RE OVERY PLAN FOR U.S. POPULATION OF ATLANTIC GREEN TURTLE c 

1 (Chelonia mydas) 

Prepared by 

The LoggerheadIGreen Turtle Recovery Team 

for 

Southeast Region 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

and 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Washington, D.C. 

Approved: 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Date: ~ a7 29 1991 
delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover andlor protect 

are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries 

imes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. 

be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other 

. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions 

ividuals or agencies, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

e involved in the plan formulation. They represent the official position of the 

ervice and National Marine Fisheries Service &y after they have been signed 

Assistant Administrator of Fisheries as a~~roved. Approved recovery plans 

dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of 

Literature ditation should read as follows: 

ine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery Plan for U.S. 

Atlantic Green Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 

Additional bpies of this plan may be purchased from: 

The fee for Ithe plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I Page 

EXECUT~VE SUMMARY ................................... iii 

ON ..................................... 1 

........................................ 1 

......................................... 1 

istribution and Size ............................. 1 

............................................. 1 

cal Characteristics ................................. 2 

Environment .............................. 3 

Environment .............................. 7 

omplishments - Nesting Environment ............... 11 

omplishments - Marine Environment ............... 13 

B . shpdown Outline and Narrative .......................... 16 

C . L terature Cited ..................................... 34 I 
PREFACE 

The origi al Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles was approved by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National arine Fisheries Service, September 19, 1984. The plan included the loggerhead (Cc~retta 

caretta), reen turtle (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Erefmochelys imbricata), leatherback (Demchelys 

coriacea) 1 and Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kernpi). 

and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service share the responsibility for 

under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. In an effort 

a recovery program for sea turtles, both Services recognized the need to reassess 

efforts and consider the new biological information available since approval of the 

To accomplish this, the Services created a LoggerheadIGreen Turtle Recovery 

Recovery Team and a Kemp's Ridley Recovery Team. The Recovery 

species plans to provide greater focus and emphasize the uniqueness of 

was undertaken by the LoggerheadIGreen Turtle Recovery 'ream 

Llewellyn M. Ehrhart, Team Leader 

of Central Florida 

. Karen A. Bjorndal 

Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research, University of Florida 

Terry A. Henwood 

Marine Fisheries Service 

s. Barbara A. Schroeder 

rida Department of Natural Resources 7. Sally R. Murphy 

S uth Carolina Department of Wildlife and Marine Resources 

7. ~arl E.Possarcit 

U S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

plan incorporates the new format that has become standard in recovery plans in recent years. 

to serve as a guide that delineates and schedules those actions believed necessary to restore 

turtle as a viable self-sustaining element of its ecosystem. It is recognized that some 

in the plan are well underway. The inclusion of these ongoing tasks represents an 

and offers support for their continuation. 
ADNR 

CCAFS 

cms 

COE 

CPA 

CZM 

EP A 

FDNR 

FPL 

FWS 

GDNR 

IUCN 

KSC 

LDWF 

MARPOL 

MDW 

MMS 

NCDNR 

NMFS 

NPS 

PRDNR 

SCWMRI 

TPW 

USAF 

USCG 

USMC 

USN 

VIDFW 

VIDPNR 

VMRC 

Alabama Department of Natural Resources 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Canaveral Port Authority 

Office of Coastal Zone Management 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agency 

Florida Department of Natural Resources 

Florida Power and Light Company 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature 

Kennedy Space Center 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife 

Minerals Management Service 

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Park Service 

Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources 

South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

United States Air Force 

United States Coast Guard 

United States Marine Corps 

United States Navy 

Virgin Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife 

Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources 

Virginia Marine Resources Commission 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Current 

as endan, 

six count 

2,300 ne 

fisheries 

Goal: T 

Recover! 

of 25 y~ 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Actions I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Date of I 

indicate ( 

*Total a 

L 

P 

P 

*$145,7(1 

I - 

tatus: Breeding populations in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico are federally listed 

xed. All other populations are listed as threatened. Primary nesting beaches occur along a 

area in east central and southeast Florida. Nesting activity ranges from approximately 350- 

s annually. Coastal development threatens nesting habitat and populations while wmmercial 

1d pollution pose significant threats in the marine environment. 

: recovery goal is to delist the species in the United States once recovery criteria are mlet. 

criteria: The U.S. population of green turtles can be considered for delisting if, over a period 

s, the following conditions are met: 

The level of nesting in Florida has increased to an average of 5,000 nests per year far at 

least 6 years. 

At least 25 percent (105 km) of all available nesting beaches (420 km) is in public ownt:rship 

and encompasses greater than 50 percent of the nesting activity. 

A reduction in stage class mortality is reflected in higher counts of individuals on 

foraging grounds. 

All priority one tasks have been successfully implemented. 

xded: Six major actions are needed to achieve recovery. 

Provide long-term protection to important nesting beaches. 

Ensure at least 60 percent hatch success on major nesting beaches. 

Implement effective lighting ordinances or lighting plans on nesting beaches. 

Determine distribution and seasonal movements for all life stages in marine environme:nt. 

Minimize mortality from commercial fisheries. 

Reduce threat to population and foraging habitat from marine pollution. 

mvery: If funds are available to accomplish recovery tasks and new information does not 

her limiting factors, the anticipated date of recovery is 2015. 

t of recovery: 

nd acquisition: $90,000,000 

tions on nesting beaches 9,800,000 

tions in marine environment 54,000,000 

,000 of these costs are shared with actions identified in the Loggerhead Recovery Plan. 

iii 

---- ---,. ---a --- -, -. "U*"a"".6 6'YVlL LULLIW w=lLjm Q~~LVAIIII~CWY LJ g, mu me carapace 
PART I. INTRODUCTION 

Taxonomy: The green turtle was described by Linnaeus in 1758 as Testudo mydas with Ascension Island 

as the type locality. Schweigger first applied the binomial we use today, Chelonia mydas, in 1812. The 

taxonomic status of the green turtle is not clear. There is believed to be little genetic exchange among 

isolated breeding colonies, and, thus, these colonies may deserve sub-specific recognition. Although 

trinomials have been applied to various populations in the past, they are generally not in use today. 

Advances in DNA research may help solve these taxonomic questions by identifying genetically isolated 

populations. For a complete discussion of the systematics of green turtles see Pritchard and Trebbau 

(1984) and Hirth (1980a). 

Description: The green turtle is the largest thecate sea turtle; adults commonly reach a meter in carapace 

length and 150 kg in mass. The mean size of female green turtles nesting in Florida is 101.5 cm (n = 

90, SD = 5.8) standard straight carapace length and 136.1 kg (n = 15, SD = 17.7) body mass 

(Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989). Characters that distinguish the green turtle from other marine turtle 

species are a smooth carapace with four pairs of lateral (or costal) scutes and a single pair of elongated 

prefrontal scales between the eyes. Hatchling green turtles weigh approximately 25 g, and the carapace 

is about 50 mrn long. The dorsal surface is black, and the ventral surface is white. The plastron of 

Atlantic green turtles remains a yellowish white throughout life, but the carapace changes in color from 

solid black to a variety of shades of grey, green, brown and black in starburst or irregular patterns. 

Population Distribution and Size: The green turtle is a circumglobal species in tropical and sub-tropical 

waters. The worldwide distribution of green turtles has been described by Groombridge (1982). In U.S. 

Atlantic waters, green turtles are found around the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and continental 

United States from Texas to Massachusetts. Areas that are known as important feeding areas for green 

turtles in Florida include Indian River Lagoon, Florida Keys, Florida Bay, Homosassa, Crystal River and 

Cedar Key. In the past, green turtles were fished commercially in all of these areas. There was also a 

commercial fishery for green turtles in Texas at the end of the last century; most of the turtles were from 

Aransas Bay, Matagorda Bay and Laguna Madre (Hildebrand, 1982; Doughty, 1984). 

Major green turtle nesting colonies in the Atlantic occur on Ascension Island, Aves Island, Costa Rica 

and Suriname. In United States Atlantic waters, green turtles nest in small numbers in the United States 

Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico, and in larger numbers along the east coast of Florida, particularly in 

Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach and Broward Counties. The number of egg 

clutches deposited by green turtles in Florida was 736 in 1985, 350 in 1986, 866 in 1987, 466 in 1988, 

559 in 1989, and 2288 in 1990 (Conley and Hoffman, 1986; FDNR, unpubl. data). It is not possible to 

assess trends in the nesting population from these data because the length of beach surveyed varied among 

years. Statewide, a total of 616 km, 823 krn, 971 km, 982 km and 1011 krn, was surveyed in 1986, 

1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, respectively (FDNR, unpubl. data). More information is needed before 

detailed distribution maps or estimates of population number and structure can be made for green turtle 

populations in United States territorial waters. 

Status: The green turtle is listed as Endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN) (Groombridge, 1982) and is listed on Appendix I of the Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES). In 1978, under the United States Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, the green turtle was listed as Threatened except for the breeding populations in 

Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which were listed as Endangered. Green turtles continue to 

be heavily exploited by man, and degradation of nesting and feeding habitats are serious problems. Over- 
exploitatio by man has already caused the extinction of large green turtle populations including those 

that once n ted on Bermuda and Cayman Islands. The status of green turtle populations are difficullt to 

determine ecause of the long generation time and inaccessibility of the early life stages. The number 

of nests de osited in Florida appears to be increasing, but whether this upward trend is due to an incrtme 

in the num 1 er of nests or is a result of more thorough monitoring of the nesting beaches is uncertain. 

Biological kharacteristics: Several excellent reviews of the biological characteristics of green turtles 

have been ublished in recent years (Hirth, 1980a; Groombridge, 1982; Ogren, 1984; Pritchard and 

Trebbau, 1 84; Ehrhart and Witherington, in prep). The discussion here will be brief; the reader is 

referred to 1 these reviews for more detail. 

reen turtles occupy three habitat types: high-energy oceanic beaches, convergence zo~nes 

abitat, and benthic feeding grounds in relatively shallow, protected waters. Females 

es on high energy beaches, usually on islands, where a deep nest cavity can be dug 

ine. Hatchlings leave the beach and apparently move into convergence zones in the 

they spend an undetermined length of time (Carr, 1986). When turtles reach a 

approximately 20 to 25 cm, they leave the pelagic habitat and enter benthic feedling 

nly these foraging habitats are pastures of seagrasses andlor algae, but small green 

over coral reefs, worm reefs and rocky bottoms. Some feeding grounds only 

es of green turtles; the turtles apparently move among these foraging araasing grounds--as they grow. Other feeding areas, such as Miskito Cays, 

lete sue range of green turtles from 20 cm to breeding adults. Coral rtxfs 

ing pastures are often used as resting areas, both at night and during the dlay. 

is assumed that post-hatchling, pelagic-stage green turtles are omnivorous, but there are no 

from this age class. It is known that once green turtles shift to benthic feeding grounds they 

They feed on both seagrasses and algae. Information on diet and nutrition of green 

reviewed (Mortimer, 1982a; Bjorndal, 1985). 

~rowth Growth rates of pelagic-stage green turtles have not been measured under natural conditions. 

However, rowth rates of green turtles have been measured on the benthic feeding grounds. Green 

turtles gro slowly. In the southern Bahamas, green turtles grew from 30 to 75 cm in 17 years, and 

growth rat decreased with increasing carapace length (Bjorndal and Bolten, 1988). Growth riltes 

measured i green turtles from Florida (Frazer and Ehrhart, 1985), United States Virgin Islands (Boudon 

and Frazer 1990) and Puerto Rico (Collazo, Boulon and Tallevast, in prep.) fall within the range of 

growth rat measured in the southern Bahamas (Bjorndal and Bolten, 1988). Based on growth irate 

studies of i ild green turtles, estimates of age at sexual maturity range from 20 to 50 years (Balazs, 1982; 

Frazer and Ehrhart, 1985). 

Female green turtles emerge at night to deposit eggs; the process takes an average 

of the behavioral sequences have been reviewed by Ehrhart (1982). From 

within a breeding season at 12-to-14 day intervals. The average 

clutches (Carr et al., 1978), but accurate data on the number of 

to obtain. Mean clutch size is usually 110 to 115 eggs, but 

clutch sue reported for Florida was 136 eggs in 130 

occasionally do females produce clutches in successive 

breeding seasons. Mating occurs in the water 

biology of males, but evidence is 
accumulat g that males may migrate to the nesting beach every year (Balazs, 1983). Hatching sutxess 

of undistu 1 bed nests is usually high, but on some beaches, predators destroy a high percentage of l~ests 

(Stancyk, 1982). Large numbers of nests are also destroyed by inundation and erosion. Temperature 

dependent sex determination has been demonstrated for green turtles (see review in Standora and Spotila, 

1985). ggs incubated below a pivotal temperature-which may vary among populations-produce 

primarily ", ales, and eggs incubated above the pivotal temperature produce primarily females. Reviews 

of the repqoductive biology of green turtles can be found in Hirth (1980b), Ehrhart (1982) and Bjotndal 

and Carr 41989). 

Mov ents: The navigation feats of the green turtle are well known, but poorly understood. We 

know that hatchlings and adult females on the nesting beach orient toward the ocean using photic cues 

(Ehrenfel , 1968; Mrosovsky and Kingsmill, 1985). We do not know what cues are employed in peliigicstage mov 7 ments, in movements among foraging grounds, or in migrations between foraging grounds; and 

nesting b4ch. Because green turtles feed in marine pastures in quiet, low-energy areas and nest on highenergy b ches, their feeding and nesting habitats are, of necessity, located some distance apart. Green 

turtles tha nest on Ascension Island forage along the coast of Brazil, some 1,000 km away (Carr, 19175). 

The locati 1 n of the foraging grounds of green turtles that nest in Florida is not known. It has lbeen 

generally ;bccepted, but not proven, that green turtles return to nest on their natal beach. Green turtles 

do exhibit strong site-fidelity in successive nesting seasons. Meylan (1982) has reviewed information of 

turtle movbments based on turtle tag returns. 

Threats - Westing Environment 

Beach Erc)sion: Erosion of nesting beaches can result in partial or total loss of suitable nesting habitat. 

Erosion rabes are influenced by dynamic coastal processes, including sea level rise. Man's interference 

with thesq natural processes through coastal development and associated activities has resulted in 

acceleratd erosion rates and interruption of natural shoreline migration. 

Beach Ar oring: Where beachfront development occurs, the site is often fortified to protect the 

property om erosion. Virtually all shoreline engineering is carried out to save structures, not dry sandy 

beaches, I d ultimately results in environmental damage. One type of shoreline engineering, collectively 

referred to as beach armoring, includes sea walls, rock revetments, riprap, sandbag installations, groins 

and jetties4 Approximately 20 percent (240 km) of Florida's coast has been armored (FDNR, unpubl. 

armoring can result in permanent loss of a dry nesting beach through accelerated erosion 

of natural beachldune accretion and can prevent or hamper nesting females from accessing 

sites. Clutches deposited seaward of these structures may be inundated at high tide or 

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

spread debris on the beach which may further impede access to suitable nesting sites 

incidences of false crawls) and trap hatchlings and nesting turtles. Sandbags are 

to rapid failure and result in extensive debris on nesting beaches. E!ock 

sand bags can cause nesting turtles to abandon nesting attempts or to consllruct 

egg cavities when inadequate amounts of sand cover these structures. 

jetties are designed to trap sand during transport in longshore currents or to keep :sand 

channels in the case of the latter. These structures prevent normal sand transport and 

one side of the structure while starving neighboring beaches on the other side theireby 

beach erosion (Pilkey et al., 1984) and corresponding degradation of suitable nating 

habitat. 
Drift febces, also commonly called sand fences, are erected to build and stabilize dunes by trapping 

sand movin along the beach and preventing excessive sand loss. Additionally, these fences can serve 

to protect d 1 ne systems by deterring public access. Constructed of narrowly spaced wooden or plastic 

slats or pldtic fabric, improperly placed drift fences can impede nesting attempts and/or trap emergent 

hatchlings &d nesting females. 

