15272 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 120425024–5022–02] 

RIN 0648–XB089 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Identification and Proposed Listing of 

Eleven Distinct Population Segments 

of Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas) 

as Endangered or Threatened and 

Revision of Current Listings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce; United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month 

petition finding; request for comments; 

notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The green sea turtle (Chelonia 

mydas; hereafter referred to as the green 

turtle) is currently listed under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a 

threatened species, with the exception 

of the Florida and Mexican Pacific coast 

breeding populations, which are listed 

as endangered. We, NMFS and USFWS, 

find that the green turtle is composed of 

11 distinct population segments (DPSs) 

that qualify as ‘‘species’’ for listing 

under the ESA. We propose to remove 

the current range-wide listing and, in its 

place, list eight DPSs as threatened and 

three as endangered. We also propose to 

apply existing protective regulations to 

the DPSs. We solicit comments on these 

proposed actions. 

Although not determinable at this 

time, designation of critical habitat may 

be prudent, and we solicit relevant 

information for those DPSs occurring 

within U.S. jurisdiction. In the interim, 

we propose to continue the existing 

critical habitat designation (i.e., waters 

surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto 

Rico) in effect for the North Atlantic 

DPS. 

This proposed rule also constitutes 

the 12-month finding on a petition to 

reclassify the Hawaiian green turtle 

population as a DPS and to delist that 

DPS. Although we find the Hawaiian 

green turtle population to constitute a 

DPS (referred to in this proposed rule as 

the Central North Pacific DPS), we do 

not find delisting warranted. 

A public hearing will be held in 

Hawai‘i. Interested parties may provide 

oral or written comments at this 

hearing. 

DATES: Comments and information 

regarding this proposed rule must be 

received by close of business on June 

22, 2015. A public hearing will be held 

on April 8, 2015 from 6 to 8 p.m., with 

an informational open house starting at 

5:30 p.m. Requests for additional public 

hearings must be made in writing and 

received by May 7, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2012–0154, by the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. 

1. Go to www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012- 

0154. 

2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields. 

3. Enter or attach your comments. 

OR 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Green Turtle Proposed Listing Rule, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Room 13535, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910; or Green Turtle 

Proposed Listing Rule, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, North Florida 

Ecological Services Office, 7915 

Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, 

Jacksonville, FL 32256. 

OR 

• Public hearing: Interested parties 

may provide oral or written comments 

at the public hearing to be held at the 

Japanese Cultural Center, 2454 South 

Beretania Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 

96826. Parking is available at the 

Japanese Cultural Center for $5. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by the Services. All 

comments received are a part of the 

public record and will generally be 

posted for public viewing on 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential 

business information, or otherwise 

sensitive information submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. The Services will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). The proposed rule 

is available electronically at http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/

green.htm and http://www.fws.gov/

northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20

factsheets/green-sea-turtle.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Schultz, NMFS (ph. 301–427– 

8443, email jennifer.schultz@noaa.gov), 

or Ann Marie Lauritsen, USFWS (ph. 

904–731–3032, email annmarie_

lauritsen@fws.gov). Persons who use a 

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– 

8339, 24 hours a day, and 7 days a 

week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited on the 

Proposed Listing 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal be as 

accurate and effective as possible and 

informed by the best available scientific 

and commercial information. Therefore, 

we request comments or information 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed rule. We are seeking 

information and comments on whether 

each of the 11 proposed green turtle 

DPSs qualify as DPSs, whether listing of 

each DPS is warranted, and, if so, 

whether they should be classified as 

threatened or endangered as described 

in the ‘‘Listing Determinations Under 

the ESA’’ section provided below. 

Specifically, we are soliciting 

information on the following subjects 

relative to green turtles within the 11 

proposed DPSs: (1) Historical and 

current population status and trends, (2) 

historical and current distribution, (3) 

migratory movements and behavior, (4) 

genetic population structure, (5) current 

or planned activities that may adversely 

affect green turtles, (6) conservation 

efforts to protect green turtles, and (7) 

our extinction risk analysis and 

findings. We request that all data, 

information, and comments be 

accompanied by supporting 

documentation such as maps, 

bibliographic references, or reprints of 

pertinent publications. We will consider 

comments and new information when 

making final determinations. 

Public Comments Solicited on Critical 

Habitat 

Though we are not proposing to 

designate critical habitat at this time, we 

request evaluations describing the 

quality and extent of existing habitats 

within U.S. jurisdiction for the 

proposed North Atlantic, South Atlantic 

(U.S. Virgin Islands), Central South 

Pacific (American Samoa), Central West 

Pacific (Commonwealth of the Northern 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15273 

Mariana Islands (CNMI) and Guam), 

Central North Pacific, and East Pacific 

DPSs, as well as information on other 

areas that may qualify as critical habitat 

for these proposed DPSs. Specifically, 

we are soliciting the identification of 

particular areas within the geographical 

area occupied by these species that 

include physical or biological features 

that are essential to the conservation of 

these DPSs and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)). 

Essential features may include, but are 

not limited to, features specific to 

individual species’ ranges, habitats, and 

life history characteristics within the 

following general categories of habitat 

features: (1) Space for individual growth 

and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, 

air, light, minerals, or other nutritional 

or physiological requirements; (3) cover 

or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, 

reproduction and development of 

offspring; and (5) habitats that are 

protected from disturbance or are 

representative of the historical, 

geographical, and ecological 

distributions of the species (50 CFR 

424.12(b)). Areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing should also 

be identified, if such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species (16 

U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(ii)). Unlike for 

occupied habitat, such areas are not 

required to contain physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. ESA 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(h) specify that critical habitat 

shall not be designated within foreign 

countries or in other areas outside of 

U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, we request 

information only on potential areas of 

critical habitat within locations under 

U.S. jurisdiction. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the 

Secretary to consider the ‘‘economic 

impact, impact on national security, and 

any other relevant impact’’ of 

designating a particular area as critical 

habitat. Section 4(b)(2) also authorizes 

the Secretary to conduct a balancing of 

the benefits of inclusion and the 

benefits of exclusion from a critical 

habitat designation of a particular area, 

and to exclude any particular area 

where the Secretary finds that the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of designation, unless 

excluding that area will result in 

extinction of the species. Therefore, for 

features and areas potentially qualifying 

as critical habitat, we also request 

information describing: (1) Activities or 

other threats to the essential features 

that could be affected by designating 

them as critical habitat (pursuant to 

section 4(b)(8) of the ESA); and (2) the 

positive and negative economic, 

national security and other relevant 

impacts, including benefits to the 

recovery of the species, likely to result 

if these areas are designated as critical 

habitat. We also seek information 

regarding the conservation benefits of 

designating areas within nesting 

beaches and waters under U.S. 

jurisdiction as critical habitat. Data 

sought include, but are not limited to 

the following: (1) Scientific or 

commercial publications, (2) 

administrative reports, maps or other 

graphic materials, and (3) information 

from experts or other interested parties. 

Comments and data particularly are 

sought concerning the following: (1) 

Maps and specific information 

describing the amount, distribution, and 

type of use (e.g., foraging or migration) 

by green turtles, as well as any 

additional information on occupied and 

unoccupied habitat areas; (2) the 

reasons why any habitat should or 

should not be determined to be critical 

habitat as provided by sections 3(5)(A) 

and 4(b)(2) of the ESA; (3) information 

regarding the benefits of designating 

particular areas as critical habitat; (4) 

current or planned activities in the areas 

that might be proposed for designation 

and their possible impacts; (5) any 

foreseeable economic or other potential 

impacts resulting from designation, and 

in particular any impacts on small 

entities; and (6) whether specific 

unoccupied areas may be essential to 

provide additional habitat areas for the 

conservation of the proposed DPSs. We 

seek information regarding critical 

habitat for the proposed green turtle 

DPSs as soon as possible, but no later 

than June 22, 2015. 

Public Hearings 

The Services will hold a public 

hearing in Hawai‘i. Interested parties 

may provide oral or written comments 

at this hearing. A public hearing will be 

held on April 8, 2015 from 6 to 8 p.m., 

with an informational open house 

starting at 5:30 p.m., at the Japanese 

Cultural Center, 2454 South Beretania 

Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96826. 

Parking is available at the Japanese 

Cultural Center for $5. If requested by 

the public by May 7, 2015, additional 

hearings will be held regarding the 

proposed listing of the green turtle 

DPSs. If additional hearings are 

requested, details regarding location(s), 

date(s), and time(s) will be published in 

a forthcoming Federal Register notice. 

References 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Policies for Delineating Species Under the 

ESA 

III. Listing Determinations Under the ESA 

IV. Biology and Life History of Green Turtles 

V. Overview of the Policies and Process Used 

To Identify DPSs 

A. Discreteness Determination 

1. Atlantic Ocean/Mediterranean Sea 

2. Indian Ocean 

3. Pacific Ocean 

B. Significance Determination 

1. North Atlantic 

2. Mediterranean 

3. South Atlantic 

4. Southwest Indian 

5. North Indian 

6. East Indian-West Pacific 

7. Central West Pacific 

8. Southwest Pacific 

9. Central South Pacific 

10. Central North Pacific 

11. East Pacific 

C. Summary of Discreteness and 

Significance Determinations 

VI. Listing Evaluation Process 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters for 

the Eleven Green Turtle DPSs 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Eleven Green Turtle DPSs 

C. Conservation Efforts 

D. Extinction Risk Assessments and 

Findings 

VII. North Atlantic DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters for 

the North Atlantic DPS 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the North 

Atlantic DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

i. Gill Net and Trawl Fisheries 

ii. Dredge Fishing 

b. Channel Dredging 

c. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic 

d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disasters 

e. Effects of Cold Stunning 

f. Contaminants and Marine Debris 

C. Conservation Efforts for the North 

Atlantic DPS 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the North Atlantic DPS 

VIII. Mediterranean DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters for 

the Mediterranean DPS 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Mediterranean DPS 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15274 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

i. Longline Fisheries 

ii. Set Net (Gill Net) Fishing 

iii. Trawl Fisheries 

b. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic 

c. Pollution 

d. Effects of Climate Change 

C. Conservation Efforts 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings 

IX. South Atlantic DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters for 

the South Atlantic DPS 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the South 

Atlantic DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

b. Marine Debris and Pollution 

c. Effects of Climate Change 

C. Conservation Efforts for the South 

Atlantic DPS 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the South Atlantic DPS 

X. Southwest Indian DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters for 

the Southwest Indian DPS 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Southwest Indian DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

b. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disasters 

C. Conservation Efforts for the Southwest 

Indian DPS 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the Southwest Indian DPS 

XI. North Indian DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters for 

the North Indian DPS 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the North 

