team is required to focus on sea turtle populations that reside within U.S. jurisdiction,

we must delineate what constitutes a population where individuals reside permanently or

temporarily within U.S. jurisdiction and what actions must be taken to restore that population. This

has proven to be quite challenging because sea turtles do not recognize arbitrary national

boundaries and in most cases we have only limited data on stock ranges and movements of the

various populations. In this recovery plan we have tried to make these judgements with the best

information available, and to suggest means by which the United States can promote population

recovery. 

Geographic scope (from a U.S. jurisdictional perspective) for all six of the U.S. Pacific sea

turtle recovery plans (written for five species and one regionally important population) is defined

as follows: in the eastern Pacific, the west coast of the continental United States (Figure 1a); in

the central Pacific, the state of Hawaii and the unincorporated U.S. territories of Howland, Baker,

Wake, Jarvis, and Midway Islands, Johnston Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, and Kingman Reef; in Oceania,

Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and American Samoa (see

Figure 1b). The U.S.-affiliated but independent nations of the Republic of the Marshall Islands

(RMI), Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), and the Republic of Palau are also included. The

FSM consists of the states of Yap, Pohnpei, Chuuk, and Kosrae. While independent, all retain

clearly defined administrative links to the United States in the areas of defense, natural resource

management, and some regulatory issues. Thus, we include them here in an advisory capacity.

Finally, where eastern Pacific sea turtles are held in common with Mexico, discussion of the status

and recovery of these stocks will also include discussion of the resource under Mexican

jurisdiction. In all cases where U.S. sea turtle stocks are held in common with other sovereign

states, we have tried to suggest means by which the United States can support efforts at

management of those stocks by those states. We recognize that other nations may have different

priorities than the United States and we have sincerely attempted to avoid establishing policy for

those nations.

By virtue of the highly migratory behavior of the adult turtles, and the shifting habitat

requirements of post-hatchlings and juveniles, it is known that at least some of the populations of

green turtles in this vast region cross international boundaries. The adjacent ocean and

island-areas of Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, and even the Philippines (including the South
Figure 1 a. Western coasts of the United States, Canada and Mexico (as well as Central and 

northern South America) constitute a shared habitat for Pacific sea turtles. 
Figure I b. The western Pacific constitutes a shared habitat for Pacific sea turtles. 

3 
A separate Recovery Plan has been prepared for the East Pacific green turtle (also called the 

black turtle) Chelonia mydas whose geographic range extends along the coastal waters of the 

North, Central and South American continents including the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador. 

B. Historical and Cultural Background 

Wherever and whenever available, green turtles and their eggs have been eaten and esteemed 

for centuries by the native inhabitants of the insular Pacific region (Johannes 1978, 1986; Lessa 

1984; McCoy 1974, 1982; Smith 1991 ; South Pacific Region Environment Programme [SPREP] 

1991). The red meat, viscera, and eggs of the green turtle have supplied a nutritious and succulent 

alternative to the more common items usually available, such as fish, birds, shellfish, coconuts, 

breadfruit and taro. The adult female turtles are especially prized due to their large quantities of fat. 

The utilization of green turtles for food and other purposes was often under strict control, 

usually by some form of an island council or tribal chief. In both Polynesia and Micronesia turtles 

were considered the property of royalty, and harvest was often restricted to special occasions. In 

the Samoan Islands, certain families in the village were designated turtle hunters, upon whom the 

village chief would rely to catch turtles when requested. In other areas such as the RMI, only the 

harvest of nesting females was regulated with a nesting turtle considered the property of the atoll 

chief. Turtles caught in the water were the property of the fisherman who caught them (Glen 

Lokjohn, Wotje Atoll resident pers. comm.). In some areas the green turtle was reserved for feasts 

which were attended exclusively by men. In the Hawaiian Islands, in ancient times, women were 

entirely prohibited from eating turtles (Balazs 1980). Certain parts of the green turtle, such as the 

fat, were also used for medicinal purposes to treat burns and other skin disorders. In addition, 

dried carapaces of the green turtle were used as containers, and the disarticulated bones were 

used for kitchen utensils, sewing needles, fish hooks and agricultural tools. While green turtle 

scutes are also known to have been fashioned into ornaments and utensils, the thicker and more 

attractive plates of the hawksbill were preferred for this purpose whenever available. Live 

hatchlings were (and in some places still are) commonly raised as pets where they eventually died 

or were released or eaten when they grew to a certain size. 

Religious, ceremonial, and other traditional restrictions on the capture, killing, distribution and 

consumption of green turtles played an important role in their utilization. For example, in the 

Hawaiian lslands there were families that considered the green turtle to be a personal family deity 

or "aumakua", not to be eaten or harmed. One legendary turtle in particular named Kauila was 

believed to be able to change at will into human form to watch over village children playing along 

the shoreline. Artistic elements of green turtles have also been featured prominently in some 

cultures of the region, such as in petroglyphs and tattoo designs. 

The green turtle's decline combined with significant alteration and modernization of nearly all 

island cultures within the region has reduced the cultural importance of green turtles. Green turtles 

have declined in many areas due to an increased ability to hunt them locally and more efficiently 

with modern fishing gear, and to travel great distances with motorized vessels to gather mating and 

nesting turtles at formerly remote breeding sites. At the same time, canned foods, refrigeration, 

and associated modern technologies have been imported and embraced by most if not all island 

societies. Family and village social structures have been altered by immigration, emigration, the 

introduction of cash and commercial market economies, and the institution of state or federal 
government control of natural resources. Nevertheless, green turtles retain some level of cultural 

and culinary importance throughout the Pacific (for example, see Smith 1991). 

Additional information on the historical and cultural significance of green turtles in the region 

can be found in Tuato'o-Bartley et al. (1 993), Balazs (1 982c, 1983a, 1983b, 1985c), Hiatt (1 951 ), 

Johannes (1 981), Lessa (1 962), Tobin (1 952), and Tobin et al. (1 957). 

C. Taxonomy 

The green turtle was first described by Linnaeus in 1758 as Testudo mydas, with Ascension 

Island in the Atlantic as the type locality. Schweigger in 1812 first applied the binomial Chelonia 

mydas in use today. 

The current taxonomic status of the green turtle is uncertain. Mitochondria1 DNA research 

conducted by Bowen et al. (1992) showed a fundamental phylogenetic split distinguishing all green 

turtles in the Atlantic-Mediterranean from those in the Indian-Pacific Oceans. There is no evidence 

for genetic distinctiveness of the often-recognized taxonomic form in the east Pacific called the 

East Pacific green, or the black turtle, Chelonia mydas (agassizii) (Bowen et al. 1992; Dutton et al. 

1996). Although trinomials have been applied to various populations in the past, they are generally 

not in use today with the exception of the East Pacific green turtle. Hirth (1971a) concluded that 

"it is best to use the binomial, Chelonia mydas, for all green turtles until a detailed taxonomic study 

is made." Until additional morphological and genetic research is conducted, Hirth's advice remains 

valid. 

A geographic population substructure within each ocean basin involves fixed or nearly fixed 

genotypic differences between nesting populations. This suggests a strong propensity for natal 

homing by the females (see also Meylan et al. 1990). MtDNA data suggest that the global 

matriarchal phylogeny of Chelonia mydas has been shaped by the ocean basin separations and 

regionally by the natal homing behavior. The shallow evolutionary structure of Chelonia 

populations within ocean basins likely resulted from extinction and colonization of rookeries over 

time-frames that are short by evolutionary standards, but long by ecological standards (Bowen et 

al. 1992). Consequently, in terms of conservation and management, the available evidence 

indicates that breeding sites must be considered as demographically independent units. For 

additional discussions of the systematics of the green turtle see Hirth (1980), Pritchard and 

Trebbau (1 984) and Groombridge and Luxmoore (1 989). 

D. Description 

The green turtle is the largest of the cheloniids, with adults that can exceed one meter in 

carapace length and 100 kg in body mass. Green turtles nesting at French Frigate Shoals in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) average 92 cm in straight carapace length (SCL; range 

81 -1 06 cm, n=379) (Balazs 1980). At Olimarao Atoll, Yap, FSM, 27 adult females handled during 

1990 averaged 104 cm in curved carapace length (CCL; range 93-1 17 cm), and approximately 140 

kg in body mass (range 97 to greater than 181 kg) (Kolinski 1991). Hatchlings average about 4.7 

to 5.4 cm in carapace length, and 22 to 31 g in weight (Marquez 1990 in Eckert 1993). 
6

A separate Recovery Plan has been prepared for the East Pacific green turtle (also called the

black turtle) Chelonia mydas whose geographic range extends along the coastal waters of the

North, Central and South American continents including the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador.

B. Historical and Cultural Background 

Wherever and whenever available, green turtles and their eggs have been eaten and

esteemed for centuries by the native inhabitants of the insular Pacific region (Johannes 1978,

1986; Lessa 1984; McCoy 1974, 1982; Smith 1991; South Pacific Region Environment

Programme [SPREP] 1991). The red meat, viscera, and eggs of the green turtle have supplied

a nutritious and succulent alternative to the more common items usually available, such as fish,

birds, shellfish, coconuts, breadfruit and taro. The adult female turtles are especially prized due

to their large quantities of fat.

The utilization of green turtles for food and other purposes was often under strict control,

usually by some form of an island council or tribal chief. In both Polynesia and Micronesia turtles

were considered the property of royalty, and harvest was often restricted to special occasions.

In the Samoan Islands, certain families in the village were designated turtle hunters, upon whom

the village chief would rely to catch turtles when requested. In other areas such as the RMI, only

the harvest of nesting females was regulated with a nesting turtle considered the property of the

atoll chief. Turtles caught in the water were the property of the fisherman who caught them (Glen

Lokjohn, Wotje Atoll resident pers. comm.). In some areas the green turtle was reserved for feasts

which were attended exclusively by men. In the Hawaiian Islands, in ancient times, women were

entirely prohibited from eating turtles (Balazs 1980). Certain parts of the green turtle, such as the

fat, were also used for medicinal purposes to treat burns and other skin disorders. In addition,

dried carapaces of the green turtle were used as containers, and the disarticulated bones were

used for kitchen utensils, sewing needles, fish hooks and agricultural tools. While green turtle

scutes are also known to have been fashioned into ornaments and utensils, the thicker and more

attractive plates of the hawksbill were preferred for this purpose whenever available. Live

hatchlings were (and in some places still are) commonly raised as pets where they eventually died

or were released or eaten when they grew to a certain size.

Religious, ceremonial, and other traditional restrictions on the capture, killing, distribution and

consumption of green turtles played an important role in their utilization. For example, in the

Hawaiian Islands there were families that considered the green turtle to be a personal family deity

or "aumakua", not to be eaten or harmed. One legendary turtle in particular named Kauila was

believed to be able to change at will into human form to watch over village children playing along

the shoreline. Artistic elements of green turtles have also been featured prominently in some

cultures of the region, such as in petroglyphs and tattoo designs.

The green turtle's decline combined with significant alteration and modernization of nearly all

island cultures within the region has reduced the cultural importance of green turtles. Green

turtles have declined in many areas due to an increased ability to hunt them locally and more

efficiently with modern fishing gear, and to travel great distances with motorized vessels to gather

mating and nesting turtles at formerly remote breeding sites. At the same time, canned foods,

refrigeration, and associated modern technologies have been imported and embraced by most

if not all island societies. Family and village social structures have been altered by immigration,

emigration, the introduction of cash and commercial market economies, and the institution of state
7

or federal government control of natural resources. Nevertheless, green turtles retain some level

of cultural and culinary importance throughout the Pacific (for example, see Smith 1991).

Additional information on the historical and cultural significance of green turtles in the region

can be found in Tuato'o-Bartley et al. (1993), Balazs (1982c, 1983a, 1983b, 1985c), Hiatt (1951),

Johannes (1981), Lessa (1962), Tobin (1952), and Tobin et al. (1957).

C. Taxonomy 

The green turtle was first described by Linnaeus in 1758 as Testudo mydas, with Ascension

Island in the Atlantic as the type locality. Schweigger in 1812 first applied the binomial Chelonia

mydas in use today.

The current taxonomic status of the green turtle is uncertain. Mitochondrial DNA research

conducted by Bowen et al. (1992) showed a fundamental phylogenetic split distinguishing all

green turtles in the Atlantic-Mediterranean from those in the Indian-Pacific Oceans. There is no

evidence for genetic distinctiveness of the often-recognized taxonomic form in the east Pacific

called the East Pacific green, or the black turtle, Chelonia mydas (agassizii) (Bowen et al. 1992;

Dutton et al. 1996). Although trinomials have been applied to various populations in the past, they

are generally not in use today with the exception of the East Pacific green turtle. Hirth (1971a)

concluded that "it is best to use the binomial, Chelonia mydas, for all green turtles until a detailed

taxonomic study is made." Until additional morphological and genetic research is conducted,

Hirth's advice remains valid. 

A geographic population substructure within each ocean basin involves fixed or nearly fixed

genotypic differences between nesting populations. This suggests a strong propensity for natal

homing by the females (see also Meylan et al. 1990). MtDNA data suggest that the global

matriarchal phylogeny of Chelonia mydas has been shaped by the ocean basin separations and

regionally by the natal homing behavior. The shallow evolutionary structure of Chelonia

populations within ocean basins likely resulted from extinction and colonization of rookeries over

time-frames that are short by evolutionary standards, but long by ecological standards (Bowen et

al. 1992). Consequently, in terms of conservation and management, the available evidence

indicates that breeding sites must be considered as demographically independent units. For

additional discussions of the systematics of the green turtle see Hirth (1980), Pritchard and

Trebbau (1984) and Groombridge and Luxmoore (1989). 

D. Description 

The green turtle is the largest of the cheloniids, with adults that can exceed one meter in

carapace length and 100 kg in body mass. Green turtles nesting at French Frigate Shoals in the

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) average 92 cm in straight carapace length (SCL; range

81-106 cm, n=379) (Balazs 1980). At Olimarao Atoll, Yap, FSM, 27 adult females handled during

1990 averaged 104 cm in curved carapace length (CCL; range 93-117 cm), and approximately

140 kg in body mass (range 97 to greater than 181 kg) (Kolinski 1991). Hatchlings average about

4.7 to 5.4 cm in carapace length, and 22 to 31 g in weight (Márquez 1990 in Eckert 1993).
8

Characteristics that distinguish the green from other species of sea turtles include a smooth

carapace with four pairs of lateral scutes, a single pair of prefrontal scales, and a lower jaw-edge

that is coarsely serrated, corresponding to strong grooves and ridges on the inner surface of the

upper jaw (Carr 1952; Hirth 1971a; Pritchard and Trebbau 1984).

The term "green" refers not to the external coloration, but to the color of the turtle's subdermal

fat. The carapace of adult green turtles is light to dark brown, sometimes shaded with olive, with

radiating wavy or mottled markings of a darker color or with large blotches of dark brown (Carr

1952). The carapace coloration changes as the turtle grows from a hatchling to an adult.

Juveniles measuring 35-65 cm in the insular Pacific region have streaked or radiating sunburst

patterns of yellowish-gold, olive, light and dark brown, reddish brown, and black. Dorsal coloration

of the green turtle likely has adaptive significance as camouflage from chief predators (e.g., tiger

sharks) while the turtle rests motionlessly on the bottom amongst coral and other benthic

substrate. The adult plastron ranges from yellowish to orange, although in the East Pacific form

there is considerable grayish pigment. All hatchling green turtles have a black dorsal surface and

a pure white venter. However, in some Pacific populations such as at French Frigate Shoals

NWHI, (Balazs 1986) and Mopelia in French Polynesia, post-hatchlings go through a radical

pigment transformation of the plastron from white to nearly all black, and then returning to white

again. This occurs during the period of growth between 5-15 cm in carapace length. The adaptive

significance of this ontogenetic switch and just how widespread it may be throughout the Pacific

region and elsewhere worldwide, are unknown.

E. Population Distribution and Size 

The green turtle is a circumglobal species found in tropical seas and, to a lesser extent, in

subtropical waters with temperatures above 20EC. Worldwide distribution has been described at

length by Hirth (1971b), Groombridge (1982), and Groombridge and Luxmoore (1989). Insular

populations of the Pacific are summarized by Forsyth and Balazs (1989).

Nesting Grounds

Groombridge (1982) estimates that there are approximately 150 extant nesting colonies

(demographically independent units) worldwide for the green turtle. However, only 10-15 of these

are large enough to involve 2,000 or more nesting females per year. None of these large colonies

occur within the insular Pacific region, although Australia's Great Barrier Reef does serve as such

a site (see Limpus 1978, 1982).

Nesting by ten or fewer females each year takes place at scattered, but probably not very

numerous locations throughout this vast oceanic region (e.g., in Guam and CNMI) (see Balazs

1982a; Pritchard 1977, 1982b). A review of critical nesting habitats for green turtles at certain U.S.

sites in the Pacific has been presented by Dodd (1978) and Balazs (1978).

The patterns of green turtle exploitation, both historically and more recently at an accelerated

pace, have affected the present distribution of the remaining breeding sites. This distribution

illustrates the historical decline of the species by the fact that the only extant island-breeding sites

of any consequence are those that have not been permanently inhabited by humans, or have not

been visited frequently for exploitation. The recognition of this important demographic point

serves to emphasize what has happened to the green turtle in the past. It also highlights the fact
9

that more effective, intensive, and sustained conservation measures are needed in the near future

to prevent this valued resource from declining even further.

Because sea turtles remain faithful to their natal beaches, the excessive harvesting of turtles

at a nesting site will not be replenished by the recruitment of turtles from other nesting sites. This

view is consistent with the distributional pattern of remaining nesting sites in relation to human

exploitation, as noted in the previous section.

It should be stressed that, with the exception of French Frigate Shoals, all of the following

estimates are based on very limited and fragmentary data that require verification by additional

research spanning at least three, and preferably five or more, consecutive years of monitoring and

tagging at each site. Nevertheless, based on the information presently available, at least the

orders of magnitude of these estimates are believed to be reasonably correct (Balazs 1991; Edson

and Curren 1987; Hendrickson 1972; Hirth 1971a; Kolinski 1991; Smith 1991; Tuato'o-Bartley et

al. 1993; Thomas 1989; Holthus et al. 1993; and various unpublished information from

correspondents including S. Kolinski, A. Smith, T. Herring, D. Itano and others).

U.S. West Coast

No known nesting.

Hawaii

Nesting occurs throughout the Hawaiian archipelago, but over 90% occurs at French Frigate

Shoals, Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), where 200-700 females are estimated to nest

annually (FENA = Females Estimated to Nest Annually) (see Balazs et al. 1992). Low level

nesting (less than 25 FENA) is known or is likely to occur at Laysan Island, Lisianski Island, and

Pearl and Hermes Reef.

American Samoa

The major nesting site for this area is Rose Atoll, with an estimated 25-35 FENA (Tuato'oBartley et al. 1993). Low level nesting may occur at Tutuila and the Manua Group. 

Guam

There is some regular low-level nesting of green turtles on Guam (Pritchard 1982a; Gerry

Davis, Guam, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR), pers. comm.).

Republic of Palau

Helen Reef was until recently uninhabited and may have supported 100-500 nesting females.

A 1991 survey found eight residents on the island and only a few turtles nesting (Geermans 1992)

and there is concern that this colony may be in the process of being extirpated (J. Maragos, EastWest Center, pers. comm.). Merir had 100 FENA in 1991 and is the most important nesting area

of Palau (Geermans 1992). Sonsorol, Fanna, Tobi and Pulo Anna have less than 25 FENA

(Geermans 1992; Maragos et al. 1994). There are also a few green turtles nesting at Kayangel
10

Atoll and at the uninhabited Ngeruangal Atoll (Maragos 1994) and also at Anguar, Peleliu, and

coastal Babeldaob (M. Guilbeaux, University of Georgia, pers. comm.).

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)

Fewer than ten green turtles nest on the islands of Saipan, Tinian and Rota each year. The

extent of nesting on the northern islands is unknown.

Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI)

Bikar Atoll may have 100-500 nesting females. During one short stay (11 nights) late in the

nesting season 48 turtles were tagged in 1992 (Puleloa and Kilma 1992). Breeding colonies in

Erikub and Jemo may each consist of 25 - 100 FENA (Puleloa and Kilma 1992). Low level nesting

(less than 25 FENA) occurs at Enewetak and Bikini.

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)

Sites thought to host breeding colonies of 100-500 FENA include Oroluk Atoll, Pohnpei;

Olimarao Atoll, Yap; and Gielop, Yap (322 were tagged in 1991). Elato, Lamotrek, Pikelot, West

Fayu and Gaferut in Yap may have 25 to 100 FENA during most years (S. Kolinski, Marine

Resources Management Division [MRMD], Yap State govt., pers. comm. to G. Balazs). Harvesting

pressure on greens at Pikelot and West Fayu has increased in recent years corresponding to a

decline in nesting turtles, based upon observations and interviews of M. McCoy and J. Maragos

at Satanal (Yap State) in June-July 1995. 

Information compiled by Fosberg (1969), Johannes (1978), McCoy (1974, 1982), and Pritchard

(1977, 1982a,b) on the sea turtles of Micronesia provides valuable background information for

several of these sites. Iar, an islet close to Gielop just outside Ulithi Atoll in Yap, may host several

hundred nesting females annually and is clearly a priority site (along with Gielop) for future

research in the FSM (S. Kolinski, pers. comm.).

Unincorporated U.S. Island Territories

Low density nesting was recorded along the west coast of Jarvis Island in the 1930s (Bryan

1974 in Balazs 1982a) as well as a low level of nesting on Palmyra Atoll in 1987 (pers. comm.

Stewart Feffer to James Maragos), other areas are unknown. 

Insular and Pelagic Range

The pelagic range of post-hatchling and juvenile green turtles in the insular Pacific region is

not known. A similar situation exists for all sea turtle populations worldwide. There are three

inherent problems which impede research of pelagic-phase turtles. First, the whereabouts of the

turtles are not known, although they are generally assumed to be at, or near, the ocean surface

along drift lines where surface waters are brought together by advection and downwelling (Carr

1987a). Secondly, once the pelagic locations of the turtles have been identified, there are

problems in devising an efficient and safe sampling technique so that statistically significant

numbers of turtles can be captured. Lastly, a means to determine the origin of the turtles with
11

respect to the nesting beaches where they were hatched will be needed. Some advances in

genetics research have already been made in this area (see Bowen et al. 1992).

