Recovery Plan for the 

HAW KSBILL 'TURTLE 

Eretmochelys imbricata 

in the US. Carribean, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

1J S. Depnrtment af Cammercc 

N,~t~onal Ocenmc and Atmospheric Administrat~an 

NATIONAL MARINE FISIIICRIES SERVICE 

FISH il WILIBLIFE 

SERVICE 

U.S Depnrtment of thc Interlor 

U.S. FISH AND WILDIJFE SERVICE 
RECOVERY PLAN FOR HAWKSBILL TURTLES IN THE U.S. CARIBBEAN SEA,

ATLANTIC OCEAN, AND GULF OF MEXICO

(Eretmochelys imbricata)

Prepared by

The Leatherback and Hawksbill Turtle Recovery Team

Approved:

Date:

Approved:

Southeast Region

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Atlanta, Georgia

and

National Marine Fisheries Service

Washington, D. C.

hes W. wlliam, Jr. -

Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

arine Fisheries Service

Date:
Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover or protect

the species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors,

state agencies, and others. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon

appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not necessarily

represent the views, the official position, or the approval of any individuals or agencies other

than the FWS and the NMFS, both of which are involved in the plan formulation. Recovery

plans represent the official position of the FWS and the NMFS onlv after they have been signed

as approved by the Regional Director or Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. Approved

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

status, and by the completion of recovery tasks.

Literature citations should read as follows:

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and. Wildlife Service. 1993. Recovery Plan

’ for Hawksbill Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico.

National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida.

Additional copies of this plan may be purchased from:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Reference Service

5430 Grosvenor Lane

Suite 110

Bethesda, Maryland 208 14

(301)492-6403 or

l-800-582-3421

Fees for recovery plans vary, depending on the number of pages.
PREFACE

The original Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles was approved on September 19, 1984, by the

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. The plan outlined

recovery needs for the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill

(Eretmochelys imbricata) , leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) , and Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochefys

ken@) sea turtles.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service share the

responsibility for sea turtle recovery under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 19’73, ’

as amended. To better coordinate a recovery program for sea turtles, both Services agreed1 to

reassess current conservation efforts and consider the biological information that had become

available since approval of the original recovery plan. To accomplish this, the Services created

a Leatherback and Hawksbill Recovery Team. This revision was undertaken by the Leatherback

and Hawksbill Turtle Recovery Team, which consisted of the following members:

Mr. Ralf H. Boulon, Jr., Recovery Team Leader

Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natura

Dr. Karen Eckert

1 Resources

Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network (WIDECAST)

Dr. Jim Richardson

University of Georgia

Dr. Caroline Rogers

National Park Service

Ms. Zandy-Marie Hillis

National Park Service

Dr. Jaime Collazo

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Dr. Anne Meylan

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

This revised plan is intended to serve as a guide that delineates and schedules those actions

believed necessary to restore the hawksbill turtle as a viable, self-sustaining species. Some of

the tasks described in the plan are well underway. The inclusion of tasks

represents an awareness of their importance and ,offers support for their continuation.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BIRNM ............................ Buck Island Reef National Monunxnt

BVI ....................................... British Virgin Islands

CITES ..................... Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

COE .................................. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

EPA ............................. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

EQB. .................................. Environmental Quality Board

FDEP ...................... Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FWS ................................. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

MMS ................................. Minerals Management Service

NMFS ............................... National Marine Fisheries Service

NPS ....................................... National Park Service

NWR .................................... National Wildlife Refuge

PRDA ............................ Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture

PRDNR ....................... Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources

SCS ...................................... Soil Conservation Service

USCG .................................... United States Coast Guard

USN ........................................ United States Navy

USVI ................................... United States Virgin Islands

VIDFW ........................ Virgin Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife

VIDPNR .......... Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources

VINP...................................... Virgin Islands National Park

WIDECAST ... Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Recovery Team and Conservation Network

WWF. ....................................... World Widlife Fund
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current Status: The hawksbill is listed as an endangered species throughout the world..

The most important nesting beaches within United States jurisdiction in

the Caribbean Sea are on MOM Island,‘Puerto Rico, and Buck Island

Reef National Monument, St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands.

Coastal development threatens nesting habitat. Illegal slaughter is a

threat in Puerto Rico as well as in neighboring countries. International

trade in hawksbill products threatens populations all over the world.

Goal: The recovery goal is to delist the species.

Recovery Criteria: The U.S. populations of hawksbill turtles can be considered for

delisting if, over a period of 25 years, the following conditions are met:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Actions Needed: Six major actions are needed to achieve recovery:

The adult female population is increasing, as evidenced by

statistically significant trend in the annual number of nests

five index beaches, including Mona Island and BIRNM.

a

on at least

Habitat for at least 50 percent of the nesting activity that occurs in the

USVI and Puerto Rico is protected in perpetuity.

Numbers of adults, subadults, and juveniles are increasing, as

evidenced by a statistically significant trend on at least five key

foraging areas within Puerto Rico, USVI, and Florida.

All priority one tasks have been successfully implemented.

Provide long-term protection to important nesting beaches.

Ensure at least 75 percent hatching success rate on major nesting

beaches.

Determine distribution and seasonal movements of turtles in all life

stages in the marine environment.

Minimize threat from illegal exploitation.

End international trade in hawksbill products.

Ensure long-term protection of important foraging habitats.

Date of Recovery: If funds are available to accomplish recovery tasks and if new*

information does not indicate other limiting factors, the aiticipated ylear

of recovery is 2020.

Total Cost of Recovery:

Actions on nesting beaches: $3,200,000.00

Actions in marine environment: $9,650,000.00

. . . 111
INTRODUCTION

Geographic Scope: This plan is directed at recovery of hawksbill populations within the

United States territorial waters of the Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico.

The team recognizes that United States waters are important to hawksbills that nest outside

the United States jurisdiction, but it is not within the scope of this plan to develop recovery

criteria for these populations at their nesting beaches. .Recovery measures delineated in this

plan are, however, intended to include all hawksbills within the United States Caribbean Sea,

Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico, regardless of where they nest.

Taxonomy: The hawksbill turtle was originally named Testudo imbricata by Linnaeus

(1766). A specimen at the University of Uppsala in Sweden, bearing Linnaeus’ No. 130, is

probably the type (Smith and Smith 1979). Taxonomic reviews appear in Smith atid ‘Smith

(1979), Witzell (1983), and Pritchard and Trebbau (1984). Two subspecies (Eretmochelys

imbricata imbricata in the Atlantic Ocean and Eretmochelys i. bissa in the Indian and Pacific

oceans) are recognized by Smith and Smith (1979). However, criteria for distinguishing the

two forms are unreliable (Pritchard and Trebbau 1984) and subspecific designations are

rarely used. A complex pattern of phenotypic variation exists. Some widely separated

populations appear highly similar in color and pattern, whereas other populations that occupy

the same ocean basin show marked differences (Pritchard and Trebbau 1984). Common

names for the hawksbill turtle include tortoise-shell turtle, Carey, caret, and tortue imbriquee.

Description: The following combination of characters distinguishes the hawksbill from other

sea turtles: two pairs of prefrontal scales; thick, -posteriorly overlapping scutes on the

carapace; four pairs of costal scutes (the anteriormost not in contact with the nuchal scute);;

two claws on each flipper; and a beak-like mouth. In addition, when on land the hawksbil’l

has an alternating gait, unlike the leatherback and green sea turtles.

The carapace is heart-shaped in very young turtles and becomes more elongate or subovate

with maturity. The lateral and posterior carapace margins are sharply serrated in all but very

old individuals. The epidermal scutes that overlay the bones of the shell are the tortoiseshell

of commerce. The scutes are unusually thick and overlap posteriorly on the carapace in all

but hatchlings and very old individuals. Carapacial scutes are often richly patterned with

irregularly radiating streaks of brown and black on an amber background. The scutes of the

plastron of Atlantic hawksbills are usually clear yellow, with little or no dark, pigmentation.

The soft skin on the hawksbills’ venter is cream or yellow and may be pinkish-orange in

mature individuals. The scales of the head and forelimbs are dark brown or black and have

sharply defined yellow borders. There are typically four pairs of inframarginal scales. ‘The

head is elongate and tapers sharply to a point. The lower jaw is V-shaped. TX! scales’ of

the head and forelimbs are dark brown or black and have yellow borders.

The hawksbill is a small to medium-sized marine turtle. Nesting females average about

87 centimeters (cm) in curved carapace length (Eckert 1992) and weight may be to

80 kilograms (kg) in the Caribbean (Pritchard et a2. 1983), with a record weight of
127 kg (Carr 1952). Hatchlings in the United States Caribbean average about

42 millimeters (mm) in straight carapace length and range in weight from 13.5 to

19.5 g (Hillis and Mackay 1989, Van Dam and Sarti 1989, Eckert 1992).

Population Distribution and Size: The hawksbill occurs in tropical and subtropical seas of

the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. Detailed descriptions of .its worldwide distribution

are given by Groombridge (1982), Witzell (1983), and Groombridge and Luxmoore (1989).

The species is widely distributed in the Caribbean Sea and western Atlantic Ocean.

Representatives of at least some life history stages regularly occur in southern Florida and

the northern Gulf of Mexico (especially Texas), in the Greater and Lesser Antilles, and along

the Central American mainland south to Brazil. In United States’ jurisdiction in the

Caribbean Sea, hawksbills are most common in Puerto Rico and its associated islands

(particularly Mona, Culebra, and Vieques) and in the USVI. The species is recorded in the

continental U.S. from all the Gulf states and from along the eastern seaboard as far north as

Massachusetts, but sightings north of Florida are rare.

Hawksbills are observed in Florida with some regularity in the waters near the Florida Keys

and on the reefs off Palm Beach County (Lund 1985), where, the warm Gulf Stream current

passes close to shore. According to DeSola (1932), before their numbers were reduced by

overfishing, the Florida Keys were once considered the world’s finest fishing grounds for the

hawksbill turtle.

Texas is the only other state where hawksbills are sighted with any regularity. A total of

77 observations, most involving posthatchlings and juveniles, have been recorded there

between 1972 and 1984 (Amos 1989). These small turtles are believed to originate from

nesting beaches in Mexico (Hildebrand 1987, Amos 1989).

Within U.S. jurisdiction in the Caribbean Sea, nesting occurs principally on beaches in

Puerto Rico and the USVI. The most important sites are Mona Island (Puerto Rico) and

Buck Island (St. Croix, USVI). Nesting also occurs on other beaches of St. Croix, Culebra

Island, Vieques Island, mainland Puerto Rico, St. John, and St. Thomas.

Within the continental United States, nesting is restricted to the southeastern coast of Florida

(Volusia through Dade counties) and the Florida Keys (Monroe County) (Meylan 1992).

Nesting by hawksbills has been recorded several times on Soldier Key, a small, mangrovefringed islet in Biscayne Bay (Dade County) (DeSola 1932, Dalrymple et al. 1985). The

only reported nesting in Manatee County on the west coast of Florida (Conley and Hoftian

1987) was not adequately documented. Low levels of nesting are suspected to occur in the

Marquesas and Dry Tortugas, but these areas have not been adequately surveye&-

Throughout their range, hawksbills typically nest at low densities; aggregations consist of a

few dozen, at most a few hundred individuals. This is in contrast to green turtles and

loggerhead turtles which nest by the thousands or tens of thousands at concentrated sites.

The largest known nesting concentrations in the Caribbean are in the Yucatan Peninsula of

2
Mexico (Meylan 1989), where approximately 800 to 1000 nests are made each year between

Isla Holbox (Quintana Roo) and Isla Carmen (Campeche) (Richard Byles, pers. comm., cited

in Eckert 1992). This corresponds to approximately 178 to 222 turtles, given an estimated *

average of 4.5 nests per female per season (Corliss et al. 1989). Other important (but

relatively small) nesting beaches in the Caribbean region are located in Belize, Nicaragua,

Panama, Venezuela, Antigua, and the Grenadines. Hawksbills are also known to nest in

Cuba, possibly in significant numbers, but population estimates are not available. With few

exceptions, all of the countries in the Caribbean report fewer than 100 females nesting

annually (Meylan 1989).

Estimates of the size of nesting populations are available for only a few localities. Richardson

(1990) reported that an average of 160 nests were made annually on Mona Island during

seven years of monitoring (1974, 1984 to 1989). This corresponds to approximately 36

nesting females per year. A total of 196 nests were recorded on the island in 1990 (Van .

Dam et al. 1991). Approximately 65 to 125 nests are made annually on BIRNM, St. Croix,

USVI (Eckert 1992). Since research began in 1988, between 15 to 30 female hawksbills

have been recorded nesting on BIRNM each year. The number of known nests each year in

Florida between 1979 and 1990 (FDEP, Statewide Nesting Survey Data Base) varied from

zero to two.

Status: The hawksbill is listed as endangered by the International Union for the

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and is listed in Appendix 1 of the Convention

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Groombridge 1982).

It is also listed as endangered throughout its range under the Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended (USFWS 1989). Groombridge and Luxmoore (1989) carried out an

exhaustive review of the worldwide conservation status of the hawksbill turtle and concluded

that the species is suspected or known to be declining in 38 of the 65 geopolitical units for

which nesting density estimates are available. They noted severe declines in the western

Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean region, as did Meylan (1989), who reported that current

nesting levels may be far lower than previously estimated. Despite protective legislation,

international trade in tortoiseshell and subsistence use of meat and eggs continue unabated in

many countries and pose a significant threat to the survival of the species in this region.