Beach No ishment: Beach nourishment consists of pumping, trucking, or scraping sand onto the beach 

to rebuild ? hat has been lost to erosion. Beach nourishment can impact turtles through direct burial of 

nests and b disturbance to nesting turtles if conducted during the nesting season. Sand sources may be 

dissimilar d om native beach sediments and can affect nest site selection, digging behavior, incubation 

temperaturd (and hence sex ratios), gas exchange parameters within incubating nests, hydric environment 

of the nest, hatching success and hatchling emergence success (Mann, 1977; Ackerman, 1980; Mortimer, 

1984a). Beach nourishment can result in severe compaction or concretion of the beach. 

onto project beaches may increase the level of compaction. 

Signifiqant reductions in nesting success have been documented on severely compacted nourislhed 

beaches (R mond, 1984a). Nelson and Dickerson (1988) evaluated compaction levels at ten renourislhed 

east coast ? lorida beaches and concluded that 50 percent were hard enough to inhibit nest digging, 30 

percent weke questionable as to whether their hardness affected nest digging, and 20 percent were 

hard enough to affect nest digging. They further concluded that, in general, beaches 

m offshore borrow sites are harder than natural beaches, and, while some may soften over 

erosion and accretion of sand, others may remain hard for 10 years or more. Nourisihed 

result in severe escarpments along the mid-beach and can hamper or prevent access; to 

Nourishment projects result in heavy machinery, pipeline, increased human activity, ;and 

ng on the project beach. These activities are normally conducted on a 24-hour basis ,and 

affect nesting and hatching activities. Pipeline and heavy machinery can create barriers 

es emerging from the surf and crawling up the beach, causing a higher incidence of fidse 

crawls (nod-nesting emergences). Increased human activity on the project beach at night may cause 

further dismrbance to nesting females. Artificial lights along the project beach and in the nearshore area 

of the borrow site may deter nesting females and disorient emergent hatchlings from adjacent non-project 

beaches. 

Beach @ourishment projects require continual maintenance (subsequent nourishment) as they erode 

and hence $eir negative impacts to turtles are repeated on a regular basis. Beach nourishment projects 

conducted (luring the nesting season can result in the loss of some nests which may be inadverteintly 

missed (or misidentified as false crawls) during daily patrols conducted to identify and relocate nests 

deposited ob the project beach (Lund, 1973; R. Wolf, pers. comm.,) 

Nouris ment of highly eroded beaches (especially those with a complete absence of dry beach) can 

be benefici b to nesting turtles if conducted properly. Careful consideration and advance planning and 

must be carried out to ensure timing, methodology, and sand sources are compatible with 

activities. 

Artificial 'ghting: Extensive research has demonstrated that the principal component of the sea-fmcling 

behavior o ? emergent hatchlings is a visual response to light (Daniel and Smith, 1947; Hendrichon, 

1958; Carr and Ogren, 1960; Ehrenfeld and Carr, 1967; Dickerson and Nelson, 1989; Witherington, 

1989). Aqificial beachfront lighting from buildings, streetlights, dune crossovers, vehicles and other 

types of beachfront lights have been documented in the disorientation (loss of bearings) and misorientation 
(incorrect bearing) of hatchling turtles (McFarlane, 1963; Philibosian, 1976; Mann, 1977; 1980; Ehrhart, 

1983). 

The r ults of misorientation are often fatal. As hatchlings head toward lights or meander aloqg the 

beach the ! exposure to predators and likelihood of desiccation is greatly increased. Misoriented 

hatchlings can become entrapped in vegetation or debris, and many hatchlings are found dead on nearby 

roadways iand in parking lots after being struck by vehicles. Hatchlings that successfully find the water 

may be soriented after entering the surf zone or while in nearshore waters. Intense artificial lighting 

can even md raw hatchlings back out of the surf (Daniel and Smith, 1947; Carr and Ogren, 1960). During 

1988 alone, 10,155 misoriented hatchlings were reported to the FDNR. An unquantifiable number of 

additional disorientation and misorientation events undoubtedly occurred but were not documented1 due 

to depred*ion, entrapment in thick vegetation, loss in storm drains, or obliteration of carcasses by vehicle 

tires. 

The piroblem of artificial beachfront lighting is not restricted to hatchlings. Carr et al (15)78), 

Mortimer [1982b), and Witherington (1986) found that adult green turtles avoided bright areas on nesting 

beaches. Problem lights may not be iestricted to those placed directly on or in close proximity to nesting 

beaches. %e background glow associated with intensive inland lighting, such as that emanating from 

nearby lqge metropolitan areas, may deter nesting females and misorient hatchlings navigating the 

nearshore haters. Cumulatively, along the heavily developed beaches of the southeastern United States, 

the negative effects of artificial lights are profound. 

Beach Cl@aning: Beach cleaning refers to the removal of both abiotic and biotic debris from developed 

beaches. There are several methods employed including mechanical raking, hand raking and hand picking 

up of debris. Mechanical raking can result in heavy machinery repeatedly traversing nests and potenfially 

compactin sand above nests and also results in tire ruts along the beach which may hinder or trap 

emergent 1 atchlings. Mann (1977) suggested that mortality within nests may increase when extendly 

applied pr sure from beach cleaning machinery is common on soft beaches with large grain sands. 

Mechani 2 ly pulled rakes and hand rakes can penetrate the surface and disturb the sealed nest or may 

actually udcover pre-emergent hatchlings near the surface of the nest. In some areas coflected debris is 

buried dir+tly on the beach, and this can lead to excavation and destruction of incubating egg clutches. 

Disposal Of debris near the dune line or on the high beach can cover incubating egg clutches and 

subsequenby hinder and entrap emergent hatchlings and may alter natural nest temperatures. In some 

areas, mdhanical beach cleaning is the sole reason for extensive nest relocation. 

Increased ~uman Presence: Residential and tourist use of developed (and developing) nesting beaches 

can result in negative impacts to nesting turtles, incubating egg clutches, and hatchlings. The most 

serious thdeat caused by increased human presence on the beach is the disturbance to nesting females. 

Night-timei human activity can cause nesting females to abort nesting attempts at all stages of the 

behavioral process. Murphy (1985) reported that disturbance can cause turtles to shift their nesting 

beaches, dblay egg laying and select poor nesting sites. Heavy utilization of nesting beaches by humans 

(pedestrid traffic) may result in lowered hatchling emergence success rates due to compaction of sand 

above nes* (Mann, 1977), and pedestrian tracks can interfere with the ability of hatchlings to reach the 

ocean (Ho$ier et al., 198 1). Campfires and the use of flashlights on nesting beaches misorient hatchllings 

and can d#er nesting females (Mortimer, 1979). 

Recreatio*al Beach Equipment: The placement of physical obstacles (e.g., lounge chairs, cabam, 

umbrellas, hobie cats, canoes, small boats, beach cycles) on nesting beaches can hamper or deter nesting 
attempts arjd interfere with incubating egg clutches and the sea approach of hatchlings. ?.'he 

documentat$n of false crawls at these obstacles is becoming increasingly common as more recreational 

beach equippent is left in place nightly on nesting beaches. Additionally, there are documented repc~rts 

of nesting f4males becoming entrapped under heavy wooden lounge chairs and cabanas on south Florida 

nesting bea4hes (J. Hoover, pers. comm., S. Bass, pers. comm). The placement of recreational beach 

equipment directly above incubating egg clutches may hamper hatchlings during emergence and can 

destroy egg* through direct invasion of the nest (C. LeBuff, pers. comm.). 

Beach V-lar Driving: The operation of motor vehicles on nesting beaches for recreational purposes 

is permitted in northeast Florida (portions of Nassau, Duval, St. John's, Flagler and Volusia countits), 

northwest ~borida (Walton and Gulf Counties), and North Carolina (Emerald Isle, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, @ape Hatteras National Seashore and Currituck Banks). While some areas restrict night 

driving, otyers permit it. Driving on beaches at night during the nesting season can disrupt the nesting 

process and result in aborted nesting attempts. The negative impact on nesting females in the surf zone 

may be p+icularly severe. Vehicle headlights can disorient or misorient emergent hatchlings ;and 

vehicles carp strike and kill hatchlings attempting to reach the ocean. The tracks or ruts left by vehicles 

traversing tfie beach interfere with the ability of hatchlings to reach the ocean. The extended period of 

travel requiM to negotiate tire tracks and ruts may increase the susceptibility of hatchlings to stress and 

depredatioq during transit to the ocean (Hosier et d., 1981; M. Evans, FDNR, pers. comm.). Driving 

directly abdve incubating egg clutches can cause sand compaction which may decrease nest success and 

directly kill pre-emergent hatchlings (Mann, 1977). In many areas, beach vehicular driving is the sole 

cause for iest relocation. Additionally, vehicle traffic on nesting beaches contributes to erosion, 

especially during high tides or on narrow beaches where driving is concentrated on the high beach and 

foredune. 

Exotic Dude and Beach Vegetation: Non-native vegetation has invaded many coastal areas and often 

outcornpet+ native species such as sea oats, railroad vine, sea grape, dune panic grass and pennywort. 

The invasi n of less stabilizing vegetation can lead to increased erosion and degradation of suitable 

nesting hab'tat. 1 Exotic vegetation may also form impenetrable root mats which can prevent proper inest 

cavity excavation, invade and desiccate eggs or trap hatchlings. The Australian pine (Casuarincr 

equisetifoli@) is particularly detrimental. Dense stands of this species have taken over many coastal strand 

areas throu)ghout central and south Florida. Australian pines cause excessive shading of the beach which 

would not Otherwise occur. Studies in Florida suggest that nests laid in these shaded areas are subjected 

to lower illcubation temperatures which may alter the natural hatchling sex ratio (Marcus and Maley, 

1987; Schlinelz and Mezich, 1988). Fallen Australian pines limit access to suitable nest sites and can 

entrap nesting females. Davis and Whiting (1977) rqorted that nesting activity declined in Everglades 

National Park where dense stands of Australian pine took over native beach berm vegetation on a remote 

nesting beqbh. Conversely, along highly developed beaches, nesting may be concentrated in areas where 

dense stands of Australian pines create a barrier to intense beachfront and beach vicinity lighting (S. Bass, 

pers. comm.). 

Nest Depredation: A variety of natural and introduced predators such as raccoons, feral hogs, fo:rtes, 

ghost crabs and ants prey on incubating eggs and hatchling sea turtles. The principal predator is the 

raccoon (Phocyon lotor). Raccoons are particularly destructive and may take up to 96 percent of all nests 

deposited on a beach @avis and Whiting, 1977; Hopkins and Murphy, 1980; Stancyk et d., 1!>80; 

Talbert et d., 1980; Schroeder, 1981; Labisky et al., 1986). Prior to hog control efforts, up to 45 

percent of gll sea turtle nests deposited at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, were depredated 
by feral hpgs (FDNR, unpubl. data). In addition to the destruction of eggs, certain predators may take 

considerat/le numbers of hatchlings just prior to or upon emergence from the sand. 

Nest Los to Abiotic Factors: Nest loss due to erosion or inundation and accretion of sand above 

incubatin 1 nests appear to be the principal abiotic factors which may negatively affect incubating: egg 

clutches. while these factors are often widely perceived as contributing significantly to nest mentality 

or lower4 hatching success, few quantitative studies have been conducted (Mortimer, 1989). Sbsdies 

on a relatilvely undisturbed nesting beach by Witherington (1986) indicated that excepting a late season 

severe stab event, erosion and inundation played a relatively minor role in destruction of incubating 

nests. Inqndation of nests and accretion of sand above incubating nests as a result of a late season storm 

played a 4ajor role in destroying nests from which hatchlings had not yet emerged. Severe storm events 

(e.g., trodical storms, hurricanes) may result in significant nest loss, but these events are typically 

aperiodic rather than annual occurrences. In the southeastern United States, severe storm events are 

generally experienced after the peak of the hatching season and hence would not be expected to affeca the 

majority o incubating nests. Erosion and inundation of nests is exacerbated through coastal development 

and shore f ine engineering. These threats are discussed above under beach armoring. 

Poaching: In the United States, take of nesting female green turtles is infrequent. However, in a number 

of areas, qgg poaching and clandestine markets for eggs are not uncommon. During the period 1983 - 

1989 the Florida Marine Patrol made 29 arrests for illegal possession of turtle eggs (figure: not 

apportionetd by species). 

Threats - Marine Environment 

Oil and Gas Exploration, Development and Transportation: Experimental and field results reported 

by Vargo pt al. (1986) indicate that marine turtles would be at substantial risk if they encountered an oil 

spill or 1 ge amounts of tar in the environment. Physiological experiments indicate that the respiradon, 

skin, som "k aspects of blood chemistry and composition, and salt gland function of marine turtles are 

significancy affected (Vargo et al., 1986). Spills in the vicinity of nesting beaches are of special concern 

and could place nesting adults, incubating egg clutches (Fritts and McGehee, 1989) and hatchlings at 

significand risk. Exploration and oil development on live bottom areas may disrupt foraging grounds by 

smotherin4 benthic organisms with sediments and drilling muds (Coston-Clements and Hoss, 1983). Oil 

and tar are also released into the marine environment during pumping of bilges on large vessels. In a 

review of bailable information on debris ingestion, Balazs (1985) reported that tar balls were the second 

most prevblent type of abiotic debris ingested by marine turtles. 

Dredging; The effects of dredging are evidenced through direct destruction or degradation of habitat and 

incidental take of marine turtles. Channelization of inshore and nearshore habitat and the disposal of 

dredged daterial in the marine environment can destroy or disrupt resting or foraging grounds (including 

grass bed$ and coral reefs) and may affect nesting distribution through the alteration of physical features 

in the m+e environment (Hopkins and Murphy, 1980). Hopper dredges are responsible for incidental 

take and aortality of marine turtles during dredging operatiors. During a 3-month period in 1980 i;n the 

Port Cana+eral, Florida, channel, dredging operations were responsible for the mortality of approximately 

100 turtle$. These high levels of incidental take have not been documented during dredging operations 

in subseq4ent years. Maintenance dredging of the Kings Bay, Georgia, channel during 1987-1988 

resulted ir) the mortality of approximately 20 turtles during a 1 year period. Other types of dredges 

(clamshell and pipeline) have not been implicated in incidental take. 
Marina and Dock Development: The development of marinas and private or commercial docks in 

inshore waters can negatively impact turtles through destruction or degradation of foraging habitat. 

Additionally, this type of development leads to increased boat and vessel traffic which may result in 

higher incidences of propeller- and collision-related mortality. Fueling facilities at marinas can result, in 

the dischargte of oil and gas into sensitive estuarine habitat. 

Pollution: The effects of pollutants resulting from industrial, agricultural or residential sources are 

difficult to evaluate. Pesticides, heavy metals and PCB's have been detected in turtles (including eggs), 

but levels which result in adverse effects have not been quantified (Nelson, 1988). 

Seagrass Bed Degradation: Boating activities in areas of seagrass beds can result in damage through 

anchoring and propeller scarring. In the United States Virgin Islands, seagrasses recovered only 

minimally in areas damaged by anchoring even after a period of seven months (Williams, 1988), and a 

decline in seagrass distribution was documented over a 30-year period in selected bays. The loss of 

available faraging habitat resulted in a lowered carrying capacity for specific bays (Williams, 1988). 

Extensive die-offs of seagrass beds in Florida Bay have recently been reported, and this may have serious 

consequences for the green turtles which forage there. The cause(@ of that decline have not yet been 

identified. 

Trawl Fisheries: Of all commercial and recreational fisheries conducted in the United States, shrimp 

trawling is the most damaging to the recovery of marine turtles. The estimated number of green turtles 

captured mually is approximately 925 of which approximately 225 die (T. Henwood, pers. comnl.). 