Pelagic-dwelling juvenile green turtles have been captured during recent years, albeit in

relatively low numbers, by commercial driftnet vessels fishing in international waters to the north

and west of the Hawaiian Islands (Balazs and Wetherall 1991; Wetherall et al. 1993). These

turtles may originate from nesting beaches in Hawaii, the Bonin Islands (Suganuma 1991), or

possibly even the RMI. Juvenile green turtles have also been observed by research vessels

operating thousands of miles from land in the southeastern Pacific (Eckert 1993).

U.S. West Coast

Stranding reports (Cordaro, NMFS, pers. comm.) indicate that Chelonia is a regular visitor in

waters off the southwest coast of the United States. A small (30-50) group resident in San Diego

Bay, California shows physical characteristics of both the Mexican and the Hawaiian breeding

populations (Dutton and McDonald 1990). The turtles appear to remain as residents in the area

because of the warm water effluent from a power generating station. A northern record of a

stranding in Homer, Alaska, was reported in 1993 (Loshbaugh 1993), although this turtle may

have died in waters further south and drifted north with the current. 

Hawaii

Green turtles inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands are among the best known in the Pacific in terms

of their nearshore benthic foraging pastures and associated underwater habitats. Important

resident areas have been identified and are under study along the coastlines of Oahu, Molokai,

Maui, Lanai, Hawaii, as well as at Lisianski Island and Pearl and Hermes Reef (Balazs et al. 1987;

Balazs 1979, 1980, 1982b). The shallow waters within French Frigate Shoals have been identified

as inter-nesting habitat for adult females and also adult males that migrate to breed at this key site

(Dizon and Balazs 1982). The available evidence indicates that the range of adult green turtles

using French Frigate Shoals is confined to the 2,400 km expanse of the Hawaiian Archipelago

(Balazs 1976, 1983b) and to Johnston Atoll immediately to the South, where algal foraging

pastures occur (Balazs 1985a).

American Samoa

Green turtles occur in the waters off Tutuila and the Manua Group of American Samoa, but

apparently not in great numbers. The green turtles that nest at Rose Atoll likely feed elsewhere

in the central South Pacific where sea grasses and algae are abundant. Distant recoveries of two

turtles tagged at Rose Atoll were made in Fiji, where they were taken by net and eaten (Balazs

1991; Tuato'o-Bartley et al. 1993) and one other was taken at Vanuatu (G. Balazs, NMFS, pers.

comm.). Three satellite-tagged females migrated to Fiji after nesting at Rose Atoll (Balazs 1994),

and one other migrated to French Polynesia (Craig and Balazs 1995). All four turtles were

believed to have returned to their resident foraging pastures.
12

Guam

Green turtles have been sighted throughout the area during all months of the year, particularly

during December to February and May to June. There was a total of 783 turtle sightings during

surveys from 1975 through 1979 (Pritchard 1982a). 

Republic of Palau

Very little information exists on the range of green turtles foraging at Palau, although Helen

Reef provides an important foraging area (Jim Maragos, pers. comm.). Because Palau contains

excellent sea grass and algal beds (Maragos et al. 1994) green turtles are probably found

throughout the area. Specific foraging areas have been at Helen Atoll, Angaur Island, Peleliu

Island, off the Southern Lagoon, and off major seagrass beds at Babeldaob, south of Oreor and

Sar Passage.

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Green turtles are caught by divers in the Northern Marianas (Pritchard 1982a) and according

to Honigman (1994) green turtles are found commonly in the waters of Tinian.

Republic of the Marshall Islands

Very little information exists on the range of green turtles foraging in the RMI. According to

fisheries officers of the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA), Arno Atoll provides

an important area for feeding green turtles of various size classes (V. Alfred, MIMRA, pers.

comm.). Green turtles have also been caught in the waters of Wotje Atoll and probably occur

around most of the islands and the Atolls in the RMI.

Federated States of Micronesia

Very little information exists on the range of numerous green turtles foraging in the FSM.

Benthic foraging habitats for green turtles nesting in the FSM appear to include coastal waters of

neighboring nations to the west and north as indicated by long-distance tag returns.

SCUBA divers have reported green turtles feeding in the lagoon at Oroluk Atoll (Naughton

1991; Holthus et al. 1993). There are undoubtedly many other feeding sites throughout the

region, but diving surveys have not been undertaken and the existing local knowledge has not

been comprehensively collected and reported upon.

Unincorporated U.S. Island Territories

Aggregations of resident green turtles are known to occur at Wake Island and Palmyra Atoll,

but only a few turtles have been seen in the waters around Howland, Baker, Jarvis, and Kingman

Reef during recent years (Balazs 1982a and unpubl. data).
13

F. Status 

The green turtle is listed as Endangered worldwide by the International Union for the

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) (Groombridge 1982), and the species

appears on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES). In 1978, under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, the

green turtle was listed and classified as Threatened, except for breeding populations in Florida

and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which were classified as Endangered. Both categories afford

substantial protection under rules promulgated at the time of listing (50 CFR 17.11) .

When green turtles were listed under the Act in 1978, a provision was included for their

"subsistence use" by native peoples living within the U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. At

that time, the FSM, RMI, CNMI, and the Republic of Palau comprised the Trust Territories of the

Pacific. Under this regulatory exemption only green turtles less than 30 inches could be taken and

only from below the high-tide mark for non-commercial sustenance purposes. During 1984 a

comprehensive review of this subsistence exemption was undertaken by the National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) to determine its validity, and whether or not there was justification to

expand it to other U.S. areas of the Pacific, such as Guam, American Samoa and the State of

Hawaii. The original subsistence exemption, along with its original geographical restriction of the

Trust Territory, was subsequently reaffirmed (Johannes 1986; NMFS 1985a, 1985b). However,

none of these island nations remain a part of the trust territory today.

Green turtles were originally listed under the ESA because of overexploitation for commercial

and other purposes, the lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms and effective enforcement,

evidence of declining numbers, and habitat loss and degradation. Overall, the survival status of

green turtles throughout the insular Pacific region has likely continued to decline due to directed

harvest (both illegal and legal) and negative impacts to essential habitats. For example, when

interviewed by a member of the Recovery Team, turtle fishermen and biologists from the Marshall

Islands suggested that turtle populations have declined 50% in the last 20 years due to

uncontrolled harvest of nesting turtles.

While green turtles in the Hawaiian Islands (Figure 2) have demonstrated some encouraging

signs of population recovery after 17 years of protective efforts, the conservation outlook for the

future is seriously compromised by the mortality of turtles from poaching, capture in nearshore

gillnets, and the increasing scope and magnitude of a tumor affliction disease known as

fibropapilloma (Balazs et al. 1992; Balazs and Pooley 1991).
14

Figure 2. Green turtle nesting at East Island, French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii, has tripled since enactment

of the Endangered Species Act. 

Additional up-to-date information on the status of sea turtles and their historical decline can

be found in National Research Council (1990) and Groombridge and Luxmoore (1989).

G. Biological Characteristics

Several valuable reviews covering the biological characteristics of the green turtle have been

published during recent years, including ones by Hirth (1980), Groombridge (1982), Ogren (1984),

and Pritchard and Trebbau (1984). Similar reviews containing more specific information on green

turtles in the Pacific Basin can found in Limpus (1978), Balazs (1980), Forsyth and Balazs (1989)

and Eckert (1993).

The following sections discuss in synoptic form the basic biological characteristics of the green

turtle with particular relevance to the insular Pacific region. As previously indicated, many facets

of the green turtle's life history and ecology remain unknown. This absence of essential

information constitutes a serious impediment to the long-term conservation and recovery of the

affected populations.

Migration and Movements

Adult green turtles periodically undertake reproductive migrations between resident foraging

pastures and distant sites where copulation and egg laying take place. These migrations are

carried out by members of nearly all populations worldwide, even though in many cases there
15

would appear to be acceptable sites for nesting much closer to the turtles' home range. The

reason for migrating is therefore something of an evolutionary enigma, although the proper

dispersal of hatchlings by ocean currents off a particular nesting beach may be a crucial factor

(Collard and Ogren 1990). The oceanic routes taken by the adults on their migrations, whether or

not they travel together, and the navigational techniques employed while migrating, are generally

unknown. Adult females migrate to breed once every two or more years, while the adult males

often migrate on an annual basis, at least in the Hawaiian islands (Balazs 1983b). Sufficient

evidence exists to show that the turtles return to the same resident foraging areas following their

time spent at the breeding grounds.

Some important migrations by green turtles in the Pacific have been documented by tag and

recapture studies and satellite telemetry studies. In the Hawaiian Islands green turtles migrate to

French Frigate Shoals from foraging pastures located both to the northwest and the southeast,

involving one-way distances up to 1300 km. In 1991, three females were satellite-tracked from

their nesting grounds at French Frigate Shoals to foraging grounds in Kaneohe Bay and Johnston

Atoll. All three traveled beyond sight of land in water thousands of meters deep, two of them

against prevailing winds and currents (Balazs 1994). In American Samoa, five green turtles

migrated to Fiji, one to Vanuatu and another to French Polynesia after nesting at Rose Atoll

(Balazs et al. 1994b). At Scilly Atoll north of Tahiti in French Polynesia, green turtles tagged

during the nesting season have been recovered (i.e., captured and eaten) at several island groups

far to the west, including Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu, and New Caledonia (see Pritchard 1982b; Meylan

1982; and Forsyth and Balazs 1989; Balazs et al. 1995). Scilly Atoll is over 4000 km from New

Caledonia. A nesting turtle tagged during 1991 at Gielop in Yap was recovered in the Philippines.

Another turtle tagged while nesting at Oroluk in Pohnpei during 1986 was recovered (and

released) in healthy condition in Nan-way Bay on the western side of the southern tip of Taiwan

(Edson and Curren 1987). The turtle's capture and its release on a certain date, determined by

numerical considerations of the local religion, was believed to be a sign of good luck (G. Balazs,

pers. comm.). 

The movements of immature green turtles are less well known. This is because tagging to

document the movements of the immature life stages requires that turtles be captured in marine

benthic habitats or, even more difficult, their pelagic habitats. Nevertheless, the tagging that has

been done in the Hawaiian Islands (including Johnston Atoll) and in Australia suggests that the

immature turtles reside for many years at the same location, provided there is suitable food,

shelter, and environmental stability. The movement to a different foraging and resting location may

only occur when the turtle grows to a size where the existing habitat can no longer fulfill its needs.

The pelagic movements of post-hatchling and young juveniles are undocumented. Once they

emerge from the nest, hatchling green turtles move directly to the ocean and swim vigorously

seaward well beyond the nearshore environment. Their subsequent movements are presumably

influenced by ocean currents, winds, and other surface conditions until the turtles are large

enough for self-directed swimming (see section on Offshore Behavior).

The dispersal of green turtle hatchlings from natal beaches in the insular Pacific region has

only been considered for one nesting site, French Frigate Shoals, NWHI. Surface drift trajectories

were computed from composite oceanographic data to estimate the theoretical dispersal of

hatchlings for the principal months of emergence (July-October) and for each subsequent month

thereafter while adrift (Balazs 1976, 1980). These trajectories predicted a general movement to
16

the west, with pronounced hatchling dispersal to the north of French Frigate Shoals over a two

month period for those hatchlings departing during August (the peak month for nest emergence).

However, serious limitations of this preliminary analysis include the unknown influence of localized

eddies and gyres, and to what extent the turtles engage in self-directed swimming as they grow.

Foraging Biology and Diet 

Green turtles that have grown large enough (ca. 30-35 cm) to reside in the nearshore benthic

environment have a nearly exclusive herbivorous diet consisting of selected macroalgae and sea

grasses. The diets of post-hatchlings and juveniles living in pelagic habitats appear to be entirely

carnivorous (e.g., invertebrates and fish eggs), but records are only known from the occasional

turtles encountered. Information on the diet and nutrition of the green turtle has been

comprehensively reviewed by Mortimer (1982) and Bjorndal (1985). Algae and sea grasses occur

in the insular Pacific region, but their distribution, abundance, and utilization by green turtles are

only known for a few areas.

Seagrass beds are abundant in the high islands of the FSM (Kosrae, Pohnpei, Chuuk, Yap)

and the Republic of Palau (Koror, Babeldaob), concentrated on mostly fringing reef flats especially

in lagoons and a few barrier reef flats. Seagrasses are also present on some low coral islands

and atolls in the FSM and Marshalls. Exceptionally large seagrass meadows occur off northern

Babeldaob and northeast of Peliliu Island in Palau. The Palau Southwest Islands and Kayangel

Atoll in Palau also support small seagrass flats. Sea grasses are also present on some low coral

islands and atolls in the FSM and Marshalls.

Seagrasses are rare in the Mariana, Marshalls and Hawaiian Islands and absent in American

Samoa and the unincorporated islands. Guam supports well-developed seagrass beds on many

reef flats but only a few seagrass beds are found in the CNMI. Likewise only a few seagrass beds

have been reported on the atolls of the Marshall Islands (Arno, Kwajalein, Majuro).

At certain nearshore habitats of the Hawaiian Islands, green turtles feed heavily on benthic

algae of the genera Codium, Amansia, Pterocladia, Ulva, and Gelidium. In addition, two

ubiquitous species of exotic algae, Acanthophora spicifera and Hypnea musciformis, are widely

consumed. The former was believed to have been accidentally introduced from Guam on the hull

of a barge during the early 1950s. The latter species was intentionally brought from Florida in

1974 to the island of Oahu (and subsequently spread on its own elsewhere) as part of a seaweed

farming experiment (see Balazs et al. 1987; Russell and Balazs 1994). Green turtles in the

Hawaiian Islands also forage on hila hawaiiana, the endemic and only sea grass that occurs there.

However, it is not widespread nor abundant except for a few localized sites such as in Kaneohe

Bay on Oahu, South Molokai, and Anini on Kauai.

Green turtles resident to Johnston Atoll feed almost exclusively on the green algae, Caulerpa

racemosa and Bryopsis pennata. These two species grow in abundance along the south shore

of the main islet (Johnston Island) where an untreated human sewage outfall and chemical

weapons incineration plant are located (Balazs 1985a).

Analysis of stomach samples from 518 turtles from eastern Australia showed that algae

(various species of Rhodophyta, Cholorohyta and Phaeophyta) comprised over 99% of the diet
17

in most cases, although the hydrozoan jelly, Physalia sp., and unidentified gelatinous mollusk egg

cases were also consumed (Forbes 1994). The same study showed that the algal turf

assemblage was "heavily exploited by the Heron Reef green turtles", and that the turtles

undertook dietary shifts when certain algae became available.

Growth 

Green turtles living in the wild exhibit slow growth and delayed sexual maturity. The growth

rates of immature green turtles have been studied by in-water tag and recapture techniques

conducted in the Hawaiian Islands, Johnston Atoll, Australia, and at several sites in the western

Atlantic. Except for the first two locations, no research on growth of green turtles has been

undertaken anywhere else in the insular Pacific region.

Growth rates have been found to vary considerably at several discrete foraging sites in the

Hawaiian Islands located between the archipelago's extremities of latitudes 19E-28E North, and

longitudes 155E-178E West. The growth rates here ranged from about 1-5 cm per year in SCL

for turtles measuring 37-59 cm (Balazs 1979, 1982b, Balazs et al. 1994a). Some of the turtles

living at a foraging site situated at the lowest latitude (19EN) demonstrated the fastest rate of

growth (5 cm/year). The forage quality, algal species availability, and abundance were believed

to play a significant role in the turtles' relatively rapid growth. Turtles residing at this site fed

exclusively on the red alga, Ptercladia capillacea. It is speculated that substantially faster growth

rates may result at certain pastures having an abundance of high quality forage located at low

latitudes closer to the equator. Seagrass and algae beds in Fiji, the Gilbert Islands and the Gilbert

Islands and the Phoenix Islands (Kiribati), Western Samoa, Vanuatu, and Papua New Guinea

offer such a possibility (see Zug and Balazs 1985).

Continuing studies through 1991, which included additional Hawaiian green turtle foraging

pastures, indicated an overall average annual rate of growth of about two cm/year for all size

classes ranging from 35-82 cm. The minimum size observed for nesting females in Hawaii is 81

cm SCL (Balazs 1982b). Based on these data, it is estimated that an average of at least 25 years

would be needed to achieve sexual maturity (i.e., first breeding migration to French Frigate

Shoals). While these data are subject to more comprehensive analysis, results of a preliminary

study using skeletochronological aging techniques were consistent with the above findings (Zug

and Balazs 1985).

Growth studies conducted in Australia have indicated that the length of time required for green

turtles to attain minimum breeding size exceeds what has thus far been found in the Hawaiian

Islands (Limpus and Walter 1980). Investigations of green turtles in the western Atlantic

conducted by Mendonca (1977), Frazer and Ehrhart (1985), Frazer and Ladner (1986), Bjorndal

and Bolten (1988), and Boulon and Frazer (1990) all suggest comparatively slow growth rates,

albeit slightly faster than what has thus far been found in the Pacific. Carapace measurements

of adult females recorded on nesting beaches over several seasons have shown that green turtles

grow at an exceedingly slow rate (0.5 cm/year in the Hawaiian Islands) once sexual maturity has

been attained (see also Carr and Carr 1970).

There are no records of growth in the wild for post-hatchling and juvenile green turtles residing

in pelagic habitats. In those pelagic areas where an abundance of high quality food may be
18

available, growth on a carnivorous diet might be expected to exceed that which results from

herbivory in benthic habitats.

Reproduction 

According to Owens (1980 in Eckert 1993), mating precedes egg-laying by 25-35 days. Adult

female green turtles emerge at night to excavate nests and deposit eggs during the warmer

months of the year at sites usually far removed from their resident foraging pastures (see

Migrations and Movements). Descriptions of the nesting sequence have been reviewed by

Ehrhart (1982). The influence of beach sand characteristics on the reproductive aspects of the

green turtle has been investigated by Mortimer (1990) in a study that includes several nesting sites

from the insular Pacific region.

In Hawaii, greens lay up to six clutches of eggs per season, with a mean of 1.8 (Balazs 1980).

Hendrickson (1958 in Eckert 1993) reported greens nesting up to 11 times at Sarawak Turtle

Island. Clutches consist of about 100 eggs each, laid at 10-15 day intervals. As previously

mentioned, the females migrate to breed only once every two or possibly many more years,

although the common remigration intervals reported for several rookeries worldwide are two and

three years. Limpus et al. (1994) report that the modal remigration interval for Heron Island,

Australia is five years; laparascopic examination of females tagged on nesting beaches and

recaptured at their foraging grounds has confirmed that most females wait five or more years

between breeding seasons. Once the eggs are laid and covered they incubate in the sand

unattended for about two months (54-88 days in Hawaii, with a mean of 64.5 [Balazs 1980]). The

hatchlings dig upward in a communal effort and take 2-3 days before reaching the surface and

emerging usually under the coolness of night. Newly emerged hatchlings are strongly

photopositive and can be disoriented away from their path to the sea by artificial lighting.

All sea turtles are now known to have temperature-dependent sex determination (Mrosovsky

and Yntema 1980; Yntema and Mrosovsky 1980; Morreale et al. 1982). Eggs that incubate below

a pivotal temperature produce hatchlings that are predominantly males, while eggs incubated

above the pivotal temperature are predominantly females. Alvarado and Figueroa (1987) reported

that for East Pacific green turtles nesting in Michoacan, Mexico, average temperatures less than

27EC during the middle trimester resulted in 100% males. Temperatures greater than 31EC

produced 100% females, while those in between produced mixed clutches. 

The degree of predation on eggs and hatchlings on a nesting beach varies considerably

between breeding sites, and it should not be assumed that mortality is always high. For example,

at French Frigate Shoals in the NWHI there is virtually no predation on eggs and, while numerous

seabirds including frigate birds inhabit the area, no evidence of avian predation on hatchlings has

been detected during studies. Predation on hatchlings at French Frigate Shoals when they pass

through the nearshore waters en route to the open ocean does not appear to be high either

(Balazs 1980). However, this factor is far more difficult to quantify. Each breeding site must be

individually investigated. Conclusions reached for one site must not be applied to another without

supporting documentation.

At least in some populations, there is strong nest site fidelity within a season. In the Sarawak

Turtle Islands, only 3.7% of 5,748 records showed turtles changing islands in between nestings
19

after an average internesting interval of ten days, and most of those only shifted between islands

less than 500 m apart (Hendrickson 1958 in Eckert 1993).

Comparatively little is known about the reproductive biology of male green turtles (but see

Balazs 1983b). Except for in the east Pacific, copulation occurs early in the breeding season but

not after a female lays her first clutch of eggs. In contrast, black turtles in the east Pacific are

reported to periodically continue to copulate between the female's successive egg clutches

throughout the season.

Offshore Behavior 

Based on the behavior of post-hatchlings and juveniles raised in captivity, it is presumed that

those in pelagic habitats live and feed at or near the ocean surface, and that their dives do not

normally exceed several meters in depth. As mentioned earlier, it is also presumed that drift lines

or surface current convergences are preferential zones due to increased densities of likely food

items. In the western Atlantic, drift lines commonly contain floating Sargassum capable of

providing small turtles with shelter and sufficient buoyancy to raft upon. In the insular Pacific

region there is nothing similar in the way of floating algae to correspond with the phenomenon

present in the Atlantic.

Certain nearshore marine habitats of the insular Pacific region, as elsewhere worldwide,

constitute essential living space for juvenile, subadult, and adult green turtles. Behavior at these

discrete benthic sites includes: foraging on marine vegetation (algae and/or sea grass), lying

motionless on the ocean bottom to "rest" or possibly to avoid predators, being groomed by fishes

to remove ectoparasites (see Balazs et al. 1994a; Losey et al. 1994), and courtship and copulation

in waters proximal to nesting beaches. In contrast, post-hatchling and juvenile green turtles up

to about 35 cm in carapace length inhabit pelagic or open-ocean habitats far removed from land.

Adults of both sexes also use the pelagic environment when they periodically migrate between

their resident foraging pastures and distant breeding sites. The spatial limits, or range, of these

two types of habitats (nearshore benthic and pelagic) are not well known for green turtles of the

insular Pacific region.