In the United States Caribbean, there is evidence that hawksbill nesting populations have

been severely reduced during the 20th century (Eckert 1992). At present, they are not

believed to be declining, but neither are there signs of recovery, despite over a decade of

protection. The most recent status review of the species in the United States recognized that

numerous threats still exist for United States populations and recommended that the hawksbill u?

remain listed as endangered throughout its range (Eckert 1992).

3
Biological Characteristics:

The biology of the hawksbill has been extensively reviewed (Car-r et al, 1966, 1983,

Meylan Pritchard and Trebbau 1984, and Eckert 1992). Only a brief overview is

presented here.

Habitat: Hawksbills use different habitats at different stages of their life cycle. Sightings

(Hornell 1927, Gunter strandings (Vargo et al, 1986, Carr 1987, Amos 1989) and

gut-content analyses (Meylan 1984b) suggest that posthatchling hawksbills occupy the pelagic

environment, taking shelter in weedlines that accumulate at convergence zones. Sargassum

and floating debris such as Styrofoam, tar droplets, and plastic bits--common components of

weedlines-are consistently found in the stomachs of posthatchling hawksbills that strand in

Texas and Amos 1988). it seems likely that weedlines in the Gulf of Mexico

serve as habitat for hawksbills that enter United States. waters from nesting beaches in

Mexico and Central America. Posthatchlings from beaches in the United States are

presumed to occupy weedlines in the Atlantic Ocean.

Hawksbills reenter coastal waters when they reach approximately 20 to 25 cm carapace

length. Coral reefs are widely recognized as the resident foraging habitat of juveniles,

subadults, and adults. This habitat association is undoubtedly related to their diet of sponges,

organisms that need solid substrate for attachment. The ledges and caves of the reef provide

shelter for resting both during the day and night. Hawksbills are found around rocky

outcrops and high-energy shoals, which are optimum sites for sponge growth. Hawksbills

are known to inhabit mangrove-fringed bays and estuaries, particularly along the eastern

shore of continents where coral reefs are absent (Carr 1952). In Texas, juvenile hawksbills

are associated with stone jetties (Hildebrand 1987, Amos 1989).

Hawksbills nest on low- and high-energy beaches in tropical oceans of the world, frequently

sharing the high energy beaches with green turtles. Both insular and mainland nesting sites

are known. Hawksbills will nest on small pocket beaches and, because of their small body

siie and great agility, can traverse fringing reefs that limit access by other species. They

exhibit a wide tolerance for nesting substrate type. Nests are typically placed under

vegetation.

Diet: Very little is known about the diet of posthatchling hawksbills in the pelagic

environment. Eggs of pelagic fish, pelagic species of and various floating debris

such as tar droplets, Styrofoam, and plastic have been identified (Meylan 1984b).

Although a wide variety of benthic organisms have been recorded from 

sponges are the principal diet of hawksbills once they enter shallow coastal waters and begin

feeding on the 1988). Quantitative studies have focused on the Caribbean,

but there is evidence that spongivory is a worldwide feeding habit. It is unquestionably a

highly unusual one, being shared by only about a dozen other vertebrates. A high degree of

feeding selectivity is indicated by the consumption of a limited number of sponge species.

4
Sponge predation by hawksbills may influence reef succession and diversity by freeing up

space on the reef for settlement by benthic organisms. The hawksbill’s highly specific diet,

and its dependence on filter-feeding, hard-bottom communities make it vulnerable to

deteriorating conditions on coral reefs.

Growth: Few data are available on the growth rates of wild hawksbill turtles. Most

information has come from a study involving recaptures of 32 turtles (size range: 39.5 to

87.5 cm curved carapace length) on the Great Barrier Reef 1992). Mean growth

rates ranged from 0.06 cm/year (yr) for two adults, to 2.17 for immature turtles

ranging in size from 50 to 60 cm initial curved carapace length. The study concluded that

hawksbills onto the reef at 35 cm in length would begin breeding

31 years later. Because the time required for these turtles to reach 35 cm is unknown, the

actual age at sexual maturity is not known.

Boulon (1983) reported an average growth rate of 0.28 cm straight carapace length per

month (3.36 for hawksbills ranging in size from 27.4 to 60.7 cm in St. Thomas

(USVI). In the southern Bahamas, growth rates of four wild juvenile hawksbills ranged from

2.4 to 5.9 (Bjorndal and 1988). Growth rates of adult females on the 

beach in Costa Rica averaged 0.3 (Bjorndal et al. 1985).

The few data available suggest slow growth and an advanced age at sexual maturity, as has

been demonstrated for several other species of sea turtles. Rates of growth vary among

different size classes 1992) and seem to decrease considerably after sexual maturity

is reached.

Reproduction: The nesting season of the hawksbill is longer than that of other sea

turtles. Most nests on BIRNM, are made from July to October 1990). On Mona

Island the peak season is August to October (Richardson 1990). Courtship and mating

apparently begin somewhat earlier, and may occur either along the migratory route or off the

nesting beach. Nesting in the Caribbean is principally nocturnal, although rare daytime

nesting is known. Nesting behavior, described by et al. follows the general

sequence of that of other species of sea turtles: emergence from the sea, site selection, site:

clearing and body pit construction, egg chamber construction, egg laying, filling in the egg

chamber, disguising the nest site, and returning to sea. The entire process takes

approximately 1 to 3 hours.

Hawksbills nest an average of 4.5 times per season (Corliss et al. 1989, Van Dam and Sarti

1990) at intervals of approximately 14 days. Earlier estimates of two to three pests per

season reported at various projects around the world probably resulted from incomplete

beach coverage. As many as 12 clutches may be produced by a single female in one season

(Melucci et al. 1992). Not all emergences or nesting attempts result in eggs being laid. On

Mona Island, an average of two emergences per successful nest was calculated; one female

was observed making as many as 11 digging attempts on a single emergence (Kontos 1988).

The ratio of crawls to nests varies geographically depending on local conditions, making
site-specific information necessary for accurate interpretation of aerial survey data. On

basis of limited information, and remigration intervals appear to predominate;

annual nesting by the hawksbill has not been recorded in the Caribbean.

Hawksbills have strong philopatry for their nesting beaches (Bjomdal et al. 1985,

Richardson, pers. cited in Eckert and are capable of returning to specific

beach areas (Carr and Stancyk 1975, Diamond 1976, Lund 1985, Melucci et al. 1992). The

extent to which site fiiixity is expressed among and within populations, or even by individuals

over time, remains to be quantified.

Clutch size is directly correlated with carapace length 1980) and varies markedly

throughout the range of the species. In Florida and the United States Caribbean, clutch size

is approximately 140 eggs, and several records exist of over 200 eggs per nest. Eggs are

approximately 40 mm in diameter and take about 60 days to hatch. Hatching success at

nesting beaches in the United States. is 80 percent (Van Darn and 1990,

 1990). Hawksbills are suspected to exhibit temperature-dependent sex determination,

as do other sea turtles, but data are limited (Dalrymple et al. 1985). Detailed studies on this

important aspect of the biology of the species are underway.’

Movements: Very little is known of the movement patterns of posthatchling hawksbills,

although their occupation of the pelagic environment is relatively well documented.

Posthatchlings in Texas waters are presumed to have been passively transported there by

currents that pass along Mexico. The movement patterns of hatchlings entering the sea from

United States beaches are unknown.

Immature hawksbills show evidence of residency on specific feeding grounds (Nietschmann

1981, but developmental migrations may occur with changes in habitat

occupation 1992). Immature hawksbills tagged in the USVI have been recovered in

eastern Puerto Rico, the British West Indies, St. Martin, and St. Lucia, representing travel

distances of 95 km, 46 km, 185 km, and 650 km, respectively 1989). Other

recaptures of immature hawksbills have documented the long-distance travel of an 11 kg

hawksbill from Great Inagua, Bahamas, to the Turks and Caicos Islands (Bjomdal et

1985) and the migration of a hawksbill from Brazil to Dakar, Senegal, a distance of

3680 km (Marcovaldi and Filippini 1991). The purpose and regularity of migrations by

immature hawksbills deserve further study.

Recoveries of tagged adult hawksbills suggest that some populations or groups within a

population undertake reproductive migrations 1982, Bjomdal et 1985).

Migrations have been documented of adult females from beaches in Costa Rica to feeding

grounds in Nicaragua, and from Nicaragua feeding grounds to a beach in Jamaica. An adult

male tagged on the foraging grounds in Nicaragua was recovered in Panama 1982).

 (pers. reported the travel of a from Isla Mujeres, Mexico, to

 Dominican Republic, a distance of 2925 km. Indirect evidence of migration by

6
hawksbills was provided by who described a

hawksbills in the Great Barrier Reef that reside at least 1400

nesting site.

population of immature

km from any regular hawksbill

Threats Nesting Environment

Illegal Exploitation: The greatest threat to hawksbills while on nesting beaches is poaching.

Egg poaching is a particularly serious problem in Puerto Rico 1987) and occurs in

St. Thomas and St. Croix Boulon, pers. While on the beaches, adult females

are killed for tortoiseshell. Better surveillance by law enforcement and volunteer groups is

believed to be reducing the levels of take. Hawksbills that use the remote beaches on Mona

and Culebra islands are vulnerable to poaching. Hawksbills that use (a beach 

to San Juan, Puerto Rico) are taken, in spite of the fact that Piiiones has been given one of

the largest PRDNR ranger contingents deployed on any Puerto Rican beach. Although the

rate of poaching may be limited on any given beach, the overall effect is an enormous drain

on hawksbill populations.

Beach Erosion: Hawksbill nesting beaches are usually small and the sand builds up over

long periods of time. Storms periodically remove the sand, but it is usually replaced by

wind and wave action. Storms may cause trees to fall which hinder the hawksbills from

reaching nesting habitat. nesting beaches were severely degraded in this manner

by Hurricane Hugo in 1989. BIRNM staff selectively removed fallen trees and debris and

constructed sand ramps in the steep berms to provide access to high-density nesting areas.

Normal, periodic erosion cycles may remove and replace large areas of a nesting beach, such

as occurs at Sandy Point NWR, St. Croix. The overall effect is to clean and renourish the

nesting beach. Occasionally, vulnerable nests may need to be relocated in such areas.

Hawksbill nests are regularly relocated at Humacao, Mona Island, and Caja de

Muertos, Puerto Rico. Natural processes of beach erosion are not generally a significant

threat to hawksbills.

Erosion Control Methods: Problems are caused by humans placing immovable structures

on ephemeral shorelines. Beaches naturally recede and replenish but real estate boundaries

are fixed. beachfront development occurs, the site is often fortified to protect the

property from erosion. The purpose of virtually all shoreline engineering is to save

structures, not dry sandy beaches, and ultimately causes environmental damage. Beach

armoring includes sea walls, rock revetments, sandbag installations, groins, and

jetties. Approximately 21 percent (234 km) of Florida’s beaches are armored (FDEP,

unpubl. data). Although not quantified, beach armoring is extensive in some regions of

Puerto Rico but rare in the USVI. Beach armoring may result in the permanent- loss of a 

nesting beach by accelerating erosion and preventing natural beach or dune accretion. It may

prevent or hamper nesting females from reaching suitable nesting sites. Clutches deposited1

seaward of these structures may be inundated at high tide or may be washed out entirely 

increased wave action near the base of these structures. As these structures fail and break

apart they spread debris on the beach, which may further impede access to suitable nesting

sites and trap hatchlings and nesting turtles. Sandbags are particularly susceptible to rapid

failure and result in extensive debris on nesting beaches. Rock revetments, and sand

7
bags can cause nesting turtles to abandon nesting attempts. When inadequate amounts of

sand cover these structures, turtles attempting to nest may construct improperly sized and

shaped egg cavities.

Groins and jetties are designed to trap sand during transport in longshore currents. Jetties

keep sand from flowing into channels. These structures prevent normal sand transport and

accrete beaches on one side of the structure while starving beaches on the side. Severe

beach erosion may result (Pilkey et al. 1984).

Beach nourishment entails pumping, trucking, or scraping sand onto the beach to rebuild

what has been lost to erosion. It is a common practice in Florida but is much less common.

in Puerto Rico and the USVI. Beach nourishment can affect turtles by burying nests and, if

conducted during the nesting season, by disturbing nesting turtles. The sand used in beach

nourishment may be dissimilar from native beach sediments and can affect nest site selection,

digging behavior, incubation temperature (and hence sex ratios), gas exchange within

incubating nests, hydric environment of the nest, hatching success, and emergence:

success (Mann 1977, Ackerman 1980, Mortimer 1982, Raymond 1984a). Beach

nourishment may cause severe beach compaction or concretion. Trucking sand onto project

beaches may increase the level of compaction.

Heavy machinery, pipelines, increased human activity, and artificial lighting are usually

associated with beach nourishment projects. Beach nourishment activities are normally

conducted day and night and may create barriers for nesting females. Increased human

activity on the project beach at night may cause further disturbance to nesting females.

Artificial lights along the project beach and in the nearshore area of the borrow site may

deter nesting females and disorient or misorient emergent hatchlings from adjacent beaches.

Sand Mining: Removal of sand for construction aggregate or renourishment of other

beaches is a serious threat to nesting beaches throughout the Caribbean. In Puerto Rico,

sand may be mined on private property (for example, private properties at and

Rincon) or sold by the government from public beaches under a directive of “wise resource

management” (for example, public beaches at Arecibo and Isabela). However, sand is often

removed from protected beaches by the local citizens. It is illegal in the USVI to mine sand

below the high tide line, but, until this important nesting beach was and protected

as a National Wildlife Refuge in 1984, sand was being mined from Sandy- Point, St. Croix.