IncidentaI aapture and drowning in shrimp trawls is believed to be the largest single source of mortality 

on juvenile through adult stage marine turtles in the southeastern United States. The majority of these 

turtles are juveniles and subadults, the agelsize classes most critical to the stability and recovery of marine 

turtle populations (Crouse et al., 1987). Quantitative estimates of turtle take by shrimp trawlers in 

inshore wabers have not been developed, but the level of trawling effort expended in inshore waters along 

with increasing documentation of the utilization of inshore habitat by green turtles suggest that capture 

and mortality may be significant. Trawlers targeting species other than shrimp tend to use larger inets 

than shrimp trawlers and probably also take sea turtles, although capture levels have not been developed. 

These fisheries include, but are not limited to, bluefish, croaker, flounder, calico scallops, blue crab, and 

whelk. Of these, the bluefish, croaker, and flounder trawl fisheries likely pose the most serious threal 

(T. Henwood, pers. comm). 

Purse Seine Fisheries: Several purse seine fisheries operate in Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic, inclucling 

those targetting menhaden and sardines. Turtles may be taken in these fisheries, but the level of take and 

percent mortality is currently unquantified. 

Hook and fine Fisheries: Several thousand commercial vessels are engaged in hook and line fisheries 

which target various species including coastal species, reef fish, and pelagic species. In addition to 

commercial take, the recreational fishery is extensive. Turtle captures on hook and line gear are not 

uncommon, but the level of take and percent mortality are unknown. It is assumed that most turtles are 

released alive, although ingested hooks and entanglement in associated monofilament/steel line have been 

documented as the probable cause of death in some stranded turtles. 

Gill Net Fiheries: Gill nets are utilized both in inshore and offshore areas for various species and ]may 

be stationary or drifting. Mesh size is dependent on the size of the fish which are targeted but the gear 

is considered non-selective in the species impacted (T. Henwood, pers. comm.). Trammel nets are 
modified gill nets set in panels of webbing of variable mesh size. Marine turtles are vulnerable to 

entanglement and drowning in gill and trammel nets, especially when this gear is left unattended. Tiurtle 

mortalities resulting from the use of gill n@s set for sturgeon in South Carolina and North Carolina lhave 

been documented (Ulrich, 1978; Crouse, 1982). In response to this documented take, the state of South 

Carolina has prohibited gill netting for sturgeon since 1986. Of particular concern are the gill net and 

trammel net fisheries off the Florida east-central coast. These fisheries, primarily targeting king 

mackerel, pompano, and shark have undergone recent expansion in the number of vessels and level of 

fishing effort (Schaefer et d., 1987). Stranding patterns of turtles in this area indicate that significant 

numbers of turtles may be killed incidental to these fisheries. This may be particularly detrimental to the 

juvenile green turtle population(s) inhabiting this coastal area. 

Pound Net Fisheries: Pound nets are fished extensively in the inshore bays and sounds of North 

Carolina, Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island. In Virginia, pound nets have been identified as a 

leading cause of marine turtle mortality (Lutcavage and Musick, 1985). Mortality was principally cailsed 

by entanglement and drowning in the leader portion of the gear and was dependent on mesh size., net 

location, and environmental parameters. In North Carolina, most pound nets have leads constructed of 

small mesh (5-8"). Results of preliminary investigations indicate that mortality in these nets ma-- be 

infrequent (Epperly and Veishlow, 1989). Similarly, in New York, most turtles are released alive from 

pound nets and entanglement in leaders appears infrequent (V. Burke, pers. comm.). 

Longline Fisheries: Longline fisheries have increased dramatically over the past several years. Species 

targeted in these fisheries include tuna, shark, and swordfish. Witzell (1987) estimated that 330 turtles 

were incidentally captured in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic by the Japanese tuna longline fleet during 

1978-1981. Due to increased effort and expansion of longline fisheries in recent years, it is believed that 

longline fisheries may be exerting a major negative impact on marine turtle recovery (T. Henwood, pers. 

comm.). 

Trap Fisheries: Traps are commonly used in the capture of crabs, lobster, and reef fish. Traps vary 

in size and configuration but all are attached to a surface float by means of a line leading to the trap. 

Turtles can become entangled in trap lines below the surface of the water and subsequently drown. In 

other instances, stranded turtles have been recovered entangled in trap line with the trap in tow. The 

impact of this gear on green turtle populations has not been quantified. 

Boat Col%sions: Propeller and collision injuries to marine turtles from boats and ships are not 

uncommon. In 1986, 1987, and 1988, respectively 5.8 percent (1 1 I), 7.3 percent (175), and 9.0 percent 

(179) of all stranded turtles reported in the United States Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic were documented 

as having sustained some type of propeller or collision injuries, although it is unknown what percentage 

of these injuries were post-mortem versus ante-mortem (Schroeder and Warner, 1988; Teas and Martinez, 

1989). These types of injuries are recorded at higher frequencies in areas where recreational boating and 

vessel traffic is intense, such as south Florida, the Florida Keys and United States Virgin Islands. 

Power Plant Entrapment: The entrainment and entrapment of turtles in saltwater cooling intake sysltems 

of coastal power plants has been documented in New Jersey, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas 

(Roithmayr and Henwood, 1982; Ernest et d; 1989; S. Manzella, pers. comm; T. Henson, pers. conun.; 

R. Schoelkopf, pers. comm.). Average annual incidental capture rates for most coastal plants from which 

captures have been reported amount to several turtles per plant per year. One notable exception i:r the 

St. Lucie nuclear power plant located on Hutchinson Island, Florida. During a 13-year period of 

operation (March 1976 - December 1988), 1,929 turtles of all species have been removed from the intake 
canal. The mortality rate is approximately 7.0 percent (Applied Biology, Inc., unpubl. data). Most 

captures have been loggerheads, though green turtles are not uncommon. 

Underwater Explosions: The use of underwater explosives for the removal of abandoned oil platforms, 

military activities, and oil exploration can injure or kill turtles and may destroy or degrade habitat. 

During a 3-year period (1986-1988) observers reported one injured (or dead) turtle during the removal 

of 103 offshore oil structures in the Gulf of Mexico. Of eight turtles deliberately exposed to underwater 

explosions at distances varying between 229 m and 915 m from the detonation site, five were rendered 

unconscious (Klima et al; 1989). 

Offshore Artificial Lighting: The effects of offshore lighted structures on the orientation of hatchling 

turtles is not completely understood. These lights may attract hatchlings and interfere with proper 

offshore orientation, and may make them more susceptible to predation (deSilva, 1982). 

Entanglement: Turtles are affected to an unknown but potentially significant degree by entanglement 

in persistent marine debris, including discarded or lost fishing gear (Balazs, 1985). Green turtles have 

been found entangled in a wide variety of materials including steel and monofilament line, synthetic ;and 

natural rope, plastic onion sacks and discarded plastic netting materials (Balazs, 1985; Plotkin and Amos, 

1988). Monofilament line appears to be the principal source of entanglement for green turtles in U.S. 

waters. Records from Florida and the United States Virgin Islands indicate that some entanglement 

results from netting and monofilament line which has accumulated on both artificial and natural reefs. 

These areas are often heavily fished, resulting in snagging of hooks and discarding of lines. Turtles 

foraging and/or resting in these areas can become entangled and drown (FDNR, unpubl. data). 'The 

alignment of persistent marine debris along convergences, rips, and driftlines and the concentration of 

young sea turtles along these fronts increases the likelihood of entanglement at this life history stage 

(Carr, 1987). 

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

items such as 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 (in press) 

revealed that both loggerhead 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 at :low 

levels of ingestion. Persistence of the material in the gut lasted from a few days to 4 months (Lutz, in 

press). Of particular concern is the co-occurrence of persistent marine debris and the early life history 

pelagic stages of green turtles along convergences. Young turtles are dependent upon these driftlines for 

their food supply, and hence the likelihood of debris ingestion is increased (Carr, 1987). While 

quantitative data on population effects are undetermined, the impacts of debris ingestion are conside:red 

serious. 

Poaching: Illegal directed harvesting of juvenile and adult green turtles in the waters of the continental 

United States and U.S. Caribbean is not uncommon, but no estimates of the level of take exist. During 

the period 1983-1989, the Florida Marine Patrol made three arrests for illegal possession of whole tutdes 

and 25 arrests for illegal possession of turtle parts within Florida (figures are not apportioned by species). 

Illegal take of green turtles in the United States Caribbean, particularly in Puerto Rican waters, is lilcely 

the most significant problem. 
Predation: Predation of hatchling and very young turtles is assumed to be significant and predation of 

subadult through adult stage turtles is assumed less common, but valid estimates of mortality due to 

predation at various life history stages are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain and have not 

been determined. Hatchlings entering the surf zone and pelagic stage hatchlings may be preyed upon by 

a wide variety of fish species and to a lesser extent, marine birds. Stancyk (1982) in an extensive 

literature review reported predators of juvenile and adult turtles to include at least six species of sharks, 

killer whales, bass, and grouper. Tiger sharks appear to be the principal predator of subadult and adult 

turtles. While stranded turtles may exhibit shark inflicted injuries, caution must be exercised in 

attributing a cause of death as these wounds can be inflicted post-mortem. 

Diseases and Parasites: There is little information available to assess the comprehensive effects of 

disease andlor parasites on wild populations of green turtles. The vast majority of diseases and conditions 

which have been identified or diagnosed in sea turtles are described from captive stock, either turtlles in 

experimental headstart programs or mariculture facilities (Wolke, 1989). One notable exception is the 

occurrence of fibropapillomas on green turtles, first described by Smith and Coates (1938). 

Fibropapillomas are now common on immature green turtles in the central Indian River system of 

Florida, Florida Bay, and in the Florida Keys (Ehrhart et al., 1986; Witherington and Ehrhart, 1987; 

Schroeder, 1987a). In the central Indian River lagoon, approximately half of all green turtles captured 

have been found to bear papillomas of varying degree (Ehrhart et al., 1986). Recent reports from Pluerto 

Rico and the United States Virgin Islands indicate a very low occurrence of fibropapillomas on green 

turtles collected in these areas (R. Boulon and J. Collazo, pers. comm.). Fibropapillomas are also 

commonly found on Hawaiian green turtles. These tumor like growths can result in reduced vision, 

disorientation, blindness, physical obstruction to normal swimming and feeding, an apparent incrrmed 

susceptibility to parasitism by marine leeches, and an increased susceptibility to entangleme~nt in 

monofilament fishing line (Balazs, 1986). Blood counts and serum profiles of green turtles inflicted with 

fibropapillomas indicate marked debilitation (Jacobson, 1987). 

Conservation Accomplishments - Nesting Environment 

Management to mitigate the effects of naturally occurring events such as erosion and vegetation, and 

a variety of man-induced factors mentioned in the previous section, usually consists of relocating nests 

to higher sites on the dune, or into a hatchery. This was once a common practice throughout the 

southeast region. More recently the emphasis of management is to be far less manipulative with the nests 

and hatchlings. Table 1 contains a listing of most of the major Federal, State and private nest protection 

projects involving green turtles along the southeast coast. 
Table 1. Major green turtle nest surveylprotection projects in Florida (1985 - 90) 

Pro'ect I Beach length (km) Number of nestslvear *Conservation measurekl 

Canaveral National Seashore 

Merritt Island NWR 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

Patrick Air Force Base 

Melbourne Beach 

Sebastian Inlet State Recreation Area 

Hutchinson Island 

St. Lucie Inlet State Park 

Hobe Sound NWR 

Town of Jupiter Island 

J.D. MacArthur State Park 

City of Boca Raton 

Broward County Beaches 

SINS 

S/PR 

SIPR 

S 

S/PR 

SIPR 

S 

S/PR 

S/PR 

S 

S/PR 

SINSI'NR 

SINR 

Dade County Beaches 22.5 3-1 1 SINR 

* S=Survey 

NS =Nest Screening 

PR = Predator Removal 

NR = Nest Relocation 
Perhaps the most frustrating habitat protection effort is trying to minimize or eliminate the 

construction of seawalls, rock revetments, groins, sand bags and improperly placed drift or sand fences. 

State and Federal laws designed to protect the beach and dune habitat are: Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

of 1982 (Federal), and Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985 (Florida). These have had varying degrees 

of success at maintaining suitable nesting sites for sea turtles. The Governor and Cabinet of the State of 

Florida approved a Beach Armoring Policy on December 18, 1990. This policy prohibits armoring al.ong 

a 20-mile stretch of high density nesting beach between Melbourne Beach and Wabasso Beach and 

restricts armoring elsewhere to structures threatened by 5-year return interval storm events. 

Beach nourishment is a better alternative for sea turtles than seawalls and jetties. When beach 

nourishment was done mostly in the summer, however, all nests had to be moved from the beach prior 

to nourishment. Now FWS and State DNR review beach nourishment projects in an effort to exclude 

nourishment during the nesting and hatching season on important nesting beaches. Beaches wlhere 

compaction after nourishment is a problem are plowed to a depth of 3-feet to soften the sand so that it 

is useable for nesting turtles (Nelson and Dickerson, 1987). Progress is being made in the region toward 

better timing of projects and sand quality. 

Progress is also being made by many counties and towns to prevent disorientation and misorientation 

of hatchlings (Ernest et al., 1987; Shoup and Wolf, 1987). In Florida, lighting ordinances have been 

passed in Nassau, Flagler, Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, 

Broward,Collier, Lee, Charlotte and Sarasota Counties. The United States Air Force has developed and 

is implementing lighting plans for launch complexes and other facilities at Cape Canaveral Air Force 

Station, Florida, and has established exterior lighting policy for all new construction on the base. 

Because of more attention to the status of sea turtles, human take is not the problem it once was on 

United States beaches, although this is still a major problem in other countries. The isolated cases of nest 

poaching receive immediate attention from FWS law enforcement and state conservation officers. 

In addition to implementing management on nesting beaches, there has been extensive research into 

the effects of this management on sea turtle populations. Specifically, the most important aspect in recent 

years is the effect of incubation temperature on the sex ratio of hatchlings reared in styrofoam boxes 

(Yntema and Mrosovsky, 1980; Morreale et al., 1982; Standora and Spotila, 1985). Use of these boxes 

has been discontinued as a standard practice. 

The status of green turtles is being determined by monitoring the various life stages on the beach to 

evaluate current and past management practices. This is being done by counting how many nests are Laid, 

how many of these successfully hatch, and the production of hatchlings reaching the ocean. Standardized 

ground surveys on index beaches are underway throughout Florida by the FWS, State agencies anld by 

private groups and universities. Index beaches include 90 percent of the nesting activity in Florida. 

Because of slow growth rates and subsequent delayed sexual maturity, all monitoring will need to be 

conducted over a long period of time to establish population trends. 

Conservation Accomplishments - Marine Environment 

Managing sea turtles in the water lags behind efforts on the beach due to limited access to turtles, lack 

of information on habitat usage by different age classes and cost. Therefore, most efforts to preserve 

marine and estuarine habitats are regulatory in nature. 
The USCG has contingency plans for the containment, recovery and minimization of damage fn~m 

spillages of oil and hazardous substances, as well as major disasters (J. Schmidtman, pers. comm.) 13ut 

trying to prevent bilge pumping, industrial discharges and chemical and oil spills in the marine 

environment is a very difficult problem. 

In 1978, NMFS implemented a gear development program which would prevent the drowning of 

turtles in shrimp trawls. The first device was large mesh webbing across the mouth of the net which 

proved to be ineffective. Subsequently, a cage-like design installed within the trawl, called a turtle 

excluder device (TED) was developed. Concurrent with the government's action, new designs were biuilt 

by individual shrimpers. Six types of TEDs have been tested and approved. Lack of widespread use of 

these devices on a voluntary basis resulted in regulations requiring their use. The final regulations were 

published in June 1987. After legal, congressional and administrative delays, the regulations went into 

effect in September 1989. South Carolina promulgated state regulations requiring TEDs in state waters 

in June 1988. Florida implemented emergency State regulations in February 1989, after unprecedented 

numbers of strandings the previous fall. Florida also implemented permanent year round regulations in 

June 1990. The State of Georgia developed TED regulations which went into effect in November 1990. 