In the remote NWHI, and especially at French Frigate Shoals, adult male and female green

turtles regularly haul out during the daytime to bask along the shoreline (Balazs 1980; Whittow

and Balazs 1982). This behavior is not known to occur elsewhere in the insular Pacific region,

although diurnally emerging non-nesting green turtles have been reported from the Galapagos

and certain (but by no means widespread) sites in Australia.

Health Status

Green turtles residing in certain benthic habitats of the Hawaiian Islands are afflicted by

lobulated tumors (fibropapillomas) on their skin, scales, scutes, eyes, oral cavities, and viscera

(Balazs and Pooley 1991). The tumors begin as small, localized lesions that rapidly grow to

exceed 30 cm in diameter, greatly interfering with or even prohibiting swimming, feeding,

breathing, or seeing. The lesions have been classified as fibropapillomas, based on established

histologic criteria for tumor classification. The cause of this disease is unknown, but a herpes virus

is highly suspected based on recent research (Herbst 1994). The disease has increased to

epidemic proportions in Hawaii since the mid-1980s. Similar severe outbreaks in green turtles
20

over the same time period have also been reported in Florida, several Caribbean nations, and at

a few other sites worldwide. In the Hawaiian population, the disease represents the single most

significant threat to the green turtle's survival and is considered of highest priority for ongoing

research. 

During the 1991 nesting season, three turtles were seen at Gielop in Yap with abnormal

growths on the carapace that have been diagnosed as fibropapillomas (Kolinski 1994).

Green turtles are known hosts for an array of internal parasites, especially blood flukes, which

may play some debilitating role in the impact of the fibropapilloma disease. In addition,

Ozobranchus leeches, burrowing Stephanolepas barnacles, and other external parasites

(including ticks at nesting beaches) are commonly present, but again their impact on health status,

and potential as vectors for disease, are entirely unknown (see Balazs and Pooley 1991). 

H. Threats

 This section presents a brief overview of threats to green turtles in the Pacific basin, followed

by summaries of major threats in each U.S.-affiliated island group. A third section then presents

more detailed information specific to each island group.

 "Threats" to sea turtles are broadly defined as any factor that jeopardizes the survival of

turtles or impedes the recovery of their populations. Twenty-six kinds of threats have been

identified in this and previous Recovery Plans, but it is readily apparent that all are not equally

important and that threats in one Pacific area may not be relevant in another area. Consequently,

each island group was evaluated separately based on information received from the Recovery

Team and Technical Advisors. Table 1 lists the 26 threats and ranks their significance. Definitions

of the threats are provided in subsequent text.

 When viewing Table 1, it should be recognized that there are limitations inherent in this

tabulation. First, generalizations are made. Some island groups, such as the Republic of Palau,

consist of over 500 islands; consequently, the data presented in Table 1 are limited to a general

statement about conditions for the group as a whole. Similarly, most of the island groups possess

both sparsely inhabited remote islands and heavily inhabited main islands. The distribution of

turtles and the kinds of threats they face would obviously differ in these two types of islands.

Specific information about individual islands, if available, is presented in 'General Threat

Information'. Second, there are data limitations. For most islands, information about turtle threats

is sparse (see 'Pacific Synopsis').

Pacific Synopsis

 The eight U.S.-affiliated island groups in the Pacific consist of several thousand islands

spread across a region twice the size of the continental United States. This vast and diverse area

is inhabited primarily by two species: green and hawksbill turtles.

 A fundamental problem for the Pacific region is that, with few exceptions, there is a serious

shortage of information on all aspects of turtle ecology. For many areas, the most basic

information (e.g., population size, nesting beaches, distribution, migration patterns) is extremely

rudimentary. While this lack of data may not be a direct threat to the turtles themselves, it will
21

certainly hamper effective recovery efforts for them. For example, it will slow the protection of

important nesting habitat because many such beaches have not yet been identified. The principal

exception to this information void is Hawaii, where turtle studies have been conducted for many

years.

 Based on knowledgeable accounts, turtle populations have declined dramatically in the Pacific

islands. Harvest by humans is by far the most serious problem turtles face, particularly green

turtles which have historically been used for food. This is illustrated in Table 1, which shows that

harvests of turtles on nesting beaches and in coastal water were identified as major threats in

most of the eight U.S.-affiliated island groups reviewed in this report.

 Turtles have been harvested for centuries by native inhabitants of the Pacific region. In

modern times, however, a severe overharvest has resulted from a variety of factors, among which

are the loss of traditional restrictions that had limited the numbers of turtles taken by island

residents, modernized hunting gear, easier boat access to remote islands where turtles nest,

extensive commercial exploitation for turtle products in both domestic markets and international

trade, loss of the spiritual significance of sea turtles, inadequate regulations and lack of

enforcement. One often-mentioned aspect of this problem is the pillage of wildlife on remote

islands by supply ships, commercial fishing crews, and sometimes government vessels.

A greatly complicating aspect about turtle harvests is that stocks of turtles can be heavily

harvested at both ends of their migratory routes -- first by one group of people when the turtles

nest on beaches in one location and later by a second group of people when the same turtles

migrate far away to their feeding areas at another location. Conservation efforts at only one end

of this pathway are useful, of course, but may not be successful without similar conservation

efforts at the other end.

 Other than harvest, the major problems are those associated with habitat losses due to rapid

expansion of resident human populations and/or increased urban and tourism development. As

a generalization, the eight U.S.-affiliated islands can be divided into three groups based on their

major turtle threats or problems: (1) Urbanized islands (main islands of Hawaii, CNMI, Guam)

where the major threats are habitat loss and problems associated with rapidly expanding tourism,

(2) Rural or developing islands (American Samoa except Rose Atoll, Republic of Palau, the

inhabited islands of CNMI, FSM, RMI) where human consumption and the lack of basic biological

information about turtle stocks prevail, and (3) Protected, uninhabited or military-controlled islands

(the unincorporated islands, Rose Atoll, the uninhabited islands of CNMI, FSM and RMI, and

Hawaiian Islands) where threats are negligible but biological information about turtle stocks is

needed.

Another potential problem is the incidental take of turtles in distant-water fisheries, but data

are generally lacking for this threat.

Regional Summaries

U.S. West Coast

Primary turtle threats: See East Pacific green turtle Recovery Plan
22

American Samoa

Primary turtle threats: directed take

increased human presence

algae/seagrass/reef degradation

 The main islands of American Samoa are steep volcanic islands with limited land suitable for

human habitation and agriculture. The fast-growing human population (46,600 people, 3.7%

growth rate, doubling time = 19 years) is concentrated along the southern coastline of Tutuila

Island where significant pre-emption of former turtle nesting beaches has occurred due to village

expansion and the placement of the island highway and structures to protect them from coastal

erosion. The harvest of any turtles and eggs encountered, is the major threat to turtle recovery

in American Samoa. Although only a rough estimate, turtle populations have seriously declined

and now may number only about 120 nesting females (greens and hawksbills, combined) per year.

More data are needed to assess this trend.

 Turtle tag returns show that American Samoa is dealing with a shared resource in the South

Pacific Ocean. Nesting turtles have been tracked to foraging grounds in Fiji and French

Polynesia. In order to recover this population, turtle conservation must be pursued in these

countries as well.

Hawaii

Primary turtle threats: disease

nest predation

directed take

fisheries incidental take

boat collisions

 The Hawaiian Archipelago consists of 132 islands spread over 2,450 km. Most of the 1.2

million inhabitants live in the eight Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) which account for 99% of the

State's land mass. Fewer than 10 people live in the NWHI.

 The primary threats to green turtle recovery and conservation include the loss of foraging

habitats to nearshore development in MHI (e.g., marina construction, artificial beach development,

siltation from agricultural runoff, contamination of forage areas from toxic spills, resort

development, and increased vessel traffic), entanglement and ingestion of marine debris,

incidental take in sport and commercial fisheries, poaching, and proliferation of disease

(fibropapillomas) throughout the turtle population. While human impacts can be readily identified

and corrected or mitigated in some cases, the potential adverse impacts of fibropapilloma disease

may have no reasonable remedy, as its cause is still unknown.
23

Guam

Primary turtle threats: directed take

increased human presence

coastal construction

nest predation

algae/seagrass/reef degradation

 There is limited information available regarding turtle threats in Guam. The DAWR, in past

correspondence, indicated that the two principal threats to sea turtles in Guam are thought to be

habitat destruction and harvest. Habitat destruction has resulted mainly from construction and

development due primarily to growing tourism. In 1990, over 740,000 tourists visited the island

and their numbers are expected to increase. On the northern portion of Guam, where the majority

of nesting occurs, the military base has limited public access and development, but landowners

in the Uruno area are attempting to develop their land as well, which would put some of the last

nesting sites in danger. Another effect of development is sedimentation which has damaged

Guam's coral reefs, and presumably, food sources for turtles.

 Turtles were traditionally taken by residents for celebrations, and recent reports indicate that

illegal harvesting still occurs. There is also poaching by immigrants, fishing crews, and tourists,

especially those from areas where they are accustomed to eating turtles legally. The language

problem for non-English speaking immigrants and lack of knowledge about local regulations has

caused the majority of such problems. Incidental catch of turtles in coastal waters by commercial

fishing vessels probably also occurs.

Republic of Palau

Primary turtle threats: directed take

increased human presence

algae/seagrass/reef degradation

The Republic of Palau consists of two distinctive island groups, a northern group consisting

of several large islands and over 200 small islands collectively called the Rock Islands, and a

southwest group of the six small southwest Palau islands located 300-600 km south of the Rock

Islands. Most of the 15,000 residents of the Republic of Palau dwell on the northern islands of

Koror, Babeldaob, and Peleliu.

The Southwest Islands are small and sparsely populated (about 100 people). Green turtles

nest there, particularly on Merir, and large populations forage at Helen Atoll. These populations

have been reduced by commercial fishing crews, residents, and crews of supply vessels out of

Koror. Although the Southwest Islands are remote, humans are present on all green turtle nesting

beaches in the area. Transportation between these islands and the central Palau Archipelago

continues to increase, with inevitable increases in the exploitation of turtles.
24

 By far the greatest threat in both island groups is the directed take of turtles in coastal waters

(which is legal during seven months of the year) and nesting turtles and eggs (which is illegal).

Enforcement is lacking. 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)

Primary turtle threats: directed take

increased human presence

coastal construction

algae/seagrass/reef degradation

 The Mariana Archipelago consists of 15 major islands, stretching approximately 675 km from

Guam to Farallon de Pajaros. The islands are politically divided into two governing bodies: Guam

(a U.S. Territory) and CNMI which includes the remaining islands. In CNMI, Saipan, Tinian and

Rota are the largest islands and contain over 95% of the total population. Saipan is the major

business and tourist center for CNMI. The ten islands north of Saipan are relatively small, isolated

and sparsely inhabited, primarily due to active volcanic activity. Due to the rapidly expanding

development on Saipan, Tinian and Rota, hotels and human activities are beginning to dominate

beaches used by nesting turtles.

 Sea turtles are considered a traditional food and are readily taken on nesting beaches or in

coastal waters. Nesting seasons and sites, as well as feeding areas, are well known to the

indigenous fisherman.

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)

Primary turtle threats: directed take

nest predation

dynamite fishing

 FSM covers a vast oceanic region of the Caroline Islands and extends 2,500 km from one end

to the other. It has 600 islands (65 are inhabited) divided among four states: Pohnpei, Kosrae,

Chuuk, and Yap. There has been a general decline in numbers of nesting turtles throughout FSM,

though hard data are lacking. Turtles remain common only in some remote areas, such as the

outer islands of Yap where traditional customs limit the numbers of turtles harvested for food

although the customs are being disregarded on more and more islands.

 Pohnpei State (population 33,000) consists of the main island of Pohnpei and eight atolls. The

remaining principal turtle nesting area is Oroluk Atoll, where numbers have declined. Only 7-10

green turtles per year are now thought to nest there. Oroluk was uninhabited for many years but

the Pohnpei State government now leases the island to a group of settlers from Kapingamarangi

Atoll. Houses and pig pens on Oroluk beaches probably continue to interfere with turtle nesting.

No nesting has been observed on other islands of Pohnpei, although sporadic usage may occur.
25

 Kosrae (population 7,200) no longer has any significant nesting area, but turtles are common

in coastal waters.

 Chuuk State contains about 300 islands and 50,000 people. There is one major nesting site

on East Fayu Island and probably some use of other islands. Unfortunately the turtle population

at East Fayu was on the verge of extinction when visited several years ago (M. Nelson, Marine

Resources Division, FSM, pers. comm.), because turtles were sold commercially as well as taken

for subsistence. Important turtle nesting beaches in Chuuk lagoon have all been depleted of

turtles, except for one or two islands of the southern barrier reef.

 Yap State includes the four closely associated high islands of Yap (commonly referred to as

Yap Proper), three coral islands and 12 coral atolls. Turtles and turtle eggs have been exploited

in Yap State for as long as people have inhabited these islands. Turtles continue to play a

subsistence role and are an important part of traditional culture. A common perception among the

people is that, over the years and despite annual fluctuations, there has been a gradual decline

in the number of turtles visiting or residing within this region. Harvesting levels have increased at

the remote uninhabited islands of West Fayu and Pikelot due to increased access using motorized

skiffs from the nearest inhabited atolls (Lamatrek, Elato, Satanal).

 Traditional systems regarding turtles vary somewhat throughout the islands. Some of these

systems appear to restrict the level of human interaction with turtles, though conservation of the

resource does not appear to have been a motivating factor. In general, the people of Yap State

have taken advantage of greater abilities to harvest turtles and turtle eggs through the use of

introduced foreign technologies and materials. Over-harvesting, coupled with the gradual loss of

a number of traditional practices related to the taking of turtles and turtle eggs, appears to be the

main threat to turtle populations. Turtles tagged in YAP and recovered in the Philippines and

Majuro, RMI indicate that the FSM is dealing with a shared resource. In order to recover this

population, turtle conservation must be pursued in these countries as well.

Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI)

Primary turtle threats: directed take

nest predation

fisheries incidental take

 There is limited information available regarding turtle threats in the 29 Atolls and south islands

of RMI. The consumption of nesting turtles and their eggs appears to be the single-most important

source of turtle mortality. Turtle harvest has expanded to all of the atolls, with Majuro, Ebeye, and

the Southern Islands purchasing turtles from the Northern Islands where they nest. There is little

or no control over the harvest on any of the islands, although informal control comes from the

owner of the land (upon which the turtles are nesting). The turtles are primarily harvested from

the nesting beaches and are generally taken for celebrations. Turtle eggs are regularly eaten.

Also, eggs are hatched and the young kept as pets. In some cases the practice of raising young

is mistakenly believed by the islanders to be a good conservation practice. The harvest of nesting

turtles and their eggs is illegal, but few know of these regulations. The major turtle nesting

beaches on Bikar Atoll, Jemo Island, and Erikub Atoll, and possibly Ailinginae are not continuously
26

uninhabited. However, the high price paid for turtles and improvements in boating and harvest

technologies have led to increased levels of harvest at the uninhabited atolls by Marshallese from

adjacent inhabited atolls.

A second major threat to nesting turtles comes from Polynesian rat predation on nests. The

feral predators have been documented to consume large numbers of eggs on Erikub and Bikar

Atolls.

Unincorporated Islands (Wake, Johnston, Kingman, Palmyra, Jarvis, Howland, Baker, Midway)

Primary turtle threats: coastal construction

nest predation

beach erosion

environmental contamination

 The unincorporated islands consist of protected islands in the National Wildlife Refuge system

(Johnston, Howland, Baker, Jarvis), islands with military facilities (Wake, Johnston, Palmyra ), and

one island with no permanent land (Kingman Reef). Some are used by nesting green turtles, and

all probably provide marine feeding grounds for green and perhaps hawksbill turtles. Other than

Johnston Atoll which is inhabited by 800-1,000 people and Wake and Midway islands where

smaller numbers of people live, few or no people live on the other islands. While there are no

major threats to sea turtles at the present time, little is known about the biology of the turtles in this

region. Currently the only identified problems are in regard to activities associated with human

presence such as coastal construction, beach erosion and feral animal predation of nests.

Midway, at the northwest end of the Hawaiian chain is presently under U.S. Navy jurisdiction,

but the naval station is being closed. Midway and the other unincorporated islands may revert to

the jurisdiction of the state of Hawaii.
27

TABLE 1. Threat checklist for Codes 1 = major problem - = not current problem

green sea turtles in the 2 = moderate problem ? = unknown

western and central Pacific Ocean. 3 = minor problem P = known problem but extent unknown

 

Threat U.S.

West

Amer.

Samoa

Hawaii Guam Palau CNMI FSM RMI Unincorp.

Nesting Environment

1 Directed take - eggs - 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 -

Directed take - turtles - 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 -

2 Increased human presence - 2 - 1 1 1 3 3 -

3 Coastal construction - - - 1 - 1 3 3 3

4 Nest predation - - 2 2 P ? 1 1 3

5 Beach erosion - 3 3 ? 3 ? P 3 3

6 Artificial lighting - P P P 3 P - P -

7 Beach mining - - - ? - - - - 3

8 Beach vehicle driving - - 3 P - ? - - -

9 Exotic vegetation - - - - - - - - -

10 Beach cleaning - - - - - - - - -

11 Beach replenishment - - - - - - - - -

Marine Environment

12 Directed take - 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 -

13 Natural disasters - P P P - P P P P

14 Disease/parasites - ? 1 ? ? ? 2 - ?

15 Algae/Seagrass/Reef

degradation

- 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 P

16 Environmental

contaminants

- P P ? P 3 - 3 3

17 Debris (entangle/ingest) - P 3 ? - P P P P

18 Fisheries (incidental take)

-domestic waters - 3 2 ? P P P 2 P

-international - P 2 ? P P P 3 P

19 Predation - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

20 Boat collisions - - 2 - 3 - - - -

21 Marina/dock development - - - ? - - - 3 -

22 Dredging - - P ? P - ? 2 -

23 Dynamite “fishing” - P P P P P 2 P P

24 Oil exploration/development - - - - - - - - -

25 Power plant entrapment - - - - - - - - -

26 Construction blasting - - - - - - - 3 3
28

General Threat Information with comments on specific U.S. jurisdictions.

 This section provides the supportive information used to rank the 26 turtle threats listed in

Table 1. Each threat is defined and then evaluated separately for each of the eight U.S.-affiliated

island groups (where applicable). The first 11 threats pertain to the turtle's nesting environment,

the latter 15 to the marine environment.

Nesting Environment

1. Directed Take

The harvest of sea turtles and/or their eggs for food or any other domestic or commercial use

constitutes a widespread threat to these species. Removing breeding adults from a population

can accelerate the extinction of local stocks, and the persistent collection of eggs guarantees that

future population recruitment will be reduced. This category includes only the harvest of sea

turtles (typically nesting females) and their eggs on land. Harvest at sea is discussed in a later

section. (see Recovery - Section 1.1.1)

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.

American Samoa: Turtle harvest is a significant source of mortality in the Territory. Turtles and

their eggs, when found, are consumed. The concept of turtle conservation faces several

difficulties in contemporary American Samoa. For example, many people are unaware that it is

illegal to take sea turtles within the Territory. Public acceptance of conservation issues is a

challenging problem. Although many people acknowledge that there are considerably fewer

turtles on their beaches than when they were children, few indicated concern for the future of

turtles. Some residents expressed the view that turtles were placed in the ocean by God for man

to take, and others felt that if they did not take the turtle, someone else would. Another aspect

of the problem is that villagers may keep hatchlings as pets, which eventually die. Also the

implications of nest beach fidelity and how this factor can accelerate extirpation of nesting stocks

on specific islands are not well understood or acknowledged.

Hawaii: Because most green turtles nest at French Frigate Shoals, which is far removed from

populated islands, their take from nesting beaches is not a current problem.

Guam: Directed take is one of the major threats to turtles in Guam. Turtles were traditionally

taken by residents for celebrations, and reports indicate that illegal harvesting still occurs.

Poaching also occurs by immigrants, fishing crews, and tourists, especially those from areas

where they are accustomed to eating turtles legally. The language problem for non-English

speaking immigrants and lack of knowledge about local regulations has caused the majority of

such problems. When turtle poachers are convicted, all gear and vehicles (car, boat) are

confiscated and fines and/or penalties are levied.

Republic of Palau: Directed take is considered to be a major problem. The seasonal harvest from

coastal waters has been legal, but the take of nesting turtles and their eggs is not. Enforcement

is lacking, however and both local and federal regulations are widely ignored. The illegal harvest

of turtles and eggs at remote islands and atolls beyond the watchful eye of local authorities is also
29

a problem. In October 1994, Palau became an independent nation in free association with the

United States, therefore ESA and other federal laws no longer apply to actions in Palau.

CNMI: In CNMI, turtles are a traditional delicacy for most ethnic groups. Knowledge of existing

regulations does not inhibit many people from eating turtles or their eggs. Female turtles crawling

toward the nesting area are taken even before the eggs are laid.

FSM: Turtle harvest is the most significant source of mortality within the region. In general, both

turtles and eggs are consumed if encountered (direct take varies from island to island based on

rights to the resource). Nesting has apparently been extirpated from one state (Kosrae) due to

overharvest of nesting females. People also raise hatchlings as pets which generally die in

captivity, but the impact of this is thought to be low.

 Laws dealing with the harvesting of turtles and eggs are in need of revision. Both present and

future laws will remain unenforceable and unagreeable to the people unless the people

themselves enact and enforce them at the community level. A few islands (Elato, Lamotrek,

Satawal) have introduced their own regulations controlling the take of turtles (such as waiting until

after a nesting turtle lays eggs before harvesting it). Nevertheless, turtle harvesting continues to

increase, even among the populations of these islands.

 Marine Resources Management Division (MRMD) has, in cooperation with specified island

residents, been collecting data on the number of turtles caught and consumed throughout the

outer islands. Most of the outer islands within the state have generally sent in this type of

information. These data have not yet been analyzed.