Indian DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

i. Gill Net Fisheries 

ii. Trawl Fisheries 

b. Vessel Strikes 

c. Beach Driving 

d. Pollution 

e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disaster 

C. Conservation Efforts for the North 

Indian DPS 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the North Indian DPS 

XII. East Indian-West Pacific DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters for 

the East Indian-West Pacific DPS 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the East 

Indian-West Pacific DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

b. Marine Debris and Pollution 

c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disasters 

C. Conservation Efforts for the East IndianWest Pacific DPS 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the East Indian-West Pacific 

DPS 

XIII. Central West Pacific DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters for 

the Central West Pacific DPS 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Central West Pacific DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

b. Vessel Strikes 

c. Pollution 

d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disasters 

C. Conservation Efforts for the Central West 

Pacific DPS 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the Central West Pacific 

DPS 

XIV. Southwest Pacific DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters in 

the Southwest Pacific DPS 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Southwest Pacific DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

b. Shark Control Programs 

c. Boat Strikes and Port Dredging 

d. Pollution and Marine Debris 

e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disasters 

C. Conservation Efforts for the Southwest 

Pacific DPS 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the Southwest Pacific DPS 

XV. Central South Pacific DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters for 

the Central South Pacific DPS 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Central South Pacific DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

b. Marine Debris and Pollution 

c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disasters 

C. Conservation Efforts for the Central 

South Pacific DPS 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the Central South Pacific 

DPS 

XVI. Central North Pacific DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters for 

the Central North Pacific DPS 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Central North Pacific DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15275 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

i. Longline Fisheries 

ii. Gillnet Fisheries 

iii. Other Gear Types 

b. Marine Debris and Pollution 

c. Vessel Interactions 

d. Effects of Climate Change 

e. Effects of Spatial Structure 

C. Conservation Efforts for the Central 

North Pacific DPS 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the Central North Pacific 

DPS 

XVII. East Pacific DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters for 

the East Pacific DPS 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the East 

Pacific DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

b. Pollution 

c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disasters 

C. Conservation Efforts for the East Pacific 

DPS 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the East Pacific DPS 

XVIII. Proposed Determinations 

XIX. Significant Portion of the Range 

XX. Effects of Listing 

A. Identifying Section 7 Conference and 

Consultation Requirements 

B. Critical Habitat 

C. Take Prohibitions 

D. Identification of Those Activities That 

Would Constitute a Violation of Section 

9 of the ESA 

XXI. Peer Review 

XXII. Classification 

A. National Environmental Policy Act 

B. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

I. Background 

On July 28, 1978, NMFS and USFWS, 

collectively referred to as the Services, 

listed the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

under the ESA (43 FR 32800). Pursuant 

to the authority that the statute 

provided, and prior to the current 

language in the definition of ‘‘species’’ 

regarding DPSs, the Services listed the 

species as threatened, except for the 

Florida and Mexican Pacific Coast 

breeding populations, which were listed 

as endangered. The Services published 

recovery plans for U.S. Atlantic (http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/

plans.htm) and U.S. Pacific (including 

the East Pacific) populations of the 

green turtle (63 FR 28359, May 22, 

1998). NMFS designated critical habitat 

for the species to include waters 

surrounding Culebra Island, 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and its 

outlying keys (63 FR 46693, September 

2, 1998). 

On February 16, 2012, the Services 

received a petition from the Association 

of Hawaiian Civic Clubs to identify the 

Hawaiian green turtle population as a 

DPS and ‘‘delist’’ the DPS under the 

ESA. On August 1, 2012, NMFS, with 

USFWS concurrence, determined that 

the petition presented substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted (77 

FR 45571). Initiating a review of new 

information in accordance with the DPS 

policy was consistent with the 

recommendation made in the Services’ 

2007 Green Sea Turtle 5-year Review. 

The Services initiated a status review to 

consider the species across its range, 

determine whether the petitioned action 

is warranted, and determine whether 

other DPSs could be recognized. The 

Services decided to review the 

Hawaiian population in the context of 

green turtles globally with regard to 

application of the DPS policy and in 

light of significant new information 

since the listing of the species in 1978. 

The Services appointed a Status 

Review Team (SRT) in September 2012. 

SRT members were affiliated with 

NMFS Science Centers and the Services’ 

field, regional, and headquarters offices, 

and provided a diverse range of 

expertise, including green turtle 

genetics, demography, ecology, and 

management, as well as risk analysis 

and ESA policy. The SRT was charged 

with reviewing and evaluating all 

relevant scientific information relating 

to green turtle population structure 

globally to determine whether any 

populations may qualify as DPSs and, if 

so, to assess the extinction risk for each 

proposed DPS. Findings of the SRT are 

detailed in the ‘‘Green Turtle (Chelonia 

mydas) Status Review under the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act’’ (hereinafter 

referred to as the Status Review; NMFS 

and USFWS, 2014). The Status Review 

underwent independent peer review by 

14 scientists with expertise in green 

turtle biology, genetics, or related fields, 

and endangered species listing policy. 

The Status Review is available 

electronically at http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/

green.htm. 

This Federal Register document 

announces the 12-month finding on the 

petition to identify the Hawaiian green 

turtle population as a DPS and remove 

the protections of the ESA from the 

DPS, and includes a proposed rule to 

revise the existing listings to identify 11 

green turtle DPSs worldwide and list 

them as threatened or endangered under 

the ESA in place of the existing listings. 

Our determinations have been made 

only after review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

pertaining to the species throughout its 

range and within each DPS. This is 

similar to the action we took for 

loggerhead sea turtles (76 FR 58868, 

September 22, 2011). 

The ESA gives us clear authority to 

make these listing determinations and to 

revise the lists of endangered and 

threatened species to reflect these 

determinations. Section 4(a)(1) of the 

ESA authorizes us to determine by 

regulation whether ‘‘any species,’’ 

which is expressly defined to include 

species, subspecies, and DPS, is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species based on certain factors. Review 

of the status of a species may be 

commenced at any time, either on the 

Services’ own initiative—through a 

status review or in connection with a 

5-year review under Section 4(c)(2)—or 

in response to a petition. Because a DPS 

is not a scientifically recognized entity, 

but rather one that is created under the 

language of the ESA and effectuated 

through our DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, 

February 7, 1996), we have some 

discretion to determine whether the 

species should be reclassified into DPSs 

and what boundaries should be 

recognized for each DPS. Section 4(c)(1) 

gives us authority to update the lists of 

threatened and endangered species to 

reflect these determinations. This can 

include revising the lists to remove a 

species or reclassify the listed entity. 

II. Policies for Delineating Species 

Under the ESA 

Section 3 of the ESA defines 

‘‘species’’ as including ‘‘any subspecies 

of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature.’’ The 

term ‘‘distinct population segment’’ is 

not recognized in the scientific 

literature. Therefore, the Services 

adopted a joint policy for recognizing 

DPSs under the ESA (DPS Policy; 61 FR 

4722) on February 7, 1996. The DPS 

Policy requires the consideration of 

three elements when evaluating the 

status of possible DPSs: (1) The 

discreteness of the population segment 

in relation to the remainder of the 

species to which it belongs; (2) the 

significance of the population segment 

to the species to which it belongs; and 

(3) the population segment’s 

conservation status in relation to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15276 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

ESA’s standards for listing. This is 

discussed further in the Status Review, 

in the section entitled, ‘‘Overview of 

Information and Process Used to 

Identify DPSs.’’ 

III. Listing Determinations Under the 

ESA 

The ESA defines an endangered 

species as one that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (section 3(6)), and a 

threatened species as one that is likely 

to become endangered in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (section 3(20)). 

Thus, in the context of the ESA, the 

Services interpret an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ to be one that is presently in 

danger of extinction. A ‘‘threatened 

species,’’ on the other hand, is not 

presently in danger of extinction, but is 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future. In other words, the primary 

statutory difference between a 

threatened and endangered species is 

the timing of when a species may be in 

danger of extinction, either presently 

(endangered) or in the foreseeable future 

(threatened). 

When we consider whether a species 

might qualify as threatened under the 

ESA, we must consider the meaning of 

the term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ It is 

appropriate to interpret ‘‘foreseeable 

future’’ as the horizon over which 

predictions about the conservation 

status of the species can be reasonably 

relied upon. The foreseeable future 

considers the life history of the species, 

habitat characteristics, availability of 

data, particular threats, ability to predict 

threats, and the reliability to forecast the 

effects of these threats and future events 

on the status of the species under 

consideration. Because a species may be 

susceptible to a variety of threats for 

which different data are available, or 

which operate across different time 

scales, the foreseeable future is not 

necessarily reducible to a particular 

number of years. For the green turtle, 

the SRT used a horizon of 100 years to 

evaluate the likelihood that a DPS 

would reach a critical risk threshold 

(i.e., quasi-extinction). In making the 

proposed listing determinations, we 

applied the horizon of 100 years in our 

consideration of foreseeable future 

under the scope of the definitions of 

endangered and threatened species, 

pursuant to section 3 of the ESA. 

The statute requires us to determine 

whether any species is endangered or 

threatened as a result of any one or 

combination of the following 5-factors: 

(1) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (5) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence (section 4(a)(1)(A–E) of the 

ESA). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA 

requires us to make this determination 

based solely on the best available 

scientific and commercial data available 

after conducting a review of the status 

of the species and taking into account 

any efforts being made by States or 

foreign governments to protect the 

species. 

IV. Biology and Life History of Green 

Turtles 

A thorough account of green turtle 

biology and life history may be found in 

the Status Review, which is 

incorporated here by reference. The 

following is a succinct summary of that 

information. 

The green turtle, C. mydas, has a 

circumglobal distribution, occurring 

throughout tropical, subtropical, and, to 

a lesser extent, temperate waters. Their 

movements within the marine 

environment are not fully understood, 

but it is believed that green turtles 

inhabit coastal waters of over 140 

countries (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 

1989). The Status Review lists 468 

known nesting sites worldwide, with 79 

having nesting aggregations with greater 

than 500 females. The largest green 

turtle nesting aggregation, with an 

estimated number of nesting females 

greater than 132,000, is Tortuguero, 

Costa Rica (Sea Turtle Conservancy, 

2013). There are 14 aggregations 

estimated to have 10,001–100,000 

nesting females: Quintana Roo, Mexico 

(Julio Zurita, pers. comm., 2012); 

Ascension Island, UK (S. Weber, 

Ascension Island Government, pers. 

comm., 2013); Poila ̃o, Guinea-Bissau 

(Catry et al., 2009); Aldabra Atoll, 

Seychelles (Mortimer et al., 2011; 

Mortimer, 2012; J. Mortimer, unpubl. 

data.); Mohe ́li, Comoros Islands, France 

(Bourjea, 2012); Mayotte, Comoros 

Islands (Bourjea, 2012); Europa, 

Esparses Islands, France (Lauret-Stepler 

et al., 2007; Bourjea, 2012); Ras Al 

Hadd, Oman (AlKindi et al., 2008); Ras 

Sharma, Yemen (PERSGA/GEF, 2004); 

Wellesley Group, Australia (Unpubl. 

data cited in Limpus, 2009); Raine 

Island, Australia (Chaloupka et al., 

2008a; Limpus, 2009); Moulter Cay, 

Australia (Limpus, 2009); Capricorn 

Bunker Group of Islands, Australia 

(Limpus et al., 2003); and Colola, 

Mexico (Delgado-Trejo and AlvaradoFigueroa, 2012). 