Annex V of the International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships was ratified by the 

United States on December 3 1, 1987 (also known as MARPOL). The Coast Guard published an interim 

rule in the Federal Register May 30, 1989, implementing provisions of Amex Y. This rule will reduce 

the amount of plastics, including synthetic fishing nets, and other ship-generated garbage intentionally 

discharged into the marine environment. The rule also requires ports or terminals, including recreational 

boating facilities, commercial fishing facilities and mineral and oil shore bases, to ensure the availability 

of facilities to receive ship-generated garbage. 

In consultation with the COE, FDNR and the NMFS, modifications of dragheads are being tested1 to 

minimize turtle mortality from dredges. Each dredging project undergoes a Section 7 consultation, and 

most dredges are required to have observers onboard. The timing of the projects is also designed to 

avoid as many turtle encounters as possible. 

Research into different ways of keeping turtles from entering the intake pipes at power plants proved 

unsuccessful. Turtles that are entrapped at the St. Lucie, Florida, plant are captured, tagged imd 

released. 

Netting studies in the Indian River and Mosquito Lagoon, Florida, are providing information on 

habitat use by juvenile green turtles (Ehrhart, pers. comm.). Distribution, size and species composition 

is being determined in the inshore waters of North Carolina (Epperly and Veishlow, 1989). Similar 

studies are also underway in the United States Virgin Islands and Culebra, Puerto Rico (Boulon imd 

Frazer, 1990; Collazo et al., in prep.). 

Because of turbid waters near shore, assessing turtle stocks by pelagic aerial survey is probably not 

feasible. Information on the distribution of sea turtles over the continental shelf has until recently been 

from casual observations and most were anecdotal. Since 1978, four pelagic surveys in the southeat 

regions have been completed during which sea turtles were counted (Fritts et d, 1983; Thompson ;and 

Shoop, 1984; Lohoefener et al., 1988). These flights have provided information on the geographic ;and 

seasonal distribution of sea turtles. 
Infomtion from vessels is largely opportunistic. It was through incidental capture that the wiiter 

hibernaculum for sea turtles in the Canaveral ship channel was discovered (Ogren and McVea, 19182). 

NMFS is also conducting interviews and netting surveys in the Gulf of Mexico (L. Ogren, pers. comm.). 

Catch per unit effort (CPUE) and rates of mortality provide a reasonable estimate of the number of 

captures and fatalities when used along with fishing effort statistics. These data provide informatio~n on 

seasonal abundance and distribution over wide geographic areas (Henwood, 1987; Henwood and Stnntz, 

1987). 

A regional, data collection effort was begun in 1980 to monitor mortality. This voluntary network 

from Maine to Texas is coordinated by the NMFS and serves to document the geographic and seasonal 

distribution of sea turtle mortality (Schroeder, 1987a,b). Since 1987, four index zones' have been 

systematicdly surveyed. It is clear that strandings represent an absolute minimum mortality. Howeiver, 

they can be used as an annual index to mortality and are an indication of the size and distribution of 

turtles being killed. They can also provide valuable biological information on food habits, sexual 

condition and sex ratios. 

Accomplidunents - Information and Education 

One of the easiest ways to implement good management is to inform and educate the pulblic. 

Personnel conducting turtle projects often advise tourists on what they can do to minimize disturbance 

to nesting turtles, protect nests and rescue disoriented hatchlings. Likewise, State and Federal parks 

which conduct beachwalks provide information to visitors. FDNR has developed guidelines for organized 

beach walks in order to minimize any disturbance to nesting turtles while still allowing them to be viewed 

by the public. Some beaches have been posted with signs informing people of the laws protecting sea 

turtles and providing either a local or a hotline number to report violations. 

Private conservation organizations such as the Center for Marine Conservation, Greenpeace, National 

Audubon Slociety, and Federal and State agencies have produced and distributed a variety of audio-visual 

aids and printed material about sea turtles. These include: the brochure "Attention Beach Usersl," a 

booklet (Raymond, 1984a) on the various types of light fixtures and ways of screening lights to lessen 

their effects on hatchlings, "Lights Out" bumper stickers and decals, a coloring book, video tapes, 

slideltape programs, full color identification posters of the eight species of sea turtles, and a hawksbill 

poster. Florida Power and Light Company also has produced a bumper sticker and a booklet (Van Meter, 

1990) with general information on sea turtles. 

Recent reviews of sea turtle conservation efforts in the southeastern United States appear in HopkdnsMurphy (1988) and Possardt (1991). 
PART 11. RECOVERY 

A. Recovery Objectives 

The United States population of green turtles can be considered for delisting if, over a period of 25 

years, the following conditions are met: 

1. The level of nesting in Florida has increased to an average of 5,000 nests per year for at least 

6 years. Nesting data must be based on standardized surveys. 

2. At least 25 percent (105 km) of all available nesting beaches (420 krn) is in public ownership imd 

encompasses at least 50 percent of the nesting activity. 

3. A reduction in stage class mortality is reflected in higher counts of individuals on foraging 

grounds. 

4. All priority one tasks have been successfully implemented. 

B. Stepdown Outline and Narrative 

1. Protect and manage habitats. 

11. Protect and manage nesting habitat. 

Coastal development has already destroyed or degraded many miles of nesting habitat in 

the southeast. Although nesting occurs on over 500 km of beaches, development 

pressures are so great, cumulative impacts will result in increased degradation or 

destruction of nesting habitat and eventually lead to a significant population decline if not 

effectively combated. 

111. Ensure beach nourishment projects are compatible with maintaining good 

quality nesting habitat. (also see 215) 

Beach nourishment can improve nesting habitat in areas of severe erosion and is 

a preferred alternative to beach armoring. The quality of material shouldL be 

similar to that on local natural beaches. 
1111. Implement and evaluate tilling as a means of softening compacted 

beaches. 

Poor quality material deposited on nesting beaches can result in 

compacted beaches. This can result in increased numbers of false 

crawls and aberrant nests, increased digging times for nesting fe~males 

and in some cases broken eggs from clutches deposited in too shallow 

an egg chamber. Where beach compaction exceeds local natural 

conditions, tilling to a depth of 77-92 cm should be used to soften 

beaches. The effectiveness of tilling in softening beaches shoulti also 

be fully evaluated by the Corps of Engineers (COE) to determine the 

persistence of beach softening, frequency of tilling required, and the 

best mechanical method for beach softening. 

1112. Evaluate the relationship of sand characteristics (inclnding 

aragonite) and hatch success, hatchling sex ratios, and nesting 

behavior. 

Gas diffbsion and compaction could be affected by sand grain shape, 

size and compaction and alter hatch success. Sand color influences 

temperature and can affect hatchling sex determination. The effext of 

importing non-native materials such as aragonite to United States 

beaches for beach nourishment adds additional unknowns which could 

conceivably affect hatchlings and should be discouraged until fully 

evaluated. 

1113. Reestablish dunes and native vegetation. 

Dune restoration and revegetation with native plants should be a 

required component of all renourishment projects. This will enlhance 

beach stability and nesting habitat and require less frequent 

renourishment activities. 

1114. Evaluate sand transfer systems as alternative to beach nourishment. 

Sand transfer systems can diminish the necessity for frequent lbeach 

renourishment arid thereby reduce disruption of nesting activities and 

eliminate sand compaction. The construction and operation of these 

systems must be carefully evaluated by the COE to ensure important 

nearshore habitats are not degraded or sea turtles injured or destroyed. 

112. Prevent degradation of nesting habitat from seawalls, revetments, sand bags, 

sand fences, or other erosion control measures. 

Seawalls, revetments and sand bags have already destroyed or degraded 

approximately 240 km of nesting habitat along Florida's coast. Beach armoring 

still occurs, however, either illegally or when specific criteria are met undler the 

December 18, 1990, Beach Armoring Policy. The filling and burial of' long 
plastic bags to protect coastal property is a common practice in Florida and has 

occurred in other states. These buried bags are hard and exacerbate erosion 

when uncovered by storm events and prevent nesting when uncovered or bu1:ied 

too close to the sand surface. 

1121. Evaluate current laws on beach armoring and strengthen if 

necessary .I 

State regulations prohibiting or discouraging some forms of beach 

armoring now exist in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North 

Carolina. FDNR should review current State regulations relateil to 

beach construction and ensure seawalls, revetments, sandbags and other 

armoring measures contributing to the degradation of nesting habitat are 

prohibited. 

1122. Ensure laws regulating coastal construction and beach armoring are 

enforced. 

Illegal beach armoring occurs and, all too frequently, no effective 

action is taken by enforcement agencies to ensure the perpetrator 

removes the material and restores the habitat. Illegal beach armoring 

can cumulatively cause significant degradation of nesting habitat. 

FDNR must frequently monitor beaches and maintain strict enforcement 

when violations are observed. 

1123. Ensure failed erosion control structures are removed. 

Failed erosion control structures such as uncovered plastic bags, or 

tubes and fragmented concrete or wooden structures degrade nesltiig 

habitat and deter nesting activities. FDNR should ensure failed 

structures are removed from nesting beaches. 

1124. Develop standard requirements for sand fence construction. 

Sand fences can effectively build dune systems and improve nesting 

habitat; however, improperly designed sand fences can trap neslthg 

females and hatchfings and prevent access to suitable nesting. FDlNR 

should develop and evaluate sand fencing designs and establish standlard 

requirements for sand fence construction. 

113. Acquire or otherwise ensure the long-term protection of key nesting beadles. 

1131. Acquire in fee title all undeveloped nesting beaches between 

Melbourne Beach and Wabasso Beach, Florida. 

Approximately 30-35 percent of all green turtle nesting in the 

southeastern United States occurs along this 33 km stretch of nesting 

beach. Development and public use threaten the habitat and nesting 
activities. The FWS and FDNR should acquire a buffer strip in fee 

title that at least extends from mean high water west to highway AIA 

to ensure long-term protection of this nesting habitat. Conservation 

easements should be acquired on developed properties where fa: title 

acquisition is not possible. 

1132. Evaluate the status of the important nesting beaches on Hutchi.nson 

Island, Florida, and develop a plan for long-term protection. 

Approximately 10 percent of green turtle nesting in the southaetern 

United States occurs along this 33 km long beach. Development is 

degrading nesting habitat and public use is causing signilficant 

disturbance to nesting activities. FDNR and FWS should evaluaite the 

threats and take appropriate measures including acquisition to ensure 

long-term protection. 

114. Remove exotic vegetation and prevent spread to nesting beaches. 

Australian pine trees Caruarina spp. shade nests and can alter natural hatchling 

sex ratios. Australian pines also aggressively replace native dune and beach 

vegetation through shading and chemical inhibition and consequently exacerbate 

erosion and loss of nesting habitat. Erosion can topple trees and leave exposed 

roots which can entrap nesting females. 

Removal of exotics such as is ongoing at Hobe Sound NWR, Florida, and 

St. Lucie Inlet State Park, Florida, should continue. FDNR and FWS slhould 

identify other important nesting beaches where exotic vegetation is degrading 

nesting habitat and work with responsible parties to restore natural vegetation. 

12. Protect marine habitat. 

Available sea turtle habitat has been significantly reduced over the past century. Among the 

factors contributing to this loss of habitat are coastal development and industrialization, increased 

commercial and recreational vessel activities, river and estuarine pollution, channelization, 

offshore oil and gas development, and commercial fishing activities. If present trends comtinue, 

the cumulative loss of suitable habitat could reduce the likelihood of recovery of the species. 

121. Identify important habitat. 

Green turtles are omnivorous foragers during early life stages, shifting to herbivory for 

the remainder of their subadult and adult lives. They occur most commonly on feeding 

pastures of seagrasses andlor algae, but small greens can be found over coral reefs, worm 

reefs and rocky bottom. Small greens and breedinglnesting adults are occasionally taken 

by trawlers on shrimping grounds and by dredges in navigation channels. To effectively 

protect the species, research is needed to document habitat requirements of specific 

agelsizelsex classes. NMFS, MMS, COE and appropriate State agencies should fund the 

necessary studies. 
122. Prevent degradation and improve water quality of important turtle habitat. 

Coastal development and associated changes in land utilization have led to severe 

degradation of habitat through contamination andlor loss of food sources in estuarine and 

marine waters. Declines in water quality resulting from industrial pollution, chmnel 

dredging and maintenance, harbor activities, farm runoff, sewage disposal, etc., hiwe 

rendered large water bodies marginally habitable. The EPA and state environmental 

regulatory agencies must ensure that established minimum water quality standards ;are 

enforced. Land utilization decisions and associated construction projects should be 

carefully considered by local governments, States, CZM, NMFS, FWS, EPA, COE and 

other regulatory and permitting agencies. 

123. Prevent destruction of habitat from fishing gears and vessel anchoring. 

Bottom tending fishing gears can be destructive to a wide variety of habitats. Coral reefs 

are particularly vulnerable to destruction from roller rig trawling gear because corals may 

be crushed by the weight of rollers and trawls. Seagrass, sponge, and other live bottom 

habitats can also be scoured by trawling gear. Anchoring vessels in sensitive habitats 

may also be destructive. NMFS and appropriate State resource agencies should evaluate 

the potential loss of habitat from these activities and take appropriate actions to enslure 

long-term protection of reefs and other important habitats. 

124. Prevent destruction of marine habitat from oil and gas activities. 

Oil and gas activities may negatively impact sea turtle habitat during exploration, 

development, production and abandonment phases. Of particular concern are impacts, of 

oil spills, drilling mud disposal, disposal of other toxic materials, pipeline networks 

associated with oil and gas fields, onshore production facilities, increased vessel traffic, 

domestic garbage disposal and explosive removal of obsolete platforms. MMS, COE imd 

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. A response team to deal with spills should be established. 

125. Prevent destruction of habitat from dredging activities. 

Channel dredging projects may have greater impacts on habitat than the obvious 

mechanical destruction of the channel bottom. Channelization can alter natural current 

patterns and disrupt sediment transportation, and suspended materials from dredging may 

severely damage adjacent corals and seagrasses. Additionally, disposal of dredged 

materials in offshore disposal sites usually smothers existing flora and fauna. The COE 

and EPA should continue to carefully consider the environmental consequences before 

permitting any new channel dredging projects or designating new offshore disposal sites. 

126. Restore important foraging habitats. 

Loss of green turtle foraging habitat has become a major problem in the United States 

Virgin Islands and in many other United States waters. Seagrass beds are relatively 

fragile habitat. requiring low energy and low turbidity waters. Unfortunately, these 
water characteristics make them sensitive to development. The cumulative loris of 

seagrass beds in United States waters is staggering, and these trends must be reversed if 

we hope to maintain viable green turtle populations. NMFS, FWS and State agencies 

must take action to limit further development in areas with seagrass beds, and additional 

steps should be taken to restore seagrasses to areas of historical abundance. 

2. Proted and manage population. 

21. Protect and manage populations on nesting beaches. 

Predators, poaching, tidal inundation, artificial lighting and human activities on nesting beaches 

diminish reproductive success. Monitoring of nesting activities is necessary to implemenf. and 

evaluate appropriate nest protection measures and determine trends in the nesting population. 

211. Monitor trends in nesting activity by means of standardized surveys. 

Nesting surveys are undertaken on the majority of nesting beaches. However, 

prior to the implementation of standardized surveys on index beaches in 1989, 

beach coverage from year to year varied as did the frequency of sunreys, 

experience and training of surveyors, and data reporting. Consequently, no 

regionwide determination of nesting population trends was possible with any 

degree of certainty. 

FWS and FDNR should continue to refine standardized nest survey criteria, 

identify additional index survey beaches to be monitored, continue to conduct 

training workshops for surveyors, and continue appropriate ground surveys. This 

is essential to gather a long-term data base on nesting activities which can be 

used as an index of nesting population trends throughout the nesting range olf the 

species. 