 The introduction and use of motorized boats have increased peoples' ability to reach islands

where turtles nest. Travel by traditional methods of transportation (outrigger canoes) was and is

restricted by weather patterns, the length of the voyages, etc. Motorized craft have allowed for

an extended travel season as well as for an increased frequency of visits to the uninhabited

islands.

RMI: The consumption of nesting turtles and their eggs is the single-most important source of

mortality to turtles. Turtle harvest has expanded to all of the atolls, with Majuro and the Southern

Islands importing turtles from the Northern Islands. On Ebeye and Majuro, imported turtles sold

for about $300.00 U.S. dollars in 1988 (Jim Maragos, pers. comm.). There is little or no control

over the harvest on any of the islands, although informal control comes from the owner of the land

(upon which the turtles are nesting). The turtles are primarily harvested from the nesting beaches

and are generally taken for celebrations. Turtle eggs are regularly eaten. Also, eggs are hatched

and the young kept as pets --in some cases the practice of raising young is considered a good

conservation practice. The harvest of nesting turtles and their eggs is illegal, but few know of

these regulations.

Unincorporated: Not a current problem. Nesting activity, if it ever occurred at Johnston, is

prevented by the construction of vertical seawalls.
30

2. Increased Human Presence

Human populations are growing rapidly in many areas of the insular Pacific and this expansion

is exerting increasing pressure on limited island resources. Threats to sea turtles include increased

recreational and commercial use of nesting beaches, the loss of nesting habitat to human activities

(e.g., pig pens on beaches), beach camping and fires, an increase in litter and other refuse, and

the general harassment of turtles. Related threats, such as coastal construction, associated with

increasing human populations are discussed separately. (see Recovery - Sections 1.1, 1.2)

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.

American Samoa: Continued incremental loss of habitats occurs due to varied activities of a

rapidly expanding human population. American Samoa has one of the fastest growth rates in the

world; the doubling time is only 19 years.

Hawaii: Not a problem for green turtles nesting at remote NWHIs.

Guam: Habitat destruction is a major threat to Guam turtles. Guam had over 740,000 tourists in

1990. With tourism expected to increase, the number of hotels and other beachfront development

and usage will also increase.

Republic of Palau: Most nesting beaches occur on inhabited islands (Helen Atoll, Merir, Tobi,

Kayangel). Residents of these remote nesting areas have been dependent on green sea turtles

for food. As transportation to these remote areas improves, pressures on turtle stocks are bound

to increase. 

CNMI: Nesting habitat along the sand beaches of the Saipan Lagoon is rapidly disappearing due

to rampant development.

FSM: Minor problem due to construction on nesting beaches of livestock pens at Oruluk Atoll.

RMI: Minor problem, primarily limited to Majuro Atoll.

Unincorporated: Generally a minor problem.

3. Coastal Construction

The most valuable land on most Pacific islands is often located along the coastline, particularly

when it is associated with a sandy beach. Construction is occurring at a rapid rate and is resulting

in a loss of sea turtle nesting areas. This section discusses construction-related threats to the

region's sea turtle nesting beaches, including the construction of buildings (hotels, houses,

restaurants), recreational facilities (tennis courts, swimming pools), or roads on the beach; the

construction of sea walls, jetties, or other armoring activities that can result in the erosion of

adjacent sandy beaches; clearing stabilizing beach vegetation (which accelerates erosion); and

the use of heavy construction equipment on the beach, which can cause sand compaction or

beach erosion. (see Recovery - Sections 1.2.2, 1.2)
31

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.

American Samoa: Few green turtles occur around the inhabited islands of American Samoa.

Hawaii: Not a current problem for green turtles at remote NWHIs.

Guam: Habitat destruction is a major threat to Guam turtles. Over 740,000 tourists visited Guam

in 1990. With tourism expected to increase, the number of hotels and other beachfront

development and usage will also increase.

Republic of Palau: Not a current problem. However, the newly independent Republic of Palau

and the relaxation of U.S. environmental controls have opened opportunity for considerable road

and resort planning and development during the past two years, some of which will lead to coastal

construction.

CNMI: On Saipan, golf course, hotel and tourism-related development has severely impacted

most of the historical nesting areas on the western portion of the island and residential

development is beginning to threaten the eastern portion of the island. On Rota, nesting beaches

appear limited to undeveloped private land due to heavy recreational use and shoreside tourist

developments. Many of these "undeveloped" beaches are slated for development. On Tinian,

the majority of the nesting beaches are on military-leased land where no construction is presently

expected. Development of a large resort and casino on the southern side of the island will likely

increase human disturbance on nesting beaches.

FSM: Construction of pig pens on turtle beaches is a problem at Oruluk Atoll, while coastal

construction on the islets of Chuck lagoon has caused beach erosion (though no known nesting

beaches have yet been affected).

RMI: Coastal construction is a moderate problem on Majuro Atoll, but no known nesting beaches

are threatened. Military construction and activity at the U.S. missile testing facility at Kwajalein

Atoll will occur near several turtle nesting beaches on the small outer islets.

Unincorporated: Generally a minor problem, except at Johnston Atoll where seawall construction

has preempted use of beaches by nesting turtles.

4. Nest Predation

The loss of eggs to non-human predators is a severe problem in some areas. These predators

include domestic animals, such as cats, dogs and pigs, as well as wild species such as rats,

mongoose, birds, monitor lizards, snakes, and crabs, ants and other invertebrates. (see Recovery

- Section 1.1.3)

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.

American Samoa: Not a current problem due to a recent rat eradication project. Rats had

formerly been observed to attack hatchlings.
32

Hawaii: Possibly a moderate problem at the primary nesting areas in French Frigate Shoals due

to predation by ghost crabs, mongooses, cats, dogs, birds, and possibly rats and feral pigs.

Guam: Predation by crabs, feral dogs and pigs is a problem. In one nest, 20% of the eggs were

eaten by crabs. Some nests are fenced to keep pigs out.

Republic of Palau: Not known as a current problem, however at Ngerecher-Ngerkeklau islands

where pig predation is likely and at Merir dog predation is likely a problem.

CNMI: Not known to be a problem.

FSM: Impacts are area dependant. Out of 33 nests monitored on Olimarao Island, 15 (45%) were

attacked by ghost crabs. Twelve (36%) of these were completely destroyed, the other three

produced only 47 hatchlings. However, it is quite possible that tampering with the nests increased

the likelihood that these nests would be invaded. In any event, predation by ghost crabs should

be considered a potential threat to nests deposited on the two islands within this atoll (S Kolinksi,

A. Smith, pers. comm.).

On Gielop Island, one or more ghost crabs were present in four of the 15 nests (27%) at the

time of examination (post-hatch). Predation damage appeared to have been minimal with the

exception of one nest where 113 eggs produced only 42 hatchlings. Coconut crabs were

commonly seen feeding on eggs strewn from 28 disrupted nests by the digging of other nesting

turtles. 

On Losiep Island (near Gielop island), Ulithi residents report that the introduction of monitor

lizards by the Japanese has been the main cause for the virtual collapse of this island’s nesting

turtle population. Reports indicate that Losiep was once one of the main turtle islands for the

region. Monitor lizards apparently feed on the turtles' eggs as they are being deposited, and may

be able to dig down into a buried nest. On Oruluk Atoll, pig pens encroach on nesting beach

areas.

RMI: According to a 1992 survey by Puleloa and Kilma (1992), Polynesian rat predation is very

severe at Bikar. Because of the importance of Bikar (largest nesting area for green turtles in the

RMI) this must be considered extremely serious.

Unincorporated: Apparently a minor problem.

5. Beach Erosion

Weather events, such as storms, and seasonal changes in current patterns can reduce or

eliminate sandy beaches, degrade turtle nesting habitat, and cause barriers to adult and hatchling

turtle movements on affected beaches. (see Recovery - Section 1.2.1, 1.1.5.2)

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
33

American Samoa: Weather records indicate that a severe tropical storm or hurricane hits

somewhere in the Samoan island chain every three years on average, causing extensive erosion.

A predicted rise in sea level due to global warming would increase erosion problems.

Hawaii: Minor problem. Hurricane storm waves, tsunamis and coastal subsidence are known to

cause erosion problems.

Guam: No information, but typhoons are frequent and likely to cause beach erosion.

Republic of Palau: Occasional storm erosion occurs, and this is a distinct problem at Helen Island.

CNMI: Not thought to be a threat to turtle populations, but typhoons are frequent and likely to

cause beach erosion.

FSM: Likely a problem, although severe tropical storms and typhoons are common for this region.

Seasonal changes in wind direction (which occur towards the end of the main nesting season -

late July/early August) cause erosion. Only one nest on Olimarao and no nests on Gielop Island

were jeopardized by shifting shoreline sands. Yap State's low coralline atolls are extremely

vulnerable to rises in sea levels and will be adversely affected if hypothesized rises occur. Some

erosion of nesting beaches at Oroluk was reported in 1990 after passage of Typhoon Owen.

RMI: Moderate problem. Shoreline erosion occurs naturally on many islands in the atolls of the

Marshalls due to storms, sea level rise from ENSO’s (El Niño - Southern Oscillation) and currents.

On the outer atolls, erosion has been aggravated by airfield and dock development, and by urban

development on Majuro and Kwajalein Atolls.

Unincorporated: This is a problem at Palmyra Atoll.

6. Artificial Lighting

Hatchling sea turtles orient to the sea using a sophisticated suite of cues primarily associated

with ambient light levels. Hatchlings become disoriented and misdirected in the presence of

artificial lights behind (landward of) their hatching site. These lights cause the hatchlings to orient

inland, whereupon they fall prey to predators, are crushed by passing cars, or die of exhaustion

or exposure in the morning sun. Nesting adults are also sensitive to light and can become

disoriented after nesting, heading inland and then dying in the heat of the next morning, far from

the sea. Security and street lights, restaurant, hotel and other commercial lights, recreational

lights (e.g., sports arenas), and village lights, especially mercury vapor, misdirect hatchlings by the

thousands throughout the Pacific every year. (see Recovery - Sections 1.1.2, 1.1.4)

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.

American Samoa: Possibly a problem in coastal villages, although there are no documented

cases of disoriented turtle hatchlings.

Hawaii: Not a current problem for green turtles at remote NWHIs, but possibly a problem on the

MHI group.
34

Guam: A problem with unknown impact.

Republic of Palau: Recently in 1994, the village of Melekeok (Melekeok State) reported that green

turtle hatchlings were attracted into lighted houses and to street lights (M. Guilbeaux pers. comm.).

Campfires and houselights are a problem at Angaur, Peleliu, Kayangel and the Southwest Island

beaches.

CNMI: High potential as a future problem in Rota where resort development is flourishing.

Presently not a problem on Tinian, but there is a potential problem as development continues.

Most houses and hotels adjacent to the lagoon area of Saipan usually have some form of beach

lighting. The Division of Fish and Wildlife routinely reviews all major development projects

adjacent to beach fronts through the Coastal Zone Management permitting process. A permitting

condition restricts the orientation of night lights onto the lagoon beach area, and most

establishments comply with this.

FSM: Not a current problem. Only two islands within two separate atolls (Falalop Ulithi and

Falalop Woleai) have electricity. These islands are not known to have significant numbers of

nesting turtles. Light beacons for ships have been placed on two of the small uninhabited islands

(Woleai, Ulithi Atoll), but the impact on hatchling orientation is unknown.

RMI: Portions of Majuro and Kwajalein are lighted, but the impact is unknown.

Unincorporated: Not a current problem.

7. Beach Mining

Sand and coral rubble are removed from beaches for construction or landscaping purposes.

The extraction of sand from beaches destabilizes the coastline (e.g., reduces protection from

storms), removes beach vegetation through extraction or flooding and, in severe cases, eliminates

the beach completely. When mining occurs on or behind a nesting beach, the result can be the

degradation or complete loss of the rookery. In addition, females can become confused when

they emerge from the sea only to find themselves heading down slope into a depression formed

by mining activities; too often the outcome is that the female returns to the sea without laying her

eggs. Even when eggs are successfully deposited, reduced hatch success results if nests are

flooded or excavated during mining. (see Recovery - Section 1.2.2)

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.

American Samoa: Despite educational attempts and enactment of protective laws, the tradition

of removing sand and coral rubble from shorelines continues at a surprisingly high rate (100 cubic

yards/week) for a small island with limited beaches. However, the impact to turtles is probably not

significant because affected beaches are usually along the island roadway, and most of these

beaches are too narrow (due to road placement) to be suitable for turtle nesting. In some areas,

shoreline erosion, exacerbated by beach mining, jeopardizes the island highway.

Hawaii: Not a current problem.
35

Guam: No information.

Republic of Palau: Not a current problem.

CNMI: Not a current problem.

FSM: Not a current problem. Beach mining does occur on the island of Falalop Ulithi in Yap State

and in Phonpei and Chuuk and may occur on other inhabited islands.

RMI: Mining of beach sand is a serious problem on Majuro, although not at the only known

nesting beach (Iroij Island). Otherwise, beach mining does not appear to be a problem.

Unincorporated: Minor problem.

8. Vehicular Driving on Beaches

Driving on the beach causes sand compaction and rutting, and can accelerate erosion. Driving

on beaches used by turtles for egg-laying can crush incubating eggs, crush hatchlings in the nest,

and trap hatchlings after they emerge from the nest cavity and begin their trek to the sea. In the

latter case, hatchlings are exposed to exhaustion and predators when they fall into and cannot

climb out of tire ruts that are typically oriented parallel to the sea. (see Recovery - Section 1.2.6)

American Samoa: Not a current problem. In some areas (e.g., Sailele), a non-paved village road

crosses upper beach areas where turtles may nest, but such areas are already heavily impacted

by the villages and there is generally no available space to re-route the road.

Hawaii: Not a current problem for green turtles nesting in the NWHIs, but may be a minor problem

on MHIs.

Guam: Vehicle traffic is extensive on nesting beaches.

CNMI: Although beach driving is a pastime on Saipan, the impacts are unknown.

Other areas: Not a current problem.

9. Exotic Vegetation

Introduced species can displace native dune and beach vegetation through shading and/or

chemical inhibition. Dense new vegetation shades nests, potentially altering natural hatchling sex

ratios. Thick root masses can also entangle eggs and hatchlings. (see Recovery - Section 1.2.3)

All areas: Not a current problem.

10. Beach Cleaning
36

Removal of accumulated seaweeds and other debris from a nesting beach should be

accomplished by hand-raking only. The use of heavy equipment can crush turtle eggs and

hatchlings and can remove sand vital to incubating eggs. (see Recovery - Section 1.2.5)

All areas: Not a current problem. In CNMI, beach cleaning occurs in front of the major tourist

hotels, but this is not thought to be a threat to turtle populations.

11. Beach Replenishment

The nourishment or replacement of beaches diminished by seawalls, storms, or coastal

development can reduce sea turtle hatching success by deeply burying incubating eggs,

depositing substrate (generally from offshore deposits) that is not conducive to the incubation of

sea turtle eggs, and/or obstructing females coming ashore to nest by machinery, pipelines, etc.

(see Recovery - Section 1.2.4)

All areas: Not a current problem.

Marine Environment

12. Directed Take

The harvest of juvenile and adult sea turtles for food or any other domestic or commercial use

constitutes a widespread threat to these species. In particular, the exploitation of large juveniles

and adults can accelerate the extinction of both local and regional stocks. This category includes

only the harvest of sea turtles at sea. Harvest on the nesting beach was discussed in a previous

section. (see Recovery - Section 2.1)

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.

American Samoa: Turtle harvest is the most significant source of mortality in the Territory. Turtles

and their eggs, when found, are consumed. The concept of turtle conservation faces several

difficulties in contemporary American Samoa. For example, most people are unaware that it is

illegal to take sea turtles within the Territory. Public acceptance of conservation issues is a

challenging problem. Although many people acknowledge that there are considerably fewer

turtles on their beaches than when they were children, few indicated concern for the future of

turtles. Some residents expressed the view that turtles were placed in the ocean by God for man

to take, and others felt that if they did not take the turtle, someone else would. Another aspect

of the problem is that villagers may keep hatchlings as pets, which eventually die. Also the

implications of nest beach fidelity and how this factor can accelerate extirpation of nesting stocks

on specific islands are not well understood or acknowledged.

Hawaii: A moderate problem in Hawaiian waters. Turtles are taken using spears, harpoons, nets,

grappling hooks, firearms from shore, underwater bang sticks, nooses, and by hand capture.

Guam: See previous comments in Nesting Environment.
37

Republic of Palau: Green turtles are taken in nearshore waters year-round. However, it is legal

to harvest turtles at sea with a minimum carapace length (CCL $ 76.2 cm) during two periods

(seven months) of the year: February-May and September-November. Adults and large juveniles

are preferred for special occasions such as funerals and other custom events. There are no

statistics for the numbers of green turtles harvested or the distribution of the sizes taken.

CNMI: Sea turtles are considered a traditional food item and are hunted illegally to this day.

Federal laws protecting turtles are known, but hotly contested by the public. CNMI Customs

Officers routinely confiscate turtle handicrafts (combs, jewelry, etc.) at the airport. Confiscation

of turtle products is the extent of prosecution. Most of the turtle products originate from the

Republic of Palau (Belau) or FSM.

FSM: Significant problem for both legal and illegal harvests. Motorized boats, masks and

snorkels, spear guns, and hooks have aided man in catching turtles. Mating turtles are often

taken because they are easier to approach. A method involving tethering a female to attract

males is occasionally practiced. In Pohnpei, it is legal to hunt large green turtles (greater than

76.2 cm) in marine waters during two periods (February - May and September - November), but

they are actually taken year-round. See previous comments in Nesting Environment.

RMI: Although harvests consist mostly of nesting turtles and their eggs, some turtles are taken

by snorkelers in nearshore waters.

Unincorporated: Not a current problem.

13. Natural Disasters

Natural phenomena, such as cyclones, can contribute to the mortality of turtles at sea,

particularly in shallow waters. Disease epidemics and other debilitating conditions that affect prey

items (sea grass, coral, sponges, reef invertebrates) can also harm sea turtle populations. Storms

can alter current patterns and blow migrating turtles off course into cold water. Unseasonable

warm water incursions from subtropical regions into the northeastern Pacific, known as "El Niño"

events, may cause green turtles to migrate north where they "cold stun" once they encounter

colder water. El Niño events can also cause reduced food production for some turtle species

which can reduce growth and fecundity. (see Recovery - Sections 2.1.6, 2.1.7, 2.2.1, 2.2.2)

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.

American Samoa: Mortality due to natural disasters is unknown. Recent weather trends indicate

that a severe tropical storm or hurricane hits somewhere in the Samoan islands every three years

on average.

Hawaii: Probably a minor problem. Turtles have been reported thrown ashore by tsunamis.

Nesting sites have also been covered by lava flows, but only rarely (for example Halape, Kaimu).

Guam: An undetermined problem, although Guam is in an area that is regularly hit with typhoons.

Republic of Palau: Not thought to be a problem.
38

CNMI: An undetermined problem, although CNMI is in an area that is regularly hit with typhoons.

FSM: Mortality due to natural disasters is unknown. A recent typhoon (1990/1991) nearly

devastated some of the outer islands, but the impact to turtles in those regions is unknown.

RMI: Moderate problem, however the low elevation of these islands makes them particularly

susceptible to typhoons, large waves and sea level rise.

Unincorporated: Minor problem.

14. Disease and Parasites

There are few data to assess the extent to which disease or parasitism affects the survivability

of sea turtles in the wild. (see Recovery - Section 2.1.6)

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.

Hawaii: The tumor disease "fibropapilloma" has recently received a great deal of attention, and

may now affect more than 50% of the green turtles in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. The disease is

characterized by grayish tumors of various sizes, particularly in the axial regions of the flippers and

around the eyes. This debilitating condition can be fatal. Neither a cause nor a cure has been

identified.

FSM: Moderate problem with unknown impact. Four of 416 female green turtles (1%) tagged at

Gielop Island had large lesions covering large portions of their carapace. Lesions consisted of

raised bubbly, papillary-like projections with numerous individual nodules and crevices. The

largest lesions measured 136 cm in circumference and 10 cm in height. Carapace lesions were

observed only on the vertebral and costal scutes. Upon examination, none of the lesions could

be associated with any other obvious forms of external damage. The lesions appeared to be

different from those identified as fibropapilloma on Hawaiian green turtles. Lesions of this type

have also been reported on turtles foraging around Yap proper as well as turtles in the Elato and

Lamotrek regions.

RMI: Green turtles in the RMI appear to be free of fibropapillomas (as of 1992).

Other areas: Unknown.

15. Algae, Seagrass, and Reef Degradation

Most sea turtle species depend upon sea grass and/or coral reef habitats for food and refuge.

The destruction or degradation of these habitats is a widespread and serious threat to the

recovery of depleted sea turtle stocks. The general degradation of these habitats can be affected

by eutrophication, sedimentation, chemical poisoning, collecting/gleaning, trampling (fishermen,

skin and SCUBA divers), anchoring, etc. (see Recovery - Section 2.2)

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
39

American Samoa: A general degradation of coral reef habitats on the south side of Tutuila Island

is occurring, due to both human impacts (particularly sedimentation resulting from erosion on

steep agriculture slopes) and natural disturbances (recent hurricane damage). There are no

known seagrass beds in the Territory, although some may occur in nearby Western Samoa.

Hawaii: Seagrass and coral reef habitat along the south coast of Molokai has been degraded from

upland soil erosion and siltation. Coral reefs in Kaneohe Bay (Oahu), Hanalei Bay, Hanamaulu

Bay, Nawiliwili Harbor (Kauai), Maalaea Bay (Maui) and Hilo Bay (Hawaii), and along the northeast

coast of Lanai have all been degraded by sedimentation, sewage, or coastal construction.

Guam: Sedimentation has damaged Guam's coral reefs.

Republic of Palau: Offshore sand mining occurs in Palau, with possible implications for foraging

habitat degradation. At the mouth of Lighthouse Channel (eastern side of Malakal Harbor) in 90

feet of water, green sea turtles used to be found foraging on seagrass beds but are no longer

seen there as they once were (N. Idechong, Div. of Marine Resources, Palau, pers. comm.). This

is a site for sand mining.

CNMI: Saipan is the only island that has extensive seagrass meadows inside the reef system, but

impacts to seagrass meadows are not known.