Most green turtles spend the majority 

of their lives in coastal foraging 

grounds. These areas include fairly 

shallow waters in open coastline and 

protected bays and lagoons. While in 

these areas, green turtles rely on marine 

algae and seagrass as their primary diet 

constituents, although some populations 

also forage heavily on invertebrates. 

These marine habitats are often highly 

dynamic and in areas with annual 

fluctuations in seawater and air 

temperatures, which can cause the 

distribution and abundance of potential 

green turtle food items to vary 

substantially between seasons and years 

(Carballo et al., 2002). 

At nesting beaches, green turtles rely 

on beaches characterized by intact dune 

structures, native vegetation, little to no 

artificial lighting, and 26 to 35° C beach 

temperatures for nesting (Limpus, 1971; 

Salmon et al., 1992; Ackerman, 1997; 

Witherington, 1997; Lorne and Salmon, 

2007). Nests are typically laid at night 

at the base of the primary dune (Hirth, 

1997; Witherington et al., 2006). 

Complete removal of vegetation, or 

coastal construction, can affect thermal 

regimes on beaches and thus affect the 

incubation and resulting sex ratio of 

hatchling turtles. Nests laid in these 

areas are at a higher risk of tidal 

inundation (Schroeder and Mosier, 

2000). 

Hatchlings emerge from their nests en 

masse and almost exclusively at night, 

presumably using decreasing sand 

temperature as a cue (Hendrickson, 

1958; Mrosovsky, 1968). Immediately 

after hatchlings emerge from the nest, 

they begin a period of frenzied activity. 

During this active period, hatchlings 

crawl to the surf, swim, and are swept 

through the surf zone (Carr and Ogren, 

1960; Carr, 1961; Wyneken and Salmon, 

1992). They orient to waves in the 

nearshore area and to the magnetic field 

as they proceed further toward open 

water (Lohmann and Lohmann, 2003). 

Upon leaving the nesting beach and 

entering the marine environment, posthatchling green turtles begin an oceanic 

juvenile phase during which they are 

presumed to primarily inhabit areas 

where surface waters converge to form 

local downwellings that result in linear 

accumulations of floating material, 

especially Sargassum sp. This 

association with downwellings is welldocumented for loggerhead sea turtles 

(Caretta caretta), as well as for some 

post-hatchling green turtles 

(Witherington et al., 2006; 2012). The 

smallest of oceanic green turtles 

associating with these areas are 

relatively active, moving both within 

Sargassum sp. mats and in nearby open 

water, which may limit the ability of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15277 

researchers to detect their presence as 

compared to relatively immobile 

loggerheads of the same life stage that 

associate with similar habitat (Smith 

and Salmon, 2009; Witherington et al., 

2012). 

Oceanic-stage juvenile green turtles 

originating from nesting beaches in the 

Northwest Atlantic appear to use 

oceanic developmental habitats and 

move with the predominant ocean gyres 

for several years before returning to 

their neritic (shallower water, generally 

to 200 m depth, including open 

coastline and protected bays and 

lagoons) foraging and developmental 

habitats (Musick and Limpus, 1997; 

Bolten, 2003). Larger neonate green 

turtles (at least 15–26 cm straight 

carapace length; SCL) are known to 

occupy Sargassum sp. habitats and 

surrounding epipelagic waters, where 

food items include Sargassum sp. and 

associated invertebrates, fish eggs, and 

insects (Witherington et al., 2012). 

Knowledge of the diet and behavior of 

oceanic stage juveniles, however, is 

limited. 

The neritic juvenile stage begins when 

green turtles exit the oceanic zone and 

enter the neritic zone (Bolten, 2003). 

The age at recruitment to the neritic 

zone likely varies with individuals 

leaving the oceanic zone over a wide 

size range (summarized in Avens and 

Snover, 2013). After migrating to the 

neritic zone, juveniles continue 

maturing until they reach adulthood, 

and some may periodically move 

between the neritic and oceanic zones 

(NMFS and USFWS, 2007; Parker et al., 

2011). The neritic zone, including both 

open coastline and protected bays and 

lagoons, provides important foraging 

habitat, inter-nesting habitat, breeding, 

and migratory habitat for adult green 

turtles (Plotkin, 2003; NMFS and 

USFWS, 2007). Some adult females may 

also periodically move between the 

neritic and oceanic zones (Plotkin, 2003; 

Hatase et al., 2006) and, in some 

instances, adult green turtles may reside 

in the oceanic zone for foraging (NMFS 

and USFWS, 2007; Seminoff et al., 

2008; Parker et al., 2011). Despite these 

uses of the oceanic zone by green 

turtles, much remains unknown about 

how oceanography affects juvenile and 

adult survival, adult migration, prey 

availability, and reproductive output. 

Most green turtles exhibit slow 

growth rates, which has been described 

as a consequence of their largely 

herbivorous (i.e., low net energy) diet 

(Bjorndal, 1982). Consistent with slow 

growth, age-to-maturity for green turtles 

appears to be the longest of any sea 

turtle species (Chaloupka and Musick, 

1997; Hirth, 1997). Published age at 

sexual maturity estimates are as high as 

35–50 years, with lower ranges reported 

for known age turtles from the Cayman 

Islands (15–19 years; Bell et al., 2005) 

and Caribbean Mexico (12–20 years; 

Zurita et al., 2012) and some markrecapture projects (e.g., 15–25 years in 

the Eastern Pacific; Seminoff et al., 

2002a). Mean adult reproductive 

lifespan of green turtles from Australia’s 

southern Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has 

been estimated at 19 years using markrecapture and survival data (Chaloupka 

and Limpus, 2005). The maximum 

nesting lifespan observed in a 27-year 

tag return dataset from Trindade Island, 

Brazil was 16 years; however, nesting 

monitoring was discontinuous over time 

(Almeida et al., 2011). Tag return data 

comprising 2,077 females (42,928 

nesting events, 1968-partial 2012 

season) from continuous monitoring at 

French Frigate Shoals (FFS), Hawai‘i 

show maximum nesting lifespans of 37– 

38 years (n=2), with many individuals 

(n=54) documented nesting over a 

minimum of 25–35 years (I. NurziaHumburg, S. Hargrove, and G. Balazs, 

NMFS, unpublished data, 2013). 

V. Overview of the Policies and Process 

Used To Identify DPSs 

The SRT considered a vast array of 

information in assessing whether there 

are any green turtle population 

segments that satisfy the DPS criteria of 

being both discrete and significant. In 

anticipation of conducting a green turtle 

status review, NMFS contracted two 

post-doctoral associates in 2011 to 

collect and synthesize genetic and 

demographic information on green 

turtles worldwide. The SRT was 

presented with, and evaluated, this 

genetic and demographic information. 

Demographic information included 

green turtle nesting information; 

morphological and behavioral data; 

movements, as indicated by tagging 

(flipper and passive integrated 

transponder (PIT) tags) and satellite 

telemetry data; and anthropogenic 

impacts. Also discussed and considered 

as a part of this analysis were 

oceanographic features and geographic 

barriers. 

A population may be considered 

discrete if it satisfies either one of the 

following conditions: (1) It is markedly 

separated from other populations of the 

same taxon as a consequence of 

physical, physiological, ecological, or 

behavioral factors; or (2) it is delimited 

by international governmental 

boundaries within which differences in 

control of exploitation, management of 

habitat, conservation status, or 

regulatory mechanisms exist that are 

significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) 

of the ESA (61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996). According to the policy, 

quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity can be 

used to provide evidence for item (1). 

The SRT compiled a list of attributes 

that suggested various population 

groups might be considered discrete, 

identified potentially discrete units, and 

discussed alternative scenarios for 

lumping or splitting these potentially 

discrete units. After arriving at a 

tentative list of units, each member of 

the SRT was given 100 points that could 

be distributed among two categories: (1) 

The unit under consideration is 

discrete, and (2) the unit under 

consideration is not discrete. The spread 

of points reflects the level of certainty 

of the SRT surrounding a decision to 

call the unit discrete. The SRT 

determined that there are 11 discrete 

regional populations of green turtles 

globally. Each of these was then 

evaluated for significance. 

A population may be considered 

significant if it satisfies any one of the 

following conditions: (1) Persistence of 

the discrete segment in an ecological 

setting unusual or unique for the taxon; 

(2) evidence that loss of the discrete 

segment would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon; (3) 

evidence that the discrete segment 

represents the only surviving natural 

occurrence of a taxon that may be more 

abundant elsewhere as an introduced 

population outside its historical range; 

and (4) evidence that the discrete 

segment differs markedly from other 

populations of the species in its genetic 

characteristics. Because condition (3) is 

not applicable to green turtles, the SRT 

addressed conditions (1), (2) and (4). 

The SRT listed the attributes that would 

make potential DPSs (those determined 

to be discrete in the previous step) 

significant. As in the vote for 

discreteness, members of the SRT were 

then given 100 points with which to 

vote for whether each unit met the 

significance criterion in the joint policy. 

All units that had been identified as 

discrete were also determined to be 

significant. 

For more discussion on the process 

the SRT used to identify DPSs, see 

Section 3 of the Status Review 

document. 

A. Discreteness Determination 

In evaluating discreteness among the 

global green turtle population, the SRT 

began by focusing on the physical 

separation of ocean basins (i.e., Atlantic, 

Pacific, and Indian Oceans). The result 

was an evaluation of data by major 

ocean basins, although it quickly 

became clear that the Indian and Pacific 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15278 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Ocean populations overlapped. The 

evaluation by ocean basin was not to 

preclude any larger or smaller DPS 

delineation, but to aid in data 

organization and assessment. We 

organized this section by ocean basin to 

explain the discreteness determination 

process and results. 