The physics of sand dynamics on tropical beaches is poorly understood. Most sand is

calcareous, originating from fragments of calcareous algae and mollusks, the feeding of

parrotfish on coral, and the result of grinding wave action. The supply is not

easily replaced from other sources. The sand on a beach is resupplied from accumulations of

 sand, and the two sources are in constant equilibrium. Mined beach sand will not 

replaced until offshore supplies build in quantity, a process that could take decades. If

offshore sand deposits are mined,

Wind moves beach sand to berms

beach sand moves offshore to replace the supply.

and beach forest communities which provide appropriate

8
habitat for hawksbill nesting. Accumulated sand in areas above the high tide-line provides

the reserve for beach sand that is lost when shorelines recede. Sand mining of any type

almost always affects the balance of sand deposits, with deleterious effects for nesting sea

turtles.

Landscaping: Hawksbill nesting is scattered among many small beaches. Most of these 

beaches are privately owned and may be extremely valuable as hotel sites. Hawksbill

recovery will depend on development that is sensitive to the needs of nesting hawksbills.

Houses built close to the water’s edge create many potential impediments to nesting turtles.

Native vegetation is often cleared and replaced with exotic species. Sand is replaced with

garden soils. Beaches are exposed to strong winds, allowing the winds to transport the sand

away from the nearshore habitat preferred by the hawksbills for nesting. The thermal regime

may be altered for incubating eggs, affecting hatching success and natural sex ratios. In

some areas, the shrubbery is so removed from the waterline that nesting turtles are unwilling

to cross the exposed space.

Not all landscaping efforts need be detrimental. Setbacks can be established for buildings

and other structures. Native vegetation can be protected behind the high-water line, even if

patches are all that remain. Vegetation can serve as corridors, leading nesting turtles to

suitable nesting habitat farther back from the high-water line. Garden walls can be used to

separate landscaped areas behind the walls from natural plant communities in front of the

walls. Vegetation can screen disruptive lights. Without planning, landscaping is usually

detrimental; with proper planning, landscaping can be supportive of nesting hawksbills while

still being pleasant for humans.

Several species of plants can be lethal to the development and hatching of sea turtle eggs.

Casaurina is planted for beach erosion control, shade, and wood production. The roots grow

fast, rendering habitat unfit for nesting. Sea oats are commonly planted on northern

beaches to enhance dune growth. On tropical beaches, however, the roots of this exotic

grass may be lethal to hawksbill eggs.

Artificial Lighting: Extensive research has demonstrated that the principal component of the

sea-finding behavior of emergent hatchlings is a visual response to light (Daniel and Smith

1947, Hendrickson 1958, Carr and Ogren 1960, and Carr 1967, Mrosovsky 1978,

Dickerson and Nelson 1989, Witherington and Bjorndal 1991). Artificial beachfront lighting

from buildings, streetlights, dune crossovers, vehicles, and other sources has been

documented as causing the disorientation (loss of bearings) and misorientation (incorrect

orientation) of turtles, including hawksbills 1963, Philibosian 1976,

Mann 1977, Ehrhart 1983). On Sandy Point NWR, hawksbill and are

strongly attracted, especially on nights, to the lights of Frederiksted (several to

the northeast). Another example are the Hotel Mar parking lot lights at

Humacao, Puerto Rico. These lights regularly disorient or misorient hawksbill hatchlings.
The results of disorientation or misorientation are often fatal. As hatchlings head toward

lights or meander along the beach, their exposure to predators and the likelihood of

desiccation are greatly increased. Misoriented hatchlings can become entrapped in vegetation

or debris, and in Florida loggerhead hatchlings are frequently found dead on nearby

roadways and in parking lots after being struck by vehicles. Hatchlings that successfully the water may be misoriented after entering the surf zone or while in nearshore waters.

Intense artificial lighting can even draw hatchlings back out of the surf (Daniel and Smith

1947, Carr and Ogren 1960).

The problem of artificial beachfront lighting is not restricted to hatchlings. Nesting turtles

can also be misoriented by lights. A leatherback died after traveling inland toward a security

light on Anegada, BVI (Eckert and Lettsome 1988). In June 1992, a nesting loggerhead was

killed by an automobile as it wandered onto Highway at Patrick Air Force Base,

misoriented by lights from the west side of the highway. Raymond (1984b) reported that

adult loggerhead emergence patterns were correlated with variations in beachfront lighting in

southern Brevard County, Florida. Nesting females avoided areas where beachfront lights

were the most intense. Witherington (1986) noted that loggerheads aborted nesting attempts

at a greater frequency in lighted areas. More recently, Witherington (1992) determined that

broad-spectrum artificial lights significantly reduced loggerhead and green turtle nesting

activity. In addition to the lights on or near the nesting beaches, the background glow

associated with intensive inland lighting, such as that emanating from nearby large

metropolitan areas, may deter nesting females and disorient or misorient hatchlings

navigating the nearshore waters. Cumulatively, along the heavily developed beaches of the

southeastern continental U. S., Puerto Rico, and USVI, the adverse effects from artificial

lights may be profound.

Beach Cleaning: Beach cleaning refers to the removal of debris from developed beaches.

Large expanses of open sand may be cleaned with mechanical devices to a depth of several

inches. The top of a clutch of hawksbill eggs is often no more than 4 to 6 inches below the

surface of the sand and hawksbill nests on resort beaches are often subject to damage from

raking and cleaning. The Hotel Mar beach at and the public beach at

 Puerto Rico receive intensive cleaning that threatens hawksbill nests. Wind erosion

is another threat exacerbated by beach cleaning. The complete removal of leaf litter and

herbaceous vegetation on a beach allows prevailing winds to move sand to areas outside of

the prime nesting area, and the vegetated nearshore berm may be lowered by 3 or more feet.

On a cleaned beach in Antigua, the wind has moved the sand more than a hundred feet back

from the shoreline. Today, limestone bedrock is too close to the surface to permit turtle

nesting on several historic nesting areas.

Increased Human Presence: ‘Residential and tourist use of developed (and 

nesting beaches can negatively affect nesting turtles, incubating egg clutches, and hatchlings.

The most serious threat caused by increased human presence on the beach is the disturbance

of nesting females. Nighttime human activity can cause nesting females to abort nesting

attempts at any stage of the process. Disturbance has caused loggerhead turtles to shift to

other nesting beaches, delay egg laying, and select poor nesting sites. Female hawksbills

ascending a beach to nest are easily deterred by the presence of people, noise, and

10
flashlights. Turtles frightened from a protected public beach may go to an adjacent beach.,

where they may be more vulnerable to poaching. Pedestrian traffic in the nesting area can

also break and destroy vegetation and crush eggs. Pedestrian tracks can hinder hatchlings;

efforts to reach the ocean (Hosier et al. 1981). and the use of flashlights on

nesting beaches misorient hatchlings and can deter nesting females (Mortimer 1979).

Hatchlings have been drawn into campfires. A campfire placed over a hawksbill nest will

kill the developing embryos or preemergent hatchlings.

The placement of physical obstacles (e.g., lounge chairs, cabanas, umbrellas, hobie cats,

canoes, small boats, and beach cycles) on nesting beaches can hamper or deter nesting

attempts and with incubating egg clutches and the seaward movement of hatchlings.

The placement of recreational beach equipment directly above incubating egg clutches may

hamper hatchlings during their emergence and can destroy eggs through direct invasion the

nest. Nesting females gravitate to dark horizons when seeking a nest site, whether the

horizon be a beach forest or a cabana. Hawksbills may nest in the shadow of a chair or

umbrella on the open beach. If the structure is removed, the nest is no longer protected

 direct sunlight and the nest may get too hot.

Beach Driving: Beaches are often viewed as a playground for off-road vehicles.

The vehicles cause sand compaction which decreases success (Mann 1977) or crush

pre-emergent hatchlings. Vehicles can strike and kill hatchlings while they are crawling to

the ocean. Vehicle tire ruts also interfere with the ability of hatchlings to traverse the beach

to the ocean (Hosier et al. 1981). Vehicles on the beach is a serious problem on Sandy Point

 (Basford et. al. Mandahl and Caret Bays, St. Thomas (Bureau of

Environmental Enforcement Officers, Manchenil Bay, St. Croix, and

northeastern Puerto Rico and H.C. Horta, pers. In both the

USVI and Puerto Rico this activity is illegal, yet 

Nest Depredation: A variety of natural and introduced predators (for instance, hogs,

mongooses, ghost crabs, and ants) prey on hawksbill eggs and hatchlings. Until eradicated

in 1987, mongooses were destroying up to 55 percent of all nests on BIRNM (Small 1982).

Prior to extensive live trapping, mongooses were destroying an estimated 24 percent of all

turtle eggs in 1980 and 1981 on St. John, USVI. Feral hogs destroyed 44 to 100 percent of

all hawksbill nests deposited outside of fenced areas on Mona Island, Puerto Rico, during

1985 to 1987 1985, 1987, 1988).

Threats Marine Environment

 at Sea: The extent to which hawksbills are killed or debilitated after

becoming entangled in marine debris has not been quantified, but it is believed to be

serious and growing problem. Of the 25 sea turtles found entangled in debris on the

coast during 1986 and 1987, 24 percent were juvenile hawksbills and Amos

a

1988).

Hawksbills (predominantly juveniles) have been reported entangled in monofilament gill nets,

“fish nets,” fishing line, and rope; in most cases flippers were lost as a result, and

11
in one case the animal was recovered with a piece of plastic onion bag entangled around its

neck (Balazs 1985). In July 1992, a juvenile hawksbill, entangled in monofilament fishing:

line, was found dead near the Green Cay Marina breakwater.

In the United States Caribbean, a juvenile hawksbill was entangled in a mooring buoy line

and released unharmed at in 1990. A person snorkeling reported to the National

Park Service in 1991 that a juvenile hawksbill was found entangled in discarded

monofilament fishing line; the line was wound around both the reef and the turtle, and the

turtle was barely able to surface to breathe. It was released alive pers. 

In Puerto Rico, juvenile and adult hawksbills have been found entangled in jute bags, ropes,

fishing line, and shoestrings (with tennis shoe attached!) (B. Pinto, pers. In some

of the cases, the stranded turtle had not been associated with line or netting, but had deep

scars that clearly resulted from entanglement.

Ingestion of Marine Debris: Marine turtles have been found to ingest a wide variety of

 debris (plastic bags, raw plastic pellets, plastic and Styrofoam pieces, tar balls, and

balloons). Effects of debris ingestion can include direct obstruction of the gut, absorption of

toxic byproducts, and reduced absorption of nutrients across ‘the gut wall (Balazs 1985).

Studies conducted by Lutz (pers. revealed that both loggerheads and green turtles

actively ingested small pieces of latex and plastic sheeting. Physiological data indicated a

possible interference in energy metabolism or gut function, even when only small quantities

of debris were ingested. The material persisted in the gut for time periods that ranged from

a few days to four months (Lutz, pers. 

Balazs (1985) summarized published incidents of the ingestion of debris by hawksbills and

reported that 88.9 percent of the articles recovered were plastic bags, plastic and Styrofoam

particles, and tar. Most (91 percent) of the hawksbills were juveniles. Carr and Stancyk

(1975) reported plastic and man-made litter in the stomachs of hawksbills from Costa Rica.

In Puerto Rico, plastic bags have been found in stranded turtles (B. Pinto, pers. 

Commercial and Recreational Fisheries: Incidental catch in the fisheries may be 

important cause of mortality. The Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (Atlantic and

Gulf of Mexico coasts of the United States) reported 27 stranded hawksbills in 1988, 35 in

1989, 61 in 1990 (when an unusually large number of post-hatchlings washed ashore in

Texas), and 33 in 1991 (W. Teas, pers. Hawksbills typically comprise less than

1.5 percent of total sea turtle strandings (Schroeder and Warner 1988, Teas and Martinez

1989). Gill nets, longlines, and shrimp trawls capture turtles in Gulf of Mexico waters

(Hildebrand 1987) and hawksbills strand on the Texas coast during all months year

(Schroeder and Warner 1988, Teas and Martinez 1989, 1992). Three small hawksbills were

recently caught in nylon gill nets (3.5 to 4 inch mesh) set on the north side of St. Croix 

Farchette, pers. In Puerto Rico, hawksbills are captured by a variety of 

gear, including driftnets, gillnets, seines, and spearguns. For example, in early 1992, a

 killed four hawksbills and two dolphins in deep water south of Puerto Rico.

12
and seines are widely deployed and are a particularly serious problem. These nets are

sometimes set specifically for sea turtles and rays. Spearfishing is also widespread around

Puerto Rico, Culebra, Vieques, Mona Island, and associated islets (B. Pinto, pers. 

Watercraft Collisions: In 1987, at BIRNM, a propeller nearly severed the head of a

juvenile hawksbill (Z. pers. In June 1992, a boat hit and killed a juvenile

male hawksbill in Cabo Rojo. The increased use of jet skis (often called personal watercraft)

may cause frequent collisions.

Sedimentation and Siltation: In Puerto Rico, damage to coral reefs and other shallow water

benthic systems by sedimentation and siltation has not been assessed. These factors are

known to be a serious problem in other areas. In some cases, coral reefs have been nearly

completely destroyed by siltation. Damage from dredging has occurred mainly along the:

southern coast. The construction of docking facilities also contributes to the sedimentation

problem (B. Pinto, pers. 

Agricultural and Industrial Pollution: The effects of pollutants resulting from industrial or

agricultural sources are difficult to evaluate. Pesticides, heavy metals and have been

detected in turtles (including eggs), but levels that result in adverse effects have not been

quantified (Nelson 1988). Sandy Point NWR is downcurrent from the Cruzan Rum

discharge of by-products and wastes from the rum distillery. This discharge chronically

affects the water around Sandy Point NWR. What effect, if any, this has on sea turtles i.s

unknown. The specific effects of marine pollution on hawksbills, their eggs, and their prey

have yet to be determined.