 Saipan's coral reef ecosystem, located along the western side of Saipan, is currently being

impacted by terrigenous runoff and nutrient loading associated with sewage discharge from the

Sadog Tasi Water Treatment Plant. Actual impacts to the reef are not known, but some sections

of the reef system appear to be dying. Other islands do not have a well-developed fringing reef

system or extensive seagrass meadows.

FSM: Coral reefs and seagrass beds have been severely degraded within the urban centers of

the four states of the FSM: Pohnpei, Yap, Chuuk, and Kosrae. 

RMI: Coral reefs and seagrass habitat off the lagoon shoreline of Kwajalein islands and Majuro

have been degraded by coastal construction and/or eutrophication from sewage.

Unincorporated: Not a current problem, though the sewage outfall at Johnston may be a problem.

16. Environmental Contaminants

Chemical pollutants, such as petroleum, sewage, pesticides, solvents, industrial discharges,

and agricultural runoff are responsible for an unknown level of sea turtle mortality each year.

Environmental contamination also harms biologically important nearshore ecosystems, including

seagrass, coral, mangrove, and algae communities. The declining productivity of seagrass and

coral communities, in particular, can be hazardous to sea turtles that depend on these systems

for nutrition and shelter. (see Recovery - Section 2.2.4)

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
40

American Samoa: In populated and agricultural areas on the main island of Tutuila, some

degradation of coastal waters is occurring due to silt-laden runoff from land and nutrient

enrichment from cannery discharges and human/pig wastes. A more serious pollution problem

occurs in Pago Pago Harbor where both fish and sediments are grossly contaminated with heavy

metals, PCBs, pesticides, and petroleum products. A health risk analysis indicated that the

concentration of lead alone may reach levels that cause mental retardation in people who regularly

consume fish from the harbor.

Hawaii: Impact unknown.

Guam: No information.

Republic of Palau: Sewage effluent is a problem around Koror State, particularly Malakal Harbor,

and near urban areas.

CNMI: With the exception of sewage, environmental contamination is not documented. One

potential source of contamination is the unregulated Puerto Rico landfill in the Saipan Lagoon

adjacent to American Memorial Park. This landfill was originally a U.S. military dump which the

Trust Territory continued to use. Recent efforts by the government to relocate the dump to the

Marpi area have meet with some success, and if additional funds are generated, the Puerto Rico

dump may be closed by the end of 1992. Other islands may also have "hazardous waste" areas,

most likely associated with World War II activities. 

 With respect to sewage, Saipan has two wastewater treatment plants at Agingan Point and

the Sadog Tasi. The Agingan Point plant discharges untreated sewage into the ocean between

Saipan and Tinian. The area of discharge is a dynamic current area and is adjacent to deep

waters. The Sadog Tasi plant adequately treats all sewage (secondary level) before discharging

into the Saipan Lagoon near Charlie Dock, the main shipping port. However, the outfall has been

damaged and is in need of repair.

 The current wastewater treatment plant situation does not appear to be a direct threat to sea

turtles; however, habitat and food may be affected. In addition, a cumulative effect of general

habitat degradation could be occurring from the numerous drainage ditches which empty into the

lagoon.

FSM: Unknown but assumed not to be a significant problem at this time. A seemingly large

number of fishing boats and other vessels have grounded on Yap State reefs and spilled fuel.

The effects of this are unknown. Garbage dumps are overflowing and contaminating nearshore

waters in Chuuk and Pohnpei, and to a lesser extent, Kosrae.

RMI: Minor problem. Possibly some problems at Kwajalein, Bikini and Anewetok, where toxic and

hazardous waste have been dumped into coastal waters during the era of military missile testing.

Unincorporated: Minor problem. Military toxic and hazardous waste have contaminated coastal

waters at Johnston Atoll (Agent Orange, radionucleotides) during the 1960's and a toxic and

hazardous waste dump left over from 1950's - 60's U.S. military occupation of Palmyra Atoll was
41

reported along the coast of a northern island about five kilometers from known nesting and other

turtle feeding areas.

17. Debris (Entanglement and Ingestion)

The entanglement in and ingestion of marine debris threatens the survival of sea turtles in the

Pacific. Such debris includes not only discarded or abandoned fishing gear (lines, ropes, nets),

but also plastic bags, plastic sheets, "6-pack" rings, tar balls, styrofoam, and other refuse that

might ensnare or be consumed by a sea turtle. Severely entangled individuals can neither

submerge to feed nor surface to breathe; they may lose a limb to the offending net or fishing line,

or attract a predator with their struggling. Stranding data and necropsies provide evidence that

some turtle mortalities have resulted from ingested garbage, such as plastic or tar. Death or

debilitation can result from poisoning or from obstruction of the esophagus. (see Recovery -

Sections 2.1.3)

Pelagic-phase turtles are clearly at risk from the ingestion of (and entanglement in) plastics

and other buoyant and persistent synthetic debris discarded into the ocean (Balazs 1985b; Carr

1987b). Human intervention on nesting beaches, to manipulate eggs and hatchlings for intended

conservation purposes, should only to conducted as a last resort to more conservative in situ

methods of protection (see Hirth 1971b).

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.

American Samoa: A possible problem in nearshore waters due to local practice of discarding

garbage into streams and onto beaches. Entanglement in fishing gear is not a current problem in

coastal waters because there are virtually no commercial fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ). However, fishing debris including potentially entangling fishing lines and nets were spilled

on the reef at Rose Atoll, after the grounding and breakup of a Taiwanese Longliner fishing vessel

in late 1993. Debris-related problems in offshore waters are unknown.

Hawaii: Thought to be a minor problem.

Guam: No information.

Republic of Palau: Not a current problem.

CNMI: A possible threat; however, there have been no reports of turtle deaths due to debris

entanglement or ingestion.

FSM: Unknown impact. Debris is dumped freely and frequently off boats and ships (including

government ships). Landfill areas are practically nonexistent in the outer islands and have not

been addressed adequately on Yap proper or on Chuuk and Pohnpei. The volume of imported

goods (including plastic and paper packaging) appears to be consistently increasing. Some

people have observed plastic debris in the gut contents of harvested turtles, but the extent of this

problem is unknown.
42

RMI: Debris and garbage disposal in coastal waters is a serious problem on Majuro Atoll and

Ebete Island (Kwajalein Atoll) both which have inadequate space, earth cover and shore

protection for sanitary landfills. This problem also exists to a lesser extent at Daliet Atoll.

Unincorporated: Minor problem.

18. Fisheries (Incidental Take)

Sea turtles are accidentally taken in several commercial, subsistence and recreational

fisheries. These include bottom trawls, off-bottom trawls, purse seines, haul seines, beach seines,

bottom longlines, surface longlines, hook and line, gillnets, and driftnets. The Inter-American

Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC; unpubl. data) reported sea turtles - mostly unidentified, but

probably olive ridleys or greens - feeding directly off bait (usually shark or dorado) used by tuna

fishermen in the eastern Pacific. Mortality associated with entanglement in active and abandoned

fishing gear has not been fully quantified, but is very likely to involve tens of thousands of Pacific

sea turtles each year. (see Recovery - Section 2.1.4)

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.

American Samoa: Subsistence gillnets set along the shoreline occasionally catch turtles in Pala

Lagoon and probably elsewhere. Catches farther offshore in the EEZ are not a problem because

little fishing occurs there. However, limited tagging data indicate that Samoa's turtles migrate

great distances in the South Pacific, so impacts of distant fisheries must be considered. Bycatch

of turtles in these fisheries is not known.

Hawaii: Incidental catches of turtles occur, primarily in nearshore nets. Now terminated (June 1,

1993) driftnet fisheries in offshore waters in the North Pacific had taken many turtles. In 1990, the

total bycatch of turtles in these fisheries was 6,100 turtles (at least 1,700 of which were dead),

mostly loggerheads, followed by leatherbacks and green turtles. Recent increases in longline

fisheries may be a serious source of mortality. Greens comprised 14% of the annual observed

take of all species of turtles by the Hawaiian-based longline fishery between 1990-1994 (NMFS

1995). The predicted annual take level by this fishery is 119 green turtles and although most are

recovered and released alive, the post-release mortality remains unknown. While these numbers

appear to be relatively low, they could be significant if the animals affected belong to severely

depleted stocks.

Guam: The harvest of turtles through bycatch probably occurs within Guam's EEZ. Laws

prohibiting this are hard to enforce because there is only a single Coast Guard vessel available

for Guam. A large amount of longline fishing for tuna occurs just beyond the EEZ, and this is also

expected to pose a threat to turtles.

RMI: The recent addition of a Chinese longline fleet (10-22 boats) to the RMI waters may provide

a serious threat to green turtles.

Other areas: Incidental catches by offshore fleets and in international waters may be a problem,

but the impact is unknown.
43

19. Predation

 Few predators, with the notable exception of orcas (killer whales), large sharks, and marine

crocodiles, can consume a full-size sea turtle. Predation on hatchlings is believed to be relatively

high and, again, the species most often implicated are coastal and pelagic sharks.

All areas: Unknown impact.

20. Boat Collisions

Sea turtles can be injured or killed when struck by a boat, especially an engaged propeller.

Recreational equipment, such as jet skis, also poses a danger due to collisions and harassment.

(see Recovery - Sections 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.7)

All areas: Unknown but probably inconsequential, except in Hawaii where serious injuries and

mortalities have been documented (Balazs et al. 1994a) and possibly the Republic of Palau where

high speed skiffs constantly travel throughout the lagoon south of the main islands. 

21. Marina and Dock Development

The development of marina and docking facilities pose direct and indirect threats to sea turtles.

Direct consequences can be seen when foraging grounds and nesting beaches are dredged or

otherwise permanently altered in the process of construction and maintenance. Altered current

patterns and increased levels of ship traffic, pollution, and general activity which displace or injure

local sea turtles constitute indirect consequences that should also be considered. (see Recovery -

Sections 1.2.1, 2.2)

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.

American Samoa: Not a current problem.

Hawaii: Not a current problem for green turtles in the remote NWHIs.

Guam: No information.

Republic of Palau: Not a current problem.

CNMI: The major shipping area on Saipan is Charlie Dock, an outdated structure from World War

II. Plans to expand and modernize the dock facilities may not be completed for another five years

due to monetary constraints.

FSM: A dock extension project is currently underway on Yap proper but it is not thought to pose

problems for turtles around that island.
44

RMI: Minor problem.

Unincorporated: Not a current problem. Docks are also under construction at Bikini Atoll. Recent

dock construction at Ine and Arno villages at Arno Atoll degraded nearby coral reefs. Many other

docks for the outer Atolls are in the planning stages with some possibly funded by foreign aid.

22. Dredging

Active dredging machinery (especially hopper dredges) may injure or kill sea turtles, and

channelization may alter natural current patterns and sediment transportation. Coral reef and sea

grass ecosystems may be excavated and lost, and suspended materials may smother adjacent

coral and seagrass communities. (see Recovery - Section 2.2.5)

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.

American Samoa: Not a current problem.

Hawaii: Possible though intermittent problem.

Guam: No information.

Republic of Palau: Dredging and filling for Ollei Dock (Ngerechelong), Ngetpang Dock and

Melekeok dock have modified current and sedimentation patterns and degraded or destroyed

seagrass, mangrove and coral reef habitats. More dock construction is likely in the Republic of

Palau.

CNMI: Very little dredging is done in CNMI waters, however there are two dredging projects on

Saipan that will most likely be completed within the next two years: (1) a channel/marina dredging

project in Garapan, and (2) the deepening of the harbor area and expansion of the present Charlie

Dock facilities in Tanapag Harbor (Garapan area of Saipan).

 The Tinian harbor facilities, originally constructed by the U.S. military, have been under

discussion for rehabilitation, however, no proposal has been submitted for review. The harbor

area is known for turtles and therefore, minimizing impacts to sea turtles will become part of the

permitting process if this project is approved. No dredging activities are known for the remaining

Islands.

FSM: Impact unknown. A limited amount of dredging occurs on a fairly regular basis around Yap

proper. Recently, dredging occurred in Yap proper in an effort to widen one channel and establish

another.

RMI: Dredging and filling for outer island airfields and docks may have caused minor changes to

longshore processes and shoreline erosion. Dredging and filling for house lots, road causeways

and sources of construction fill constitute moderate impacts at Majuro and Kwajalein Atoll.

Unincorporated: Not a current problem.
45

23. Dynamite “Fishing”

 The use of explosives to stun or kill fish destroys coral, degrading or eliminating foraging

habitat and refugia for all sea turtle species (except the leatherback). (see Recovery - Section

2.2.7)

U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.

FSM: Dynamite fishing in Chuuk lagoon (FSM) is widespread and has caused the degradation

of about 10% of the reef.

All other areas: Dynamite fishing is an outlawed technique in many areas but occasionally occurs.

24. Oil Exploration and Development

Oil exploration and development poses direct and indirect threats to sea turtles. A rise in

transport traffic increases the amount of oil in the water, such as from bilge pumping, as well as

the likelihood of a major spill. Oil spills, such as those resulting from blow-outs, ruptured pipelines,

or tanker accidents, can kill sea turtles. Indirect consequences include destruction of foraging

habitats by drilling, anchoring, and pollution. (see Recovery - Section 2.2.8)

All areas: Not a current problem.

25. Power Plant Entrapment

Entrapment in the water intake mechanisms of power generating facilities can result in death

to sea turtles of all size classes.

 

All areas: Not a current problem.

26. Construction Blasting

Blasting can injure or kill sea turtles in the immediate area. The use of dynamite to construct

or maintain harbors, break up reef and rock formations for improved nearshore access, etc. can

decimate coral reefs, eliminating food and refuge for sea turtles. Some types of dynamiting have

minimal impact to marine life, such as placing explosive in pre-drilled holes (drilling and shooting)

prior to detonation. This is the standard practice to secure armor rock. (see Recovery - Section

2.2.7)

RMI: Charges are used to fracture rock used in construction projects on Ebeye and could pose

a danger if used incautiously.

All other areas: Not a current problem. However, in Tinian Harbor (CNMI), caution must be

observed if dynamite is used due to the numerous sightings of turtles there.
46

I. Conservation Accomplishments

Legislation

At present, the ESA applies only to actions taken within the Territory of Guam, State of Hawaii,

Territory of American Samoa, CNMI, and the eight unincorporated U.S. islands (Midway, Wake,

Johnston, Palmyra, Kingman, Jarvis, Howland, and Baker) within the geographic area covered by

this recovery plan. The RMI, FSM and Republic of Palau are independent countries no longer

subject to U.S. environmental jurisdiction, including the ESA, for activities conducted within these

countries. Export of sea turtles or their products to the United States is prohibited, under CITES.

Protected Species Statutes in the Republic of Palau

National law protects all sea turtle eggs, hatchlings, and nesting adults on all Palauan beaches

at all times. Green turtles with a CCL of less than 76.2 cm are protected in the water, and larger

animals may not be taken during the seven month closed season of February to May, and

September to November. In addition, the States of Koror, Ngeremlengui and Kayangel have

expressed the need and may now be taking action to establish state-level regulations for

protecting green sea turtles found within their jurisdictional areas, including northern Ngeremeduu

Bay, Kayangel, and Ngeruangl Atoll where nesting sea turtles and eggs are being taken.

Unfortunately, protective measures are proving very difficult to enforce throughout Palau, as there

is a segment of the population that has not been convinced to take such laws and regulations

seriously. Without a strong cooperative effort between Palau federal government and the

traditional leadership of Palau’s States, enforcement of existing conservation measures will remain

next to impossible, with little beneficial effect accruing to the conservation of Palau’s green turtles

at the present time or in the foreseeable future.

Traditional Controls

For hundreds, if not thousands of years, the traditional societies of the Mariana, Caroline,

Marshall, Samoan, and Hawaiian Islands exerted controls over the taking of sea turtles, especially

at nesting beaches. These controls have been effectively eliminated from the Hawaiian, Mariana,

and American Samoan Islands due to a combination of a colonial takeover by western powers and

transition from subsistence to cash economics. These changes eroded the power of ruling clans

and introduced modern technologies that led to rapid depletion of turtle stocks.

Only in the Marshalls, FSM, and Palau are traditional controls still in effect, although only at

rural or uninhabited atolls away from the urban centers. The introduction of a western "elected"

political system to these islands has challenged traditional authorities and further eroded

protection of sea turtles. Landowners in parts of the Marshalls and FSM still claim ownership of

adjacent reef areas which discourages taking of turtles by other groups. The FSM, Palau, and

Marshall Islands also established "pantry reserves" at uninhabited atolls near inhabited atolls.

Examples of these include Ngeruangl Atoll and Fanna Island in Palau, Gaferut, Pikelot, and West

Fayu in the FSM; and Bokaak and Bikar in the Marshalls. These so-called "traditional reserves"

were only visited by sailing canoes during favorable weather conditions in the old days. However,

these reserves are now much more accessible due to availability of the outboard motor, modern

skiffs, and modern navigation equipment. Modern supply boats and patrol boats also have easy

access to these islands. Most of the uninhabited islands are now being rapidly depleted of their
47

nesting sea turtles and many of these sites are the last remaining nesting populations of sea

turtles in their respective countries.

Protected Areas

Republic of Palau 

Until recently Palau has had the only designated protected area in Micronesia, the Ngerukuid

Nature Reserve, also known as the 70-islands Nature Reserve located within Koror State.

Reserve status has worked to protect nesting green turtles and their eggs on the six beaches

within the Reserve for the last several decades, particularly during daylight hours. However, the

Reserve is small, and the illegal take of nesting turtles and eggs at night has been clearly

documented by the Palau Division of Marine Resources as significant over the last ten years (see

Section on Nesting Environment - Directed Take). The Division of Conservation and Entomology

has six conservation officers for all of Palau. There are, in addition, Koror state marine rangers

willing and able to patrol the Reserve with authority to detain but not to arrest. Poachers,

therefore, are rarely apprehended, and prosecution of illegal acts within the reserve has been nil.

As a result, the effectiveness of the Ngerukuid Nature Reserves as a sea turtle conservation

preserve is less than its potential.

Guam

The Government of Guam is proposing the establishment of Territorial Reserves to protect

wildlife including sea turtles, but so far no reserves that protect sea turtles have been established

by the Territorial Government. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Navy,

and the U.S. Air Force have all established protected areas in Guam. The Andersen Air Force

Base beach reserves on the north coast of Guam afford protection to nesting sea turtles.

Moreover, military installations discourage public access to their lands and waters which in effect

serves as an enforcement mechanism against unauthorized harvest of turtles or eggs.

American Samoa

The American Samoa Government cooperatively has established a National Marine Sanctuary

with National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at Fagatele Bay, Tutuila.

Beaches at Fagatele appear suitable for turtle nesting although no data are available. Certainly

foraging and nesting sea turtles would be afforded protection in the sanctuary due to its

inaccessibility from nearest villages.

The U.S. National Park Service (NPS) has recently established a new National Park in

American Samoa with three units: SW Ofu, Central Ta'u and northern Tutuila. The Ofu unit which

includes beaches and a coral reef along the SW Coast of Ofu will likely afford protection to sea

turtles, since the coast is only sparsely inhabited. The Ta'u unit may protect foraging sea turtles

of the remote south coast of Ta’u. The northern Tutuila unit includes several bays, beaches and

potential foraging and nesting habitat for sea turtles. Several villages claim subsistence access

to resources in the Park and along the entire northern coastline. It remains to be seen whether

the new National Park will promote the conservation of sea turtle populations in American Samoa.
48

Rose Atoll is a National Wildlife Refuge and administered by the U.S. FWS. The Refuge

affords protections for nesting turtles on the beaches of the atoll, and potential foraging habitat

for turtles on the atoll’s reefs and lagoon. The American Samoa Government’s Division of Aquatic

and Wildlife Resources (DAWR) co-administers the refuge. 

CNMI

The government of the CNMI has not established protected areas in the Commonwealth

although Managaha Island and reefs off western Saipan and the three Maug Islands have been

candidate parks for some time. The CNMI government is presently evaluating a number of

candidate protected areas throughout the Commonwealth, some of which may benefit nesting or

foraging sea turtles.

RMI

No reserves or protected areas have been established although several were recommended

in the Northern Marshall’s by Thomas et al. (1989) and Maragos (1994).

FSM

No reserves or protected areas have been established in the FSM. Oroluk was recommended

as a reserve by Holthus et al. (1993) although it has yet to be established. 

Unincorporated Islands 

Howland, Jarvis, Baker and Johnston are National Wildlife Refuges administered by the U.S.

FWS although Johnston is jointly administered by the U.S. Department of Defense (Air Force and

Army). Wake is the northernmost of the Marshall Islands (Marshallese name Enen Kio) claimed

by the United States and administered as an Air Force station. The Air Force has established

small wildlife management areas on the non-inhabited parts of the atoll. Midway Atoll is a Naval

Air Station that is about to be closed. Sand Island and Eastern Islands on Midway support

beaches and potentially important nesting habitat for turtles. The lagoon supports potentially

important foraging habitat for turtles. The future use of Midway at this time (July 1995) is not

known, but the prospect is the designation of the entire atoll as a wildlife refuge of the state of

Hawaii.

Palmyra is an uninhabited and privately owned atoll of U.S. sovereignty. The owners are

proposing residential and resort development of a portion of the atoll and refuge status for the

remainder. The U.S. FWS is interested in Palmyra as a potential National Wildlife Refuge. The

atoll supports important feeding and nesting habitat for green turtles. The U.S. Department of the

Interior technically administers Palmyra while the U.S. Navy claims territorial waters around the

atoll as a Naval Defensive Sea. These designations afford some conservation value to sea

turtles.

Kingman Reef supports no permanently vegetated land, but sandspits present on the atoll may

be valuable resting and nesting habitat for turtles while the lagoon may support foraging habitat

for turtles. The Navy claims Kingman as a Naval Defensive Sea which discourages access and

affords some protection for turtles.
49

Hawaii

Hawaii supports a large number of protected areas throughout the archipelago. Kure Atoll at

the northwest end of the chain is a wildlife refuge of the state of Hawaii and potentially important

to nesting and foraging sea turtles. The northwest atolls and islands between Pearl and Hermes

to the northwest and Kaula to the southeast are part of the Hawaiian National Wildlife Refuge

complex administered by the FWS with assistance from the NMFS. The complex includes the

most important nesting habitat for green turtles at French Frigate Shoals in the geographic areas

covered by the present plan and many of the other atolls, island reefs and lagoons in the complex

afford important turtle foraging and nesting habitat for sea turtles.