Within each ocean basin, the SRT 

started by evaluating genetic 

information. The genetic data consisted 

of results from studies using maternally 

inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), 

biparentally inherited nuclear DNA 

(nDNA) microsatellite (a section of DNA 

consisting of very short nucleotide 

sequences repeated many times), and 

single nucleotide polymorphism (a DNA 

sequence variation occurring commonly 

within a population) markers. Next, the 

SRT reviewed tagging, telemetry and 

demographic data, and additional 

information such as potential 

differences in morphology. The SRT 

also considered whether the available 

information suggests that green turtle 

population segments are separated by 

vicariant barriers, such as 

oceanographic features (e.g., current 

systems), or biogeographic boundaries. 

Genetic information that was 

presented to the SRT resulted from a 

global phylogenetic analysis (analysis 

based on natural evolutionary 

relationships) based on sequence data 

from a total of 129 mtDNA haplotypes 

(i.e., mtDNA sequences, which are 

inherited together) identified from 

approximately 4,400 individuals 

sampled at 105 green turtle nesting sites 

around the world (Jensen and Dutton, 

NMFS, unpublished data; M. Jensen, 

NRC, pers. comm., 2013). Results 

indicated that the mtDNA variation 

present in green turtles throughout the 

world today occurs within eight major 

clades (i.e., a group consisting of an 

ancestor and all its descendants) that are 

structured geographically within ocean 

basins. These clades represent 

similarities between haplotypes on 

evolutionary timescales as opposed to 

ecological timescales. See Figure 1 for a 

visual representation of these clades. 

There is divergence among individual 

haplotypes within each green turtle 

clade (M. Jensen, NRC, pers. comm., 

2013) and discrete populations can exist 

within these clades. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15279 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

1. Atlantic Ocean/Mediterranean Sea 

Two of the eight major mtDNA clades, 

Clades I and II, are found in the 

Atlantic/Mediterranean region. Clade I 

includes haplotypes primarily found in 

turtles from the Mediterranean and the 

western North Atlantic. Within Clade I, 

two strongly divergent groups of 

haplotypes are found, with one group 

being restricted to the Mediterranean 

and the other being restricted to the 

western North Atlantic. Mediterranean 

and western North Atlantic turtles share 

only one specific haplotype that has 

been found in only two individuals, 

indicating very strong long-term 

isolation of females. As such, there is 

strong evidence that these two 

geographically-separated groups of 

divergent haplotypes may be considered 

discrete. 

In addition to genetic evidence for 

discreteness, in the Mediterranean, 

green turtles are spatially separated 

from populations in the Atlantic and 

Indian Oceans, with the nearest known 

nesting sites outside the Mediterranean 

being several thousand kilometers away 

in the Republic of Senegal (Senegal), 

and the North Atlantic population being 

more than 8,000 km away. Further, no 

turtles tagged in the eastern 

Mediterranean have been recovered 

farther west than the Tunisian Republic 

(Tunisia) inside the Mediterranean. 

Nesting females from Cyprus, Turkey, 

the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria), and 

the State of Israel (Israel) have been 

satellite tracked to the Arab Republic of 

Egypt (Egypt), Libya, and Turkey—with 

movements largely restricted to the 

eastern Mediterranean (Godley et al., 

2002; Broderick et al., 2007). Postnesting turtles from this region migrate 

primarily along the coast from their 

nesting beach to their foraging and 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP23mr15.000</GPH>
15280 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

overwintering grounds in the 

Mediterranean (Godley et al., 2002; 

Broderick et al., 2007). 

Demographic evidence of discreteness 

of Mediterranean green turtles lies in 

the fact that Mediterranean green turtles 

are the second smallest green turtles 

worldwide (the smallest being in the 

eastern Pacific), with a mean nesting 

size in Alagadi, Cyprus of 92 cm Curved 

Carapace Length (CCL; Broderick et al., 

2003), compared with 95 cm to 110 cm 

CCL size range for most other 

populations. 

In the North Atlantic, tag recovery 

and telemetry data indicate that nesting 

females primarily reside within the 

North Atlantic. Some nesting females 

tagged at Tortuguero, Costa Rica were 

recaptured in the South Atlantic 

(Troe ̈ng et al., 2005). There is some 

degree of mixing of immature turtles on 

foraging pastures between the North and 

South Atlantic; however, nesting sites in 

the eastern Caribbean carry mostly 

mtDNA haplotypes from a different 

clade (II), indicating strong long-term 

isolation. Tagging studies have 

identified juveniles from this 

population in waters off Brazil and 

Argentina, but we found no evidence of 

movement of mature individuals. 

The second clade within the Atlantic 

Ocean basin, Clade II, includes 

haplotypes found in all South Atlantic 

nesting sites, some eastern Caribbean 

turtles, and some turtles in the 

southwest Indian Ocean. With a few 

exceptions, green turtles in the South 

Atlantic carry an mtDNA haplotype that 

is found nowhere else, indicating strong 

isolation of matrilines over evolutionary 

time periods. The exceptions to this 

pattern are: (1) One nesting site from the 

eastern Caribbean, which exhibits a low 

frequency of a haplotype from the North 

Atlantic/Mediterranean clade (Clade I); 

(2) nesting sites from the Gulf of 

Mexico/Central America, which have a 

low frequency of Clade II haplotypes; 

and (3) two nesting sites from southeast 

Africa, which have high frequencies of 

Clade II haplotypes. The presence of a 

shared haplotype in South Atlantic and 

southwest Indian Ocean rookeries 

demonstrates for the first time a recent 

matrilineal link between Atlantic and 

Indian Ocean green turtle populations 

(Bourjea et al., 2007b). However, the 

SRT believes all these exceptions reflect 

historical events rather than 

contemporary connectivity. This 

interpretation is supported by satellite 

telemetry, which reveals extensive 

movements of turtles within the South 

Atlantic region but no evidence for 

migrations into other areas, other than 

rare instances of movement into 

foraging areas in the North Atlantic. 

Long stretches of cold water along the 

coasts of Patagonia and southwest 

Africa serve to isolate South Atlantic 

turtles from populations in the Indian 

and Pacific Oceans. 

Foraging ground studies in the 

Atlantic have generally shown regional 

structuring with strong stock 

contribution from nearby regional 

nesting sites, but little mixing over long 

distances (Bolker et al., 2007). Overall, 

the distribution of the two genetic 

haplotype lineages (Clade I and Clade II) 

is very similar to what is seen for the 

nesting sites and indicates a strong 

regional structuring with little overlap 

(Bolker et al., 2007). However, a recent 

study showed that a large proportion of 

juvenile green turtles in the Cape Verde 

Islands in the eastern Atlantic 

originated from distant nesting sites 

across the Atlantic, namely Suriname 

(38 percent), Ascension Island (12 

percent) and Guinea Bissau (19 percent), 

suggesting that, like loggerheads, green 

turtles in the Atlantic undertake 

transoceanic developmental migrations 

(Monzo ́n-Argu ̈ ello et al., 2010). The fact 

that long distance dispersal is only seen 

for juvenile turtles suggests that larger 

adult-sized turtles return to forage 

within the region of their natal nesting 

sites, thereby limiting the potential for 

gene-flow across larger scales (Monzo ́nArgu ̈ ello et al., 2010). 

In the South Atlantic, flipper tag 

recoveries have established movement 

between feeding grounds and nesting 

sites in the Caribbean and Brazil (Lima 

et al., 2003; Lima et al., 2008; Lima et 

al., 2012), and telemetry data indicate 

that juvenile green turtles move from 

Argentina to Uruguay and Brazil, from 

Uruguay to Brazil, and from the Guianas 

to Brazil. Telemetry studies indicate 

that nesting females from the eastern 

South Atlantic (west coast of Africa) are 

confined to the eastern South Atlantic, 

and nesting females from the western 

South Atlantic are confined to the 

western South Atlantic. In the eastern 

South Atlantic, all tracked turtles 

remained in the general vicinity of their 

release location. Nesting females from 

Ascension Island were tracked to 

foraging grounds along the coast of 

Brazil. 

Finally, demographic evidence for 

discreteness of South Atlantic green 

turtles lies in the fact that the South 

Atlantic is home to the largest green 

turtles in the world, with a mean 

nesting size of green turtles at Atol das 

Rocas, Brazil of 118.6 cm CCL (n=738), 

compared with 95 cm to 110 cm CCL 

size range for most other populations. 

Based on the information presented 

above, the SRT concluded, and we 

concur, that three discrete populations 

exist in the Atlantic Ocean/

Mediterranean: (1) North Atlantic, (2) 

Mediterranean, and (3) South Atlantic. 

These three populations are markedly 

separated from each other and from 

populations within the Pacific Ocean 

and Indian Ocean basins as a 

consequence of physical (including both 

oceanographic basins and currents), 

ecological, and behavioral factors. 

Information supporting this conclusion 

includes genetic analysis, flipper tag 

recoveries, and satellite telemetry. 

2. Indian Ocean 

Green turtles from the Indian Ocean 

exhibit haplotypes from Clades II, III, 

IV, VI, and VII. In the southwest Indian 

Ocean, Bourjea et al. (2007b) genetically 

assessed the population structure among 

288 nesting green turtles from 10 

nesting sites. Overall, the southwest 

Indian Ocean appears to have at least 

two genetic stocks: (1) The South 

Mozambique Channel (Juan de Nova 

and Europa); and (2) the North 

Mozambique Channel. As stated earlier, 

the authors recorded a high presence of 

a common and widespread South 

Atlantic Ocean haplotype (CM–A8) in 

the South Mozambique Channel. 

However, the observation that only a 

single Atlantic haplotype has been 

observed and that it occurs in high 

frequency among South Mozambique 

Channel rookeries suggests that gene 

flow is not ongoing (Bourjea et al., 

2007b). Nesting sites in the North 

Mozambique Channel share several 

haplotypes (including CmP47 and 

CmP49) with nesting sites in the eastern 

Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia and the 

Western Pacific, indicating strongconnectivity with the eastern Indian 

Ocean population. However, tagging 

and tracking data document movements 

within the Southwest Indian Ocean but 

not between it and the eastern Indian 

and western Pacific Oceans. Although 

there is some evidence of transboundary movement between the 

southwest Indian Ocean and the 

population in the North Indian Ocean, 

evidence from tag returns indicates that 

most remain in the southwest Indian 

Ocean. Indeed, some green turtles in 

Tanzania are probably resident, and 

others are highly migratory, moving to 

and from nesting and feeding grounds 

within the southwest Indian Ocean in 

Kenya, Seychelles, Comoros, Mayotte, 

Europa Island and South Africa (Muir, 

2005). From 2009 to 2011, 90 satellite 

transmitters deployed on nesting green 

turtles at five nesting sites in the 

southwest Indian Ocean showed that 

nearly 20 percent of the tracked turtles 

used Madagascar coastal foraging 

grounds while more than 80 percent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15281 

used the east African coasts, including 

waters off north Mozambique and south 

Tanzania. The SRT determined that 

spatial separation between the 

southwest Indian Ocean and other IndoPacific populations, as well as an 

apparent nesting gap, the lack of transboundary recoveries in tagging, and 

localized telemetry, indicate 

discreteness from other populations in 

the Indo-Pacific. 