Sewage: In early 1992, there were two cases of raw sewage washing up on the nesting

beach at Sandy Point NWR (Greg Hughes, pers. For several months in 1992, there

were no functioning sewage treatment plants on St. Croix. Raw sewage was dumped directly

into nearshore waters, such as Christiansted Harbor (M. Coulston, pers. In

Puerto Rico, sewage effluent is commonly discharged into local rivers that discharge the

sewage to the sea. There is a new regional treatment plant in Humacao (eastern Puerto Rico)

that discharges tertiary-treatment waste about a half-mile offshore. Monitoring of the

discharge should be initiated.

Illegal The total amount of illegal capture of hawksbills is not known, but it is

believed to be a major problem. It is well known, for example, that some fishermen

opportunistically capture hawksbills in United States waters with nets and spears. The

primary source of hawksbill mortality in Puerto Rican waters is believed to be poaching at

sea (Benito Pinto, pers. 

13
Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, Transportation, and Storage: Experimental and

field results reported by Vargo et al. (1986) indicate that marine turtles would be at

substantial risk if they encountered an oil spill or large amounts of tar in the environment.

The Caribbean Stranding Network has treated several hawksbills for burns on the eyes, face,

and neck resulting from contact with gasoline spilled or released at sea. Physiological

experiments indicate that the respiration, skin, some aspects of blood chemistry and

composition, and salt gland function of marine turtles are significantly affected et al.

1986). Spills in the vicinity of nesting beaches are of special concern and could place

nesting adults, incubating egg clutches (Fritts and and at

significant risk. Anywhere that shipping or petroleum processing occurs upwind or

upcurrent of a nesting beach, the potential exists for an oil spill or discharge to foul the

beach.

The recent oil spills in the U.S. Caribbean shows the serious nature of this threat. In

September 1989, following Hurricane Hugo, a spill of heavy crude oil from

the Water and Power Authority facility in Christiansted, St. Croix, left southern beaches

heavily oiled. Pelican Cove, a hawksbill nesting beach, was buried under 0.3 m of crude

oil. Between March 1991 and March 1992, two more spills,’ both outside of U.S. waters,

threatened U.S. nesting beaches.

On March 6, 1991, thirteen km north of Nevis, the Trinidad-registered barge Vestabella,

loaded with about 560,000 gallons of Number 6 fuel oil, sank in 600 meters (m) of water

after a towing cable snapped. The initial oil slick was more than 30 miles long (Simmonds

1991). Soon thereafter, tar balls and tar sheets began appearing on St. Thomas, St. Croix,

Culebra, Vieques, and the main island of Puerto Rico and a hawksbill soaked in oil was

found dead near Guayama on the southern coast of Puerto Rico Pinto, pers. 

One year later, on March 15, 1992, a pipe ruptured during ship-to-shore pumping of fuel

oil to a transfer station at St. Eustatius Terminal on the west coast of St. Eustatius,

Netherlands Antilles. One hundred barrels of oil were released to the sea in a slick that

moved northwest across the rich fishing grounds of the Saba Bank. Heavy seas broke up the

slick before it entered United States waters, but tar balls eventually fouled the coast of

Puerto Rico Tar balls of unidentified origin are also occasionally

observed in U.S. Caribbean waters. Since 1990, this phenomenon has become increasingly

common in waters surrounding BIRNM 

Anchoring and Vessel Groundings: The hawksbill’s dependence on coral reefs for shelter

and food links its well-being to the condition of reefs. Hawksbill turtles shelter under

coral ledges and feed on sponges and other reef organisms 1983, 1988).

Destruction of reefs caused by ships anchoring, striking, or grounding on them is a growing

problem. Many small boats have ran aground on shallow reefs off the north shore of

St. John (C. Rogers, pers. 

14
The anchors and anchor chains of cruiseships and yachts are destroying portions of coral

reefs in the USVI, Puerto Rico, the BVI, Islands, Belize, and elsewhere. The

number of cruiseships visiting the Caribbean rose from 35 in 1982 to 82 in 1987. There are

few restrictions on anchoring anywhere in the Caribbean. Even in VINP, where federal

regulations prohibit damaging coral reefs, ships are destroying reefs, probably on a daily

basis. In addition, damage is also caused by the indiscriminate anchoring of recreational,

diving, and fishing boats and this may be one of the greatest threats to hawksbill habitat.

On February 15, 1985, the A. Regina ran aground off the east coast of Mona

Island in federally designated hawksbill Critical Habitat. The wreck spilled diesel oil,

extensively damaged the reef, produced a considerable suspension of sediment, and 

the beaches with oil and debris (Cintron and Cintron 1987). On August 25, 1985, a

hawksbill emerged to nest on Sardinera on Mona Island with oil on her flippers,

plastron, tail, cloaca, head, and throat; she was unsuccessful in her nesting attempt and did

not return (Kontos 1985).

In October 1988, the cruise ship illegally dropped anchor west of 

Bay on the north side of St. John in the VINP and Biosphere Reserve. The anchor and 

obliterated 283 square meters of coral reef. In October 1990, the anchor chain of the 438-

foot cruise ship Seabourne Pride uprooted and overturned at least 42 boulders, some were 3

m in diameter, of living coral in the Biosphere Reserve.

In March 1991, a steel-hulled sailboat, the Margaret, carrying produce from the

Dominican Republic to St. Croix, grounded on the northwest corner of the barrier reef

surrounding BIRNM. The ship remained on the reef for two days and created a scar more

than 100 feet long by 12 feet wide through the barrier reef. More than 1500 square feet of

reef were destroyed by the boat’s grounding and subsequent removal (Z. pers.

International Trade: International commerce in hawksbill shell (commonly called

“tortoiseshell” or may be the most significant factor endangering hawksbill

populations worldwide. Japanese imports of raw bekko between 1970 and 1989 

713,850 kg from more than 670,000 turtles [Milliken and Tokunaga 1987 (updated to 1989

by Greenpeace Milliken and Tokunaga (1987) noted that to maintain these levels of

importation, an annual slaughter of at least 28,000 hawksbills was required. Between 1970

and June 1989, Japan imported 368,318 kg of bekko from more than 250,000 hawksbills

from the wider Caribbean 1989). In addition, from 1970 to 1987, imported1

more than 587,000 stuffed hawksbills (Greenpeace 1989).

Because of the migratory nature of hawksbills, this trade threatens the species throughout the

Caribbean basin. The problem is exacerbated by turtles being caught illegally in CITES

nations and subsequently “laundered” for export through non-CITES nations. For example,

15
Japan’s 1988 bekko imports from Jamaica, Haiti, and Cuba represent about 13,400

hawksbills. It is unlikely that these turtles originated from the waters of those countries

(Greenpeace 1989).

For several reasons, despite the protection conferred by CITES, legal and illegal trade

continues to be a major problem. First, while 115 nations have ratified CITES (USFWS

 some have exercised their right to take exemption to treaty provisions as they pertain

to sea turtles. When Japan ratified CITES in 1980, it placed a reservation on the hawksbill

and several other reptile species, effectively exempting itself from the ban on their trade

(Greenpeace 1989). Likewise, Cuba took reservations on hawksbills and green turtles (WWF

1990).

Secondly, some countries, such as Indonesia, which ratified CITES in 1979, ignore their

obligations as CITES parties and openly trade in Appendix I species. According to Japanese

Customs statistics, stuffed hawksbills from Indonesia accounted for nearly half of all “worked

bekko” imports between 1979 and 1986 (Milliken and Tokunaga 1987). Other CITES parties

clandestinely participate in the trade by falsifying export documents for the country of origin.

For example, Japanese Customs records indicate that in 2505 kg of bekko was

received from Antigua, which has not signed CITES. However. Antiguan authorities

contend it is impossible that any export occurred,, especially an export representing nearly

2,000 hawksbills (J. Fuller, pers. 

Finally, some countries that supply hawksbill products do not belong to CITES. For

example, between 1970 and June 1989, Haiti exported bekko from more than

2,000 hawksbills (Greenpeace 1989).

While Japan is the major importer, there is significant trade within the Caribbean in response

to demand created by sales to tourists. Despite full domestic protection, tortoiseshell items

are available in the USVI. In 1984, two commercial shipments of sea turtle jewelry (valued

at $500) were seized. 1986, forty-three pieces of jewelry were seized and in 1988,

$150 worth of tortoiseshelljewelry boxes were forfeited in 1988 (Eckert 1992). In early

1992, about $150 worth of tortoiseshell jewelry, allegedly imported from Jamaica, was

confiscated from a St. Croix airport store (Greg Hughes, USFWS, in May 12, 1992).

In June 1992, the Jewelry Factory (Christiansted, St. Croix) was openly selling tortoiseshell

earrings that were allegedly imported from the Dominican Republic Eckert, pers. obs.).

In La Paragera, Puerto Rico, tortoiseshell jewelry valued at approximately $200 was seized

by NMFS from a gift shop. A Federal investigation determined that the jewelry had been

imported by a Colombian distributor and purchased at a jewelry show in San Juan (M.

Christian, NMFS, in March 3 1, 1992).

16
Other Threats: In nearshore waters, hawksbills are periodically captured in the cooling 

water intakes of industrial facilities, such as Florida Power and Light Company’s St. 

Power Plant on Hutchinson Island. Between March 1976 (when the St. Plant opened)

and November 1988, six hawksbills were captured (Ernest et al. 1989). As of June 1, 

three more had been captured. All were released unharmed (E. Martin, pers. 

Another threat is the illegal use of explosives for fishing. This fishing method is 

used off the southeastern coast of Puerto Rico and has caused the destruction of coral reef

habitat (B. Pinto, pers. 

CONSERVATION ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The most important hawksbill conservation achievement in recent years was Japan’s 

to end import of hawksbill shell by 1993 and to drop its CITES reservations on sea turtles by

July 1, 1994. Because Japan is the largest importer of stuffed hawksbills and hawksbill

shells in the world, this decision should significantly diminish the future demand for the

species.

The two most important hawksbill nesting beaches in the United States Caribbean are now

fully protected. BIRNM, St. Croix, USVI, became part of the NPS in 1962. Mona Island,

Puerto Rico, was established as a Natural Reserve under the protection of the in

1980. In addition, Isla Culebrita was transferred to Culebra NWR in 1982. Sandy Point

NWR (a beach at Sandy Point, St. Croix) was established in 1984.

Several government agencies have implemented regulatory measures that increase protection

for sea turtles. On December 3 1, 1987, the U.S. ratified Optional Annex V of the

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, also known as the

MARPOL Protocol. Annex V prohibits the dumping of all plastic wastes, including plastic

packaging materials and fishing gear, from all ships at sea. It is now illegal for any ship of

any size to dump plastic trash in the oceans, bays, rivers, and other navigable waters of 

U.S. et al.’ 1988).

In the early fishery regulations were amended in Puerto Rico to ban nets with greater

than mesh. In 1985, regulations allowing fines of up to $5,000 were passed to aid the

management and regulation of endangered species in Puerto Rico. Although USVI has no

restrictions on net mesh size, the capture of marine turtles is illegal and fishing with set 

has virtually ceased.

In the USVI, the Coastal Zone Management Commissions have imposed lighting and

monitoring restrictions on projects being built adjacent to nesting beaches (C. Ehle-Jewet,

pers. In 1986, it became illegal to drive vehicles or ride horses on beaches in the

17
In 1988, the NPS initiated a study of the hawksbill nesting population at BIRNM to monitor

long-term trends. In 1991, the FWS collaborated with the NPS in a study of hawksbill 

nesting migrations and movements at BIRNM. In 1991, the NPS also used radio and sonic

telemetry to study internesting movements, and the NPS initiated nesting surveys of

hawksbill beaches on St. John, USVI.

Since 1986, a nesting-behavior study has been conducted at Humacao under the auspices of

PRDNR. A similar study has been initiated on Caja Muertos. Since 1990, with USN

support, PRDNR has been tagging hawksbills on Vieques.

Since 1981, VIDFW has conducted a hawksbill tag and recapture program off St. Thomas.,

In 1985, this work was extended to St. John and, in 1987, to Culebra in cooperation with the

Caribbean Islands This program has provided information on growth rates, foraging

behavior, and movement of turtles.

Between 1980 and 1985, FWS and NPS attempted to eradicate the mongoose from BIRNM.

On Mona Island, fences have been erected on several nesting beaches to protect nests from.

hogs.

Actions have been taken to reduce the causes of coral reef destruction. The VINP has begun

installing mooring buoys in park waters to reduce damage from anchoring. In 1989, the park

prohibited anchoring by boats more than 225 feet long and restricted anchoring by boats

measuring 150 to 225 feet to less sensitive areas in Francis Bay. The A. Regina, which

grounded on a reef at Mona Island in 1988, was removed in 1990, and a 

trust fund was set up to monitor long-term effects.

A substantial effort is being made by government and non-government agencies and private:

individuals to increase public awareness of sea turtle conservation issues. Federal and State

agencies and private conservation organizations, such as the Center for Marine Conservation,

Greenpeace, and National Audubon Society, have produced and variety of

audio-visual aids and printed materials about sea turtles. These include a booklet on the

various types of light fixtures and ways of screening lights to lessen their effects on

hatchlings (Raymond the brochure “Attention Beach Users, “Lights Out” bumper

stickers and decals, a coloring book, video tapes, slide and tape programs, full-color

identification posters of the eight species of sea turtles, and a hawksbill poster. Florida

Power and Light Company has also produced a booklet (Van Meter 1992) containing general

information on sea turtles.