212. Evaluate nest success and implement appropriate nest protection measures. 

Nest and hatching success on beaches occurring on State or Federal lands and all 

other important nesting beaches should be evaluated. Appropriate nest protection 

measures should be implemented by FWS, FDNR and appropriate local 

governments or organizations to ensure greater than 60 percent hatch rate. I[n all 

cases the least manipulative method should be employed to avoid interfering with 

known or unknown natural biological processes. Artificial incubation should be 

avoided. Nest protection measures should always enable hatchling release the 

same night of hatching. Until recovery is ensured, however, projects on all 

Federal and State lands and key nesting beaches such as Hutchinson Islland, 

Jupiter Island, Juno Beach, and Melbourne Beach, Florida, should strive for a 

higher rate of hatching success. 
213. Determine influence of factors such as tidal inundation and foot traffic on 

hatching success. 

Tidal inundation can diminish hatch success depending on frequency, duration, 

and developmental stage of embryos. Many nests are relocated due to the 

perceived threat from tides. The extent to which eggs can tolerate tiidal 

inundation needs to be quantified to enable development of guidelines for nest 

relocation relative to tidal threats. The effect of foot traffic on hatching succ:ess 

is unknown although many beaches with significant nesting also have high pul~lic 

use. FWS should support research and, in conjunction with FDNR, develop 

recommendations for nest protection from tidal threat and foot traffic, if 

appropriate. 

214. Reduce effects of artificial lighting on hatchlings and nesting females. 

Hatchlings orient primarily to the blue-green wave lengths to find the ocean ;and 

consequently many artificial lights disorient and misorient hatchlings, indirectly 

leading to high hatchling mortality. Recent studies have demonstrated that 

artificial lights also significantly deter nesting activities. 

2141. Determine hatchling orientation mechanisms in the marine 

environment and assess dispersal patterns from natural (dark) 

beaches and beaches with high levels of artificial lighting. 

While phototropic orientation is the primary hatchling sea finding 

mechanism, orientation mechanisms in the marine environment need 

further clarification. If light is the primary determinant, lighting fiom 

coastal development could be altering hatchling dispersal patterns on 

some nesting beaches and lowering survivorship. This could be 

significant in areas such as Cape Canaveral where lighting from the 

Kennedy Space Center, Canaveral Air Force Station, Port Canaveral, 

and Cocoa Beach contribute to a significant background glow. The 

USAF, KSC and Port Canaveral should support studies to evaluate the 

impact of lighting on Cape Canaveral hatchling dispersal and 

survivorship. Other important nesting beaches which may be 

influenced by coastal lighting should be evaluated by appropriate state 

resource agencies and coastal communities. 

2142. Implement and enforce lighting ordinances. 

Where lighting ordinances have been adopted and enforced such. as 

Brevard County, Florida, hatchling disorientation and misorientation 

have been drastically reduced. All coastal counties and communities 

with nesting beaches should adopt ordinances May through October. 

Many incorporated communities within Palm Beach and Brourard 

Counties are particularly problematic because of the high density 

nesting beaches and the lack of effective lighting regulations. 
2143. Evaluate extent of hatchling disorientation on all important regilonal 

nesting beaches. 

FWS, appropriate state resource agencies, and counties should eval.uate 

hatchling disorientation problems on all important regional nesting 

beaches. Many lighting ordinance requirements do not become 

effective until 11 p.m., whereas over 30 percent of hatcirling 

emergence occurs prior to this time. FWS, state resource agencies, 

and county governments should also support research to gilther 

additional quantitative data on hatchling emergence times and nesting 

times on representative beaches to support the most effective time 

requirements for lighting ordinances. 

2144. Evaluate need for Federal lighting regulations. 

Where local lighting ordinances have not been implemented or are 

ineffective, Federal regulations should be promulgated under authority 

of Endangered Species Act on important nesting beaches. 

2145. Develop lighting plans at Kennedy Space Center, Port Canavtral, 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Patrick Air Force Biase, 

Florida. 

Launch and support facilities at Canaveral and lighting at Patrick .AFB 

are responsible for hatchling disorientation and misorientatiorr on 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and Air Force beaches. Liights 

from the KSC and USAF facilities may be altering natural hatchling 

dispersal from Cape Canaveral. The KSC, USAF, and Port should 

develop light management plans to reduce and eliminate hatchling 

disorientation and misorientation. 

2146. Prosecute individuals or entities responsible for hatchling 

disorientation or misorientation under the Endangered Species Act 

or appropriate State laws. 

Hatchling disorientation and misorientation from artificial lights can 

cause high mortality and be the major source of hatchling mortality on 

some nesting beaches if not controlled. Law enforcement efforts 

should be focused where lighting ordinances are not being implemented 

or enforced on major nesting beaches and where flagrant and repeated 

violations are not addressed. 

215. Ensure beach nourishment and coastal construction activities are planned to 

avoid disruption of nesting and hatching activities. 

These activities can cause significant disruption of nesting activities during the 

nesting season when viewed cumulatively over the nesting range. Nest relociation 

can involve manipulation of large numbers of nests which can result in lowered 
hatch success and altered hatchling sex ratios and therefore is not an acceptable 

alternative to altering the timing of projects. The COE, FWS, and appropriate 

State agencies should ensure beach nourishment and other beach construction 

activities are not permitted during the nesting season on local or regionzllly 

important nesting beaches. 

216. Ensure law enforcement activities eliminate poaching and harassment. 

Poaching can be a potentially significant cause of nest loss. FWS should work 

closely with FDNR to identify problem areas and focus intensive law 

enforcement efforts to eliminate and deter poaching activities. 

217. Determine natural hatchling sex ratios. 

It is well documented that incubation temperature determines hatchling sex. Sex 

ratios of hatchlings on natural beaches throughout the nesting range should be 

determined over several years in order to evaluate nest relocation progrruns 

which could be altering natural sex ratios. FWS and FDNR should support 

necessary research and evaluate all nest relocation projects to ensure natural sex 

ratios are not altered. Research should include establishment of temperature 

transects on the key nesting beaches. To accomplish this, a protocol for 

standardized temperature monitoring should be developed by FWS and FDNR. 

22. Protect and manage populations in the marine environment. 

Management and protection of sea turtles in the marine environment is a difficult task. The 

foremost problem in management and conservation of sea turtles is the lack of basic biological 

information. To adequately protect and enhance survival of sea turtles, we must know where 

they occur, in what numbers, at what times, and what factors contribute to mortality. As 

sources of mortality are identified, steps can be taken to reduceleliminate their impacts on 

populations. 

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

environment. 

In efforts to recover threatened or endangered species, it is necessary to ensure the 

survival of all life stages. In the case of sea turtles which exhibit great longevity, it is 

important to protect all age classes so that a sufficient number of individuals survive to 

reach sexual maturity. To effectively enhance survival, the most critical information 

needed is when, where, and in what abundance turtles may occur over the various stages 

of their life cycles. 

2211. Determine seasonal distribution, abundance, population characteristics, and 

status in bays, sounds and other important nearshore habitats. 

Green turtles occur throughout the tropical and subtropical waters of the United 

States continental shelf and Caribbean, but little is known about specific habitat 
requirements or habitat fidelity, seasonal distribution and abundance, movements 

and growth. Research is needed to identify areas and times of turtle abundimce, 

and to answer basic biological questions about the species. Some important ,areas 

that should be studied include, among others: Cedar Key, Florida Bay, 

IndiadBanana River, inshore waters of all southeastern states and nearshore 

waters of United States Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Knowledge of when and 

where turtles may occur will allow NMFS to take appropriate steps to protect 

various life stages. NMFS, FWS, COE, MMS, and other Federal and State 

agencies should assist in providing needed information. 

2212. Determine adult navigation mechanisms, migratory pathways, distrib~~tion 

and movements between nesting seasons. 

Nesting migrations and subsequent dispersal of post-nesting females have been 

studied principally through tagging on nesting beaches. Movements and 

distributions of adult males, which may or may not migrate with the females, 

have been studied to a lesser extent. 

Female turtles are known to return to nest in the same general areas at 2-,3-, and 

4-year intervals throughout their reproductive lives. Mechanisms which idlow 

turtles to navigate over great distances and to exhibit nesting beach fidelity are 

poorly understood. Research is needed to determine how turtles navigate, and 

what factors (olfactory, magnetic, visual) could negatively influence this ability. 

NMFS, COE, MMS, FWS, and other interested State and Federal agencies 

should fund appropriate research. 

2213. Determine present or potential threats to green turtles along migratory 

routes and on foraging grounds. 

Little is known about the foraging grounds of the Florida breeding population of 

green turtles. However, green turtle foraging populations have supported 

commercial fisheries in Texas, Cedar Key, and the Indian River. Threats to 

migrating turtles are virtually unknown, because we have little information on 

pathways or mechanisms of migration. Before action can be taken to eliminate 

threats to sea turtles, we must have knowledge of what factors may impinge on 

the survival of turtle stocks. Research is needed to determine when and where 

turtles may occur, and what activities in these areas may negatively impact 

recovery of the species. NMFS, FWS, COE, MMS and other State and Federal 

agencies should fund needed research. 

2214. Determine breeding population origins for U.S. juvenile/subadult 

populations. 

To effectively manage sea turtle stocks and to determine the efficacy of nest 

protection activities, it would be advantageous to have a means of determining 

the origin of juvenile and subadult turtles. Such knowledge could be of rnajor 

importance if progeny from specific nesting beaches exhibit different behavior, 

movements, foraging ranges, etc., than turtles from other beaches. Such 
differences could result in high mortalities in some nesting populations, and low 

mortality rates in other populations. Appropriate Federal and State agencies 

should fund this research. 

2215. Determine growth rates, age of sexual maturity and survivorship rates of 

hatchlings, juveniles, and adults. 

Knowledge of the age at sexual maturity is necessary if managers are to knc~w 

when nest protection programs can be expected to show results if successfill. 

Extrapolation of growth rate data using growth equations currently provides tihe 

best although an indirect method to estimate age at sexual maturity. Growth data 

can also be used to assess and compare habitat quality. Direct aging methods 

using annuli in bones or other body parts may ultimately provide a better 

alternative and needs further research. Data on survivorship rates will be 

difficult to obtain for most life stages. To the extent that it can be collected, 

however, it will enable managers to more fully evaluate management strategies 

utilizing more accurate predictive population models. 

Monitor and reduce mortality from commercial and recreational fisheries. 

Sea turtles are incidentally taken in several commercial and recreational fisheries. For 

example, an estimated 229 green turtles are killed annually during commercial shrirnp 

fishing activities. Other fisheries known or suspected to incidentally capture turtles 

include those employing bottom trawls, off-bottom trawls, purse seines, bottom longlines, 

hook & line, gill nets, traps, haul seines, pound nets, beach seines and surface longlines. 

2221. Implement and enforce TED regulations in all United States waters at :all 

times. 

Regulations requiring shrimp trawlers greater than 25 feet in length to use TEDs 

in offshore waters during certain months of the year went into effect on May 1, 

1989. Boats less than 25 feet long must either use TEDs or restrict tow times 

to 90 minutes. On May 1, 1990, inshore regulations went into effect. While 

these regulations are expected to have a positive impact on survival of the 

species, certain areas and times of the year have no TED requirement. 'ro 

provide the maximum protection to sea turtles, NMFS should amend Ihe 

regulations to require TEDs in all waters at all times, and ensure that all 

regulations are enforced. 

2222. Provide technology transfer for installation and use of TEDs. 

Many shrimp fishermen have refused to use TEDs and have made no attempt to 

learn about them. If improperly installed or adjusted, turtle mortalities and 

shrimp losses can be expected until nets are properly tuned. NMFS, Sea Grant, 

and state agencies should assist the industry in technology transfer for installatiion 

and use of TEDs. This service by Federal and State agencies should aid in rhe 

smooth transition to use of this new equipment, and will ensure adequ'ate 

protection of turtles. 
2223. Maintain the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network. 

Most accessible United States beaches in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are 

surveyed for stranded sea turtles by volunteer or contract personnel. Through 

the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network, stranding data are archived and 

summarized by the NMFS Miami Laboratory. These data provide an indlex of 

sea turtle mortalities, and are thought to be a cost effective means of evaluating 

the effectiveness of the TED regulations. These data also provide basic 

biological information on sea turtles and are useful in determining other sa~urces 

of mortality. NMFS andlor FWS should continue systematic stranding surveys 

of index areas and support and augment the network. Periodic review of efficacy 

of surveys should be conducted. 

2224. Identify and monitor other fisheries that may be causing signilicant 

mortality. 

In addition to shrimp trawls, other types of fishing equipment have been 

implicated in the deaths of sea turtles. Of particular concern are bottom trawling 

gear, gill nets and longlines. NMFS recently conducted an internal ESA Stxtion 

7 consultation on the potential impacts to sea turtles of all types of fishing 

equipment in the southeast, and recommended that observer coverage be initiated 

to document take in several fisheries. This observer coverage shoulld be 

implemented immediately by NMFS or appropriate State resource agencies. 

2225. Promulgate regulations to reduce fishery related mortalities. 

If any fisheries are found to result in significant take of sea turtles, reguliitions 

to protect turtles should be published by NMFS or appropriate State resource 

agencies. 

223. Monitor and reduce mortality from dredging activities. 

The COE is congressionally mandated to maintain the United States navigaitional 

channels. To ensure that authorized channel depths are sustained, periodic dredging is 

required. Some types of dredges, particularly the hopper dredge, have been sho\m to 

take sea turtles, and on a cumulative basis, this take is believed to be significant. 

. 2231. Monitor turtle mortality on dredges. 

Turtle mortalities can be documented by screening the inflows/outflows on a 

hopper dredge, by observation aboard a clamshell dredge, or by observing the 

discharge of a pipeline dredge. Presently, NMFS believes that few, if any, 

turtles are impacted by clamshell or pipeline dredges, but that the hopper dredge 

is a major problem. NMFS should require observer coverage and appropriate 

screening on all hopper dredge operations to document take and associated 

mortality. 
2232. Evaluate modifications of dredge dragheads or devices to reduce turtle 

captures, and incorporate effective modifications or devices into future 

dredging operations. 

Recent COE and NMFS experiments and photography of operating hopper 

dredges indicate that suction is greatest directly beneath the draghead. This 

suggests that turtles taken by hopper dredges must be resting on the bottom in the 

path of the dredge, and that mortalities could be eliminated if turtles could be 

moved 2 or 3 feet up or to either side. COE and NMFS gear specialists are 

attempting to design a "turtle deflector device" which will push turtles out of the 

dredge path. This research should be continued until an effective device is 

perfected. 

2233. Determine seasonality and abundance of sea turtles at dredging localities, 

and ensure that dredging is restricted to time periods with the least potential 

for turtle mortality. 

Channels requiring maintenance dredging and in which turtles are suspected to 

reside should be surveyed by the COE or Navy prior to dredging to determine 

when, where, and how many turtles are present. To minimize the impacts to sea 

turtles, all dredging activities should be conducted during times of lowest turtle 

densities. 

Monitor and prevent adverse impacts from oil and gas activities. 

Oil can alter respiration, severely damage skin, interfere with or stop salt gland function 

and ultimately lead to the death of turtles. Tar balls pose a particularly serious threat to 

post-hatchlings and small juveniles since tar balls are frequently eaten and accumulate in 

the same driftlines which these life stages inhabit. 

2241. Determine the effects of oil and oil dispersants on all life stages. 

Oil spills resulting from blowouts, ruptured pipelines, tanker accidents, etc., 

could have a major impact on the recovery of listed sea turtles. As evide~iced 

by the recent Exxon catastrophe in Alaska, Federal and industry abilities to 

respond to a major spill is woefully lacking. Therefore, it is essential that we 

have knowledge of the effects of oil and oil dispersants on all sea turtle life 

stages to allow adequate assessment of risks and implementation of contingc:ncy 

plans should a major oil spill occur. MMS, NMFS, FWS and the oil and gas 

industry should fund appropriate research. 