In the North Indian Ocean, limited 

information from only a single nesting 

site (Jana Island, Saudi Arabia, n=27) 

exists on the genetic structure (M. 

Jensen, NRC, pers. comm., 2013). 

Nonetheless, four mtDNA haplotypes 

never reported from any other nesting 

site were identified from Jana Island, 

and are highly divergent from other 

haplotypes in the Indian Ocean. This 

population also appears to be isolated 

from other Indian populations by 

substantial breaks in nesting habitat 

along the Horn of Africa and along the 

entire eastern side of the Indian 

subcontinent. 

Tagging of turtles on nesting beaches 

of the North Indian Ocean started in the 

late 1970s and indicates that some 

turtles in the North Indian Ocean 

migrate long distances from distant 

feeding grounds to nesting beaches 

while others are quite sedentary, but all 

stay within the North Indian Ocean. 

Tagging studies have revealed that some 

turtles nesting on Ras Al Hadd and 

Masirah, Oman can be found as far away 

as Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Saudi 

Arabia, the upper Gulf, and Pakistan 

(Ross, 1987; Salm, 1991), and a green 

turtle tagged in Oman was found in the 

Maldives (Al-Saady et al., 2005). No 

tagging has been carried out on feeding 

grounds (Al-Saady et al., 2005). 

A few green turtles in the North 

Indian Ocean have been fitted with 

satellite transmitters and reported at 

www.seaturtle.org, but no data have 

been published. One telemetered female 

green turtle remained in the coastal 

areas of the Persian Gulf for 49 days (N. 

Pilcher, Marine Research Foundation, 

pers. comm., 2013), and two nesting 

turtles were telemetered at Masirah 

Island, Oman, both of which moved 

southward along the Arabian Peninsula 

and were found in the Red Sea when the 

transmissions ceased (Rees et al. 2012). 

Telemetry data for captive-hatched and 

reared green turtles at Republic of 

Maldives (Vabbinfaru Island, Male 

Atoll) have indicated wide movement 

patterns within the Indian Ocean (N. 

Pilcher, Marine Research Foundation, 

pers. comm., 2013). 

In the eastern Indian Ocean, turtles 

mix readily with those in the western 

Pacific. Genetic sampling in the eastern 

Indian and western Pacific Ocean 

regions has been fairly extensive with 

more than 22 nesting sites sampled 

although, because there are a high 

number of nesting sites in this region 

and there is complex structure, there 

remain gaps in sampling relative to 

distribution (e.g., Thailand, Vietnam, 

parts of Indonesia, and the Philippines). 

Most nesting sites are dominated by 

haplotypes from Clade VII, but with 

some overlap of Clades III and IV 

throughout the Indian Ocean—evidence 

of a complex colonization history in this 

region. While one common haplotype is 

shared across the Indian Ocean, 

substantial gaps in nesting sites along 

the east coast of India and in the 

southern Indian Ocean serve to isolate 

the eastern Indian-western Pacific 

population from those in the north and 

southwest Indian Ocean. The Wallace 

Line (a boundary drawn in 1859 by the 

British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace 

that separates the highly distinctive 

faunas of the Asian and Australian 

biogeographic regions) and its northern 

extension separate this population from 

populations to the east, which carry 

haplotypes primarily from Clade IV. 

Nesting sites to the northern extreme 

(Taiwan and Japan) show more complex 

patterns of higher mixing of divergent 

haplotypes, and the placement of 

individual nesting sites within this area 

is somewhat uncertain and may become 

better resolved when additional genetic 

data are available. 

Significant population substructuring 

occurs among nesting sites in this area. 

Mixed-stock analysis of foraging 

grounds shows that green turtles from 

multiple nesting beaches commonly mix 

at feeding areas across northern 

Australia (Dethmers et al., 2006) and 

Malaysia (Jensen, 2010), with higher 

contributions from nearby large nesting 

sites. Satellite tracking also shows green 

turtle movement throughout the eastern 

Indian and western Pacific (Cheng, 

2000; Dermawan, 2002; Charuchinda et 

al., 2003; Wang, 2006). 

Given the information presented 

above, the SRT concluded, and we 

concur, that three discrete populations 

exist in the Indian Ocean, with the third 

overlapping with the Pacific: (1) 

Southwest Indian, (2) North Indian, and 

(3) East Indian-West Pacific. These three 

populations are markedly separated 

from each other and from populations 

within the Atlantic Ocean as a 

consequence of physical, ecological, and 

behavioral factors. Information 

supporting this conclusion includes 

genetic analysis, flipper tag recoveries, 

and satellite telemetry. 

3. Pacific Ocean 

The central west Pacific encompasses 

most of the area commonly referred to 

as Micronesia as well as parts of 

Melanesia. Genetic sampling in the 

central west Pacific has recently 

improved, but remains challenging, 

given the large number of small island 

and atoll nesting sites. At least five 

management units have been identified 

in the region (Palau, Independent State 

of Papua New Guinea (PNG), Yap, 

CNMI/Guam, and the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands (Marshall Islands); 

Dethmers et al., 2006; M. Jensen, NRC, 

pers. comm., 2013; Dutton et al., 2014). 

The central west Pacific carries 

haplotypes from Clade IV, while the 

populations to the west carry 

haplotypes predominantly from Clade 

VII, so any mixing presumably reflects 

foraging migrations rather than 

interbreeding. The boundary between 

the central west Pacific and the East 

Indian-West Pacific populations is 

congruent with the northern portion of 

the Wallace Line. Wide expanses of 

open ocean separate the central west 

Pacific from the central north Pacific, 

and genetic data provide no evidence of 

gene flow between the central west 

Pacific and the central north Pacific 

over evolutionary time scales. Tagging 

studies also have not found evidence for 

migration of breeding adults to or from 

adjacent populations. 

In the southwest Pacific, genetic 

sampling has been extensive for larger 

nesting sites along the GBR, the Coral 

Sea and New Caledonia (Dethmers et al., 

2006; Jensen, 2010; Dutton et al., 2014). 

However, several smaller nesting sites 

in this region have not been sampled 

(e.g., Solomon Islands, Republic of 

Vanuatu (Vanuatu), Tuvalu, PNG, etc.). 

The southwest Pacific population is 

characterized by haplotypes from Clade 

V, which have been found only at 

nesting sites in this population. It also 

has a high frequency of haplotypes from 

Clades III and IV, as well as low 

frequency of haplotypes from Clades VI 

and VII, making this area highly diverse 

(haplotypes from the widespread Clade 

IV differ from those found in the central 

west and central south Pacific). 

Traditional capture-mark-recapture 

studies (Limpus, 2009) and genetic 

mixed-stock analysis (Jensen, 2010) 

show that turtles from several different 

southwest Pacific nesting sites overlap 

on feeding grounds along the east coast 

of Australia. This mixing in foraging 

areas might provide mating 

opportunities between turtles from 

different stocks as evidenced by the lack 

of differentiation found between the 

northern and southern GBR nesting sites 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15282 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

for nuclear DNA (FitzSimmons et al., 

1997). However, tagging, telemetry, and 

genetic studies show movement of 

breeding adults occurs mainly within 

the southwest Pacific. 

In the central South Pacific, genetic 

sampling has been limited to two 

nesting sites (American Samoa and 

French Polynesia) among the many 

small isolated nesting sites that 

characterize this region, but they both 

contain relatively high frequencies of 

Clade III haplotypes, which are not 

found in the central west and southwest 

Pacific populations. Nesting sites from 

this area share some haplotypes with 

surrounding nesting sites, but at low 

frequency. There are also limited data 

on mixed-stock foraging areas from this 

region. Flipper tag returns and satellite 

tracking studies demonstrate that postnesting females travel the complete 

geographic breadth of this population, 

from French Polynesia in the east to Fiji 

in the west, and sometimes even slightly 

beyond (Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993; 

Craig et al., 2004; Maison et al., 2010; 

White, 2012), as far as the Philippines 

(Trevor, 2009). The complete extent of 

migratory movements is unknown. The 

central South Pacific is isolated by vast 

expanses of open ocean from turtle 

populations to the north (Hawai‘i) and 

east (Galapagos), and in both of these 

areas all turtle haplotypes are from an 

entirely different clade (Clade VIII), 

indicating lack of genetic exchange 

across these barriers. 

The central North Pacific, which 

includes the Hawaiian Archipelago and 

Johnston Atoll, is inhabited by green 

turtles that are geographically discrete 

in their genetic characteristics, range, 

and movements, as evidenced by 

genetic studies and mark-recapture 

studies using flipper tags, microchip 

tags, and satellite telemetry. The key 

nesting aggregations within the 

Hawaiian Archipelago have all been 

genetically sampled. Mitochondrial 

DNA studies show no significant 

differentiation (based on haplotype 

frequency) between FFS and Laysan 

Island (P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 

2013). While the Hawaiian Islands do 

share haplotypes with Revillagigedos 

Islands (CmP1.1 and CmP3.1) at low 

frequency, the populations remain 

highly differentiated, and there is little 

evidence of significant ongoing gene 

flow. The Frey et al. (2013) analysis of 

mtDNA and nDNA in scattered nesting 

sites on the main Hawaiian Islands 

(MHI; Molokai, Maui, Oahu, Lanai, and 

Kauai) showed that nesting in the MHI 

might be attributed to a relatively small 

number of females that appear to be 

related to each other and 

demographically isolated from FFS. 

Turtles foraging in the MHI originate 

from Hawaiian nesting sites, with very 

rare records of turtles from outside the 

central North Pacific (Dutton et al., 

2008), and there is a general absence of 

turtles from the Hawaiian breeding 

population at foraging areas outside the 

central North Pacific. From 1965–2013, 

17,536 green turtles (juvenile through 

adult stages) were tagged. With only 

three exceptions, the 7,360 recaptures of 

these tagged turtles have been within 

the Hawaiian Archipelago. The three 

outliers involved recoveries in Japan, 

the Marshall Islands, and the 

Philippines (G. Balazs, NMFS, pers. 

comm., 2013). 