In the USVI, the St. Croix Environmental Association, the University of the Vi&in Islands

Extension Service, the VIDFW, FWS, and NPS are actively involved in circulating

newsletters and information packages and in presenting slide shows and seminars.

EARTHWATCH has supported projects in Puerto Rico and in the USVI. Projects on 

Point NWR, St. Croix, and Culebra, Puerto Rico, have brought attention to sea turtle

conservation and have generated local involvement and awareness. In both locations, the

18
general public has become aware of the problems facing the species and has developed a

protectionist attitude, a sharp contrast to the previous attitude of exploitation.

In the USVI, school children are being introduced to the problems that sea turtles face and to

how people can help them. Problems associated with plastics in the ocean have also been

brought to the public’s attention via news releases, public service announcements, and

television programs. In Puerto Rico, presentations on sea turtle biology are made at school

levels from kindergarten to college. Projects on the east coast of Puerto Rico and in 

have involved many segments of the community, including volunteers, the Chelonia Society,

Boy Scouts, 4-H groups, and various other clubs.

PART II. RECOVERY

A Recovery Objectives

Hawksbill turtles within U.S. jurisdiction in the Caribbean Sea, Atlantic. Ocean, and Gulf

of Mexico can be considered for delisting if, within 25 years, the following conditions

are met:

The adult female population shows a sustained increase, measured by a sustained and

statistically significant increase in the annual number of nests on at least five index

beaches, including Mona Island, Puerto Rico, and BIRNM, USVI.

Nesting habitat for at least 50 percent of the nests in Puerto Rico and the is

protected in perpetuity.

The adult, subadult, and juvenile populations show a sustained increase, measured by

a sustained and statistically significant increase in adults, subadults, and 

using at least five key foraging areas in Puerto Rico, USVI, and Florida.

All one tasks have been implemented.

B 

1

Step-down Outline and Narrative

Protect and manage habitats.

11 Protect and manage nesting habitat.

Coastal development has already destroyed or

nesting habitat in Puerto Rico and the USVI.

impact, development pressures will eventually

decline.

degraded many miles of

Because of their cumulative

lead to a significant population

19
111 Identify important nesting beaches.

BIRNM, USVI, and Mona Island, Puerto Rico, are the two most

important hawksbill nesting beaches currently known within

United States jurisdiction in the Caribbean Sea. A total of 150 to

250 nests are constructed annually on these two islands. Because of

the hawksbill’s proclivity for nesting within the vegetation adjacent

to small isolated beaches, significant unreported or undetected

additional nesting may also occur on other beaches in Puerto Rico,

USVI, and the Florida Keys. FDEP, PRDNR, VIDFW, and 

should initiate comprehensive nesting surveys of all potential 

areas to hawksbill nesting beaches and to assess their

relative importance. Historically important hawksbill nesting

beaches should also be identified.

112 Ensure the long-term protection of important nesting beaches.

The long-term protection of nesting habitat on Mona Island

(Commonwealth Natural Reserve), Puerto Rico, and on BIRNM

(NPS National Monument), USVI, is assured. Most beaches on St.

John, USVI, are also protected as part of the Elsewhere,

coastal development is a threat to nesting habitat throughout the

hawksbill’s nesting range. As important nesting beaches are

identified (Task FDEP, PRDNR, VIDPNR, and FWS should

acquire or otherwise ensure their long-term protection.

113 Develop beach-landscaping guidelines and evaluate effects as

appropriate.

Construction of stone walls, a common landscape practice, can

create barriers to nesting habitat. Altering coastline vegetation can

affect hatching success and sex ratios. Exotic plant

species that have undesirable characteristics relative to sea turtle

conservation needs are often planted. Extensive or exposed root

systems can prevent turtles from digging nests or may entrap nesting

females. Removal of vegetation for landscaping can exacerbate the

loss of sand by promoting wind erosion. FWS, VIDPNR, and

PRDNR should beach-landscaping guidelines 

recommend the use of native species proper placement of

stonewalls to avoid degrading nesting habitat.

20
114 Prevent the degradation of nesting habitat caused by seawalls,

revetments, sand bags, other erosion-control measures, jetties,

and breakwaters.

Seawalls, revetments, and sand bags have already destroyed or

degraded many miles of nesting habitat along the United State’s

southeastern Atlantic coast and in some regions of Puerto Rico.

However, legal and illegal beach armoring still occurs. Filling and

burying of long plastic bags to protect coastal property is common

in Florida and has occurred in other states. These buried bags are

hard and exacerbate erosion when they are uncovered by storms,

and they prevent nesting when uncovered or when buried too close

to the surface. Jetties and breakwaters alter sand transport and can

cause severe erosion of adjacent beaches.

Regulations prohibiting or discouraging some types beach

armoring exist in Florida. FDEP, PRDNR, and VIDPNR should

review current state regulations related to beach construction and

ensure that seawalls, revetments, sandbags, and other armoring

measures contributing to the degradation of nesting habitat are

prohibited. COE and FWS should ensure that jetties or

breakwaters are not permitted if they will resu1 t in the degradation

of hawksbill nesting habitat.

115 Ensure that beach-nourishment projects are

maintaining good-quality nesting habitat.

compatible with

Depositing poor quality material on nesting beaches can result in

compaction of sand. Compacted sand can cause an increased

number of non-nest crawls and aberrant nests, increased digging

times for nesting females and, in some cases, broken eggs from

clutches deposited in egg chambers that are too shallow. Gas

diffusion can be affected by shape and size, as well as

by beach compaction, and can alter egg hatching success. Sand

color and moisture influence temperature and can affect 

sex determination. Beach nourishment should occur only outside of

sea turtle nesting season. COE, FWS, FDEP, VIDPNR, and

PRDNR should ensure that nourishment projects only use material

similar to that of the local beaches. If beach exceeds

that of natural local beaches, tilling should be employed prior to the

nesting season to soften the nourished beaches.

21
116 Eliminate sand-mining practices on nesting beaches.

Legal and illegal sand mining and construction in Puerto Rico and

the USVI are major contributors to beach degradation. PRDNR

and VIDPNR should take the necessary measures to enact, enforce,

and monitor appropriate sand-mining and coastal-construction

regulations. Regulations should establish appropriate setbacks for

developments or, where appropriate, should require walkways to

protect the integrity of sand dunes and littoral vegetation.

12 Protect marine habitat, including foraging habitats.

Hawksbills inhabit coastal waters, particularly those with well-developed

reefs. Reefs have been abused and degraded. Among the contributing

factors are coastal development and industrialization, increased commercial

and recreational vessel activities (including anchoring), open-ocean dumping

of contaminants, river and estuarine pollution, channelization, offshore oil

development, and commercial fishing activities. If present trends continue,

the cumulative loss of suitable habitat will reduce the likelihood that the

species can recover.

121 Identify important marine habitats.

Hawksbills larger than about 22 cm straight carapace length are

known to feed principally on sponges associated with coral reefs

and other hard-bottom habitats, but information on the location of

specific foraging areas is extremely limited. These areas need to be:

identified. The habitat requirements of smaller hawksbills need to

be identified. PRDNR, VIDFW, NMFS, FWS, FDEP, and other

interested resource agencies should support this research.

122 Ensure the long-term protection of marine habitat.

Key hawksbill foraging habitats should be protected by designating

them as National Marine Sanctuaries or as State, territorial or

commonwealth aquatic preserves or sanctuaries. NMFS, NPS,

FDEP, VIDPNR, and PRDNR should ensure that existing

sanctuaries or aquatic preserves provide the appropriate of

protection for hawksbill foraging habitat and that newly identified

foraging habitats are nominated and established as national parks,

sanctuaries, or aquatic preserves.

22
123 Prevent the degradation or destruction of marine habitats

caused by boat groundings and anchoring.

Boats anchoring or striking reefs cause long-term damage. Reefs

grow slowly and it takes a long time for recovery. The reefs

habitat potential is decreased by boating activities that disrupt the

food web associated with coral-reef habitats. Reef areas in the

vicinity of bays are particularly susceptible to recreational boat

accidents. To ensure the long-term protection of coral reefs,

PRDNR, VIDPNR, FDEP, NMFS, and NPS should evaluate the

potential loss of habitat from these boating activities and take the

appropriate actions (including removal of grounded vessels and

installation of moorings).

124. Assess the long-term effects that vessel groundings have upon

foraging habitats.

Wave action causes’ grounded vessels to rock and gradually crush

reefs surrounding the vessel. The sediment generated detrimentally

affects adjacent reefs. Because recovery of coral reefs is a

long-term process, PRDNR, VIDFW, NMFS, and FWS should

monitor the extent of damage associated with grounded vessels.

125 Prevent the degradation or destruction of marine habitats

caused by dredging or disposal activities.

Dredging projects may have greater impacts on habitat than the

obvious mechanical destruction. Dredging and disposal of silt,

clay, or other materials generate enormous amounts of suspended

sediments that may severely damage adjacent corals and seagrasses.

Additionally, the disposal of dredged materials in offshore 

sites usually smothers existing flora and fauna. The COE, EPA,

and VIDPNR should carefully consider the environmental

consequences before permitting any new dredging projects or

designating new offshore disposal sites.

126 Prevent the degradation or destruction of important habitats

caused by upland and coastal erosion and 

The adverse effects of coastal construction, upland erosion, and

siltation on coral reefs are well documented. These problems

disrupt vital processes and reduce productivity and species

diversity. The regulatory agencies must ensure that established

23
minimum water quality standards are enforced. Land-use decisions

and associated projects should be carefully considered by local

governments, States, territories, NMFS, FWS, EPA, COE, and

other regulatory and permitting agencies.

127 Prevent the degradation of reef by sewage and

other pollutants.

Increased industrial and urban development in the Florida Keys and

the Caribbean is creating problems concerning the disposal of

industrial wastes and sewage. Large amounts of industrial waste is

being dumped offshore, and sewage is being pumped offshore

through pipelines. Similarly, upstream water-treatment plants could

compound this problem if operational standards are not 

This contamination can directly and indirectly (by decreasing water

quality) affect the health of reefs. Caribbean reef habitats have

already been damaged by siltation and sewage. EPA, PRDNR,

VIDPNR, FWS, and NMFS should take the appropriate measures

to ensure that water-quality standards are enforced.

Prevent the degradation of reef habitat caused by oil

exploration, development, refinement, and transshipment

activities.

Oil-refinery activities along the coasts of Puerto Rico, the USVI,

and the Gulf of Mexico threaten habitats with vessel traffic,

pumping bilges, marine pollution, and spills, including those

associated with transferring oil from tankers to onshore facilities.

Oil exploration and development activities planned for the northern

coast of Puerto Rico and in the Gulf of Mexico may degrade sea

turtle habitats. Of particular concern are the effects of oil spills,

drilling, mud disposal, disposal of other toxic materials, pipeline

networks associated with oil fields, onshore production facilities,

increased vessel traffic, domestic garbage disposal, and explosive

removal of obsolete platforms. PRDNR, VIDPNR, FDEP, MMS,

COE, FWS, and the oil and gas industry should take appropriate

actions to ensure that known sources of pollution and toxic-waste

disposal are eliminated. Additional precautions are needed to

prevent oil spills. Oil Spill Response Teams to deal spills

should be supported. The teams should be familiar with important,

sea turtle nesting and marine habitat.

24
129 Identify other threats to marine habitat and take appropriate!

actions.

Coral reefs and associated coastal habitats may be subject to other

threats that would render them unsuitable for supporting hawksbill

populations. For example, the numbers of recreational divers

illegally harvesting coral and “live rock” are increasing. Reefs are

also indirectly affected by chemicals used to capture fish for the

aquarium trade. In Florida, a large commercial trade has developed

to provide “live rock” for aquaria. PRDNR, VIDPNR, FDEP,

FWS, NMFS, and other appropriate

the general status of coastal habitats

identify threats and take appropriate

2 Protect and manage populations.

21 Protect and manage turtles on nesting 

agencies should be vigilant 

so that they can immediately

actions.

Predators, poaching, tidal inundation, artificial lighting, catastrophic events,

and human

Monitoring

appropriate

population.

activities on nesting beaches diminish reproductive success.

of nesting activities is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of

nest-protection measures and to determine trends in the nesting

211. Monitor nesting activity on important nesting beaches with

standardized index surveys.

With the exception of BIRNM, hawksbill nesting surveys are not

conducted on a regular basis. Also, the frequency with which

surveys are made, the experience and training of surveyors, and the

methods of reporting data are inconsistent. Consequently,

regionwide population trends cannot be determined. FWS,

PRDNR, VIDFW, and NPS should develop a standardized 

survey method. At five index beaches should be monitored.

212 Evaluate nest success and implement appropriate nest-protection

measures on important nesting beaches.

Nesting and hatching success on beaches located on State,

territorial, commonwealth, or Federal lands, or other important

nesting beaches, should be evaluated. Appropriate nest-protection

measures should be implemented by FWS, NPS, FDEP, PRDNR:,

25
and VIDFW to ensure at least an average percent hatch rate.

Efforts should be to reduce the effects of tidal inundation, beach

erosion, predation, vehicle and foot traffic, and catastrophic events

on hatching success. Efforts to combat hog predation on Mona

Island should be continued and expanded. The least manipulative:

method to enhance nest success should be employed to avoid

interfering with known or unknown natural biological processes. In

the case of beach erosion and frequent tidal erosion, there is no

alternative but to relocate nests to higher and safer beach zones.

Artificial incubation should be avoided. Hatcheries, or individual.

nest screens or fences, should allow hatchlings to escape the night

of hatching. Nest-protection efforts on Mona Island and BIRNM

should strive for the highest possible hatching success.