2242. Ensure that impacts to sea turtles are adequately addressed during planning 

of oil and gas development. 

In assessing the potential impacts of oil and gas activities, it is necessary to look 

beyond the exploration, development, production and abandonment of single 

wells, and consider the industry as a whole. In the Gulf of Mexico alone, there 

are 4,500 existing offshore structures and thousands more projected over the next 
20 years. These structures are linked by miles of underwater pipelines, and are 

supported by fleets of vessels and aircraft. Production and storage facilities 

onshore supply refined products for tanker transport and land transport 

throughout the country. The chances of isolated accidents, when considering: the 

existing infrastructure, are very high. Additionally, the cumulative impacts of 

chronic discharges from thousands of independent structures could be significant. 

Explosive removal of structures during the abandonment phase of these activities 

has also been identified as a potential source of mortalities to sea turtles. NMLFS, 

MMS, FWS, and the oil and gas industry should take the necessary actions to 

ensure adequate precautions are taken to avoid impacts to sea turtles. 

2243. Determine sea turtle distribution and seasonal use of marine habitats 

associated with oil and gas development areas. 

Oil and gas activities occur over vast areas of the Gulf of Mexico and soutllern 

North Atlantic. Recent technological advances have made it possible to conduct 

exploration and development activities in deeper waters. Despite the continiuing 

offshore movement of the industry, little effort has been expended in 

determining distribution, abundance and seasonality of various life stages of' sea 

turtles in offshore waters. MMS and NMFS should fund needed researc.h to 

evaluate the effects of oil and gas activities on the recovery of sea turtles in 

offshore waters. 

224. Reduce impacts from entanglement and ingestion of persistent marine debris. 

Ingestion of marine debris and entanglement of marine organisms in discarded nets, 

monofilament lines and ropes has received considerable attention in recent years. Yo~mng, 

pelagic-stage turtles are particularly vulnerable to ingestion of persistent materials. 

Additionally, entanglement in nets, ropes and monofilament lines may be a source of 

mortalities to all life history stages. 

2251. Evaluate the extent of entanglement and ingestion of persistent marine 

debris. 

Limited information on the frequency of entanglement and ingestion of marine 

debris by sea turtles is available. Stranding data and necropsies have provided 

evidence that some turtle mortalities have resulted from ingestion of debris. 

Additionally, stranded turtles have been entangled in lost or discarded netting, 

monofilament lines, and ropes. NMFS, FWS, and EPA should expand eff'orts 

to document cases of entanglement and ingestion, the extent of marine debris in 

United States waters, sources of these contaminants and the impacts of tlhese 

materials to various life stages of sea turde populations. 

2252. Evaluate the effects of ingestion of persistent marine debris on health and 

viability of sea turtles. 

In addition to mortalities resulting from ingestion of plastics, hydrocarbons or 

other toxic substances, debilitating non-lethal impacts are possible. Research is 
needed to evaluate the long-term effects of ingestion of marine debris, 

particularly with regard to hatchlings during early life stages. These turtles are 

believed to congregate in areas of debris concentration such as drifflines, NM?S, 

MMS, and EPA should fund this research. 

2253. Determine and implement appropriate measures to reduce or eliminate 

persistent marine debris in the marine environment. 

Marine debris may originate from land or sea, primarily through careless 

disposal of non-biodegradable refuse. Suspected sources of these materials are 

large transport vessels pumping bilges and discarding garbage, commercial and 

recreational fishermen, oil and gas platforms, beachgoers, cruiseliners, etc. To 

eliminate the problem, the public must be educated about the long-term 

consequences of using the oceans as a garbage dump. Point sources of pollution 

must be identified and eliminated by EPA, Coast Guard, State and Federal 

agencies. Appropriate agencies should vigorously enforce MARPOL regulations. 

NMFS should promulgate regulations governing abandonment of fishing gear, 

and impose severe penalties for discarding these materials. 

226, Increase law enforcement efforts to reduce poaching in United States waters. 

Illegal directed fishing for sea turtles in United States waters is generally not believedl to 

be a major problem (Puerto Rico is a notable exception). However, incidental take and 

subsequent consumption of turtles may be a larger problem than suspected among so.me 

fisheries. NMFS, FWS and State agencies should focus surveilance and increase law 

enforcement efforts in identified or suspected problem areas such as Puerto Rico. 

227, Determine etiology of fibropapillomatosis. 

In recent years, an alarming increase of fibropapillomas in green turtles has been 

observed. As many as 50 percent of juvenile green turtles captured in the Indian River, 

Florida, are infected, and there are additional reports from the Florida Keys, Puerto 

Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands. This virus is debilitating, and it may be 

lethal. A disease of this nature could have profound effects on the survival of this 

species. NMFS and FWS should fund needed research to determine the etiology of 

fibropapillomatosis and, if possible, take actions to reduceleliminate impacts to green 

turtle stocks. FWS, NMFS and FDNR should also develop a protocol to prevent Ithe 

spread of the disease by researchers or others who handle green turtles. The protolcol 

should assume a highly infectious agent until determined otherwise. 

228. 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. The lack of centralization :for 

administering these tagging data bases often results in confusion when tagged turtles iue 

recaptured, and delays in reporting of recaptures to the person originally tagging Ithe 

turtle. NMFS and FWS should investigate the possibilities of establishing a centraliz:ed 

tagging data base. 
2281. Centralize tag series records. 

A centralized tag series data base is needed to ensure that recaptured tagged 

turtles can be promptly reported to persons who initially tagged the animal. 'The 

tag series data base would include listings of all tag series that have been placed 

on sea turtles in the wild including the name and address of the researcher 

placing these tags on turtles. This would eliminate problems in determining 

which researcher is using which tag series or types of tags, and would precl.ude 

unnecessary delays in reporting of tag returns. NMFS and/or FWS should 

establish and maintain this data base. 

2282. Centralize turtle tagging records. 

In addition to the need for a centralization of tag series records, there are 

advantages in developing a centralized turtle tagging record data base. Such a 

data base would allow all turtle researchers to trace unfamiliar tag series or Qrpes 

to their source, and also to have immediate access to important biological 

information collected at the time of original capture. The major disadvantage is 

that this data base would require frequent editing and updating, and would be 

costly and somewhat time-consuming to maintain. It would also make it posz;ible 

for unethical researchers 'to exploit the work of others, while providing; no 

guarantees that such contributions would be acknowledged. NMFS and EWS 

should determine whether such a data base can be established and is feasible to 

maintain. 

229. Ensure proper care of sea turtles in captivity. 

Green turtles are maintained in captivity for rehabilitation and research. Proper care will 

ensure the maximum number of rehabilitated turtles can be returned to the wild and a 

minimum number removed from the wild for research. 

2291. Develop standards for care and maintenance including diet, water quality 

and tank size. 

None of these requirements has been scientifically evaluated to determine the best 

possible captive conditions for green turtles. The FWS and NMFS should 

support the necessary research to develop these criteria particularly relating to 

diet. These criteria should be published and required for any permit to hold sea 

turtles in captivity. FWS, NMFS and appropriate State resource agencies should 

inspect permitted facilities at least annually for compliance with permit 

requirements. 

2292. Develop manual for treatment of disease and injuries. 

FWS and NMFS should determine disease problems associated with captive sea 

turtles and publish a manual on the diagnosis and treatment of such diseases. 

This manual. should also include treatment for common injuries. This will 
improve rehabilitative success and captive care of research and display 

specimens. 

2293. Establish catalog for all captive sea turtles to enhance utilization for research 

and education. 

Currently, captive sea turtles are being held at over 50 facilities. The FWS imd 

NMFS should establish a catalog and act as a clearing house to ensure captive 

specimens are utilized efficiently to diminish the need for removing additialnal 

specimens from the wild. 

2294. Designate rehabilitation facilities. 

FWS and NMFS in coordination with the appropriate state agencies should 

designate rehabilitation facilities for Atlantic and Gulf Coast states. Designation 

should be based on availability of veterinary personnel with expertise or 

experience in reptilian care and the institutions ability to comply with care ,and 

maintenance standards developed in step 2291 above. Each facility should be 

inspected by a team including an NMFS, FWS and appropriate State 

representative prior to its designation as a rehabilitation facility. Inspections 

should be conducted at least annually thereafter. 

3. ~nfodmtion and education. 

turtle conservation requires long-term public support over a large geographic area. The 

ic must be factually informed of the issues particularly when conservation measures conflict 

human activities such as commercial fisheries, beach development and public use of nesting 

Public education is the foundation upon which a long-term conservation program will 

sucdeed or fail. 

31. Provide slide programs and information leaflets on sea turtle conservatibn for 

general public. 

The FWS has developed a bilingual slide tape program on sea turtle conservation. The 

FWS should keep the program current and available for all public institutions. The FWS 

and State resource agencies should continually update and supply the public with 

informational brochures on sea turtle ecology and conservation needs. 

32. Develop brochure on recommended lighting modifications or measures to red~uce 

hatchling disorientation and misorientation. 

All lighting ordinances require lights be shut off or modified to prevent direct lighting 

on the nesting beach. However, it is not always clear what types of light, screening: or 

shading work best. The FWS, NMFS and State resource agencies should jointly develop 

and publish a brochure or booklet with recommended lighting fixtures, lights, shading 

modifications, and actions that can be taken to reduce or eliminate light pollution of 

nesting beaches. 
34. Develop public service announcements regarding the sea turtle artificial lighting 

conflict, and disturbance of nesting activities by public nighttime beach activities. 

A professionally produced public service announcement for radio and TV would provide 

tremendous support and reinforcement of the many coastal lighting ordinances. It would 

generate greater support through understanding. The FWS and State resource agencies 

should develop a high quality public service announcement which could be used 

throughout the southeast during the nesting season. 

34. Ensure facilities permitted to hold and display captive sea turtles have appropriate 

informational displays. 

Over 50 facilities are permitted to hold sea turtles for rehabilitation or research. IMany 

are on public display and afford opportunities for public education. Display of accurate 

information on the basic biology and conservation problems should be a requirement of 

all permittees. All facilities should be visited by FWS, NMFS and the State permitting 

agencies to ensure captive sea turtles are being displayed in a way to meet these criteria. 

3$. Post information signs at public access points on important nesting beaches. 

Public access points to important nesting beaches provide excellent opportuniti~es to 

inform the public of necessary precautions for compatible public use on the nesting lbeach 

and to develop public support through informational and educational signs. FDNR, FWS 

and NPS should post such educational and informational signs on the important nesting I 

beaches as appropriate. 

4. ~niernational cooperation. 

41. Develop international agreements to ensure protection of life stages which occur in 

foreign waters. 

Foraging grounds for internesting adults, juveniles or subadults are largely unknown. 

If the Florida population is typical of other nesting populations, however, it is most likely 

that important foraging habitats occur outside of United States waters. Consequently, 

protecting the Florida green turtle nesting population cannot be accomplished solely by 

protecting turtles on the nesting beaches and in United States waters. Once green turtle 

foraging and developmental habitats are identified, NMFS and FWS should develop 

cooperative international agreements and programs with appropriate foreign governments. 
LITERATURE CITED 

Ackerman, @.A. 1980. Physiological and ecological aspects of gas exchange by sea turtle eggs. 

Amer . ~bol. 20575-583. 

Balazs, G.q. 1982. Growth rates of immature green turtles in the Hawaiian Archipelago, p. 117- 

125. In K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution 

Press, Mashington, D.C. 

. 1983. Recovery records of adult green turtles observed or originally tagged at French 

hods, northwestern Hawaiian Islands. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFC-36, 42 p. 

of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion, p. 387- 

and H.O. Yoshida (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and 

26-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

Balazs, G.q. 1986. Incidence of fibropapillomas in Hawaiian green turtles. (abstract) Sixth Annual 

Worksho/p on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, 19-21 March 1986, Waverly, GA. 

Bjorndal, KIA. 1985. Nutritional ecology of sea turtles. Copeia 1985:736-751. 

A., and A.B. Bolten. 1988. Growth rates of immature green turtles, Chelonia mydas, 

grounds in the southern Bahamas. Copeia 1988:555-564. 

Bjorndal, KIA., and A. Carr. 1989. Variation in clutch size and egg size in the green turtle nesting 

populatidn at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Herpetologica 45: 18 1-1 89. 

Boulon, ~.q., and N.B. Frazer. 1990. Growth of wild juvenile Caribbean green turtles, Qlelonia 

mydas. f. Herpetol. 24: 441-445. 

Carr, A. 1975. The Ascension Island green turtle colony. Copeia 1975: 547-555. 

Carr, A. 1986. Rips, FADS, and little loggerheads. Bioscience 36:92-100. 

Carr, A. 1 87. Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival outlook of sea 

turtles. R ar. Poll. Bull. 18(6B):352-356. 

1960. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 4. The green turtle 

Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 121:l-48. 

Carr, A.F., M.H. Carr, and A.B. Meylan. 1978. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 7. The 

west Car'bbean I green turtle colony. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 162: 1-46. 

Collazo, J.4, R.H. Boulon, and T. Tallevast. In prep. Relative abundance, size class composition 

and gro&h patterns in wild green turtles at Culebra, Puerto Rico. 
Conley, 7.1. and B.A. Hoffman. 1986. Nesting activity of sea turtles in Florida, 1979-1985. 

Florida Sci. 50:201-210. 

Coston-Cl ments, L., and D.E. Hoss. 1983. Synopsis of data on the impact of habitat alteration on 

sea tu es around the southeastern United States. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-117,57p. f 

.T. 1982. Incidental capture of sea turtles by United States commercial fisheries., 

report to Center for Environ. Education, Washington, DC, 19p. 

L.B. Crowder, and H. Caswell. 1987. A stage-based population model fox. 

sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecology 68:1412-1423. 

., and K.U. Smith. 1947. The sea-approach behavior of the neonate loggerhead turtle, 

. Physiol. Psychol. 40:413-420. 

Davis, G.$. , and M.C. Whiting. 1977. Loggerhead sea turtle nesting in Everglades National Park,, 

Florida1 USA. Herpetologica 33: 18-28. 

S. 1982. The status of sea turtle populations in east Malaysia and the south China Sea!, 

In K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsoniar~ 

Washington, D.C. 

D.D., and D.A. Nelson. 1989. Recent results on hatchling orientation responses to light 

and intensities, p.41. In S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson (compilers), 

of the ninth annual workshop on sea turtle conservation and biology. NOAA Tech,, 

Doughty, P.w., 1984. Sea turtles in Texas: a forgotten commerce. Southwestern Historicall 

~uartedly 88:43-70. 

D.W., 1968. The role of vision in the sea-finding orientation of the green turtle 

mydas. 11. Orientation mechanism and range of spectral sensitivity. Anim. Behav,, 

and A. Carr. 1967. The role of vision in the sea-finding orientation of the green 

mydas). Anim. Behav. 15:25-36. 

Ehrhart, q.~., 1982. A review of sea turtle reproduction, p. 29-38. In K.A. Bjorndal (ed.),, 

~iolod and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Ehrhart .M., 1983. A survey of nesting by the green turtle, Chelonia mydas, and loggerhead 

turtl;ireira careira, in south Brevard County, Horida. Unpubl. Report to World Wild1 Fund .- 

U.S., ashington, DC, 49p. 

M., R.B. Sindler, and B.E. Witherington. 1986. Preliminary investigation of 

in green turtles: phase I - frequency and effects on turtles in the wild and in 

Report to U.S. Dept. Comer., NOAA, NMFS, Miami Laboratory. Contraat 
., and B.E. Witherington. In prep. Florida green turtle species account. Florida 

on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals. 

Epperly, S. ., and A. Veishlow. 1989. Sea turtle species composition and distribution in the 

inshore 4 aters of North Carolina. Unpubl. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildl. Sew. and Nat. Mar. 