Information from tagging at FFS, areas 

in the MHI, the Northwest Hawaiian 

Islands (NWHI) to the northwest of FFS, 

and at Johnston Atoll shows that 

reproductive females and males 

periodically migrate to FFS for seasonal 

breeding from the other locations. At the 

end of the season they return to their 

respective foraging areas. The 

reproductive migrations of 19 satellite 

tracked green turtles (16 females and 3 

males) all involved movements between 

FFS and the MHI. Conventional tagging 

using microchips and metal flipper tags 

has resulted in the documentation of 

164 turtles making reproductive 

movements from or to FFS and foraging 

pastures in the MHI, and 58 turtles from 

or to FFS and the foraging pastures in 

the NWHI (G. Balazs, NMFS, unpubl. 

data). 

Hawaiian green turtles also exhibit 

morphological features that may make 

them discrete from other populations, 

possibly reflecting genetic as well as 

ecological adaptations. In the Hawai‘i 

population, and in Australian 

populations, green turtles have a welldeveloped crop, which has not been 

found in Caribbean or eastern Pacific 

populations of green turtles (Balazs et 

al., 1998; J. Seminoff, NMFS, unpubl. 

data). In addition, juvenile green turtles 

in Hawai‘i have proportionally larger 

rear flippers than those in the western 

Caribbean (Wyneken and Balazs, 1996; 

Balazs et al., 1998). These anatomical 

differences may reflect adaptive 

variation to different environmental 

conditions. A crop that holds food 

material in the esophagus would permit 

more food to be ingested during each 

foraging event in a more dynamic 

feeding environment, which is helpful 

along wind-swept rugged coastlines 

where large waves crash ashore. Larger 

flippers would also aid in making them 

stronger swimmers in this feeding 

environment, and during reproductive 

migrations across rough pelagic waters, 

as opposed to calmer coastal waters 

(Balazs et al., 1998). 

The central North Pacific population 

and those in the central South Pacific 

and central west Pacific appear to be 

separated by large oceanic areas, and the 

central North Pacific and the eastern 

Pacific populations are separated by the 

East Pacific Barrier, an oceanographic 

barrier that greatly restricts or 

eliminates gene flow for most marine 

species from a wide range of taxa 

(Briggs, 1974). 

In the eastern Pacific, genetic 

sampling has been extensive and the 

coverage in this region is substantial, 

considering the relatively small 

population sizes of most eastern Pacific 

nesting sites, which include both 

mainland and insular nesting. This 

sampling indicates complete isolation of 

nesting females between the eastern and 

western Pacific nesting sites. Recent 

efforts to determine the nesting stock 

origins of green turtles assembled in 

foraging areas have found that green 

turtles from several eastern Pacific 

nesting stocks commonly mix at feeding 

areas in the Gulf of California and along 

the Pacific coast in San Diego Bay, U.S. 

(Nichols, 2003; P. Dutton, NMFS, 

unpubl. data). In addition, green turtles 

of eastern Pacific origin have been 

found, albeit very rarely, in waters off 

Hawai‘i (LeRoux et al., 2003; Dutton et 

al., 2008), Japan (Kuroyanagi et al., 

1999; Hamabata et al., 2009), and New 

Zealand (Godoy et al., 2012). A recent 

study of juvenile green turtles foraging 

at Gorgona Island in the Republic of 

Colombia indicated a small number (5 

percent) of turtles with the haplotype 

CmP22, which was recently discovered 

to be common in nesting green turtles 

from the Marshall Islands and American 

Samoa (Dutton et al., 2014). This shows 

that, despite the isolation of nesting 

females between the eastern and 

western Pacific, a small number of 

immature turtles successfully cross the 

Pacific during developmental 

migrations in both directions. However, 

it is important to point out that there is 

no evidence of mature turtles inhabiting 

foraging or nesting habitat across the 

Pacific from their region of origin. 

Recent nDNA studies provide insights 

that are consistent with patterns of 

differentiation found with mtDNA in 

the eastern Pacific. Roden et al. (2013) 

found significant differentiation 

between FFS and two eastern Pacific 

populations (the Gala ́pagos Islands, 

Ecuador and Michoaca ́n, Mexico) and 

greater connectivity between Galapagos 

and Michoaca ́n than between FFS and 

either of the eastern Pacific nesting 

sites. 

Flipper tagging and satellite telemetry 

data show that dispersal and 

reproductive migratory movements of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15283 

green turtles originating from the 

eastern Pacific region are generally 

confined to that region. Long-term 

flipper tagging programs at Michoaca ́n 

(Alvarado-Dı ́az and Figueroa, 1992) and 

in the Gala ́pagos Islands (Green, 1984; 

P. Zarate, University of Florida, pers. 

comm., 2012) produced 94 tag returns 

from foraging areas throughout the 

eastern Pacific (e.g., Seminoff et al., 

2002b). There were two apparent 

groupings, with tags attached to turtles 

nesting in the Gala ́pagos largely 

recovered along the shores from Costa 

Rica to Chile in the southeastern Pacific, 

and long-distance tag returns from the 

Michoaca ́n nesting site primarily from 

foraging areas in Mexico to Nicaragua. 

However, there was a small degree of 

overlap between these two regions, as at 

least one Michoaca ́n tag was recovered 

as far south as Colombia (Alvarado-Dı ́az 

and Figueroa, 1992). 

Satellite telemetry efforts with green 

turtles in the region have shown similar 

results to those for flipper tag 

recoveries. A total of 23 long-distance 

satellite tracks were considered for the 

Status Review (Seminoff, 2000; Nichols, 

2003; Seminoff et al., 2008). Satellite 

data show that turtles tracked in 

northeastern Mexico (Nichols, 2003; J. 

Nichols, California Academy of 

Sciences, unpubl. data) and California 

(P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2010) 

all stayed within the region, whereas 

turtles tracked from nesting beaches in 

the Gala ́pagos Islands all remained in 

waters off Central America and the 

broader southeastern Pacific Ocean 

(Seminoff et al., 2008). 

Demographic evidence of discreteness 

is also found in morphological 

differences between green turtles in the 

eastern Pacific and those found 

elsewhere. The smallest green turtles 

worldwide are found in the eastern 

Pacific, where mean nesting size is 82.0 

cm CCL in Michoaca ́n, Mexico (n=718, 

(Alvarado-Dı ́az and Figueroa, 1992) and 

86.7 cm CCL in the Gala ́pagos (n=2708; 

(Za ́rate et al., 2003), compared to the 95 

cm to 110 cm CCL size range for most 

green turtles. In addition, Kamezaki and 

Matsui (1995) found differences in skull 

morphology among green turtle 

populations on a broad global scale 

when analyzing specimens representing 

west and east Pacific (Japan and 

Gala ́pagos), Indian Ocean (Comoros and 

Seychelles), and Caribbean (Costa Rica 

and Guyana) populations. The eastern 

Pacific was different from others based 

on discriminant function analysis (used 

to discriminate between two or more 

naturally occurring groups). 

Given the information presented 

above, the SRT concluded, and we 

concur, that there are five discrete 

populations entirely within the Pacific 

Ocean: (1) Central West Pacific, (2) 

Southwest Pacific, (3) Central South 

Pacific, (4) Central North Pacific, and (5) 

East Pacific. These five populations are 

markedly separated from each other and 

from populations within the Atlantic 

Ocean and Indian Oceans as a 

consequence of physical, ecological, 

behavioral, and oceanographic factors. 

Information supporting this conclusion 

includes genetic analysis, flipper tag 

recoveries, and satellite telemetry. 

Collectively, all observations above 

led the SRT to propose that green turtles 

from the following geographic areas 

might be considered ‘‘discrete’’ 

according to criteria in the joint DPS 

policy: 

(1) North Atlantic Ocean 

(2) Mediterranean Sea 

(3) South Atlantic Ocean 

(4) Southwest Indian Ocean 

(5) North Indian Ocean 

(6) East Indian Ocean-West Pacific 

Ocean 

(7) Central West Pacific Ocean 

(8) Southwest Pacific Ocean 

(9) Central South Pacific Ocean 

(10) Central North Pacific Ocean 

(11) East Pacific Ocean 

B. Significance Determination 

In accordance with the DPS Policy, 

the SRT next reviewed whether the 

population segments identified in the 

discreteness analysis were biologically 

and ecologically significant to the taxon 

to which they belong, which is the 

taxonomic species C. mydas. Data 

relevant to the significance question 

include ecological, behavioral, genetic 

and morphological data. The SRT 

considered the following factors, listed 

in the DPS Policy, in determining 

whether the discrete population 

segments were significant: (1) Evidence 

that loss of the discrete segment would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of the taxon; (2) evidence that the 

discrete segment differs markedly from 

other populations of the species in its 

genetic characteristics; and (3) 

persistence of the discrete segment in an 

unusual or unique ecological setting. 

The DPS policy also allows for 

consideration of other factors if they are 

appropriate to the biology or ecology of 

the species, such as unique 

morphological or demographic 

characteristics, and unique movement 

patterns. 

1. North Atlantic 

Green turtles in the North Atlantic 

differ markedly in their genetic 

characteristics from other regional 

populations. They are strongly divergent 

from the Mediterranean population (the 

only other population within Clade I), 

and turtles from adjacent populations in 

the eastern Caribbean carry haplotypes 

from a different clade. The North 

Atlantic population has globally unique 

haplotypes. Therefore, the loss of the 

population would result in significant 

genetic loss to the species as a whole. 

The green turtles within the North 

Atlantic population occupy a large 

portion of one of the major ocean basins 

in the world; therefore, the loss of this 

segment would represent a significant 

gap in the global range of green turtles. 

Green turtles take advantage of the 

warm waters of the Gulf Stream to nest 

in North Carolina at 34° N., which is 

farther from the equator than any other 

nesting sites outside the Mediterranean 

Sea. Tagging and telemetry studies show 

that the North Atlantic green turtle 

population has minimal mixing with 

populations in the South Atlantic and 

Mediterranean regions. The mean size of 

nesting females in the North Atlantic, 

which could reflect the ecological 

setting and/or be genetically based, is 

larger (average 101.7–109.3 cm CCL; 

(Guzma ́n-Herna ́ndez, 2001, 2006) than 

those in the adjacent Mediterranean Sea 

(average 88–96 cm CCL), and smaller 

than those at varying locations in the 

South Atlantic, such as those at Isla 

Trindade, Brazil (average 115.2 cm CCL; 

Hirth, 1997; Almeida et al., 2011), Atol 

das Rocas, Brazil (112.9–118.6 cm CCL; 

Hirth, 1997; Bellini et al., 2013), and 

Ascension Island (average 116.8 cm 

CCL; Hirth, 1997). 

Another factor indicating uniqueness 

of the North Atlantic population is a 

typical 2-year remigration interval, as 

compared to 3-year or longer intervals 

that are more common elsewhere 

(Witherington et al., 2006). 