213 Reduce effects of artificial lighting on hatchlings and nesting

females.

Upon emerging from the nest, hatchlings may be disoriented or

misoriented by artificial lights along the beach and mortality may

result. Recent studies of loggerheads and green turtles have

demonstrated that artificial lights significantly deter nesting

activities.

2131. Determine effects of

nesting females.

artificial lighting on hatchlings 

Lighting from coastal development could be misorienting or

disorienting hatchlings and could be lessening their 

for survival. Most research has been done on loggerheads

and green turtles. Investigations of lighting effects on

nesting and hatchling hawksbills should be supported by

FWS, PRDNR, and VIDFW.

2132. Implement, enforce, and evaluate lighting regulations 

other lighting control’measures where appropriate.

In areas where lighting regulations have been adopted 

enforced, hatchling disorientation has been reduced. All

coastal counties and communities with nesting 

should adopt ordinances that are in effect from August

through February. Prevailing coastal-development trends 

represent an ever-increasing threat to nesting areas in

Puerto Rico and the USVI. FWS and NMFS should

encourage and provide necessary technical information to

26
commonwealth and territorial resource agencies so that

appropriate lighting regulations can be enacted.

2133. Enforce provisions of Endangered Species Act of

1973 relative to hatchling disorientation.

Federal lighting regulations promulgated under the authority

of the Endangered Species Act may be required to ensure

recovery of the species.

214 Ensure that law-enforcement activities prevent the illegal

exploitation and harassment of sea turtles.

Illegal exploitation can be a significant source of mortality for 

turtles in most life stages. Also, harassment can adversely affect

nesting females and cause a reduction in nesting activity and

increased likelihood that nesting females will be displaced to

unsuitable beaches. FWS should work closely with PRDNR,

VIDPNR, NMFS, and NPS to intensify law-enforcement efforts to

curb the incidence of poaching and harassment. FWS and NMFS

should increase their law enforcement staff by at least two special

agents for each agency in both the USVI and Puerto Rico. Efforts

should be taken by NMFS and FWS personnel to better inform 

educate judges and Federal prosecutors about the seriousness of

the illegal exploitation of hawksbills.

215. Determine the natural sex ratios of hatchlings.

Incubation temperature determines the sex of hatchling sea turtles.

Sex ratios of hatchlings on beaches throughout the nesting range

should be determined (without sacrificing hatchlings) over several

years for comparison with the sex ratios being produced by nest

relocation programs. FWS, PRDNR, and VIDFW should support

the studies. Transects should be established to monitor the natural

temperature regimes on appropriate nesting beaches. A

standardized protocol for temperature monitoring should be

developed by the FWS, commonwealth, or territorial resource

agencies and should be adopted when nests are relocated.

216. Determine the genetic relationships among Caribbean hawksbill

nesting populations.

The extent of migration and genetic mixing among nesting

populations is unknown. Information on the genetic 

among Caribbean populations is essential for maintaining genetic

diversity, evaluating recovery objectives, and assessing the viability

of hawksbill populations.

27
217. Determine nesting beach origins for juvenile and 

populations.

To determine the beaches where hawksbills are and are not

successful in producing hatchlings, we need to know the “home”

beach of wild juvenile and hawksbills. This information

will be important if turtles among nesting beaches differ in behavior

or ranges. Recent genetic research using analyses to 

genetic structure of other species of sea turtles indicates that this

approach may provide the necessary data. FWS, NMFS, FDEP,

PRDNR, and VIDFW should support this research.

218 Ensure that coastal construction activities are designed to avoid

disruption of nesting and hatching activities.

Coastal construction can significantly disrupt nesting activities.

Relocating nests reduces hatching-success rates and alters hatchling

sex ratios. The COE, FWS, and appropriate State, commonwealth,

or territorial agencies should ensure that beach construction

activities are not permitted during the peak of the nesting season

(July through October) on key nesting beaches.

219. Implement nonmechanized beach-cleaning alternatives.

The adverse effects of mechanized beach-cleaning include sand

compaction, alteration of nest site microenvironment, and hatchling

mortality prior to emergence. The PRDNR, FDEP, and VIDPNR

should prohibit mechanized beach-cleaning practices on key nesting

areas.

Protect and manage hawksbill populations in the marine environment.

To adequately protect and enhance the survival of hawksbills, we need to

know the abundance and spatial and temporal distribution of hawksbills in the

marine environment. We need to identify sources of mortality. As sources

of mortality are identified, steps can be taken to reduce or eliminate their

effects on populations.

221. Determine distribution, abundance, and status in the marine

environment.

To recover the hawksbill, it is critical for resource managers to

know when, where, and in what abundance hawksbills may occur

during the various stages of their life cycles.

28
2211. Determine the distribution and abundance of

 juveniles, and adults.

Although hawksbills are principally reef dwellers, little is

known about their distribution and numbers, and the habitat

features that influence these spatial and demographic

patterns. The first step is to design a survey protocol for

hawksbills in marine habitats. The conclusion is to obtain

valid data for a long period of time. FWS, FDEP,

PRDNR, and VIDFW should support development of the

survey protocol and the subsequent abundance assessments.

2212. Determine adult migration routes

movements.

and internesting

Researchers have studied nesting migrations by 

turtles on nesting and subsequent tag returns. Hawksbills

have been not been tagged as extensively as other species

because of their diffuse nesting distribution. Movements of

adult males, which may or may not have the same

migratory behavior as the females, have not studied.

Satellite telemetry may be used to study hawksbill

movements. Research should first study whether

attachment of satellite tags alters hawksbill behavior. Once

it is proven that the tags do not alter hawksbill’s natural

behavior, then NMFS, FWS, PRDNR, VIDFW, and other

interested resource agencies should support well designed

research.

2213. Determine growth rates and survivorship of 

juveniles, and adults, and age at sexual maturity.

Information on survivorship rates is essential to

conservation of sea turtles. Research results have shown

that sea turtle population demographics are sensitive to low

survival rates during juvenile, subadult, and adult life

stages. Estimating survival rates requires knowledge of

natural growth rates, sex ratios, and age at sexual maturity.

The most recently developed techniques to sex

and reproductive physiology need to be used. FWS, NPS,

NMFS, FDEP, PRDNR, and VIDFW should support this

needed research.
2214. Identify the present or potential threats to adults and

juveniles on foraging grounds.

Threats to hawksbills in reef habitats are not well known,

primarily because there is little information on hawksbill.

movement patterns and distribution. As important foraging

habitats are identified, threats must be assessed to ensure

that hawksbills are protected. MMFS, FWS, and other

State, commonwealth, or territorial resource agencies

should study hawksbill abundance, distribution, and identify

threats to the species.

222 Monitor and reduce incidental mortality in the commercial and

recreational fisheries.

Hawksbills are incidentally taken by several commercial and

recreational fisheries. Fisheries known or suspected to incidentally

capture hawksbills include those using gill nets, traps, driftnets,

hooks, beach seines, spear guns, and nooses. PRDA, PRDNR,

VIDFW, FDEP, NMFS, and FWS should quantify the extent of the

incidental mortality and take the appropriate actions to limit

incidental take.

223. Reduce the effects of entanglement and ingestion of marine

debris.

The problems of marine animals ingesting debris (plastic, latex

products, tar balls, and Styrofoam) and entangling in marine debris

have received considerable attention in recent years. Post-hatchling

sea turtles are particularly vulnerable to ingestion of persistent

materials. Entanglement in nets, ropes, and monofilament lines is a

source of mortality for sea turtles in all life stages.

2231. Evaluate the extent to which sea turtles ingest persistent

debris.

Limited information is available on the frequency with

which sea turtles become entangled in or ingest debris.

Stranding data and necropsies have shown 

have died from ingested debris. Stranded turtles have 

found entangled in lost or discarded netting, monofilament

lines, and ropes. NMFS, FWS, PRDNR, VIDFW, EPA,

and the southeastern coastal States should increase efforts to

document cases of entanglement and ingestion, the extent of

30
2232.

2233.

marine debris, the sources of the debris, and the impacts of

these materials on hawksbill turtles in various life stages.

Evaluate effects of ingestion of persistent debris on,

health and viability of sea turtles.

Turtles that do not die after ingesting plastics,

hydrocarbons, or other toxic substances are often

debilitated. Hatchiings are believed to congregate in areas,

such as driftlines, where debris concentrate. Research

should evaluate the effects of ingesting debris, particularly

for hatchlings during early life stages. MMS, and

EPA should fund the needed research.

Formulate and implement measures to reduce or

eliminate persistent debris in the marine 

Debris may originate or sea, primarily through

careless disposal of nonbiodegradable refuse. Sources of

these materials are transport vessels, cruiseships, military

vessels, commercial and recreational fishermen, oil and gas

platforms, beachgoers, and even dumping in inland creeks,

streams, and rivers. To eliminate the problem, the public,

military, and businesses involved (e.g., cruiselines,

petroleum companies) must be educated about the long-term

consequences of using the oceans and inland waters as

garbage dumps. Point sources of pollution must be

identified and EPA, Coast Guard, State

agencies, or qther Federal agencies. Appropriate agencies

should vigorously enforce MARPOL and state regulations

PRDNR, FDEP, VIDFW, and NMFS should promulgate

regulations the abandonment of fishing gear and

should

224. Maintain carcass stranding network.

Volunteers and contract personnel survey many beaches for

stranded sea turtles. Stranding data from the sea turtle stranding

and salvage network are received and summarized by NMFS

Miami Laboratory. These data provide an index of sea turtle

mortality and basic biological information. To ensure

comprehensive coverage, NMFS, FWS, PRDNR, and VIDFW

should support the stranding surveys in Puerto Rico and USVI.

31
225 Increase law-enforcement efforts to reduce illegal exploitation.

Illegal fishing for sea turtles is believed to be a reason for the

decline of hawksbill populations. These activities are prevalent in

waters near Puerto Rico and are notoriously common near MOM

Island and Cayo Berberia in southern Puerto Rico. PRDNR,

VIDFW, NMFS, and FWS should increase law-enforcement efforts

to arrest and prosecute fishermen taking sea turtles. Enforcement

actions must include the illegal commerce in hawksbill jewelry and

curios.

226 Centralize administration and coordination of tagging programs.

Sea turtle researchers commonly tag turtles encountered during their

research projects and usually maintain independent tagging data

bases. As a result, data is lost or information transfer is slow. 

central data base should be established. A condition of the required

Federal permits should stipulate that the central database will be

used. NMFS and FWS should fund and maintain the data base.

2261. Centralize tag-series records.

227. Ensure proper care of sea turtles in captivity.

A centralized tag-series data base is needed to ensure that

recaptured tagged turtles are promptly reported to the

person who initially tagged the animal. The tag-series data

base would include a list of all tags that have been placed

on wild sea turtles and the name and address of the

researcher. NMFS and FWS should establish and maintain

the data base.

Hawksbills are maintained in captivity for rehabilitation or research.

Proper care will ensure that the maximum number of rehabilitated1

turtles are returned to the wild and that a minimum number are

retained for research.

2271. Develop standards for the care and maintenance of sea

turtles, including diet, water quality, tank s&e, and

treatment of injury and disease.

None of these requirements have been scientifically

evaluated to determine the best captive conditions for

hawksbills. PRDNR, VIDFW, FWS, and NMFS should

32
support the necessary research to develop the criteria.

These criteria should be published, and permit-holders

should be required to meet these criteria. PRDNR,

VIDFW, FDEP, and NMFS should regularly inspect

permitted facilities for compliance with permit

requirements. FWS and NMFS should publish a manual on

the diagnosis and treatment of diseases of captive sea

turtles. This manual should also include treatment for

common injuries.

2272. Establish a catalog of all captive sea turtles to enhance

use for research and education.

Sea turtles are currently being held in captivity at over

50 facilities. To diminish the need for removing additional

specimens from the wild, the FWS and NMFS should

ensure that captive specimens are conserved.

2273. Designate rehabilitation facilities.

FWS and NMFS, in coordination with the appropriate

State, commonwealth or territorial agencies, should

designate rehabilitation facilities. Designation should be

based on availability of veterinary personnel with

expertise in reptilian care and on the institution’s ability to

comply with the care and maintenance standards developed

in step 2271 above. Prior to its designation as a

rehabilitation facility, each facility should be inspected by a

team that includes NMFS, FWS and appropriate State,

commonwealth or territorial resource agencies. Inspections

should be conducted at least annually thereafter.

3 Public information and education.

Sea turtle conservation requires long-term public support over a large geographic

area. The public must be informed of the issues and facts, particularly when

conservation measures conflict with human activities such as commercial fisheries,

beach development, and public use of nesting beaches. Public education the

foundation upon which a long-term conservation program will ultimately succeed or

fail

33
31 Develop and provide slide programs and information leaflets on sea turtle

conservation for the general public and for special-interest groups.

The FWS has developed a bilingual slide and tape program on sea turtle

conservation. The FWS should update the program, create a videofilm

version, and make the presentation available to relevant public institutions.

The FWS, State, commonwealth, and territorial resource agencies should

continually develop, update, and supply the public (especially groups such as

resort and beach managers, recreational divers, architects, developers, the

fishing industry, and schools) with informational brochures on sea turtle

ecology and conservation. A brochure should be written specifically to

inform travelers about the effects the tortoiseshell trade has on hawksbills and

request that they do not buy stuffed turtles or jewelry made from shell. This

pamphlet should be distributed by travel agencies which sell trips to the

Caribbean, and by cruise ships traveling in the Caribbean.

32 Develop a brochure with recommendations concerning beachfront

lighting.