Fish. Ser$., NOAA, NMFS, Beaufort Laboratory, Beaufort, NC, 49p. 

R. Erick, and C.J. Bove. 1987. Development of a comprehensive sea turtle protection 

for St. Lucie County, Florida. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Workshop on 

Biology and Conservation. 25-27 Feb. 1987, Orlando, FL. 

R.E. Martin, N. William-Walls, and J.R. Wilcox. 1989. Population dynamics of sea 

shallow coastal waters off Hutchinson Island, Florida, p. 57-59. In S.A. Eckert, 

T.H. Richardson (compilers), Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on 

and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-232. 

and L.M. Ehrhart. 1985. Preliminary growth models for green, Chelonia mydas, and 

Cizretta caretta, turtles in the wild. Copeia 1985:73-79. 

A.B. Irvine, R.D. Jennings, L.A. Callum, W. Hoffman, and M.S. McGehee. 1983. 

irds, and Mammals in the Nearby Atlantic Waters. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Div. 

Washington, D.C. FWSIOBS-82/65. 455 p. 

M.A. McGehee. 1989. Effects of petroleum on the development and survival of 

In L. Ogren, F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. 

R. Witham (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle 

Memo. NMFS-SEFC-226. 

Groombridg , B., 1982. The IUCN Amphibia-Reptilia red data book, part I. Testudines, 

Crocodyl 1 a, Rhynchocephalia. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 426 p. 

J.R. 1958. The green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linn.) in Malaya and Sarawak. 

1. Soc. London 130:455-535. 

1987. Movements and seasonal changes in loggerhead turtle Gzretta caretta 

in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral, Florida (1978-1984). Biol. Conserv. 40: 191-202. 

., and W. E. Stuntz. 1987. Analysis of sea turtle captures and mortalities during 

al shrimp trawling. Fish. Bull. 85:813-817. 

Hildebrand, . 1982. A historical review of the status of sea turtle populations in the western Gulf 

of Mexi! p. 447453. - in K.A. Bjorndal (4.). Biology and conservation of sea turtles. 

Smithson an Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Hirth, H.F. 1980a. Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus), green turtle. Catalogue of American Amphibians 

and ~e~tiles 249:14. 
1980b. Some aspects of the nesting behavior and reproductive biology of sea turtles. 

Hopkins- urphy, S.R. 1988. Sea turtle recovery efforts in the southeastern United states, p. 63-71.. 

In Proc ings of the Third Southeastern Non-game and Endangered Wildlife Symposium, Augusit 

1987, t them, Georgia. 

Hopkins, $.R., and T.M. Murphy. 1980. Reproductive ecology of Caretta caretta in South 

~arolih. S.C. Widl. Mar. Res. Dept. Completion Rep. 96p. 

. , M. Kochhar, and V. Thayer. 1981. Off-road vehicle and pedestrian track effects on 

of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Environ. Comerv. 8: 158-161. 

.R. 1987. Pathologic studies on fibropapillomas of green sea turtles, Cheloniu mydas. 

at the Seventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, March 

Klima, E. ., G.R. Gitschlag, and M.L. Renaud. 1988. Impacts of the explosive removal of 

offshor 1 petroleum platforms on sea turtles and dolphins. Mar. Fish. Rev. 50(3):33-42. 

M.A. Mercadante, and W.L. Finger. 1986. Factors affecting reproductive succes!~ 

on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, 1985. Final Report to the U.S. Air 

and Wildl. Service, Coop. Fish and Wildl. Research Unit, Agreement No. 14- 

Order No. 25, 18p. 

R.R., W. Hoggard, C.L. Roden, K.D. Mullin, and C.M Rogers. 1988. Distributio~n 

abundance of surfaced sea turtles in the north-central Gulf of Mexico; spring and fall 

In B.A. Schroeder (compiler), Proceedings of the Eighth Ann. Workshop on Sea 

and Biology, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SE FC-214. 

Lund, F. 1 1973. Marine turtle program, Jupiter Island, Florida, 1973. Unpubl. Report. 

Lutcavage M., and J.A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in Virginia. Copeia 

1985: 4i 9-456. 

Lutz, P.L In press. Studies on the ingestion of plastic and latex by sea turtles. Proc. Int. Conf. 

Mar. debris, April 1989, Honolulu, HI. 

I 

1977. Impact of developed coastline on nesting and hatchling sea turtles in 

M~i2$em Florida. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 

and C,G. Maley. 1987. Comparison of sand temperatures between a shaded and 

nesting beach in south Florida. (abstract) Seventh Annual Workshop on Sea 

Conservation, March 1987, Wekiwa Springs State Park, Florida. 

, R.W. 1963. Disorientation of loggerhead hatchlings by artificial road lighting. Copeia 
Meylan, A. . 1982. Sea turtle migrations-evidence from tag returns, p. 9 1-100. In K. A. Bjorndal 

(ed.), Bi a logy and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Morreale, S .J., G.J. Ruiz, J.R. Spotila, and E.A. Standora. 1982. Temperature-dependent sex 

determin I tion: Current practices threaten conservation of sea turtles. Science 216:1245-1247. 

Mortimer, J A. 1979. Ascension Island: British jeopardize 45 years of conservation. Mar. Turtle 

News. 1 d :7-8. 

Mortirner, J A. 1982a. Feeding ecology of sea turtles, p. 102-109. In K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology 

and cons k rvation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Mortimer, JI A. 1982b. Factors influencing beach selection by nesting sea turtles, g. 45-5 1. In K. A. 

Bjorndal Ked.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 

D.C. , 

Mortimer, J A. 1989. Research needed for management of the beach habitat, p. 236-246. In L. 

Ogren, . Berry,'K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham 

(eds.), P oceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFs-s 6 Fc-226, 401~. 

Mrosovsky, N., and S.F. Kingsmill. 1985. How turtles find the sea. Zeitschrift fuer 

Tierpsycho~ogie 67:237-256. 

1985. Telemetric monitoring of nesting loggerhead sea turtles subjected to 

the beach. Fifth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, 13-16 

Nelson, D.4. 1988. Life history and environmental requirements of loggerhead turtles. U.S .Fish 

Wildl. S4rv. Biol. Rep. 88(23). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-86-2(Rev.). 34p. 

, and D. Dickerson. 1987. Correlation of loggerhead turtle nesting digging with beach 

Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Feb. 1987. Orlando, FL. 

and D.D. Dickerson. 1988. Hardness of nourished and natural sea turtle nesting 

the east coast of Florida. Unpubl. Report. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways 

Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Ogren, L. 984. Overview of the biology of the green turtle, p. 78-80. In P. Bacon, F. Berry, K. 

Bjorndal H. Hirth, L. Ogren, and M. Weber (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Atlantic Turtle 

Symposi 1 m. RSMAS Printing, Miami. 

C. McVea. 1982. Apparent hibernation by sea turtles in North American waters, 

In K.A. Bjorndal, (ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian 

Washington, D.C. 
, R. 1976. Disorientation of hawksbill turtle hatchings, Eremchelys imbricafa, bjr 

lights. Copeia 1976: 824. 

Piikey, O.P., Jr., D.C. Sharma, H.R. Wanless, L.J. Doyle, O.H. Pilkey, Sr., W.J. Neal, and B.L. 

Gruverh 1984. Living with the east Florida shore. Duke University Press, Durham, NC. 259p, 

and A.F. Amos. 1988. Entanglement in and ingestion of marine debris by sea turtlar 

along the south Texas coast, p. 79-82. In B.A. Schroeder (compiler), Proceedings of 

Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Tech. Memo., 

Possardt, .E. 1991. A conservation program for sea turtles in the southeastern continental United 

States. 7 J. Ala. Acad. Sci. 62: 35-48. 

.C.H., and P. Trebbau. 1984. The turtles of Venezuela. Contributions to Herpetology, 

for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. 

1984a. The effects of beach restoration on marine turtles nesting in south Brevard 

Unpubl. M.S. Thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando. 

Raymond, P.W. 1984b. Sea turtle hatchling disorientation and artificial beachfront lighting. Center 

for En 1 ironmental Education, Washington, D.C. 72 pp. 

Roithmayr C., and T. Henwood. 1982. Incidental catch and mortality report. Unpubl. NMFS 

Report 1 20p. 

., L. Barger, and H. Kumpf. 1987. Report on the drift gillnet fishery in the Fort Piercearea off the east coast of Florida. Unpubl. NMFS Report, 24p. 

Schmelz, .W., and R.R. Mezich. 1988. A preliminary investigation of the potential impact of 

Austral an pines on the nesting activities of the loggerhead turtle, p. 63-66. In B.A. Schroedeir 

(comp' er), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference on Sea Turtle Biology am1 

Conse I ation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-214. 

B.A. 1981. Predation and nest success in two species of marine turtles (Carem carettcz 

mydas) at Merritt Island, Florida. Fla. Sci. 44(1):35. 

Schroeder B.A. 1987a. 1987 First quarter report of the sea turtle stranding and salvage network, 

Atlanti and Gulf coasts of the United States. NMFSISEFC, Miami Laboratory, Coastal 

Resour b Division Contrib. No. CRD-86/87-26, 12p. 

B.A. 1987b. Strandings of marine turtles along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology ancl 

25-27 Feb. 1987, Orlando, FL. 

Schroeder B.A., and A.A. Warner. 1988. 1987 Annual report of the sea turtle stranding and 

salvag network, Atlantic and Gulf coasts.of the United States. NMFSISEFC, Miami Laboratory, 

Coastal d Resources Division Contrib. No. CRD-87188-28, 45p. 
Shoup, L.P. and R.E. Wolf. 1987. Boca Raton Beach area outdoor lighting restrictions for the 

protectio of sea turtles. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology 

and Co I ervation. 25-27 Feb. 1987, Orlando, FL. 

Smith, G.M , and C.W. Coates. 1938. Fibro-epithelial growths of the ski in large marine turtles, 

Uzelonia 1 mydas (Liiaeus). Zoologica 23:93-98. 

. 1982. Non-human predators of sea turtles and their control, p.139-152. In K.A. 

Biology and conservation of sea turtles. SmithsonianInstitutionPress, Washington, 

D.C. 

. , O.R. Talbert, and J.M. Dean. 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle Gzretta 

South Carolina, 11: protection of nests from raccoon predation by transplantation. Biol. 

Standora, E A., and J.R. Spotila. 1985. Temperature dependent sex determination in sea turtles. 

Copeia 1 b 85:711-722. 

., Jr., S.E. Stancyk, J.M. Dean, and J.M. Will. 1980. Nesting activity of the 

turtle (Gzretta caretta) in South Carolina I: a rookery in transition. Copeia 1980:709- 

and A. Martinez. 1989. 1988 Annual report of the sea turtle stranding and salvage 

and Gulf coasts of the United States. NMFSISEFC, Miami Laboratory, Coastal 

Contrib. No. CRD-88/89-19, 47p. 

.T., and C.R. Shoop. 1984. Southeast turtle survey: Final report to the National 

Service pelagic surveys. SEFAINMFS Contract NA 82-GA-Cooo 12. 7 1 pp. 

Ulrich, G.F 1978. Incidental catch of loggerhead turtles by South Carolina commercial fisheries. 

Unpub. eport to Nat. Mar. Fish. Sew., Contract Nos. 03-7-042-35151 and 03-7-042-35121, k 36~. I 

Van Meter, ~V.B. 1990. Florida's sea turtles. Florida Power and Light Company, Miami, FL. 62 

PP. ! 

Vargo, s.,b . Lutz, D. Odell, E. VanVleet, and G. Bossart. 1986. Study of the effects of oil on 

marine es. Final report to Minerals Mgmt. Sew. MMS Contract No. 14-12-0001-30063. 

181p. ~ 

1988. lhQIassia testudinzun productivity and grazing by green turtles in a highly 

bed. Mar. Biol. 98:447-455. 

B.E. 1986. Human and natural causes of marine turtle clutch and hatchling mortality 

to hatchling production on an important Florida nesting beach. Unpubl. 

of Central Florida, Orlando. 
Witherin n, B.E. 1989. Beach lighting and the seaward orientationof hatchling sea turtles, p. 189- 

190. 7 Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson (compilers), Proceedings of the WI 

Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC232. , 

Witherin on, B.E., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1987. A preliminary characterization of the disease 

papillo atosis affecting green turtles at the Indian River lagoon system, Florida. (abstract) 

Seven Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, Wekiwa Springs state Park, 

FL, M 1 ch 1987. 

Witherin on, B.E., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1989. Status and reproductive characteristics of green turtles 

(C'heo ia mydas) nesting in Florida, p. 351-352. In L. Ogren, F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf; 

R. M t, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (eds), Proceedings of the Second Westenn 

Atlanti 1 Turtle Symposium. NOAA Tech. Memo. ' NMFS-SEFC-226. 

.N. 1987. The incidental capture of sea turtles in the Atlantic U.S. fishery conservatioin 

the Japanese tuna longline fleet, 1978-81. Mar. Fish. Rev. 46(3):56-58. 

Wolke, RIE. 1989. Pathology and sea turtle conservation. Unpubl. Report, 25p. 

.L., and N. Mrosovsky. 1980. Sexual differentiation in hatchling loggerheads (Carettco 

incubated at different controlled temperatures. Herpetologica 36:33-36. 
Priorities ii 

Priority 1 

Priority 2 - 

Priority 3 - 

4 Column 4 of the following Implementation Schedule are assigned as follows: 

- An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from d eclining irreversibly in the foreseeable future. 

n action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in species populationhabitat 

or some other significant negative impact short of extinction. 