2. Mediterranean 

Mediterranean turtles differ markedly 

in their genetic characteristics from 

other regional populations, with 

globally unique haplotypes and strong 

divergence from the other population 

within Clade I (the North Atlantic 

population). Therefore, the loss of the 

population would result in significant 

genetic loss to the species as a whole. 

Given this genetic distinctiveness and 

the distinctive environmental 

conditions, it is likely that turtles from 

the eastern Mediterranean have 

developed local adaptations that help 

them persist in this area. Mediterranean 

females are smaller than those in any 

other regional population except the 

Eastern Pacific, averaging 92.0 cm CCL 

(Broderick et al., 2003) compared to the 

global average of 95 cm–110 cm CCL. 

The loss of the population would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15284 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

of the taxon. The population 

encompasses a large region, separated 

from other regional populations by large 

expanses of ocean, and with an apparent 

biogeographic boundary formed by the 

western Mediterranean. 

Finally, the Mediterranean Sea 

appears to be a unique ecological setting 

for the species. It is the most saline 

marine water basin in the world (38 

parts per thousand (ppt) or higher), is 

nearly enclosed, and is outside the 

normal latitudinal range for the species, 

being the farthest from the equator of 

any green turtle population. Although 

similar information is not available for 

green turtles, it has been postulated that 

the high salinity of sea water in the 

Mediterranean acts as a ‘‘barrier’’ 

preventing loggerhead sea turtles from 

moving among the areas of the Western 

Mediterranean, explaining why they do 

not mix between the north and south 

Mediterranean as juveniles (Revelles et 

al., 2008). All nesting sites within the 

Mediterranean are between latitudes 

31–40° N., which not only affects 

temperature but results in more seasonal 

variation in day length and 

environmental conditions, which may 

have fostered local adaptations in green 

turtles living there. 

3. South Atlantic 

The South Atlantic population has 

globally unique haplotypes. Therefore, 

the loss of the population would result 

in significant genetic loss to the species 

as a whole. The South Atlantic 

population contains the only nesting 

site in the world associated with a midocean ridge. This unique ecological 

setting at Ascension Island, one of the 

largest nesting sites within this 

population, ensures diverse nesting 

habitats and promotes resilience for the 

species. This population spans an entire 

hemispheric ocean basin, and its loss 

would result in a gap of at least 12,000 

km between populations off southeast 

Africa and those in Florida, clearly a 

significant gap in the range of the taxon. 

Brazil and Guinea Bissau may have 

acted as a refuge for Atlantic green 

turtles during the Pleistocene period 

(Reece et al., 2005). The average size of 

nesting females is larger here than in 

any other populations, ranging from 

112.9–118.6 cm CCL (Hirth, 1997; 

Almeida et al., 2011) compared to 95– 

110 cm CCL worldwide, which could 

reflect an adaptation to local 

environmental conditions such as 

habitat, availability of food, water 

temperature, and population dynamics. 

4. Southwest Indian 

Within the Southwest Indian Ocean, 

strong upwelling in the Mozambique 

Channel produces distinctive areas of 

high productivity that support a robust 

turtle population, and complex current 

patterns in the area create a distinctive 

ecological setting for green turtles. 

Madagascar is one of the largest islands 

in the world and its proximity to the 

African coast, along with a proliferation 

of nearby islands, creates a complex 

series of habitats suitable for green 

turtles. Loss of this population would 

leave a gap of over 10,000 km between 

populations in southern India and those 

in west-central Africa. Nesting turtles 

from this population are the largest 

within the Indian Ocean, ranging from 

103 cm (SCL)–112.3 cm (CCL) (Frazier, 

1971; 1985) which could reflect growth 

due to presence of a network of foraging 

areas and localize migratory 

movements. 

5. North Indian 

The ecological setting for this region 

is unique for green turtles in that it 

contains some of the warmest and 

highly saline waters in the world, 

indicative of the partially enclosed 

marine habitats within this system. The 

salinity in the North Indian Ocean 

varies from 32 to 37 ppt comparable 

only to the Mediterranean Sea. Salinity 

in this region varies with local and 

seasonal differences particularly in the 

Arabian Sea (dense, high-salinity) and 

the Bay of Bengal (low-salinity). 

Although genetic data are very limited 

for this population, with the only 

sample being from the Persian Gulf, it 

has two groups of highly divergent 

haplotypes that are not found anywhere 

else in the world (i.e., markedly 

different genetic characteristics). The 

loss of this population, and its globally 

unique haplotypes, which are not found 

in any other population, would result in 

significant genetic loss to the species as 

a whole. This population is isolated 

from other Indian Ocean populations 

which would render its loss a 

significant gap in the range of the 

species. Nesting turtles are smaller here 

than in other Indian Ocean regions, 

possibly reflecting genetic adaptations 

to local environmental conditions. 

6. East Indian-West Pacific 

This area of complex habitats at the 

confluence of the tropical Indian and 

Pacific Oceans is a well-known hotspot 

for speciation and diversification of 

both terrestrial and marine taxa. It is 

unique in that it contains the most 

extensive continental shelf globally, and 

particularly low salinity waters in the 

northeastern Indian Ocean. Loss of 

green turtles from this vast area would 

create a substantial gap in the global 

distribution and, because this 

population is located at the center of the 

species’ range, would strongly affect 

connectivity within the species as a 

whole. Connectivity is important for the 

maintenance of genetic diversity and 

resilience of the species. Genetic data 

indicate the presence of ancestral 

haplotypes with significant mtDNA 

diversity. The loss of this population, 

and its ancestral haplotypes, would 

represent a significant genetic loss to the 

species. The wide size range of nesting 

females within this population (82.1 

cm–105.6 cm; Charuchinda and 

Monanunsap, 1998; Cheng, 2000) is also 

an indication of the high level of 

diversity within this population. 

7. Central West Pacific 

The Central West Pacific population 

is genetically significant in that it has 

both globally unique haplotypes and 

ancestral haplotypes. The Central West 

Pacific has no continental shelf habitats, 

with all nesting occurring on small 

islands or atolls that are volcanic or 

coralline limestone. There is an 

apparent oceanic boundary between the 

Central West Pacific and the Central 

North Pacific population and an 

apparent biogeographic boundary 

between the Central West Pacific and 

the East Indian-West Pacific population. 

Loss of turtles from this population 

would create a large gap near the center 

of the geographic range of the species. 

8. Southwest Pacific 

Clade V haplotypes have only been 

found at nesting sites in the Southwest 

Pacific population. In addition to these 

globally unique haplotypes, the 

presence of the ancestral haplotypes and 

significant mtDNA diversity make this 

population genetically significant. 

Unlike most other populations in the 

Pacific Ocean, this population includes 

island nesting sites in close proximity to 

coastal foraging areas. The Great Barrier 

Reef (GBR) is the largest coral reef 

system in the world and was 

periodically isolated over geological 

time. It provides expansive, year-round 

foraging habitat for green turtles and 

supports one of the largest nesting sites 

in the world. 

9. Central South Pacific 

This population has globally unique 

haplotypes. Therefore, the loss of the 

population would result in significant 

genetic loss to the species as a whole. 

To a greater extent than in any other 

regional population, nesting sites are 

widely dispersed among a large number 

of small habitats on islands and atolls. 

Foraging areas are mostly coral reef 

ecosystems, with seagrass beds in Tonga 

and Fiji being a notable exception. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15285 

There is an apparent oceanic boundary 

with the Central North Pacific 

population. Although turtles in this area 

are poorly studied, they may have 

evolved adaptations to persist with this 

very diffuse metapopulation structure. If 

green turtles were lost from this entire 

area, it would create a significant gap in 

the range across the southern Pacific 

Ocean. 

10. Central North Pacific 

Mitochondrial DNA in this 

extensively sampled region includes 

globally unique haplotypes. Although 

two haplotypes are shared with 

individuals in the Revillagigedos 

Islands in the East Pacific, there is little 

evidence of significant ongoing gene 

flow. The loss of this population would 

result in significant genetic loss to the 

species as a whole. 

This population has no continentalshelf habitat and all nesting occurs on 

mid-basin pinnacles. Turtles in this 

population are known to bask, a rare 

behavior for modern-day sea turtles, and 

have unique morphological traits such 

as unusually large flippers, possibly 

reflecting adaptations to their ecological 

setting. This is the most isolated of all 

populations, with an apparent 

biogeographic boundary with the 

Eastern Pacific population and oceanic 

boundaries with the Central West and 

Central South Pacific populations. If all 

turtles were lost from this vast 

geographic area, it would create a 

significant gap in the global range of the 

species. 

11. East Pacific 

The two cold-water currents on the 

east side of the Pacific Ocean (the 

Humboldt Current in the south and the 

California Current in the north) leave a 

distinctive region of tropical ocean 

along the west coasts of Mexico, Central 

America, and northern South America 

that is known as the Eastern Pacific 

Zoogeographic Region (Briggs, 1974). 

Perhaps as a result, some turtles in this 

area exhibit a unique overwintering 

behavior similar to hibernation. This 

area also has a very narrow continental 

shelf and low levels of seagrass, 

resulting in a unique diet for green 

turtles (e.g., tunicates and red mangrove 

fruits; Amorocho and Reina, 2007). This 

population has globally unique 

haplotypes. Therefore, the loss of the 

population would result in significant 

genetic loss to the species as a whole. 

Mean size of nesting turtles in the East 

Pacific is smaller, at approximately 82 

cm CCL (Pritchard, 1971) than in any 

other population, which could reflect an 

adaptation to local ecological 

conditions, as could the distinctive 

‘‘black’’ phenotype. The Galapagos 

Island chain is one of the few areas 

where green turtles bask (Hawai‘i being 

the other). Loss of all turtles from this 

population would leave a significant 

gap in the range of the species as it 

occurs along much of the eastern 

boundary of the world’s largest ocean. 

C. Summary of Discreteness and 

Significance Determinations 

In summary, the 11 discrete 

populations identified in the 

Discreteness Determination section were 

also determined to be significant to the 

species, C. mydas. Each is genetically 

unique, and many are identified by 

unique mtDNA haplotypes which could 

represent adaptive differences. Some 

populations exist in unique or unusual 

ecological settings influenced by local 

ecological and physical factors which 

may also lead to adaptive differences 

and represent adaptive potential. Some 

also possess unique morphological or 

other demographic characteristics that 

render them significant. Most 

populations represent a large portion of 

the species’ range, and their loss would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of the species. 