The state of Hawaii administers a system of state parks and Marine Life Conservation Districts

throughout the main islands, and one coastal Natural Area Preserve on Maui. The National Park

Service’s Hawaii Volcanoes National Park includes coastal areas on the southeast coasts of

Hawaii and Maui islands. Honaunau and Pu’u Kohola are also national parks with coastal areas

along the west coast of Hawaii Island. All of these areas afford protection for foraging and nesting

sea turtles in Hawaii.

Other Plans and Regulations

The governments of Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas all

administer coastal zone management programs sponsored by NOAA. These plans are authorized

by legislation or executive orders and include policies to protect coastal zone resources including

beaches, reefs and lagoons - habitats important to nesting and foraging sea turtles. These

governments also administer a system of coastal zone permits to control development and

promote sustainable and multiple uses of coastal resources including conservation. Federal

activities within designated coastal zones must also achieve consistency with state or territorial

coastal zone management plans. None of the other areas have established functional coastal

zone management plans yet although Kosrae and Yap in the FSM are close.

Development in nearshore coastal waters is also controlled through permit programs

administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE; discharge of dredge or fill materials and

work in navigable waters) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; for sewage

treatment plants and outfalls). State and territorial permits are also administered by the state of

Hawaii (Conservation District Use Permits) and the FSM, RMI and Palau (earthmoving permits).

The CNMI and Guam may also have comparable permits. The state of Hawaii also administers

a state-level endangered species act which affords protection to sea turtles in state waters and

beaches.

Headstart and Hatchery Programs

The Yap state government also operated a headstart program on some of the outer atolls of

Yap. The primary purpose of the program was to educate the islanders on the need to conserve

and protect sea turtles. Success of the program in returning reproductively viable adults to the

population was not measured. 

Sea Life Park operates a hatchery and headstart program for green turtles at its facilities in

Oahu, Hawaii. However, in this case all eggs and hatchlings originate from adults held in captivity
50

at the Park for many years. No “wild” eggs or hatchlings are brought to the Park except in times

when wild nests or hatchlings are in jeopardy. The facility has released and tagged large numbers

of hatchlings and has an excellent educational and outreach program. The program is wellsupported by the community. So far there is no documentation of released hatchlings returning

to Hawaiian beaches as viable nesting adults.

Sea Turtle Conservation and Management Plans

Hawaii: The NMFS, Honolulu Laboratory, has prepared an Interim Recovery Plan for Hawaiian

Sea Turtles (Balazs et al.1992) which has served as important guidance in actions to recover

Hawaiian sea turtles.

Palau: The Republic of Palau requested assistance with preparation of a sea turtle conservation

plan after closing the Micronesian Mariculture Demonstration Center (MMDC) turtle hatchery and

headstart program. A draft plan was prepared (Maragos 1992) and submitted for review.

Subsequently, additional studies were sponsored to fill in major gaps in the plan (Atkinson and

Guilbeaux 1992, Geermans 1992, Geermans and Honigman 1992, Guilbeaux 1992, Guilbeaux

et al.1994, Di Rosa 1992). A final sea turtle conservation plan has not been completed as of

1995.

Research and Education

The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), with headquarters in Apia,

Western Samoa, funds a regional sea turtle conservation program with support for research,

public education, brochures, and other activities which benefit all species of sea turtles in the

insular Pacific. 1995 was declared “The Year of the Sea Turtle” by SPREP, with a major

conservation awareness program in effect throughout the region.

The NMFS in Hawaii and SPREP in Apia, Western Samoa, have sponsored generalized

research on sea turtles in the Pacific to promote conservation. Tagging of adult nesting sea turtles

at many beaches in the tropical insular Pacific is being sponsored by the SPREP regional sea

turtle conservation program with technical assistance from NMFS. Genetic research on tropical

Pacific sea turtles is being conducted in Australia by the Queensland Department of Fisheries and

Wildlife Resources and in Hawaii by the NMFS Honolulu Laboratory. Posters and educational

pamphlets are widely distributed via SPREP throughout the recovery plan region, promoting

conservation and research. Additional educational programs at the government and school level

are also active on some island groups, such as American Samoa (P. Craig, Office of Wildlife and

Marine Resources,

Govt. of American Samoa, pers. comm.).

Effectiveness of Conservation Accomplishments

The sum total of all conservation accomplishments in each of the eight island groups covered

in this recovery plan have been ineffective in all areas except Hawaii and the unincorporated

islands. In all other island groups (Palau, CNMI, Guam, FSM, RMI, and American Samoa)

conservation actions have not been successful to stem the precipitous decline of resident sea

turtle nesting and foraging populations. The only major safe nesting areas for greens are located

in the large protected areas of the northwest Hawaiian islands and of the northeast coast of
51

Australia. The large nesting populations in outer Yap (FSM) are insufficiently protected. Lower

levels of sea turtle foraging and nesting are relatively safe in the unincorporated islands, due

largely to restricted access to military installations, wildlife refuges and to the lack of local

harvesting of eggs and turtles. The situation at Helen Reef and Merir Islands of Palau is

especially perilous for green turtles. 

The success of conservation efforts in Hawaii is largely due to effective enforcement of the

ESA, good public education outreach and research, the curtailing of harvesting of adult turtles and

their eggs, and the generous establishment of protected areas. Conservation efforts must

significantly be improved in the island groups where direct harvesting of adults (especially at

nesting beaches) is continuing unabated, where there has been inadequate designation of

protected areas, inadequate legislation to protect sea turtles and inadequate enforcement of the

few reserves and regulations that have been enacted.

Most importantly, educational efforts have been unsuccessful in changing the behavior of the

islanders conducting or condoning the harvests. Harvesting is the single biggest cause of sea

turtle declines and conservation efforts must focus on the education of the harvesters to convince

them to curtail or cease harvesting efforts. Conservation efforts in Palau, FSM, CNMI, Guam, and

the RMI are so inadequate that all nesting populations of both the green and hawksbill are likely

to be extirpated from the islands within the next twenty years if not sooner. No amount of

research, tagging, regulatory actions and protected areas designation will succeed in reversing

this trend unless the turtle and egg harvesters are educated or convinced enough to cease or

drastically curtail harvesting activities. It will be virtually impossible for enforcement measures to

reverse these trends by themselves; Pacific islanders are not accustomed to fining or confiscating

gear of friends and neighbors or imprisoning violators. Massive education and public pressure will

be essential to save the sea turtle stocks from complete collapse throughout most of the recovery

region.
52

II. RECOVERY

A. Recovery Objectives

Goal: The recovery goal is to delist the species.

Recovery Criteria: To consider de-listing, all of the following criteria must be met:

1) All regional stocks that use U.S. waters have been identified to source beaches based on

reasonable geographic parameters. 

2) Each stock must average 5,000 (or a biologically reasonable estimate based on the goal

of maintaining a stable population in perpetuity) FENA over six years. 

3) Nesting populations at "source beaches" are either stable or increasing over a 25-year

monitoring period.

4) Existing foraging areas are maintained as healthy environments. 

5) Foraging populations are exhibiting statistically significant increases at several key foraging

grounds within each stock region.

6) All Priority #1 tasks have been implemented.

7) A management plan to maintain sustained populations of turtles is in place.

8) International agreements are in place to protect shared stocks. 

Rationale: Determining quantifiable values that can be used to determine when a sea turtle stock

is recovered is quite difficult. The recovery team has tried to make such recommendations as

listed above based on best available information with the following conceptual guidelines:

1) The minimum nesting stock must equal a size that could not easily be eliminated by a

single catastrophic event ("natural" or "man induced").

2) Nesting population trends should be long enough to minimize the effects of natural

fluctuations in numbers that are characteristic of sea turtle populations. Generally this time

period is equal to the estimated one generation time for each species.

3) Habitats are adequate to support population growth once threats have been reduced or

eliminated.

4) If a species is to be considered for delisting, a plan must already be in force for maintaining

the population in stable or increasing condition. The team was concerned that if a species was
53

delisted, and no management plan was already in force, that the species may be driven back

toward extinction too rapidly for resource management agencies to implement such plans.

B. Step Down Outline and Narrative for Recovery

1 NESTING ENVIRONMENT

1.1 Protect and manage turtles on nesting beaches.

It is prudent to preserve the capacity of a population to recover from a depleted state by

protecting nesting females, their nests and hatchlings and to preserve the quality of the

nesting area. The killing of gravid females, poaching of nests, predation (native and feral),

destruction of the habitat through mining, destruction of vegetation, artificial lighting,

development, and increased human use all degrade the ability of depleted populations to

recover. The following tasks are designed toward enhancing the reproductive ability of sea

turtle populations at the nesting grounds. Since non-nesting adult male and female green

turtles have been known to haul out diurnally on beaches, protection of these turtles is also

included.

1.1.1 Eliminate directed take of turtles and their eggs.

Direct take of nesting turtles and their eggs have been identified as a primary threat

to Pacific sea turtle populations. Eliminating this threat is required if populations

are to recover.

1.1.1.1 Reduce directed take of turtles through public education and information.

While increased law enforcement will be effective in the short term, without

support of the local populace, regulations will become ineffective.

Education of the public as to the value of conserving sea turtles, is a very

effective way of sustaining recovery efforts and providing support for

enforcement of management regulations.

1.1.1.2 Increase enforcement of laws protecting turtles by law enforcement and the courts.

Lack of adequate support for law-enforcement activities which protect sea

turtle populations is common, yet it must be understood that enforcement

is as important as any other resource management activities. Enforcement,

judicial, and prosecutorial personnel must receive adequate instruction

about sea turtles and the importance of protecting turtle populations. Nonnesting adult green turtles that haul out diurnally on beaches must also be

protected.

1.1.2 Ensure that coastal construction activities avoid disruption of nesting and hatching

activities.

Coastal construction must be monitored to minimize impact on turtle beaches, both

during construction, particularly during the nesting and hatching season, and in the
54

long-term. Construction equipment must not be allowed to operate on the beach,

remove sand from the beach, or in any way degrade nesting habitat. Nighttime

lighting of construction areas should be prohibited during nesting and hatching

seasons. In the long-term, structures should not block the turtle’s access to the

beach, change beach dynamics, or encourage human activities that might interfere

with the nesting process. 

1.1.3 Reduce nest predation by domestic and feral animals.

Feral animals such as the Polynesian Rat (Rattus exulans), dogs and mongooses

pose a severe threat to turtle nests and hatchlings. It is important that feral

predators be controlled or eliminated from nesting areas. Domestic animals such

as pigs, dogs and cats can also threaten turtle nests and hatchlings, and should

be controlled near nesting areas. In particular, domestic dogs should not be

allowed to roam turtle nesting beaches unsupervised.

1.1.4 Reduce effects of artificial lighting on hatchlings and nesting females.

Because sea turtles (especially hatchlings) are extremely attracted to artificial

lighting, lighting near nesting beaches should be placed in such a manner that light

does not shine on the beach. If not, turtles may become disoriented and stray from

their course.

1.1.4.1 Quantify effects of artificial lighting on hatchlings and nesting females.

It is important to quantify the impact of existing lighting in terms of nesting

success and hatchling survival so that pragmatic mitigation can be applied.

Also, such study can be used to guide the development of effective lighting

ordinances. 

1.1.4.2 Implement, enforce, evaluate lighting regulations or other lighting control measures

where appropriate.

Shielding of the light source, screening with vegetation, placing lights at

lowered elevations and in some cases the use of limited spectrum low

wavelength lighting (e.g., low pressure sodium vapor lights) are possible

solutions to beach lighting problems. Such measures should be required

by law and enforced.

1.1.5 Collect biological information on nesting turtle populations.

The collection of basic biological information on nesting is critical for making

intelligent management decisions. Monitoring nesting success can help to identify

problems at the nesting beach or elucidate important areas for protection.

Analyzing population recruitment can help in understanding population status.

1.1.5.1 Monitor nesting activity to identify important nesting beaches, determine number

of nesting females, and determine population trends.
55

Important nesting beaches (based on actual number of nests) must be

identified for special protection. Nesting beaches need to be identified by

standardized surveys during the nesting season. Informational surveys with

local residents and officials should be conducted to determine current or

historical nesting beaches.

One of the most crucial techniques for determining the status of sea turtle

populations and for evaluating the success of management or restoration

programs is long-term monitoring of annual nesting on key beaches. The

surveys must be done in a standardized and consistent manner with

experienced personnel. Since female turtles show fidelity to nesting

beaches, long term beach censusing provides a ready means for assessing

these maternally isolated populations. However, because of long maturity

times for turtles, quantifying trends in population sizes and effectiveness of

any restoration program may take a generation time (20+ years) to be

reflected in the annual numbers of nesters. Monitoring should thus be

recognized as a long-term undertaking.

1.1.5.2 Evaluate nest success and implement appropriate nest-protection measures on

important nesting beaches.

One of the simplest means to enhance populations is by increasing

hatchling production at the nesting beach. The first step to such an

enhancement program is to determine the nesting/hatching success and to

characterize factors which may limit that success. Once those limiting

factors are determined, protection or mitigation measures can be

implemented. If nests must be moved to prevent loss from erosion or other

threats, natural rather than artificial incubation should be employed. 

1.1.5.3 Define stock boundaries for Pacific sea turtles.

Because sea turtles exhibit a unique genetic signature for each major

nesting assemblage, and because nesting assemblages provide an easily

censused means of monitoring population status, it is useful to use genetic

analysis methods to determine stock boundaries for sea turtle populations.

It also enables managers to determine which stocks are being impacted by

activities far removed from the nesting beaches, and thus prioritize

mitigation efforts.

1.1.5.3.1 Identify genetic stock type for major nesting beach areas.

A “genetic survey” to establish the genetic signature of each nesting

population must be established, before stock ranges can be

determined. Such surveys are relatively simple as they require only

a small blood sample from a statistically viable number of females

within each nesting population.
56

1.1.5.3.2 Determine nesting beach origins for juvenile and subadult populations.

Because nesting populations can form the basis for stock

management, it is important to be able to pair juvenile and subadult

turtles with their stock units by genetic identification. DNA analyses

have begun to provide scientists and managers with this sort of

data. 

1.1.5.3.3 Determine the genetic relationship among Pacific green turtle populations.

The need for such study is critical to successful management of a

sea turtle population as it enables resource managers to identify the

entire (and often overlapping) range of each population. This type

of population study can also detail the genetic diversity and viability

of the populations. Genetic analyses also have a forensic

application that can 1) support law enforcement efforts to identify

the source of illegal sea turtle products (eggs and meat) (see

Section 2.1.1) and 2) identify originating stock of confiscated or

stranded live animals for rehabilitation purposes (see Section 3.3).

1.2 Protect and manage nesting habitat.

The nesting habitat must be protected to ensure future generations of the species. Increased

human presence and coastal construction can damage nesting habitat resulting in reduced

nest success or reduced hatchling survival.

Once key nesting beaches are identified, they may be secured on a long-term basis in an

assortment of ways. These may include conservation easements or agreements, lease of

beaches, and in some cases, fee acquisition. Certain beaches may be designated as natural

preserves. In some cases education of local residents may serve to adequately secure

nesting beaches.

1.2.1 Prevent the degradation of nesting habitats caused by sea walls, revetments, sand

bags, other erosion-control measures, jetties and breakwaters. 

Beach armoring techniques that beach residents use to protect their beachfront

properties from wave action may actually degrade nesting habitats by eroding

beaches and preventing nesting by preventing access to nesting sites or

preventing digging of the nest on the site. Guidelines on the proper placement of

stonewalls must be proposed. Jetties and breakwaters impede the natural

movement of sand and add to erosion problems in neighboring beaches.

Regulations regarding beach construction and beach armoring should be reviewed

to ensure that such measures are restricted or prohibited if adverse impacts to

nesting are anticipated.

1.2.2 Eliminate sand and coral rubble removal and mining practices on nesting beaches.
57

Beach mining severely affects a nesting beach by reducing protection from storms,

destroying native vegetation directly or indirectly and may completely destroy a

nesting beach. Protective legislation and public education must be used to protect

the substrate of the beaches.

1.2.3 Develop beach-landscaping guidelines which recommend planting of only native

vegetation, not clearing stabilizing beach vegetation and evaluating the effects as

appropriate.

Non-native vegetation may prevent access to nesting sites, prevent adequate nest

digging, exacerbate erosion or affect hatchling sex ratios by altering incubation

temperatures. Native vegetation, however, plays an important role in stabilizing the

beach and creating the proper microclimate for nests. Guidelines for residents

concerning the most appropriate plant species and the importance of a native plant

base should be encouraged.

1.2.4 Ensure that beach replenishment projects are compatible with maintaining good

quality nesting habitat.

Sand on sea turtle beaches has particular properties which affect hatching success

(ie. compaction, gas diffusion, temperature). Any addition or replacement of sand

may change these properties and make it more difficult for females to nest or

reduce hatchling success. As such, beach replenishment projects should be

carefully considered, use materials similar to the native sands and be carried out

outside the nesting season. 

1.2.5 Implement non-mechanical beach cleaning alternatives.

Hand raking of beach debris, rather than using heavy machinery, should be

encouraged on nesting beaches where cleaning is done for aesthetic reasons.

The use of heavy machinery can adversely affect hatchlings directly and their

nesting habitat. 

1.2.6 Prevent vehicular driving on nesting beaches.

Driving on active nesting beaches should be forbidden. Vehicles cause

destabilization of beaches, threaten incubating nests and leave tire ruts that

hatchlings have difficulty crossing.

2 MARINE ENVIRONMENT

2.1 Protect and manage green turtle populations in the marine habitat.

Protection of turtles in the marine environment is a priority that is often overlooked as

enforcement is difficult and quantification of the problem problematic. However, 99% of a

turtle’s life is spent at sea; thus, recovery must include significant efforts to protect turtles at

that time.
58

2.1.1 Eliminate directed take of turtles.

Direct take of turtles was identified as a severe threat to population recovery in the

Pacific Ocean and must be eliminated if sea turtles are to recover.

2.1.1.1 Reduce directed take of turtles through public education and information.

While increased law enforcement will be effective in the short term, without

support of the local populace, regulations will become ineffective.

Education of the public as to the value of conserving sea turtles, especially

given the cultural history of green turtle exploitation in this region, is a very

effective way of sustaining recovery efforts and providing support for

enforcement of management regulations.

2.1.1.2 Increase/maintain law-enforcement efforts to reduce illegal exploitation.

One of the major threats identified for turtle populations in the Pacific was

the harvest of turtles, both on the nesting beach and in the water, for food,

medicine, and religious or cultural reasons. Rigorous efforts in law

enforcement, with sensitivity to cultural attitudes, should be undertaken

immediately to reduce this source of mortality. Such efforts need to include

training of enforcement personnel in the importance of protecting turtles, as

well as supplying such personnel with adequate logistical support (boats,

communication and surveillance equipment etc.). Judges and prosecutors

must also be educated in the importance of these matters. Trade in green

turtle paraphernalia must also be restricted.

2.1.2 Determine distribution, abundance, and status in the marine environment.

In its review of information on sea turtle populations in the Pacific, the Recovery

Team found that lack of accurate information on distribution and abundance was

one of the greatest threats to sea turtle populations. Most existing information is

anecdotal or obsolete and where new information is available, it uniformly indicates

that green turtle populations are vastly smaller than commonly believed. We

consider that gathering of basic information on distribution and abundance should

take a very high priority in the recovery of Pacific green turtle populations.

2.1.2.1 Determine the distribution and abundance of post-hatchlings, juveniles and adults.

While little is known about the distribution of nesting beaches for the green

turtle, even less is understood about distribution of foraging adult and

juvenile populations with the exception of green turtle residents In the

Hawaiian Islands. Quantitative surveys of foraging areas to determine

green turtle abundance, and to identify essential habitat is of significant

importance for restoration of green turtle populations.
59

2.1.2.2 Determine adult migration routes and internesting movements.

Like all species of sea turtle (with the possible exception of the Flatback

turtle, Natator depressus), green turtles migrate from foraging grounds to

nesting beaches. These migrations often mean that the turtles move

through a variety of political jurisdictions where regulations regarding the

stewardship of the species may vary. To preclude the problem of

contradictory management strategies by these various jurisdictions, it is

important to determine the migration routes green turtles follow between

nesting and foraging areas. Satellite telemetry studies of both males and

females are needed.

2.1.2.3 Determine growth rates and survivorship of hatchlings, juveniles, and adults, and

age at sexual maturity.

Understanding the rates of growth and survivorship of turtle populations is

crucial to the development of appropriate population models. Such models

are important in understanding population status and how best to efficiently

apply management efforts, in restoring depleted populations. For example,

the application of stage-based modeling (Crouse et al. 1987) indicated that

not enough effort was being expended on protecting juvenile sized

loggerhead sea turtles in the southeastern United States and that without

such protection, extensive nesting beach protection was having less

positive benefit. A similar approach to understanding green turtle

populations should be undertaken, and used to guide restoration policy.

2.1.2.4 Identify current or potential threats to adults and juveniles on foraging grounds.

Little is known about threats to foraging populations of green turtles.

Studies on such threats should be undertaken immediately.

2.1.3 Reduce the effects of entanglement and ingestion of marine debris.

Entanglement due to abandoned or unmonitored fishing gear, as well as the

ingestion of man-made debris is a significant problem in the marine environment.

2.1.3.1 Evaluate the extent to which sea turtles ingest persistent debris and become

entangled.

Quantification of the extent to which sea turtles are impacted by marine

debris should be undertaken as a first step to mitigating or preventing such

impacts. The benefits of such work are that it allows the prioritization of

recovery activities and it allows the activities to be efficiently targeted at the

problem. 

2.1.3.2 Evaluate the effects of entanglement and the ingestion of persistent debris on

health and viability of sea turtles.
60

Because of the remote nature of turtle/debris interactions, the acute and

chronic effects of such interaction are not often understood. Turtles may

not die immediately after ingesting certain materials, but may become

debilitated. Studies to further understand the impacts of such interactions,

and what age classes are affected most severely, should be undertaken

immediately. As with quantifying the extent to which sea turtles ingest

debris, such a program allows recovery efforts to be more efficient.