Lighting ordinances require that lights be shut off or modified to prevent

direct lighting of the nesting beach. However, it is not always clear what

 types of light, screening, or shading work best. The FWS, NMFS, and

state, commonwealth or territorial resource agencies should jointly develop

and publish a brochure or booklet with up-to-date recommendations about

lighting fixtures, lights, shading modifications, etc.

33 Develop public-service announcements regarding sea turtle nesting,

artificial-lighting problems, entanglement, and waste disposal.

Professionally produced public-service announcements on radio and TV

would promote awareness of the importance of coastal-lighting ordinances

and recommendations concerning disposal of waste and debris. 

service announcements would generate greater support through

understanding. The FWS, State, commonwealth, and territorial resource

agencies should develop high-quality public-service announcements that

could be used throughout the United States Caribbean.

34 Ensure that facilities permitted to hold and display captive turtles

have appropriate informational displays.

Over 50 facilities are permitted to hold sea turtles for rehabilitation, research,

and public education. These provide valuable opportunities for public

education. Dissemination of accurate information on basic biology of sea
turtles and conservation threats should be required of all permittees. All

facilities should be visited by FWS, NMFS, PRDNR, FDEP, and VIDFW to

ensure compliance.

35 Develop informational displays at international airports in Miami, Dallas,

San Juan, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Airports in York, Miami, Dallas, San Juan, and the USVI handle a

significant portion of travelers originating from countries in the Caribbean

basin and South America, where restrictions on possession of endangered sea

turtles are not enforced or do not exist. Informational displays are popular

with the public and provide tremendous opportunities for public education.

PRDNR, VIDFW, NMFS, the U.S. Customs Service, and should

develop the informational displays that convey sea conservation

messages. Placement of displays should be coordinated with airport and

customs officials to ensure the displays are visible to the greatest number of

travelers.

36 informal signs at public-access points on important nesting beaches.

Public-access points along important nesting beaches provide excellent

opportunities to provide the public with guidelines for public use

of the nesting beach, and to develop public support. FDEP, FWS, NPS,

PRDNR, and VIDFW should develop and post educational and informational

signs on important nesting beaches.

37 Develop criteria and recommendations for public participation in sea

turtle recovery and research activities.

Public participation in research and recovery activities can be an effective

educational tool. Criteria must be developed by FWS, NMFS, State,

commonwealth, and territorial resources agencies to permit such

participation. Criteria should address group size, frequency of visitation, and

nature of participation.

International Cooperation

41 Ratify Protocol to Cartagena Convention concerning specially protected

areas and wildlife.

Parties to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine

Environment of the Wider Caribbean (Cartagena Convention) adopted the

Protocol for Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife in January 1990. 

II prohibits the taking, possession, killing, or commercial trade in certain

35
species, their eggs, parts, or products. All six sea turtle species in the wider

Caribbean are included under Annex II. Annex II prohibits the disturbance

of the species, particularly during periods of breeding, incubation, aestivation

or migration, as well as during other periods of biological stress.

Ratification by the 19 parties to the Convention will implement the provisions

of the Protocol within the member countries (however, the parties have the

option of entering reservations within 90 days). The Protocol could provide:

increased protection of sea turtles within many of the member countries. The

 and NMFS should work with the State Department to encourage

ratification by the U.S. and other western Atlantic countries.

Foster CITES memberships of all non-member Caribbean countries,

compliance with CITES requirements, and removal of sea turtle trade

reservations of member nations.

The most important factor endangering hawksbill populations is 

commerce in tortoiseshell. The CITES is a comprehensive wildlife treaty

signed by over 110 countries, including the U.S., that regulates, and in some

cases prohibits, commercial import and export of wild animal and plant

species that are threatened by trade. Of the 28 countries within the wider

Caribbean, and in the potential foraging range of hawksbill nesting

populations that are in U.S. jurisdiction, 21 are signatories of CITES. Of the

Caribbean signatories, Cuba, St. Vincent, and the Grenadines have

reservations allowing them to legally continue international trade in hawksbill

products. Japan is the single largest importer of hawksbill products and

about half of their imports come from the wider Caribbean. Between 1970

and 1989, Japan imported 368,318 kg of bekko from the wider Caribbean

alone, which is the equivalent of more than a quarter of a million turtles.

Japan, a signatory of CITES, also holds reservations on the hawksbill,

although it has agreed to give up these reservations by July 1, 1994. Cuba is

Japan’s major legal source hawksbill shell. The State Department and

Department of Interior should actively work with the wider Caribbean nations

to encourage CITES membership of nonmember nations, the removal of sea

turtle trade reservations, and compliance with CITES requirements.

36
43 Develop additional international agreements to ensure that turtles in all

 are protected in foreign waters.

Hawksbills sometimes make long-distance migrations. Foraging grounds 

adults, juveniles, and subadults of U.S. hawksbills are largely unknown.

Therefore, the long-term preservation of these populations will not be

accomplished by protection in areas under U.S. jurisdiction alone.

Ultimately, a comprehensive hawksbill conservation plan will have to

encompass essential habitats outside of the U.S. Once these habitats and

conservation strategies are identified, the NMFS and FWS should develop

cooperative international agreements and programs with the appropriate

foreign governments.

37
LITERATURE CITED

Ackerman, R.A. 1980. Physiological and ecological aspects of gas exchange by sea -turtle

eggs. American Zoologist 

Amos, A.F. 1989. The occurrence of hawksbills along the Texas

coast. Pages S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson (compilers),

Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology.

NOAA Tech. Memo. 

 G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion.

Pages 387-429. R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop

on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 26-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii.

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSISWFC-54.

Basford, S.J., R.L. Brandner, and R. H. Boulon. 1988. Tagging and nesting research on

leatherback sea turtles coriacea on Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin

Islands, 1988. Annual Report to USVI Division Fish and Wildlife Service.

32

Bjomdal, K.A. and A.B. 1988. Growth rates of immature green turtles, Chelonia

 on feeding grounds in the southern Bahamas. Copeia 

Bjomdal, K.A., A. Carr, A.B. Meylan, and J.A. Mortimer. 1985. Reproductive biology of

the hawksbill at Tortuguero, Costa Rica, with notes on the

ecology of the species in the Caribbean. Biological Conservation 34: 353-368.

Boulon, R., Jr. 1983. Some notes on the population biology of green Chelonia and

hawksbill Eretmochelys turtles in the northern U.S. Virgin Islands: 1981-83.

Report to NMFS, Grant No. 

1989. Virgin Islands turtle tag recoveries outside of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Pages

 S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson (compilers), Proceedings of

the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech.

Memo. NMFSISEFC-232. 

 1989. International trade in sea turtle products. Pages 27-29. S.A. Eckert,

K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson (compilers), Proceedings of the Ninth 

Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS/SEFC-232.

Carr, A. 1952. Handbook of Turtles. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

542 p.

38
1980. Some problems in sea turtle ecology.

1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stage

 Biology 1: 1.

American Zoologist

of sea turtle development.

H. Hirth, and L. Ogren. 1966. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 6. The

hawksbill turtle in the Caribbean Sea. American Museum Novitiates 2248: 1-29.

 A.F., Jr., and L.H. Ogren. 1960. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 4. The

green turtle in the Caribbean Sea. Bulletin American Museum Natural History 

Carr, A., and S. Stancyk. 1975. Observations on the ecology and survival outlook of the

hawksbill turtle. Biological Conservation 8: 

Cintron, G. and B. Cintron. 1987. National Report to WATS II for Puerto Rico. Western

Atlantic Turtle Symposium, Puerto Rico, 1987 (Unpublished).

Conley, W.J. and B.A. Hoffman. 1987. Nesting activity of sea turtles in Florida, 

1985. Florida Scientist 

Corliss, L.A., J.I. Richardson, C. Ryder, and R. Bell. 1989. The hawksbills of Jumby Bay,

Antigua, West Indies. Pages 33-36. In S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson

(compilers), Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and

Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

Dalrymple, G.H., J.C. Hampp, and D.J. 1985. Male-biased sex ratio in a cold nest

of a hawksbill sea turtle Journal of Herpetology 

Daniel, R.S. and K.U. Smith. 1947. The sea-approach behavior of the neonate loggerhead

turtle. Journal of Comparative Physiology and Psychology 

 C.R. 1932. The turtles of the northeastern states. Bulletin of the New York

Zoological Society 34: 131-160.

1935. Herpetological notes from southeastern Florida. Copeia

Diamond, W. 1976. Breeding biology and conservation of hawksbill turtles, 

 L., on Cousin Island, Seychelles. Biological Conservation 9: 
Dickerson, D.D. and D.A. Nelson. 1989. Recent results on orientation responses

to light wavelengths and intensities. Page 41. In S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T. H.

Richardson (compilers), Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle

Conservation and’ . NOAA Tech. Memo. 

Eckert, K.A. 1992. Five year status reviews of sea turtles listed under the Endangered

Species Act of 1973: Hawksbill Sea Turtle U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service P.O. No. 20181-l-0060. 20p.

and B.B. Lettsome. 1988. (Draft) Sea Turtle Recovery Action

Plan for the British Virgin Islands. Caribbean Environment Programme, United Nations

Environment Programme. Contract #CR/5 

Ehrenfeld, D.W. and A. 1967. The role of vision in the sea-finding orientation of the

green turtle Chelonia Animal Behavior

Ehrhart, L.M. 1983. A survey of nesting by the green Chelonia and

loggerhead turtle, in south Brevard County, Florida. Unpubl. Report to

World Wildlife Fund U.S., Washington, DC. 49 p.

Ernest, R.G., R.E. Martin, N. William-Walls, and J.R. Wilcox. 1989. Population dynamics

of sea turtles utilizing shallow coastal waters off Hutchinson Island, Florida. Pages 

In S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T. H. Richardson (compilers), Proceedings of the Ninth

Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS/SEFC-232.

Fritts, T. H. and M.A. 1989. Effects of petroleum on the development and

survival of marine turtle embryos. Pages 321-322. In L. Ogren, F. Berry, Bjorndal,

H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. (eds.), Proceedings of the

Second Western Atlantic Turtle NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSISEFC-226.

Greenpeace. 1989. Trade of Caribbean hawksbills to Japan. Report prepared for the 7th

Conference of Parties to CITES, Switzerland, October 1989. 

Groombridge, B. 1982. The IUCN Red Data Book, Part I. Testudines,

Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 426 p.

Groombridge, B., and R. Luxmoore. 1989. The green turtle and hawksbill (Reptilia:

Cheloniidae): World Status, Exploitation and Trade. CITES Secretariat, Lausanne,

Switzerland. 601 D.

Gunter, G. 198 1. Status of turtles on the Mississippi coast. Gulf Research Reports 7: 
Hendrickson, 1958. The green sea turtle, my&s in Malaya and

Sarawak. Proceedings of the Zoological Society, London 

Hildebrand, H. 1987. A reconnaissance of beaches and coastal waters from the border of

Belize to the Mississippi River as habitats for marine turtles. Report to

 Panama City Laboratory, purchase order 63 p.

 1990. Buck Island Reef National Sea Turtle Research Program: 1989 the year 

hawksbills and hurricanes. Pages 15-17. T.H. Richardson, J.I. Richardson, and M.

Donnelly (compilers), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology

and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSISEFC-278.

 and A.L. Mackay. 1989. Research report on nesting and tagging of hawksbill 

turtles at Buck Island Reef National Monument, U.S. Virgin

Islands, 198788. National Park Service, purchase order PX 

Hirth, H.F. 1980. Some aspects of the nesting behavior and reproductive biology of sea

turtles. American Zoologist 

 J. 1927. The turtle fisheries of the Seychelles islands. H.M. Stationery Office,

London. 55 p.

Hosier, P.E., M. Kocbhar, and V. Thayer. 1981. Off-road vehicle and pedestrian track

effects on the sea-approach of loggerhead turtles. Environmental Conservation

8:

Kontos, A.R. 1985. Sea turtle research report, 1985, MOM Island, Puerto Rico. Annual

Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 35 p.

Kontos, A.R. 1987. 1986 annual summary: Estimation of sea turtle abundance and nesting

success on MOM Island, Puerto Rico. Annual Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Unit Coop. Agreement Work Order 22 p.

Kontos, A. 1988. 1987 annual summary: Estimation of sea turtle abundance on M OM

Island, Puerto Rico. Annual Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Agreement

 C.J. 1992. The hawksbill turtle, in Queensland: population

structure within a southern Great Barrier Reef feeding ground. Wildlife

Linnaeus, C. per 

Vol. 350 

41
 P.F. 1985. Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys nesting on the east coast of

Florida. Journal of Herpetology 

Mann, T.M. 1977. Impact of developed coastline on nesting and sea in

southeastern Florida. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Florida Atlantic University, 

Florida.

Marcovaldi, M.A. and A. Filippini. 1991. movement by ‘a juvenile hawksbill

turtle. Marine Turtle Newsletter 

Matos, R. 1987. Sea turtle hatchery project with specific reference to the 

 and hawksbill Eretmochelys sea turtle, Humacao, Puerto

Rico, 1987. Annual Report, Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources.

36 P

 R. W. 1963. Disorientation of loggerhead hatchlings by artificial road lighting.

Copeia 1963: 153.

Melucci, C., J.I. Richardson, R. Bell, and L.A. Corliss. 1992. Nest site preference and site

 of hawksbills on Island, Antigua. Pages 171-174. In M. Salmon and J.

Wyneken (compilers), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle

Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo.

Meylan, A. 1982. Sea turtle migration--evidence from tag returns. Pages 

 In K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian

Institution Press, Washington, DC.