- All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species. 
~nformatiob Gatbering - I or R (research) 

aintenance and manipulation 

and competitor control 

7. Other 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Green Turtle (Recovery Priority#2C) 

1 Task I Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000 1 Comments1 

I M-2 I Implement and evaluate 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 continuing 1 COE 1 1 1 I I I No estimate; costs to 

I 1 beach tilling 1 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 be borne by specific 

I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 lnourishment projects 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

I R-3 1 Evaluate sand character- 1 1 1 12 1 2 1 4 years I COE I 1 35 1 35 135 135 1 

I listics relative to hatch I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 

I lauccerrs and nesting 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 

I 1 behavior 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

I M-3 I Reestablish dunes and 1 1 1 13 1 2 I continuing 1 COE I I I 1 I 1 No estimate; costs to 

1 I native vegetation on I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 be borne by specific 

I 1 beach nourishment 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 nourishment projects 

I l proi-ts I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1 M-3 I Evaluate sand transfer 1 1 1 14 1 3 I continuing 1 COE I I I I I 1 Routine 

I Isysterns I I I I I I I I I I 

A 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 

A 1 0-3, M-3 1 Evaluate current laws on 1 1 121 1 1 I continuing I FDNR I I I 1 I I Routine 

1 1 beach armoring I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I 

I I I I I I I I I I I 

1 0-3, M-3 [Enforce laws regulating 1 1122 1 1 1 continuing 1 FDNR,VIDPNR, 1 I 1 1 I 1 Rwtine 

I 

I 1 coastal construction I 1 I 1 PRDNR 1 I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I 

1 continuing 1 FDNR 

I 

I M-3 IEnsure failed erosion 1 1123 1 2 I 1 I 1 1 1 Routine 

I lcontrd measures are I I I 1 1 I I I I I 

I 1 removed I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I M-3 1 Develop standard require- 1 1124 1 3 Ilyear IFDNR 

I I 

I I I 1 I 1 Routine 

I lments for rand fence I I I lm I I 1 I I I 

I 1 construction I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Green Turtle (Recovery Priority#PC) 

IGeneral ( ITask I I Task 1 Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000 1 Comments1 

ICategory 1 Plan Task 1 Number 1 Priority 1 Duration 1 Agency ICurrent I FY2 1FY3 IN4 1FY5 INotes 

I M-3, A-2 1 Acquire nesting beaches 1 1 131 1 1 

I A-3, A-6 1 between Melbourne and I I 

1 1 Wabeaso Beach, FL I I 

I I I I 

I I I I I M-3, A-2, I Evaluate status of 1 1132 1 2 

I A-3, A-6 1 Hutchinson Island, FL I I 

I I and develop long-term I I 

I I protection plan I I 

I I I I 

I I I I 

I I I I 

I M-3 1 Remove exotic vegetation 1 1 14 1 3 

I lat Hobe Sound NWR, FL, I I 

I 1st. Lucie State Park, FL I I 

I land other important I I 

fr I 1 nesting beaches I I 

01 1 I I I 

I R-2, R-3 l Identify important 1 121 1 2 

I 1 marine foriging habitat I 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

IRevent degradation1 1 122 1 2 

1 improve water quality of I 1 

limportant marine habitat I I 

I I I 

I I I 

M-3, 0-3 IPrevent habitat degra- 1 123 1 3 

Idation from fishing gear I 

1 and vessel anchoring I 

I 

I 

I I I I 

I M-3 1 Prevent habitat destruc- 1 124 1 3 

I 1 tion from oil and gas I I 

I 1 activities I I 

1 5 years I FWS I 2M 1 15 M 1 10 M 1 10 M 1 10 M ITotal estimated costs 

I I FDNR I 10M I 10M 1 10 M I 10M I 5 M lof acquisition = 90M; 

I 1 I I 1 I I I Same as loggerhead task 1 14 

I I I I I I I 1 costs not additive 

I I I I I I I I 

1 2 years I FDNR I I I I I ICosta will be associated 

I 1 FWs I I I I I I with acquisition if identified 

I I I I I I I 1 in protection plan; 

I I I I I I I lrecommendations by 1-91 

I I I I I I I ISame as loggaheed task 1 15, 

I I I I I I I lcosta not additive 

I I I I I I I I 

1 continuing I FWS 15 15 15 15 15 lSmneasloggaheadtaak117, 

I I FDNR 15 110 110 110 110 lcostsnotadditive 

I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I 

1 10-15 years I NMFS, FDNR, 1 

I 

I I I I 1 Funds are identified 

I I NCDNR, GDNR, I I I I I 1 under 221 1 because of 

I I TPW, ADNR, I I 1 I I lreaearch overlap with 

I I LDWF, VMRC I I I I I 1 population studies 

I I SCWMRD, MDW I I I I I I 

I I I 

I continuing I NMFS, EPA, I 

I I COE, FWS, CZM, I 

I 

I 

I 

1 continuing 

I 

I 

I 

1 continuing 

I 

I 

I coastal resource 

I .Dmcin 

I NMFS, coastal 

I resource 

1 agenciea 

I 

I MMS, COE, 

1 NMFS 

I 

I I I I I 

I I I I 1 Routine 

I I I I I 

I I I I I 

I I I I I 

I I I I I 

I I I I (Routine 

I I I I I 

I I I I I 

I I I I I 

I I I I I Routine 

I I I I I 

I I I I I 

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

~ree;l Turtle (Recovery Priority#PC) 

1 Task 1 Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000 I Commentsl - I current 1 tY 2 1 tr3 I tY 4 I Fy 5 1 Notes 

1 1-14, M-7 1 Evaluate extant of hatch- 1 2143 1 3 I continuing I FWS I I I I I 1 Costs included in 2 1 1 

I lling disorientation on I I I I FDNR, and FL I I I I I I 

I 1 important regional nesting I I I I coastal counties I I I I I 

1 beaches I and cities 

I 

I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1 0-3 1 Evaluate need for Federal 1 2144 1 3 I continuing I FWS I I I I I 1 Routine 

I /lighting regulations I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I 

I M-7 I Develop lighting plans 1 2145 1 2 I 4 years I USAF 

I I 

I I I I I I No estimate; complete in FY 91 

I 1 for Cape Canaverel, FL I I I I KSC I I I I I I No estimate; complete in FY 92 

I (and Patrick AFB, FL I I I 1 CPA I 1 I I I I No estimate; complete in FY 93 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 0-2 I Prosecute parties I2146 I 3 I continuing I FWS I I I I I 1 Routine 

I Iresponsible for hatchling I I I I NMFS I 1 1 I I I 

Idisorientation I I 

I I I 

I I I 

1 Ensure coastal con- 1 215 1 3 

1 atruction activities I I 

1 avoid disruption of I I 

I nesting/hatchling I I 

I activities I I 

I I I 

1 Ensure law enforce- I 216 I 3 

1 ment activities min- I I 

limize poaching and I I 

1 harassment on nesting I I 

1 beeches I I 

I I I R-14 1 Determine natural 

I 1 hatchling sex ratios 

I I 

I I 

I 

I 

I 

continuing I COE 

I FDNR 

l FWS 

I PRDNR 

1 VIDPNR 

I 

continuing I FWS 

I FDNR 

I 

I 

I 

I I 

1 10 years I FWS 

I 

I 

I 

1 Routine 

I 

1 Routine 

I 

I I I I I 

I I I I 1 Costs included 

I I I I FDNR I I I I I lin 21 1 

I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Green Turtle (Recovery Priority#2C) 

IGeneral I ITask I 1 Task 1 Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000 I Comments/ 

ICateaory lRan Task 1 Number 1 Priority 1 Duration 1 Agency ICurrent I FY 2 1 FY 3 1 FY 4 1 Fy 5 I Notes 

I R-1 I Determine seasonal 

I I distribution, abundance, 

I I pop. characterietics 

I 1 status in inshore and 

I Inearshore waters 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I R-3, R-8, I Determine adult navigaI R-14, M-7 1 tion mechanisms, migraI 1 tory pathways, distriI 1 bution and movements 

I I 

I R-1 , M-7 I Determine threats along 

I I migratory routes and on 

I 1 foraging grounds 

I R-14, M-7IDetermine breeding pop 

1 lulation origins for U.S. 

I 1 juvenildaubadult 

I 1 populations 

I I 

I R-1, R-6 1 Determine growth rates, 

I age at sexual maturity, 

1 au~ivorship rates 

I 

I 

I Implement and enforce 

1 TED regulations 

I 

I 

1 Provide technology 

1 transfer for inatalla1 tion and use of TEDS 

I 

11 1 15-20 years I NMFS, MMS, I 12M 

I I years I COEt I I 

I I I FDNR, TPW, / I 

I I I GDNR, PRDNR, I I 

I I I SCWMRD, I I 

I I I NCDNR, VIDPNR I I 

I I I I I 

I I I I I 

12 1 5 years I NMFS I I 

I I lFws I I 

I I 1 MMS I I 

I I 1 COE I I 

I I continuing 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 5 years 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I continuing 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I continuing 

I 

I 

I 

I continuing 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 NMFS 

lFws 

I COE 

1 MMS 

I 

I NMFS 

1Fw.S 

I State resource 

1 agencies 

I 

I NMFS, RNS, 

I State resource 

1 agencies 

I 

I I NMFS 

I State Marine 

I Fisheries 

I 

I NMFS 

I State sea grant 

1 agencies 

I 

1 2 M 1 2 M 1 2 M ISame as loggerhead 

I I I I task 221 1, costs are 

I I I (not additive 

I I I I 

I I I I 

I I I I 

I I I I 

I I I I 

I 1 250 1 250 ITotal cost for 

I I I 1 all agencies 

i NO estimate 

I 

I 

I Other coats associated 

1 with 221 1 ; same as 

I loggerhaad task 221 5; 

j costs are not additive 

I 

1 Routine 

I 

I 

I 

1 Routine 

I 

I 

I 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Green Turtle (Recovery Priority#2Cl 

IGeneral 1 lTd I 1 Task I F- !cornmanta/ 

ICstegory IPlsn Task 1 Number 1 Priority 1 Duration 1 Agency !Current IFY21FY31FY41Fy5 INotes 

I 1-1, 1-14 IMaintsin sea turtle 1 2223 1 2 I continuing I NMFS 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 ISama aa loggerhead 

I latrsnding network 1 I 1 lFws 1 1 1 I I Itask 2223, costs are not 

I I 1 I 1 I coastal state 1 1 I I 1 1 additive 

I I I I I I resource I I I I I 

I agencies 

I 

I I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I 

I 1-1, 1-14, IMonitor other fisheries 1 2224 1 2 I continuing I NMFS 

I I I I 

1 100 1 loo 1100 1 

I 

I M-7 Icausing mortality 

I 

I State Marine I 

I 

I I I I I I I 

I Fisheries 

I 

I I I I I I I I I I I 

I Commissions 1 I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I 

1 0-3, M-7 lRornulgate regulations to 1 2225 1 2 13years INMFS 

I I I I I I 

I 1 I I I 1 Routine 

I lreduce fishery related 1 I I I State Marine I 1 I I 1 

lmortslity 1 Fisheries 

I 

I I I I I I I I I I 

I Commissions 1 I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I 

A 1 1-14, M-7 IMonitor turtle mortality 1 2231 1 3 

I 

1 continuing 1 COE 

I 

1 I I I I I No estimate; COE 

\" I 1 on dredges 1 I 1 1 NMFS I I I 1 1 Iresponaibla for costs 

I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I land NMFS for oversight 

1 1-14, M-7 1 Evaluate modifications of 1 2232 1 3 I continuing 1 COE I I I 1 I I 

I 1 dredge dragheads or 1 1 I 1 NMFS I I I 1 I I No estimate; COE 

I ldevices to reduce turtle 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 responsible for costs 

I I captures I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

I 1-1, M-7 I Determine seasonality 1 2233 1 3 I continuing 1 COE I I 1 1 I I No estimate; COE 

I land abundance of turtles I I 1 1 USN I I I I I Irespondble for costs; 

I 1 at dredging localities I I I 1 NMFS 1 1 1 I I lcosts included in 

I I I I I I I I I I I 1 estimates in 221 1 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

I R-14 I Determine effects of oil 1 2241 1 2 I continuing 1 MMS I 1 1 I I 1 No estimata, MMS ad 

I land dispersants on all I I 1 1 industry I 1 1 I 1 1 industry responsible 

I 1 life stages 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 lfor costs 

I I I I I I I 

1 0-4, M-7 IEnsure impacts are 1 2242 1 3 1 continuing 1 MMS 

I I I I I 

1 1 1 1 I I Routine 

I laddreased during plan- 1 1 I 1 COE I I 1 I 1 I 

I lning of oil and gas I I I I NMFS I I I I I I 

1 1 development 1 I I 1 industry 1 1 1 I I 1 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Green Turtle (Recovery Priority#PC) 

IGeneral 1 !Task I I Task 1 Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000 1 Comments1 

1 Category 1 Plan Task 1 Number 1 Priority 1 Duration &@ncy 1 Currnnt 

I R-1, M-7 I Determine sea turtle 1 2243 1 3 1 3-5 years 1 MMS I I I I I ICosts induded in 

I ldistribution and I I I 1 COE I I I I I lestimatea in 221 1 

I 1 seasonal use of marine I I I I NMFS I 1 I I I 1 

I 1 habitats associated with I I I I I I I I I I 

I loil and gaa development I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I 

1 R-1 , R-12 I Evaluate extent of 12251 1 2 

I 

1 10 years I NMFS 1 30 1 100 1 100 1 100 1100 lsameasloggerhead 

I 1 entanglement/ingestion of 1 I I 1 EPA I I I I I 1 task 2251, costs not 

I I persistent marine debris I I I I I 1 I I I 1 additive 

I I I I I I 

I R-12 I Evaluate effects of 

I 

1 2252 1 2 1 5 years I NMFS 

I I I I I 

I 1 50 1 50 1 50 1 50 1 

I lingestion of persistent 1 I 1 1 EPA I I 1 1 I 1 

I lmarine debris on health 1 I I I I I I I I I 

I 1 and viability I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

( M-7,O-2,1 Implement measures to 1 2253 1 2 1 continuing 1 EPA I I I I I I No estimate 

I 0-3 lreduce or eliminate I I I I USCG I 1 I 1 I I 

I 1 persistent marine debris I I I I State environ- I I I I I I 

I I I I I I mental agencies I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 

1 0-2 1 Increase law enforcement 1 226 1 2 I continuing I NMFS I 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 I Additional LE man1 1 efforts to reduce poach- I I I lM I I 1 I 1 lpower is needed in 

I ling in U.S. waters I I 1 I I I I I I 1 Puerto Rico 

I I I I I I I I 

I R-11 IAsaess mortality and 1 227 1 1 1 5-10 years 1 NMFS 

I I I I 

1 10 1 500 1 500 1 600 1 400 1 

I ldetermine etiology of I I I lM I I 1 1 I 

1 fibropapillornatosis 

I 

I I FDNR I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1-14, 0-4 ICentralize tag series 1 2281 1 3 I 1 year I NMFS I I I 1 1 1 Routine; FY 91 

1 1 records 1 I 1 lM I I 1 I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Green Turtle (Recovery Priority#2C) 

IGeneral I !Task I 1 Task I EatimatehEiacelYaarCnAra 1- 

I Category 1 Ran Task 1 Number 1 Priority 1 Duration 1 Agency ICurrent IFY2IFY3IFY4IFy5 1Notes 

1 1-14, 0-4 1 Centralize turtle 1 2282 1 3 I 1 NMFS 1 1 1 I 1 I Estimated costa 

1 1 tagging records I 1 I 1 fvJs I 1 I I I 150K annually; same as 

1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 loggerhead task 2272, costs 

I I I I I 

1 R-14, M-71 Develop standards for 1 2291 1 3 1 

1 0-3 1 care and maintenance I 

1 of captive sea turtles I 

I I 

I I I 

I I I 

I R-1 1 , M-61 Develop manual for 1 2292 

I Itreatment of disease 1 

I I I 

I M-7 1 Establish catalog for all 1 2293 

I (captive sea turtles 1 

I I I 

1 M-7 IDesignate rehabilitation 1 2294 

VII 1 facilities I 

CI I I I 

I I I 

1 0-1 IRovide slide programst 1 31 

1 1 information leaflets 1 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

I 0-1, M-7 IDevelop brochure on 1 32 

I Irecommended lighting I 

I 1 modifications I 

I I I 

I 0-1, M-7 IDevelop PSA on artifi- 1 33 

I lcial light problem I 

I I I 

I I I 

1 0-1 1 Ensure permitted facilities 1 34 

1 Idisplay turtles with 1 

I 1 educational displays 1 

I I I 

I I I 

I 

I 1 year 

I 

I 

1 continuing 

I 

I 

1 continuing 

I 

I 

I 

1 continuing 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 1 year 

I 

I 

I 

1 1 year 

I 

I 

I 

I continuing 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I I NMFS 

lM 

I 

I 

1 NMFS 

IW 

I 

1 NMFS 

lM 

I 

1 NMFS 

lM 

I 

I 

lM 

I NMFS 

I State resource 

I agencies 

I 

lW I NMFS 

I 

I 

lM I FDNR 

I 

I 

l fvJs 

I NMFS 

1 State resource 

I agencies 

I 

I 1 1 1 1 not additive 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 Routine 

I 

1 Routine 

I 

I 

I 

1 Routine 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 Routine 

I 

I 

I 

1 same as loggerhead tark 

133, costs not additive 

I 

I 

1 Routine 

I 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Green Turtle (Recovery Priority#PCI 

!General I ITask I I Task I Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Coats $000 I Comments1 

I Category 1 Plan Task 1 Number 1 Priority I Duration IAgency ICurrent IFY2IFY3IFY41Fy5 1Notw 

I 0-1, M-7 [Poet educationallinforma- 1 35 1 3 1 continuing 1 FDNR I I 1 I 1 I Routine 

I ltional signs on important I I I lFWS I I I I I I 

I 1 nesting beaches I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

I M-7, 0-8 1 Develop international 1 41 1 2 I continuing I FWS I I I I I 1 Routine 

I 1 agreements I I I I NMFS I I I I I I