2.1.3.3 Formulate and implement measures to reduce or eliminate persistent debris and

sources of entanglement in the marine environment.

Once the problem of marine debris has been identified and quantified, it is

important to implement (and enforce) a program to reduce the amount of

debris in the marine environment, ie. removing the problem entirely, as

contrasted to mitigating the problem.

2.1.4 Monitor and reduce incidental mortality in the commercial and recreational

fisheries.

 For some areas, incidental take in fisheries has been identified as a severe threat.

These mortalities are often associated with international fleets operating on the

high seas, but for the green turtle it is probably most significant in nearshore

waters. Monitoring of turtle take by fisheries is extremely important for two

reasons. First, it allows resource managers a means to quantify the extent of the

problem, and by the very act of monitoring, tends to cause commercial fishermen

to be more aware of the concern over incidental takes, and thereby encourage

reduced take. The choice method for monitoring take is through the use of an

unbiased observer program. Voluntary logbooks have not proven a reliable

technique for quantifying incidental catch in commercial fisheries. Implementation

of mortality reduction activities includes the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TED)

in shrimp trawler fisheries. Finally a serious but unquantified problem is that of

fisheries vessels stopping illegally at uninhabited islets and atolls and killing turtles.

This can be curtailed only by the education of fisherman, and increased

enforcement on the seas and in the courts.

2.1.5 Eliminate the harassment of turtles at sea through education and enforcement.

Activities such as “petting” turtles and chasing them while snorkeling and scuba

diving, water skiing, jet skis, vessel traffic, and vessel anchoring may disturb or

displace turtles. These factors should be regulated or controlled to eliminate

negative impacts, especially in sensitive and high density foraging and resting

areas.

2.1.6 Study the impact of diseases on turtles.
61

Little is known about diseases in sea turtles, but there has been recent evidence

that it may be a limiting factor in certain populations. Disease origin and

transmission may not be limited to the marine environment.

2.1.6.1 Investigate fibropapillomas (tumors) in green turtles.

Debilitating and life threatening tumors are known to occur in Hawaiian and

other (Caribbean) populations of green turtles. The magnitude of this

disease during recent years has increased substantially in Hawaii. The

etiology of the disease and effects as they relate to the viability of the

population are presently unknown and need to be studied.

2.1.6.2 Investigate parasites and other infectious agents.

A variety of other diseases and parasites may be affecting sea turtles. The

prevalence of such infections, their impact on sea turtles, and modes of

transmissions need to be studied. Parasites include internal parasites such

as blood flukes, external parasites such as leeches (Ozobranchus) and

burrowing barnacles (Stephanolepas), and certain bacterial infections such

as Vibrios.

2.1.7 Develop/maintain carcass stranding network.

Stranding networks are operated generally by volunteers who monitor beaches for

stranded animals. Such networks can be useful for alerting managers to incidents

causing high mortality, such as an increased fishery take or disease problems, as

well as providing some basic biological data. 

2.1.8 Centralize administration and coordination of tagging programs.

In general, government resource management agencies can provide the continuity

required to coordinate tagging programs. The responsibility of any such agency

is that they act as a central distribution point for tags, tagging training and database

management. It is critically important that the coordinating agency: 1) provides

adequate staff to keep the program organized and respond to tag returns

immediately, and 2) remain in existence for many years (20+). Without such a

commitment, tagging programs have very limited usefulness, and before initiation

of such a program it should be considered carefully on its scientific merits. It must

be remembered that sea turtles are long-lived animals, and the most valuable

information yielded by any tagging program comes from turtles which have carried

identification tags for many years. Short-term tagging projects are at best very

limited in the information they yield and at worst are nothing more than a form of

undue harassment to the turtles. 

Centralization of tag records is useful as it makes the most efficient use of limited

personnel resources, allows standardization of techniques, and can act as a

screening mechanism to ensure that tagging is done for valid scientific reasons.
62

2.2 Protect and manage marine habitat, including foraging habitats.

Green turtles inhabit a variety of marine habitats, although we are most familiar with their

coastal habitat. Increased human presence in this and other sea turtle habitats have

contributed to reef degradation, primarily by coastal construction, increased recreational and

fisheries use, and increased industrialization. Habitat loss and degradation must be prevented

or slowed.

2.2.1 Identify important marine habitats.

These areas may include hatchling, juvenile and adult foraging areas and migratory

range for all age classes. (Many of these areas will first need to be identified

through actions in Section 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2.)

2.2.2 Ensure the long-term protection of marine habitat.

Once marine habitats are identified, sea turtle range, refugia and foraging habitats

(Sargassum beds, coral reefs and sponge habitats) need to be protected to ensure

long-term survival for the species. Habitats identified as important or critical should

be designated as marine sanctuaries or preserves, while others may require close

monitoring. The public needs to be educated on the importance of preserving

these habitats.

2.2.3 Assess and prevent the degradation or destruction of reefs and seagrass beds

caused by boat groundings, anchoring, and trampling by fishermen and divers. 

Physical harm done by boat hulls, anchors and persons on coral reefs can be a

serious threat to reef habitats, particularly in heavily-used bays. Given that reefs

recover slowly from physical damage, appropriate actions such as providing boat

moorings and removal of grounded vessels should be undertaken. 

2.2.4 Prevent the degradation of reef, algal and seagrass habitat caused by

environmental contaminants such as sewage and other pollutants.

Protect these habitats by reducing offshore dumping of industrial waste and

offshore sewage outfalls. High water quality standards must be established and

maintained for inland water treatment plants.

2.2.5 Prevent the degradation or destruction of marine habitats caused by dredging or

disposal activities.

Dredging causes mechanical destruction of reefs, adds suspended sediments that

may damage corals and seagrasses and disposal of dredged materials smothers

existing flora and fauna.

2.2.6 Prevent the degradation or destruction of important habitats caused by upland and

coastal erosion and siltation. 
63

These processes, often made worse by coastal construction, adversely affect coral

reefs by disrupting vital trophic processes, reducing productivity and reducing

species diversity. Minimum water standards upstream must be maintained. Landuse decisions must take this into account and associated projects where erosion

and siltation occur must be monitored.

2.2.7 Prevent the degradation or destruction of reefs by dynamite fishing and

construction blasting.

Blasting of any nature physically damages reefs and may kill turtles. It must be

monitored and/or restricted.

2.2.8 Prevent the degradation of important habitat caused by oil transshipment activities.

Oil spills from tankers are a possible threat both to coastal and pelagic habitats.

Also, groundings or collisions of tankers and other petroleum industry vessels may

physically damage reefs, perhaps more so than other vessels because of their

sheer size (see Section 2.2.3). The oil and gas industry should take necessary

preventive measures (e.g., double hulled tankers). Oil spill response teams should

be identified for all likely areas.

 

2.2.9 Identify other threats to marine habitat and take appropriate actions.

Such threats to sea turtle habitat that do not fit in the previous sections or new

threats must be considered and addressed. Such threats may include commercial

and recreational illegal takes of coral and “live rock” for aquaria, as well as take of

tropical fish for aquaria. Chemicals used to capture the fish may also affect reefs.

3 ENSURE PROPER CARE IN CAPTIVITY.

Captive care of sea turtles is common in the Pacific. Some of this care is in the form of formal

rearing programs and other captive care is more casual, such as rearing turtles as pets

(although this is illegal in Guam, CNMI and American Samoa.) The latter should be

discouraged, even where permitted. Depending on the scale of such activities such captivity

can be harmful to the wild population due to excess take from the wild, or from the potential

introduction of exotic diseases or unfit genetic stocks to the wild population. Captive care

should be carefully regulated to minimize such problems, and all release programs should

rigorously monitor the status of released turtles to ensure their proper integration into the wild.

It should be noted that to be deemed successful, captive turtles that have been released to

the wild should be shown not only to survive in the wild but should also successfully

reproduce. If released turtles do not reproduce, such populations will never be self sustaining.

3.1 Develop standards for the care and maintenance of sea turtles, including diet, water quality,

tank size, and treatment of injury and disease.

Standards should be developed by NMFS or other appropriate agencies. Once developed,

these criteria should be published and set as requirements for any sea turtle holding facility.
64

Facilities that comply with the criteria will receive permits to hold turtles and be inspected for

compliance. A manual for diagnosis and treatment of sea turtle diseases should be compiled,

published and distributed to holding facilities. 

3.2 Establish a catalog of all captive sea turtles to enhance use for research and education.

The FWS and NMFS should establish a catalog of turtles at all known facilities.

3.3 Designate rehabilitation facilities.

FWS, NMFS and other appropriate agencies should designate these facilities based on the

above criteria. Designation should be based on availability of appropriate veterinary

personnel, compliance with standards of care and annual inspections. Recommendations

should be made on when and where hatchlings or adults should be released.

4 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

4.1 Support existing international agreements and conventions to ensure that turtles in all lifestages are protected in foreign waters.

Considering that green turtles migrate outside of U.S. territorial waters during at least part of

their life cycle, an effective recovery plan must include supporting existing cooperative

agreements with other nations to protect the species. Existing agreements include CITES (see

next section, adopted 1973), the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation

in the Western Hemisphere (adopted 1940), the ASEAN Agreement on the Convention of

Nature and Natural Resources (adopted 1985), the Convention for the Protection of the

Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region (SPREP convention, adopted

1986), as well as a number of conventions concerning marine pollution (Eckert, 1993). Out

of the SPREP convention, the South Pacific Regional Marine Turtle Conservation Programme

was created to specifically implement a regional approach to the species protection.

Agreements and conventions that are effective must continue to be supported. 

4.2 Encourage ratification of the CITES for all non-member Pacific countries, compliance with

CITES requirements, and removal of sea turtle trade reservations held by member nations.

CITES is a comprehensive wildlife treaty signed by many countries that regulates and

prohibits commercial import and export of wild plant and animal species that are threatened

by trade. In the north Pacific signatories include 18 countries (Eckert, 1993). It is one of the

most powerful international agreements concerning threatened species. The U.S. State

Department, Department of Commerce and Department of Interior should work with Pacific

nations to encourage non-member countries to become signatories and demand compliance

with CITES requirements on sea turtles from all signatories.

4.3 Develop new international agreements to ensure that turtles in all life-stages are protected

in foreign waters.

New agreements must be outlined by the FWS and NMFS, and pursued by the State

Department and Department of the Interior. Eastern Pacific nations should be encouraged to
65

ratify the Regional Agreement for Investigation and Management of Marine Turtles of the

American Pacific which was not put into place after being drafted in 1986.

4.4 Develop or continue to support informational displays in Republic of Palau, Guam, Hawaii,

American Samoa, North Marianas, the Marshall Islands, the FSM and other airports which provide

connecting legs for travelers to the area.

Airports are particularly good avenues for information about illegal trade in tortoise and

tortoiseshell paraphernalia, as well as general information on sea turtle conservation. If

travelers don’t purchase the items, the market for them may decrease. Agencies such as

NMFS, FWS and the U.S. Customs Service should collaborate on display content and

placement.
66

III. REFERENCES CITED

Alvarado, J., and A. Figueroa. 1987. The ecological recovery of sea turtles of Michoacan,

Mexico. Special attention: the black turtle, Chelonia agassizii. Final Report 1986-1987

submitted to U.S.F.W.S. and W.W.F. - U.S. 46 pp. + tables/figs.

Atkinson, S., and M. Guilbeaux. 1992. Survey of hawksbill nesting activity on selected Rock

Island beaches. Unpublished report to the Division of Marine Resources, Republic of

Palau. 2 pp.

Balazs, G.H. 1976. Green turtle migrations in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Biol. Conserv.

9:125-140.

Balazs, G.H. 1978. Terrestrial critical habitat for sea turtles under United States jurisdiction in the

Pacific region. 'Elepaio 39(4):37-41.

Balazs, G.H. 1979. Growth, food sources and migrations of immature Hawaiian Chelonia. Mar.

Turtle Newsl. 10:1-3.

Balazs, G.H. 1980. Synopsis of biological data on the green turtle in the Hawaiian Islands. U.S.

Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-7. 141 pp.

Balazs, G.H. 1982a. Status of sea turtles in the central Pacific Ocean. Pages 243-252 in K.A.

Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press,

Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Balazs, G.H. 1982b. Growth rates of immature green turtles in the Hawaiian archipelago. Pages

117-126 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst.

Press, Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Balazs, G.H. 1982c. Sea turtles: A shared resource of the Pacific islands. South Pac. Comm.

Fish. Newsl. 232:22-24.

Balazs, G.H. 1983a. Sea turtles and their traditional usage in Tokelau. Atoll Res. Bull. 279:1-29.

Balazs, G.H. 1983b. Recovery records of adult green turtles observed or originally tagged at

French Frigate Shoals, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech.

Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-36. 42 pp.

Balazs, G.H. 1985a. Status and ecology of marine turtles at Johnston Atoll. Atoll Res. Bull.

285:1-46.

Balazs, G.H. 1985b. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion.

Pages 387-429 in R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop

on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS-SWFC-54. 582 pp.
67

Balazs, G.H. 1985c. History of sea turtles at Poihua Beach on Northern Lanai. 'Elepaio,

46(1):1-3.

Balazs, G.H. 1986. Ontogenetic changes in the plastron pigmentation of hatchling Hawaiian

green turtles. J. Herpetol. 20(2):280-282.

Balazs, G.H. 1991. Historical summary of sea turtle observations at Rose Atoll, American

Samoa. Natl. Mar. Fish. Sci. Serv., NOAA, Honolulu, HI. Unpublished manuscript. 6 pp.

Balazs, G.H. 1994. Homeward bound: satellite tracking of Hawaiian green turtles from nesting

beaches to foraging pastures. Pages 205-208 in B. A. Schroeder and B. E. Witherington

(compilers), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and

Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-341. 281 pp.

Balazs, G.H., and S. Pooley (eds.). 1991. Research plan for marine turtle fibropapilloma. U.S.

Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-156. 113 pp.

Balazs, G.H., and J.A. Wetherall. 1991. Assessing impacts of North Pacific high-seas driftnet

fisheries on marine turtles: progress and problems. Doc. U001, Scientific Review of North

Pacific High-seas Driftnet Fisheries, Sidney, B. C., Canada, 11-14 June 1991. 15 pp.

Balazs, G.H., R.G. Forsyth, and A.K.H. Kam. 1987. Preliminary assessment of habitat utilization

by Hawaiian green turtles in their resident foraging pastures. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA

Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-71. 107 pp.

Balazs, G.H., R.K. Miya, and M.A. Finn. 1994a. Aspects of green turtles in their feeding, resting,

and cleaning areas off Waikiki Beach. Pages 15-18 in B.A. Schroeder and B.E.

Witherington (compilers), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle

Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-341. 281 pp.

Balazs, G.H., P.Siu, and J.P. Landret. 1995. Ecological aspects of green turtles nesting at Scilly

Atoll in French Polynesia. Pages 7-10 in Richardson, J.I. and T.H. Richardson (compilers),

Proceedings of the Twelfth Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA

Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-361. 274 pp.

Balazs, G.H., P. Craig, B.R. Winton, and R.K. Miya. 1994b. Satellite telemetry of green turtles

nesting at Rose Atoll, American Samoa, and French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii. Pages 184-

187 in Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and

Conservation. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-351.

Balazs, G.H., H. Hirth, P. Kawamoto, E. Nitta, L. Ogren, R. Wass, and J. Wetherall. 1992. Interim

Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Sea Turtles. Honolulu Lab., Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent., Natl.

Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Honolulu, HI 96822-2396. Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent. Admin. Rep.

H-92-01. 76 pp.

Bjorndal, K.A. 1985. Nutritional ecology of sea turtles. Copeia 1985:736-751.
68

Bjorndal, K.A., and A.B. Bolten. 1988. Growth rates of immature green turtles, Chelonia mydas,

on feeding grounds in the southern Bahamas. Copeia 1988:555-564.

Boulon, R.H., and N.B. Frazer. 1990. Growth of wild juvenile Caribbean green turtles, Chelonia

mydas. J. Herpetol. 24:441-445.

Bowen, W., A.B. Meylan, J.P. Ross, C.J. Limpus, G.H. Balazs, and J.C. Avise. 1992. Global

population structure and natural history of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in terms of

matriarchal phylogeny. Evolution 46(4):865-881.

Bryan, E.H., Jr. 1974. Panala'au Memoirs. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

Carr, A.F. 1952. Handbook of Turtles. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York. 529 pp.

Carr, A.F. 1987a. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. Cons. Biol.

1(2):103-121.

Carr, A.F. 1987b. The impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival

outlook of sea turtles. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18(6b):352-356.

Carr, A.F., and M.H. Carr. 1970. Recruitment and remigration in a green turtle nesting colony.

Biol. Conserv. 2:282-284.

Collard, S.B., and L.H. Ogren. 1990. Dispersal scenarios for pelagic post-hatchling sea turtles.

Bull. Mar. Sci. 47:233-243.

Craig, P. and G.H. Balazs. 1995. Turtle travels from American Samoa to Polynesia. Mar. Turtle

News. 70:5-6.

Crouse, O.T., Crowder, L.B. and Caswell, H. 1987. A stage based population model for

loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecology 68(5):1412-1423.

Di Rosa, R. 1992. Palua trip report, rapid ecological assessment Sept. 26-Oct. 9, 1992. Unpup.

Report to Nature Conservancy. 9 pp.

Dizon, A.E., and G.H. Balazs. 1982. Radio telemetry of Hawaiian green turtles at their breeding

colony. Mar. Fish. Rev. 44(5):13-20.

Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1978. Terrestrial critical habitat and marine turtles. Bull. Md. Herpetol. Soc. 14:

233-240.

Dutton, P.H. and D.L. McDonald. 1990. Status of sea turtles in San Diego Bay, 1989 - 1990

Final Report. Sea World Research Institute Technical Report #90-225. 18 pp.

Dutton, P.H., S.K. Davis, T. Guerra, and D. Owens. 1996. Molecular phylogeny for marine turtles

based on sequences of the ND4-leucine and control regions of mtDNA. Mol. Phylogenet.

Evol. 5:511-521. 
69

Eckert, K.L. 1993. The biology and population status of marine turtles in the North Pacific Ocean.

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS. NOAA-TM-SWFSC-186. 156 pp.

Edson, C., and F. Curren. 1987. Report from Oroluk. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 41:1-2.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1982. A review of sea turtle reproduction. Pages 29-38 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.),

Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 583

pp.

Forbes, G.A. 1994. The diet of the green turtle in an algal-based coral reef community - Heron

Island, Australia. Pages 57-59 in B.A. Schroeder and B.E. Witherington (compilers),

Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-341. 281 pp.

Forsyth, R.G., and G.H. Balazs. 1989. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental

requirements of coastal vertebrates and invertebrates, Pacific Ocean region: Report 1,

Green turtle, Chelonia mydas. Technical report EL-89-10, prepared by NMFS, NOAA,

Honolulu, HI, for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

20 pp.

Fosberg, F.R. 1969. Observations on the green turtle in the Marshall Islands. Atoll Res. Bull.

135:9-12.

Frazer, N.B., and L. M. Ehrhart. 1985. Preliminary growth models for green, Chelonia mydas,

and loggerhead, Caretta caretta, turtles in the wild. Copeia 1985:789-802.

Frazer, N.B., and R.C. Ladner. 1986. A growth curve for green sea turtles, Chelonia, in the U.S.

Virgin Islands, 1913-1914. Copeia 1986:798-802.

Geermans, S.H. 1992. Marine turtles in the Southwest Palau Islands. Unpub. SPREP Report.

Geermans, S., and L. Honigman. 1992. Palau Rapid Ecological Assessment: Marine turtles,

seabirds, and Micronesian megapodes of Babeldaob, Peleliu, and Ngemelis. Prepared

for the Republic of Palau Bureau of Natural Resources and Development and The Nature

Conservancy. Sponsored by the Queensland Dept. of Environment and Heritage and the

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) Marine Turtle Conservation

Programme.

Groombridge, B. (Compiler). 1982. The IUCN Amphibia-Reptilia red data book. Part 1.

Testudines, Crocodylia, and Rhynchocephalia. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 426 pp.

Groombridge, B., and R. Luxmoore. 1989. The green turtle and hawksbill (Reptilia: Cheloniidae):

World status, exploitation and trade. IUCN Conservation Monitoring Center, Cambridge.

601 pp.

Guilbeaux, M.D. 1992. Summary report of sea turtle nesting beach suitability survey, SeptemberOctober 1992 Palau REA. Unpub. report to Nature Conservancy. 12 pp.
70

Guilbeaux, M., S. Davis and P. Tonne. 1994. Survey of hawksbill nesting activity on selected

Rock Island beaches. Unpublished report to the Division of Marine Resources, Republic

of Palau. 1 p.

Hendrickson, J.R. 1958. The green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linn.), in Malaya and Sarawak.

Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 130(4):455-535.

Hendrickson, J.R. 1972. South Pacific Islands - marine turtle resources. FAO Report

FI:SF/SOP/REG 102/6. FAO, Rome.

Herbst, L.H. Fibropapillomatosis of marine turtles. 1994. Annual Review of Fish Diseases 4:

389-425.

Hiatt, R.M. 1951. Marine zoology study of Arno Atoll, Marshall Islands. Scientific investigations

in Micronesia: natives uses of marine products. Atoll Res. Bull. 3-4:1-13.

Hirth, H.F. 1971a. South Pacific Islands - marine turtle resources. FAO Report

FI:SF/SOP/REG/102/1. FAO, Rome.

Hirth, H.F. 1971b. Synopsis of biological data on the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus)

1758. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 85. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United

Nations, Rome. 74 pp.

Hirth, H.F. 1980. Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus), green turtle. Catalogue of American amphibians

and reptiles. 249:1-4.

Holthus, P.F., J.E. Maragos, J. Naughton, C. Dahl, D. David, A. Edward, M. Gawel and S. Liphei.

1993. Oroluk Atoll and Minto Reef resource survey. East-West Center Program on

Environment, Honolulu, Hawaii. 94 pp.

Honigman, L. 1994. Preliminary survey to determine the status and distribution of sea turtles on

the island of Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana islands. Draft report to the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 20 pp.