1984a. Biological synopsis of the hawksbill turtle 

 Pages 112 117. In P. Bacon, F. Berry, K. Bjomdal, H. Hirth, L. Ogren, and

M. Weber (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. Volume 1.

RSMAS Printing, Miami, Florida.

 1984b. Feeding ecology of the hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys

 Spongivory as a feeding niche in the coral reef community. Unpublished

Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 117 p.

1988. Spongivory in hawksbill turtles: a diet of glass. Science

1989. Status report of the hawksbill turtle, p. 101-115. In L. Ogren, F. K.

 H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. (eds.),

Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFSISEFC-226.

42
1992. Hawksbill Turtle Pages In P. Moler (ed.),,

Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Milliken, T. and H. Tokunaga. 1987. The Japanese Sea Turtle Trade Prepared

by TRAFFIC (JAPAN) for the Center for Environmental Education, Washington, DC.

171 p.

Mortimer, J.A. 1979. Ascension Island

Marine Turtle Newsletter 

1982. Factors influencing beach

Pages 45-51. In K.A. Bjomdal (ed.),

British jeopardize 45 years of conservation.

selection by nesting sea turtles,

Biology and conservation of sea turtles.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Mrosovsky , N. 1978. Orientation of marine turtles. Pages 413419. In K. Schmidt-Koenig

and W .T. Keeton (eds.), Animal Migration, Navigation and Homing. Springer Verlag,

New York.

Nelson, D.A. 1988. Life history and environmental requirements of loggerhead turtles.

U.S. Fish Wildlife Service Biological Report U.S. Army Corps Engineers TR

 34 p.

Nietschmann, B. 1981. Following the trail of a vanishing species--the hawksbill turtle.

National Geographic Society Research Report 13 

 K., S. Indicello, and R. 1988. A citizen’s guide to plastics in the ocean:

more than a little problem. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, DC.

Philibosian, R. 1976. Disorientation of hawksbill turtle hatchlings, 

by stadium lights. Copeia 

Pilkey, O.H., Jr., D.C. Sharma, H.R. L.J. Doyle, O.H. Pilkey, Sr., W.J. 

and B.L. Gruver. 1984. Living with the east Florida shore. Duke University Press,

Durham, NC. 259 p.

 P. and A.F. Amos. 1988. Entanglement in and ingestion of marine turtles stranded

along the south Texas coast. Pages 79-82. In B.A. Schroeder (compiler), Proceedings of

the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech.

Memo.

Pritchard, P.C.H. and Trebbau. 1984. The Turtles of Venezuela. Society for the Study

of Amphibians and Reptiles, Contributions to Herpetology, 2. 402 p.

43
Pritchard, P.C.H. P. Bacon, F. Berry, A. J. Fletemeyer, R. Gallagher, S. Hopkins, 

Lankford, R. M., L. W. Pringle, Jr., H. Reichart, and R.

1983. Manual of sea turtle research and conservation techniques, 2nd ed. 

and G.H. eds.). Prepared for the Atlantic Sea Symposium, Center

for Environmental Education, Washington, DC.4 

Raymond, P.W. 1984a. The effects of beach restoration on marine turtles nesting in south

Brevard County, Florida. Unpublished Thesis. University of Central Florida,

Orlando, Florida.

Raymond, P.W. Sea turtle disorientation and artificial beachfront lighting.

Center for Environmental Education, Washington, DC. 72 p.

Richardson, J.I. 1990. Estimation of sea turtle abundance and nesting success on MOM

Island, Puerto Rico. Final report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Unit Coop. Agreement

14-16-0009-1551 42 p.

Schroeder, B.A. and A.A. Warner. 1988. 1987 annual report of the sea turtle stranding and

salvage network, Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. Miami

Lab., Coastal Resource Division Contribution No. 45 p.

Simrnonds, J.N. 1991. The impact on the marine environment of St. from the 

oil spill of the barge Draft report, Fisheries Office, St. 12 p.

Small, V. 1982. Sea Turtle Nesting at Virgin Islands National Park and Buck Island Reef

National Monument, 1980 and 1981. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,

Research Resource Management Report SER-61. 54 p.

Smith, H.M., and R.B. Smith. 1979. Synopsis of the herpetology of Mexico. Vol. VI.

Guide to Mexican Turtles. John Johnson, North Bennington, VT. 1044 p.

Teas, W.G. and A. Martinez. 1989. 1988 Annual report of the sea turtle stranding and

salvage network, Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. Miami

Lab. No. 47 p.

1992. 1989 annual report of the sea turtle stranding and salvage network, Atlantic

and’ Gulf coasts of the United States, January-December 1989. Miami 

Contrib. No. 50 p.

USFWS. 1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. 50 CFR 17.11 17.12.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 34 p.

1992. CITES Update No. 13, May 1992, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Washington, DC.
Van Dam, R. and L. 1989. Sea turtle biology and conservation on MOM Island,

Puerto Rico. Report for 1989. Chelonia, Herpetologica de Puerto Rico..

1990. The hawksbills of MOM Island, Puerto Rico. Report for 1990. Chelonia,

 Herpetologica de Puerto Rico.

and D. Pares. 1991. The hawksbills of MOM Island, Puerto Rico. Page 187. In

M. ‘Salmon and J. Wyneken (compilers), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop

on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

Van Meter, V.B. 1992. Florida’s Sea Turtles. Florida Power and Light

Company, Miami, Florida. 60p.

Vargo, S., P. Lutz, D. Odell, E. Van Vleet, and G. 1986. The effects of oil on

marine turtles. Final Report, Vol. 2. Prepared for Minerals Management Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior. OCS Study MMS 86-0070.

Witherington, B.E. 1986. Human and natural causes of marine turtle clutch and hatchling

mortality and their relationship to hatchling production on an important Florida nesting

beach. Unpublished S. Thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.

Witherington, B.E. 1992. Behavioral responses of nesting sea turtles to artificial lighting.

Herpetologica

Witherington, B.E., and K.A. Bjorndal. 1991. Influences of artificial lighting on the

seaward orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta. Biological

Conservation 55: 139-149.

Witzell, W.N. 1983. Synopsis of biological data on the Hawksbill Turtle, 

 (Linnaeus, 1766). FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 137. 78 p.

World Wildlife Fund 1990. CITES now has 109 parties. TRAFFIC(USA) 

45
III. SCHEDULE

Priorities in column 4 of the following Implementation Schedule are assigned as follows:

Priority 1 

An action that must be taken to prevent

irreversibly in the foreseeable future.

extinction or to prevent the species from declining

Priority 2 

An action

quality or

Priority 3 

that must be taken to prevent 

significant decline in species population/habitat

some other negative impact short of extinction.

All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species.
GENERAL CATEGORIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES

Information Gathering I or R (research)

1. Population status

2. Habitat status

3. Habitat requirements

4. Management techniques

5. Taxonomic studies

6. Demographic studies

7. Propagation

8. Migration

9. Predation

10. Competition

11. Disease

12. Environmental contaminant

13. Reintroduction

14. Other information

Management M

1. Propagation

2. Reintroduction

3. Habitat maintenance and manipulation

4. Predator and competitor control

5. Depredation control

6. Disease control

7. Other management

Acquisition A

1. Lease

2. Easement

3. Exchange

4. Withdrawal

5. Fee title

6. Other

Other 0

 Information and education

 enforcement

Regulations

Administration

47
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Hawksbill (Recovery Priority Number 1)

Estimated Year Costs

General Task Task ResponsibleCategory Plan Task Number Priority Duration Agency Current FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY Comments/NotesR-2 Assess long-term Routine

impacts from NMFS, FWS,vessel grounding. 124 3 Continuing PRDNR

M-3 Prevent

degradation of

marine habitats COE, NMFS,

from dredging or PRDNR,

disposal. 125 2 Continuing VIDPNR

M-3, O-3 Prevent

degradation of

marine habitatsfrom upland PRDNR,

erosion and VIDFW, Fws,

siltation. 126 1 Continuing EPA, SCS

M-3 Prevent NMFS, PRDNR,

degradation of reef FDEP, VIDFW,habitat from EPA, EQB,

pollutants. 127 1 Continuing USCG

Prevent

degradation of reef USCG, NMFS,habitat from oil

refining activities. 128 3 Continuing COE, MMS,

FWS

I-2

I-l

Identify otherthreats to marine NMFS, PRDNR,habitats. 129 3 Continuing FDEP

NPS 25 25 25 25

PRDNR 15 1 5 1 5VIDFW 5 5

Monitor trends in FWS 10 10 10 10nesting activity, 211 1 FDEP 5 5
Hawksbill Turtle (Recovery Priority Number 1)

General Task

Category Plan Task Number Priority

 M-7 Evaluate nest

success and

implement nest

protectionmeasures. 212 1

R-14 Determine effects

of artificial lightingon hatchlings and

nesting females. 2131 2

M-7, O-3, Implement,

o-2 enforce, and

evaluate lightingordinances and

promulgateCommonwealth

and Territorial

lighting 2132 2

regulations.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs

Task Responsible ,

Duration Agency Current FY2 FY 3 4 FY Comments/Notes

NPS 5 5 5

PRDNR 10 10 10 1 0

VIDFW

Continuing FWS 5

FWS, PRDNR,

2 Years VIDFW 15 1 5

Routine

Puerto Rico andU.S. VirginIslands coastal

cities, PRDNR,

Continuing VIDFW, Fws

o-2 Enforce

Endangered

Species Act. 2133 2 Continuing FWS, NMFS

o-2

R-l

FWS, NMFS,

Prevent poaching PRDNR,on nesting beaches. 214 1 Continuing VIDFW, FDEP

Determine natural

 sex 215 3 3 Years FWS

ratios.Determine geneticrelationships of

Caribbeanpopulations. 3-5 Years _ 216 2 FWS, NMFS

20 20

50 50
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Hawksbill Turtle (Recovery Priority Number 1)

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs

General Task Task Responsible ,Category Plan Task Number Priority Duration Agency Current FY 2 FY3 FY4 Comments/Notes

M-4, M-7 Evaluate nest

success and NPS 5 5implement nest PRDNR 10 10 10 1 0

protection VIDFW

measures. 212 1 Continuing FWS 5 5 5

R-14 Determine effects

I

of artificial lighting

on hatchlings and FWS, PRDNR,

nesting females. 2131 2 2 Years VIDFW 1 5 1 5

M-7, o-3, Implement, Routineo-2 enforce, and

evaluate Iighting

ordinances and Puerto Rico and

promulgate U.S. Virgin

Commonweatth Islands coastaland Territorial cities, PRDNR,

lighting 2132 2 Continuing VIDFW, Fwsregulations.

o-2 Enforce

Endangered

Species Act. 2133 2 Continuing FWS, NMFS

o-2 FWS, NMFS,

Prevent poaching PRDNR,

on nesting beaches. 214 1 Continuing VIDFW, FDEP

R-6 Determine natural

 sex 215 3 3 Years FWS 20 20

ratios.

R-l ,R-5 Determine genetic 

relationships ofCaribbeanpopulations. 216 2 3-5 Years FWS, NMFS 50 50
Hawksbill Turtle (Recovery Priority Number 1)

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs

General Task Task ResponsibleCategory Plan Task Number Priority Duration Agency Current FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY Comments/Notes

FWS, NMFS,

R-l, R-14, Determine nesting FDEP, PRDNR,

M-7 beach origins. 217 1 Years VIDFW loo 100M-7 Ensure coastal Routine

constructionactivities avoid FWS, COE,

nesting and PRDNR,

hatching periods. 218 3 Continuing VIDFW, FDEP

Implement Costs Unknown

 beach

cleaning PRDNR, FDEP,

alternatives. 219 2 Continuing VIDFW

R-14R-8, R-14

Determine

 juvenile,

and adult

distribution andabundance.Determinemigration routesand intemestingmovements.

22112212

Costs for all agencies

NMFS, FWS,

PRDNR,

 Years VIDFW, FDEP loo 100 100 100

NMFS, FWS, ,PRDNR,

5 Years VIDFW, FDEP 100 100 100 100

R-l, R-14

x-14, o-3

Determine growth

rates, age at sexual NMFS, FWS,maturity, VIDFW,

survivorship rates. 2213 2 Years PRDNR, FDEP 100 100

Monitor and reduce Routine

incidental: mortality NMFS, VIDFW,

from fisheries. 222 3 Continuing PRDNR, FDEP

51
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Hawksbill Turtle (Recovery Priority Number. 1)

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs

General Task Task Responsible

Category Plan Task Number Priority Duration Agency Current FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY Comments/Notes

R-12, R-14 Evaluate effects NMFS, VIDFW, Routine

from persistent PRDNR, FDEP,

marine debris. 223 1 2 Continuing EPA

I-14 NMFS, VIDFW,

PRDNR, FDEP,

2232 3 3-5 Years MMS, FWS 50 50 50 50

O-3, M-7 Implement

measures to reduce USCG, NMFS,

amount of marine EPA, PRDNR,

debris. 2233 3 Continuing VIDFW, FDEP

M-7 PRDNR,

Maintain

 stranding network. 224 2 Continuing NMFS

O-24 Increase law

enforcement to NMFS, FWS,

reduce poaching. 225 Continuing PRDNR 200 200 

Centralize tag Costs are identified in loggerheadseries records. 2261 3 Continuing FWS, NMFS green turtle recovery plans.

R-14, M-7 Develop standards

for captive

hawksbills. 2271 3 5 Years FWS, NMFS 20 20 20

M-7 Establish catalog Routine

for all captive seaturtles. 2272 3 Continuing NMFS, FWSDesignate

rehabilitation

facilities. 2273 3 Continuing NMFS, FWS

O-l Provide education

materials. 31 2 Continuing All 10 10 10 10 All agency costs