Johannes, R.E. 1978. Traditional marine conservation methods in Oceania and their demise.

Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 9:349-364.

Johannes, R.E. 1981. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and Marine Lore in the Palau District of

Micronesia. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley.

Johannes, R.E. 1986. A review of information on the subsistence use of green and hawksbill sea

turtles on islands under United States jurisdiction in the western Pacific Ocean. NMFS

Southwest Region Admin. Report SWR-86-2. 41 pp.

Kolinski, S. 1991. Outer islands turtle project: Stage 1 Final report on the Olimarao Atoll

fieldwork. Marine Resources Management Division, Yap, Federated States of Micronesia,

March. 21 pp.
71

Kolinski, S. 1994. Carapace lesions of Chelonia mydas breeding in Yap State are diagnosed to

be fibropapilloma. Mar. Turtle News. 67: 26-27.

Lessa, W.A. 1962. The decreasing power of myth on Ulithi. J. Am. Folkl. 75: 153-159.

Lessa, W.A. 1984. Sea turtles and ritual: Conservation in the Caroline Islands. Pages 1183-1201

in B. Gunda (ed.), The Fishing Culture of the World: Studies in Ethnology, Cultural Ecology

and Folklore. Volume II. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. Pp. 589-1253.

Limpus, C.J. 1978. The reef and uncertain land of plenty. Pages 187-222 in H. Lavery (ed.),

Exploration North, A Natural History of Queensland. Richmond Hill Press, Melbourne.

Limpus, C.J. 1982. The status of Australian sea turtle populations. Pages 297-303 in K.A.

Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press,

Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Limpus, C.J., and D.G. Walter. 1980. The growth of immature green turtles Chelonia mydas

under natural conditions. Herpetologica 36(2):162-165.

Limpus, C.J., P. Eggler, and J.D. Miller. 1994. Long interval remigration in eastern Australian

Chelonia. Pages 85-86 in B.A. Schroeder and B.E. Witherington (compilers), Proceedings

of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA

Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-341. 281 pp.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera,

species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synomymis, locis. Ed. 10, Tomus 1. L. Salvii,

srockholm, Sweden. 823 pp.

Losey, G., G.H. Balazs, and L.A. Privatera. 1994. A cleaning symbiosis between the wrasses,

Thalassoma duperry, and the green turtle, Chelonia mydas. Copeia 1994(3): 684-690.

Loshbaugh, D. 1993. Dead turtle may have set northern record. Homer News, October 28,

1993.

Maragos, J.E. 1992. Sea turtle conservation plan for the Republic of Palau. Draft report

prepared for the Republic of Palau, Bureau of Resources and Development by the Nature

Conservancy, Pacific Region, Honolulu. 39 pp. 

Maragos, J.E. 1994. Description of reefs and corals for the 1988 protected area survey of the

northern Marshall Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin 419: 1-88 + 4 appendices.

Maragos, J.E., C. Birkland, C. Cook, K. Des Rochers, R. Di Rosa, T.J. Donaldson, S.H.

Geermans, M. Guilbeaux, H. Hirsh, L. Honigman, N. Idechong, P.S. Lobel, E. Matthews,

K.J. McDermid, K.Z. Meier, R. Meyers, I. Otobed, R.H. Richmond, B. Smith, and R. Smith.

1994. Marine and coastal areas survey of the Main Palau Islands: Part 2. Rapid

ecological assessment synthesis report (J. E. Maragos (ed.)). A report prepared for the
72

Palau Bureau of Natural Resources and Development, Republic of Palau, by The Nature

Conservancy, Pacific Region, Honolulu, Hawaii. 125 pp.

Márquez M., R. 1990. Sea turtles of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of sea

turtle species known to date. FAO Species Catalog, FAO Fisheries Synopsis 11(125):81

pp.

McCoy, M.A. 1974. Man and turtle in the Central Carolines. Micronesica 10(2):207-221.

McCoy, M.A. 1982. Subsistence hunting of turtles in the Western Pacific: the Caroline Islands.

Pages 275-280 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles.

Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Mendonca, M.T. 1977. Comparative growth rates of wild immature Chelonia mydas and Caretta

caretta in Florida. J. Herpetol. 15:447-451.

Meylan, A.B. 1982. Sea turtle migrations-evidence from tag returns. Pages 91-100 in K.A.

Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press,

Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Meylan, A.B., B.W. Bowen, and J.C. Avise. 1990. A genetic test of the natal homing versus

social facilitation models for green turtle migration. Science 248:724-728.

Morreale, S.J., G.J. Ruiz, J.R. Spotila, and E.A. Standora. 1982. Temperature-dependent sex

determination: current practices threaten conservation of sea turtles. Science

216:1245-1247.

Mortimer, J.A. 1982. Feeding ecology of sea turtles. Pages 102-109 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.),

Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 583

pp.

Mortimer, J.A. 1990. The influence of beach sand characteristics on the nesting behavior and

clutch survival of green turtles (Chelonia mydas). Copeia 1990:802-817.

Mrosovsky, N., and C.L.Yntema. 1980. Temperature dependence of sexual differentiation in sea

turtles: implications for conservation practices. Biol. Cons. 18:271-280.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1985a. Five-year status review of sea turtles listed under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington

D.C., January. 90 pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1985b. Review of regulations concerning the taking of sea

turtles for subsistence purposes: notice of final determination and availability of review

documents. Federal Register, 50, 2:278-279, 1/3/85.
73

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Annual report on the biological opinion of June 25,

1994 concerning the take of sea turtles in the Hawaii longline fishery. Unpublished report.

11 pp.

Naughton, J.J. 1991. Sea turtle survey at Oroluk Atoll and Minto Reef. Mar. Turtle Newsl.

55:9-12.

National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the sea turtles: causes and prevention. National

Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 259 pp.

Ogren, L. 1984. Overview of the biology of the green turtle. Pages 78-80 in P. Bacon, F. Berry,

K. Bjorndal, H. Hirth L. Ogren and M. Weber (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Atlantic

Turtle Symposium. RSMAS Printing, Miami.

Owens, D.W. 1980. The comparative reproductive physiology of sea turtles. Am. Zool. 20(3):

549-563.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1977. Marine turtles of Micronesia. Chelonia Press, San Francisco. 83 pp.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982a. Marine turtles of Micronesia. Pages 263-274 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.),

Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 583

pp.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982b. Marine turtles of the South Pacific. Pages 253-262 in K.A. Bjorndal

(ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C.

583 pp.

Pritchard, P.C.H., and P. Trebbau. 1984. The turtles of Venezuela. Society for the Study of

Amphibians and Reptiles. Contrib. Herpetol. 2.

Puleloa, W.K. and N. Kilma. 1992. The sea turtles of the Northern Marshalls: A research

expedition to Bikar and Erikup Atolls and Jemo Island. Unpublished Report to SPREP. 72

pp.

Russell, D.J. and G.H. Balazs. 1994. Colonization and utiization of the alien marine alga Hypnea

musciformis (Wulfen) J.Ag. (Rhodophyta: Gigartinales) in the Hawaiian Islands. Aquatic

Botany 47(1994): 53-60.

Schweigger, A. 1812. Prodomus monographiae cheloniorum. Konigsberger Arch. Naturwiss.

Math. 1:271-368;406-458.

Smith, A. 1991. M.R.M.D. working paper on turtles. Marine Resources Management Division,

Yap, Federated States of Micronesia, January. 26 pp.

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. 1991. Report of the first meeting and workshop

of the Regional Marine Turtle Conservation Programme (RMTCP), Noumea, New

Caledonia, 13-15 August l991. South Pacific Commission, Noumea. 35 pp.
74

Suganuma, H. 1991. Green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the Ogasawara Islands. Pages 125-

127 in I. Uchida (editorial advisor), International Symposium on Sea Turtles 1988 in Japan,

Himeji City Aquarium and Chelonian Museum, Japan.

Thomas, P.E.J. (compiler). 1989. Report of the Northern Marshall Islands Natural Diversity and

Protected Areas Survey, 7-24 September 1988. South Pacific Regional Environment

Programme (SPREP), Noumea, New Caledonia, and the East-West Center, Honolulu,

Hawaii. 133 pp. 

Tobin, J.E. 1952. Land tenure in the Marshall Islands. Atoll Res. Bull. 11:1-36.

Tobin, J., G. Weilbacher, E. Iwaniec, F. Mahoney, S. Kaneshiro, and R. Emerick. 1957. Notes

on the present regulations and practices of harvesting sea turtle and sea turtle eggs in the

Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Anthropological Working Papers No. 1, Office of the

Staff Anthropologist, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Guam, M. I. 26 pp.

Tuato'o-Bartley, N., T.E. Morrell, and P. Craig. 1993. Status of sea turtles in American Samoa

in 1991. Pacific Science 47(3):215-221.

Wetherall, J.A., G.H. Balazs, R.A. Tokunaga and M.Y.Y. Yong. 1993. Bycatch of marine turtles

in North Pacific high-seas driftnet fisheries and impacts on the stocks. Bull. of the N.

Pacific Comm. 53(III):519-538.

Whittow, G.C., and G.H. Balazs. 1982. Basking behavior of the Hawaiian green turtle (Chelonia

mydas). Pac. Sci. 36:129-139.

Yntema, C.L., and N. Mrosovsky. 1980. Sexual differentiation in hatchling loggerheads (Caretta

caretta). Can J Zool. 60(5):1012-1016.

Zug, G.R., and G.H. Balazs. 1985. Skeletochronological age estimates for Hawaiian green

turtles. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 33:9-10.
75

IV. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

The Implementation Schedule outlines management and research actions and estimated costs

for the U.S. Pacific green turtle recovery program, as set forth in this recovery plan. It is a guide

for meeting the objectives discussed in Part II of this plan. This schedule indicates wherever

possible, task priority, task numbers, task descriptions, duration of tasks, the agencies responsible

for committing funds, and lastly, estimated costs. The agencies responsible for committing funds

are not, necessarily, the entities that will actually carry out the tasks. The actions identified in the

implementation schedule, when accomplished, should protect habitat for the species, stabilize the

existing populations, and increase the population sizes and numbers. Monetary needs for all

parties involved are identified to reach this point, whenever feasible.

Priorities in column 3 of the following Implementation Schedule are assigned as follows:

Priority 1 -

An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from

declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future.

Priority 2 -

An action that must be taken to prevent significant decline in species population/habitat

quality or some other significant negative impact short of extinction.

Priority 3 -

All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species.

KEY to Implementation Table Abbreviations:

CNMI = Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

COE = U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

DOC = U.S. Department of Commerce

DOI = U.S. Department of Interior

DOS = U.S. Deparment of State (primarily as a conduit for negotiations and

support for tasks in other political jurisdictions)

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FSM = Federated States of Micronesia

FWS = U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

NA = Not applicable

NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service

NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service (Soil Conservation Service)

RMI = Republic of the Marshall Islands

USN = U.S. Navy
1Also includes Task 2.1.1.1. Inclusive of Task 1.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.1 in Hawksbill plan.

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B

74 The lead agency is listed first.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Green (Chelonia mydas)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

1.1 Protect & manage

turtles on nesting

beaches

1.1.1 Eliminate

directed take of

turtles and their eggs

1.1.1.1 Reduce

directed take through

public education &

information

1 Continuing FWS, NMFS,

Hawaii, American

Samoa, Guam,

Palau, CNMI,

RMI, FSM,

Unincorp.

Territories, DOS

75 75 75 75 75 Support should

be provided for

international

information

exchange

forum1

1.1.1.2 Law

enforcement-prevent

illegal exploitation

& harassment

1 Continuing 75 75 75 75 75 Inclusive of task

1.1.1.2 in 

Hawksbill plan

1.1 Protect & manage

turtles on nesting

beaches (cont.)

1.1.2 Ensure coastal

construction

activities do not

disrupt nesting &

hatching activities

1 Continuing COE, FWS,

Hawaii, American

Samoa, Guam,

Palau, CNMI,

RMI, FSM,

Unincorp.

Territories,

NMFS, DOS

No specific

costs - part of

ongoing

program

activities
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Green (Chelonia mydas)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B

75 The lead agency is listed first.

1.1 Protect & manage

turtles on nesting

beaches (cont.)

1.1.3 Reduce nest

predation by

domestic & feral

animals

1 Continuing FWS, Hawaii,

American Samoa,

Guam, Palau,

CNMI, RMI,

FSM, Unincorp.

Territories, DOS

150 150 150 150 150 Review after

10 years

1.1 Protect & manage

turtles on nesting

beaches (cont.)

1.1.4 Reduce effects

of artificial lighting

on hatchlings &

nesting females

1.1.4.1 Quantify

effects of artificial

lighting

2 2 years 50 50

1.1.4.2 Implement,

enforce, evaluate

lighting regulations

or other lighting

control measures

2 Continuing No additional

costs- part of

program

activities

1.1 Protect & manage

turtles on nesting

beaches (cont.)

1.1.5 Collect

biological

information on

nesting populations

1.1.5.1 Monitor

nesting activity,

identify important

nesting beaches,

determine population

trends

1 Continuing FWS, Hawaii,

American Samoa,

Guam, Palau,

CNMI, RMI,

FSM, Unincorp.

Territories,

NMFS

300 300 300 300 300

1.1.5.2 Evaluate nest

success, implement

nest-protection

measures

1 Continuing 200 200 200 200 200 Re-evaluate

funding needs

after 5 years
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Green (Chelonia mydas)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B

76 The lead agency is listed first.

1.1 Protect & manage

turtles on nesting

beaches (cont.)

1.1.5 Collect

biological

information on

nesting populations

(cont.)

1.1.5.3 Define stock

boundaries 

1 5 years NMFS, FWS 100 100 100 100 100 Costs included

for 1.1.5.3.1-

1.1.5.3.3

1.1.5.3.1 Identify

stock type for major

nesting beach areas

1 5 years NMFS, FWS,

DOS

1.1.5.3.2 Determine

nesting beach

origins-juvenile &

subadult populations

1 5 years FWS, NMFS,

DOS

1.1.5.3.3 Determine

genetic relationship

among populations

1 5 years FWS, NMFS

1.2 Protect & manage

nesting habitat

1.2.1. Prevent

degradation due to

erosion-control

measures, jetties &

breakwaters

2 Continuing COE, FWS,

Hawaii, American

Samoa, Guam,

Palau, CNMI,

RMI, FSM,

Unincorp.

Territories,

NMFS, DOS

No costs -

carried out by

in-country

resource/

regulatory

agencies
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Green (Chelonia mydas)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B

77 The lead agency is listed first.

1.2 Protect & manage

nesting habitat

(cont.)

1.2.2 Eliminate

sand, coral rubble

removal & mining

practices

1 Continuing COE, FWS,

Hawaii, American

Samoa, Guam,

Palau, CNMI,

RMI, FSM,

Unincorp.

Territories,

NMFS, DOS

No costs -

carried out by

in-country

resource/

regulatory

agencies

1.2.3 Develop,

evaluate natural

beach-landscaping

guidelines

2 4 years FWS, Guam,

CNMI, FSM,

Unincorp.

Territories, DOS

10 10 10 10

1.2.4 Ensure

replenishment

projects maintain

quality habitat

3 NA COE, FWS,

Hawaii, American

Samoa, Guam,

Palau, CNMI,

RMI, FSM,

Unincorp.

Territories,

NMFS, DOS

1.2.5 Implement

non-mechanical

beach cleaning

alternatives

NA NA
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Green (Chelonia mydas)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B

78 The lead agency is listed first.

1.2 Protect & manage

nesting habitat

(cont.)

1.2.6 Prevent

vehicular driving on

nesting beaches

3 Continuing FWS, Hawaii,

American Samoa,

Guam, Palau,

CNMI, RMI,

FSM, Unincorp.

Territories, DOS

No costs -

carried out by 

in-country 

resource/

regulatory

agencies

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in

marine habitat

2.1.1 Eliminate

directed take

2.1.1.1 Reduce

directed take through

education,

information

1 Continuing NMFS, U.S.

West Coast,

Hawaii, American

Samoa, Guam,

Palau, CNMI,

RMI, FSM,

Unincorp.

Territories, DOS

Costs included

in Task 1.1.1.1

2.1.1.2

Increase/maintain

enforcement, reduce

exploitation

1 Continuing NMFS, USCG,

FWS, DOS

25 100 100 100 100 Costs

duplicative of

Task 2.1.1.2 in 

hawksbill plan
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Green (Chelonia mydas)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B

79 The lead agency is listed first.

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in

marine habitat

(cont.)

2.1.2 Determine

distribution,

abundance, status

2.1.2.1 Determine

distribution,

abundance of

posthatchlings,

juveniles, adults

1 20 years NMFS, FWS 30 100 100 100 100 Costs

duplicative of

Task 2.1.2.2 in

hawksbill plan

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in

marine habitat

(cont.)

2.1.2 Determine

distribution,

abundance, status

(cont.)

2.1.2.2 Determine

adult migration

routes, internesting

habitats

1 5 years NMFS, FWS 100 100 100 100 100

2.1.2.3 Determine

growth rates,

survivorship, age at

sexual maturity

1 5 years 100 100 100 100 100

2.1.2.4 Identify

current threats

adults, juveniles on

foraging grounds

1 5 years 50 50 50 50 50
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Green (Chelonia mydas)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B

80 The lead agency is listed first.

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in

marine habitat

(cont.)

2.1.3 Reduce effects

of entanglement &

ingestion marine

debris

2.1.3.1 Evaluate

extent ingestion of

persistent debris &

entanglement

2 Continuing NMFS, EPA 10 10 10 10 10

2.1.3.2 Evaluate

effects ingestion

persistent debris &

entanglement

2 3 years 100 100 100

2.1.3.3 Reduce,

eliminate persistent

debris &

entanglement

2 Continuing NMFS, EPA,

USCG, FWS

No additional

costs. Part of

agency program

activities

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in

marine habitat

(cont.)

2.1.4 Monitor,

reduce incidental

mortality in

commercial,

recreational fisheries

1 Continuing NMFS, U.S.West

Coast Hawaii,

American Samoa,

Guam, Palau,

CNMI, RMI,

FSM, Unincorp.

Territories

50 50 50 50

2.1.5 Eliminate

harassment of turtles

at sea

/education/

enforcement

2 Continuing 30 30 30 30 30 Duplicative of

costs for Task

2.1.5 in

hawksbill plan
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Green (Chelonia mydas)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B

81 The lead agency is listed first.

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in

marine habitat

(cont.)

2.1.6 Study the

impact of diseases on

turtles

2.1.6.1 Investigate

fibropapillomas

1 10 years NMFS, U.S.West

Coast Hawaii,

American Samoa,

Guam, Palau,

CNMI, RMI,

FSM, Unincorp.

Territories, FWS

(as appropriate to

beach habitat)

200 200 200 200 200

2.1.6.2 Investigate

parasites and other

infectious agents

3 Continuing 50 50 50 50

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in

marine habitat

(cont.)

2.1.7

Develop/maintain

carcass stranding

network

2 Continuing NMFS, U.S.West

Coast Hawaii,

American Samoa,

Guam, Palau,

CNMI, RMI,

FSM, Unincorp.

Territories, FWS

5 5 5 5 5

2.1.8 Centralize

tagging program and

tag-series records

1 Continuing NMFS, FWS 60 60 60 60 Total funds for

all species
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Green (Chelonia mydas)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B

82 The lead agency is listed first.

2.2 Protect & manage

marine habitat

2.2.1 Identify

important habitat

1 20 years NMFS, U.S.West

Coast, Hawaii,

American Samoa,

Guam, Palau,

CNMI, RMI,

FSM, Unincorp.

Territories

Should be

coordinated

with Tasks

2.1.2.1 &

2.1.2.2 funds

included in

these tasks

2.2.2 Ensure longterm protection

1 Continuing Part of ongoing

program

activities

2.2 Protect & manage

marine habitat

(cont.)

2.2.3 Assess &

prevent degradation

or destruction of

reefs by boating,

diving activities

1 Continuing NMFS, FWS,

U.S.West Coast,

Hawaii, American

Samoa, Guam,

Palau, CNMI,

RMI, FSM,

Unincorp.

Territories, DOS

Part of ongoing

program

activities

2.2.4 Prevent

degradation reefs by

pollution

1 Continuing NMFS, EPA,

USCG, DOS

Part of ongoing

program

activities
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Green (Chelonia mydas)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B

83 The lead agency is listed first.

2.2.5 Prevent

degradation or

destruction of reefs

by dredge or disposal

1 Continuing COE, NMFS,

DOS

Part of ongoing

program

activities

2.2.6 Prevent

degradation or

destruction by

coastal erosion,

siltation

1 Continuing FWS, EPA,

NRCS, NMFS,

COE, DOS

Part of ongoing

program

activities

2.2.7 Prevent

degradation or

destruction of reefs

by blasting

1 Continuing NMFS, COE,

USN, DOS

Part of ongoing

program

activities

2.2 Protect & manage

marine habitat

(cont.)

2.2.8 Prevent

degradation of reefs

by oil transshipment

2 Continuing USCG, NMFS,

EPA

Part of ongoing

program

activities

2.2.9 Identify other

threats, take action

2 Continuing NMFS, EPA,

USCG

Part of ongoing

program

activities

3 Ensure proper care

in captivity

3.1 Develop captive

standards

3 2 year NMFS, FWS 35 15
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Green (Chelonia mydas)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B

84 The lead agency is listed first.

3.2 Catalog captive

turtles for research,

education

3 2 year 10 10 Includes all sea 

turtle species

3.3 Designate rehab

facilities

3 1 year 25 Includes all sea 

turtle species

4 International

cooperation

4.1 Support 

agreements, conventions, protect in

foreign water

1 Continuing FWS, NMFS,

DOS, DOI, DOC

100 100 100 100 Includes all sea

turtle species

and Tasks 4.2,

4.3

4.2 CITES

membership,

compliance

1 Continuing

4 International

cooperation (cont.)

4.3 Develop new

agreements to

protect in foreign

waters

1 Continuing NMFS, DOS,

DOI, DOC

4.4 Display

information at

airports

2 5 years NMFS, FWS,

U.S.West Coast 

Hawaii, American

Samoa, Guam,

Palau, CNMI,

RMI, FSM,

Unincorp.

Territories

15 15 15 15 15 Includes all sea

turtle species