Based on the information provided in 

the Discreteness Determination and 

Significance Determination sections 

above, the SRT identified the following 

11 potential green turtle DPSs (Figure 

2): (1) North Atlantic, (2) Mediterranean, 

(3) South Atlantic, (4) Southwest Indian, 

(5) North Indian, (6) East Indian-West 

Pacific, (7) Central West Pacific, (8) 

Southwest Pacific, (9) Central South 

Pacific, (10) Central North Pacific, and 

(11) East Pacific. We concur with the 

findings of the SRT and conclude that 

the 11 potential DPSs identified by the 

SRT warrant delineation as DPSs. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP23MR15.001</GPH>
15286 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

VI. Listing Evaluation Process 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters 

for the Eleven Green Turtle DPSs 

In these sections, we describe the 

geographic range of each DPS. We 

discuss its population parameters, 

which are derived from population data 

and influence the persistence of the 

DPS. These population parameters 

include: Abundance, growth rates or 

trends, spatial structure, and diversity 

or resilience (McElhany et al., 2000). 

NMFS has used this approach in 

numerous status reviews. USFWS uses 

a similar approach, based on Shaffer 

and Stein (2000), to evaluate a species’ 

status in terms of its representation, 

resiliency, and redundancy; this 

methodology has also been a widely 

accepted approach (Tear et al., 2005). 

Though expressed differently, these two 

approaches rely on the same 

conservation biology principles. Though 

this information is presented separately 

from the assessment of threats under 

section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, population 

dynamics represent one aspect of the 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting the continued existence of the 

species that we consider under Factor E. 

Complete population abundance and 

trend estimates do not exist for any of 

the 11 DPSs. The data used in the Status 

Review and summarized here represent 

the best scientific information available. 

The data are more robust for some areas 

than for others. For each DPS, the 

primary data available are collected on 

nesting beaches, either as counts of 

nests or counts of nesting females, or a 

combination of both (either direct or 

extrapolated). Information on 

abundance and trends away from the 

nesting beaches is limited and often 

non-existent, primarily because these 

data are, relative to nesting beach 

studies, logistically difficult and 

expensive to obtain. Therefore, the 

primary and best available information 

source for directly evaluating status and 

trends of the DPSs is nesting data. 

Nesting female abundance estimates 

for each nesting site or nesting beach are 

presented in the Status Review for each 

potential DPS. Accompanying this 

information is trend information in the 

form of bar plots and Population 

Viability Analysis (PVA) models 

extending 100 years into the future for 

the 33 sites that met the criteria for 

depicting the data this way, i.e., recent 

(<10 year old) data over a given period 

of time (10 years for bar plots, 15 years 

for PVA) with consistent protocols and 

effort during that time. 

With regard to spatial structure, the 

SRT used information from genetic, 

tagging, telemetry, and demographic 

data to identify structuring and 

substructuring within each DPS. This 

informed the SRT of metapopulation 

dynamics in order that it might consider 

these dynamics in considerations about 

the future of the species, including 

whether source populations and genetic 

diversity are being maintained. 

With regard to diversity and 

resilience, the SRT considered the 

extent of ecological variation, including 

the overall nesting spatial range, 

diversity in nesting season, and 

diversity of nesting site structure and 

orientation, e.g., whether nesting sites 

are insular or continental, have a high 

or low beach face, and whether there are 

a variety of types of sites. The SRT also 

considered demographic and genetic 

diversity of the DPS which may indicate 

its ability to adapt and thus its 

resilience. One of the considerations 

when looking at diversity was the DPS’s 

ability to adapt to climate change 

including, but not limited to, sea level 

rise and warming of nesting beaches. 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Eleven Green Turtle DPSs 

Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

part 424 set forth procedures for adding 

species to the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

Species. Under section 4(a) of the ESA, 

the Services must determine whether a 

species is threatened or endangered 

because of any of the following 5 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

In this rulemaking, information 

regarding the status of each of the 11 

green turtle DPSs is considered in 

relation to the five factors provided in 

section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. That 

information presented here is a 

summary of the information in the 

Status Review. The reader is directed to 

the subsection within each DPS section 

of the Status Review titled ‘‘Analysis of 

Factors Listed Under ESA Section 

4(a)(1)’’ for a more detailed discussion 

of the factors. 

C. Conservation Efforts 

In evaluating the efficacy of protective 

efforts not yet implemented or not yet 

proven to be effective, we rely on the 

Policy on Evaluation of Conservation 

Efforts When Making Listing Decisions 

(‘‘PECE’’; 68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003), 

issued jointly by the Services. 

Information on conservation efforts for 

each DPS is summarized from the Status 

Review. For a more detailed description 

of conservation efforts, please see that 

document. When assessing conservation 

efforts, the SRT assumed that all 

conservation efforts would remain in 

place at their current levels. In our final 

determinations, we considered the 

conservation benefits of continued 

protections under the ESA. 

D. Extinction Risk Assessments and 

Findings 

To analyze the extinction risk of each 

DPS, the SRT collected and presented 

information on the six critical 

assessment elements: (1) Abundance, (2) 

growth rates/trends, (3) spatial 

structure, (4) diversity/resilience, (5) 

five factor analysis/threats, and (6) 

conservation efforts. Shortly after each 

presentation, the SRT voted twice: A 

vote on the contribution of each critical 

assessment element to extinction risk, 

and a vote on the overall risk of 

extinction to the DPS (see section 3.3.4 

of the Status Review for a more detailed 

discussion of this process). 

In the first vote, SRT members ranked 

the importance of each of the four 

population parameters (Abundance, 

Trends, Spatial Structure, Diversity/

Resilience) by assigning them a value 

from 1 to 5 for each DPS, with 1 

indicating a very low risk and 5 

indicating a very high risk. SRT 

members then ranked the influence of 

the section 4(a)(1) factors (threats) on 

the status of each DPS by assigning a 

value of 0 (neutral effect on status—this 

could mean that threats are not 

sufficient to appreciably affect the status 

of the DPS, or that threats are already 

reflected in the population parameters), 

–1 (threats described in the 5-factor 

analysis suggest that the DPS will 

experience some decline (<5 percent 

decline) in abundance within 100 

years), or –2 (threats described in the 5- 

factor analysis suggest that the DPS will 

experience significant decline (≥5 

percent decline) in abundance within 

100 years). They then ranked the 

influence of conservation efforts on the 

status of each DPS by assigning a value 

of 0 (neutral effect on status—this could 

mean that conservation efforts are not 

sufficient to appreciably affect the status 

of the DPS, or that conservation efforts 

are already reflected in the population 

parameters), +1 (activities described in 

Conservation Efforts suggest that the 

DPS will experience <5 percent increase 

in abundance within 100 years), or +2 

(activities described in Conservation 

Efforts suggest that the DPS will 

experience ≥5 percent increase in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15287 

abundance within 100 years). The SRT 

did note in discussions that none of 

these elements is entirely independent. 

Abundance, growth rates, spatial 

structure, and diversity/resilience are 

linked and often dependent on each 

other. Past threats and conservation 

efforts affect these four population 

parameters. To minimize ‘‘double 

counting,’’ the SRT considered only 

those threats and conservation measures 

that are unlikely to be reflected in the 

population parameters. 

In the second vote, SRT members 

provided their expert opinion (via vote) 

on the likelihood that each DPS would 

reach a critical risk threshold (quasiextinction) within 100 years. In the 

Status Review, the SRT defined the 

critical risk threshold (quasi-extinction) 

as follows: ‘‘A DPS that has reached a 

critical risk threshold has such low 

abundance, declining trends, limited 

distribution or diversity, and/or 

significant threats (untempered by 

significant conservation efforts) that the 

DPS would be at very high risk of 

extinction with little chance for 

recovery.’’ Generally, DPSs were 

considered to have higher viability if 

they were composed of a number of 

relatively large populations, distributed 

throughout the geographic range of the 

DPS, and exhibited stable or increasing 

growth rates. DPSs were considered to 

be at higher risk if they were composed 

of fewer robust populations or with 

robust populations all concentrated in a 

small geographic area, where they might 

be susceptible to correlated 

catastrophes. Any DPS with low 

phenotypic and/or habitat diversity 

were also considered to be at higher risk 

because the entire DPS could be 

vulnerable to persistent environmental 

conditions (Limpus and Nicholls, 2000; 

Saba et al., 2008; Van Houtan and 

Halley, 2011) or stochastic catastrophic 

events (Hawkes et al., 2007; Van Houtan 

and Bass, 2007; Fuentes et al., 2011). 

Each member was given 100 points to 

spread across risk categories, reflecting 

their interpretation of the information 

for that DPS; the voting results are 

available in the Status Review. The 

spread of points is meant to reflect the 

amount of uncertainty in the risk 

threshold bins. Risk categories were <1 

percent, 1–5 percent, 6–10 percent, 11– 

20 percent, 21–50 percent, and >50 

percent. We note that, presumably 

because this species is such a long-lived 

species and, as such, it is unlikely that 

it would go extinct within 100 years 

even if it was lost in many places, every 

DPS received numerous points in the <1 

percent category, including those with 

the most depressed numbers and that 

face the highest threats. 

As noted above, the SRT estimated 

the likelihood that a population would 

fall below a critical risk threshold 

within 100 years. The SRT did not 

define the critical risk threshold 

quantitatively but instead provided the 

following definition: ‘‘A DPS that has 

reached a critical risk threshold has 

such low abundance, declining trends, 

limited distribution or diversity, and/or 

significant threats (untempered by 

significant conservation efforts) that the 

DPS would be at very high risk of 

extinction with little chance for 

recovery.’’ 

While the SRT’s review of the DPSs’ 

statuses was rigorous and extensive, the 

framework used does not allow us to 

easily or clearly translate a particular 

critical risk category to an ESA listing 

status. Structured expert opinion is a 

valid and commonly used method of 

evaluating extinction risk and forms a 

useful starting point for our analysis. 

However, in our judgment, the critical 

risk threshold approach used for this 

status review does not directly correlate 

with the ESA’s definitions of 

endangered and threatened. The ESA 

defines an ‘‘endangered species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range.’’ The critical risk 

threshold, as defined by the SRT, is a 

condition worse than endangered, 

because it essentially precludes 

recovery. Thus, while the SRT votes 

informed our listing determinations, we 

did not equate a particular critical risk 

category with an ESA listing status, and 

therefore the votes were not the basis for 

those determinations. However, to make 

our proposed listing determinations, we 

applied the best available science that 

was compiled by the SRT in examining 

the definitions of endangered and 

threatened species under section 3 of 

the ESA. 

After considering the extinction risk, 

the Services then reviewed the present 

threats and threats anticipated in the 

foreseeable future for each DPS. We 

examined the significant threats to each 

DPS, how these threats affected that 

DPS, and how they were predicted to 

affect the DPS in the foreseeable future. 

Our analysis weighed each factor within 

the scope of the ESA’s definitions of 

threatened and endangered for each 

DPS. 

Among other things, the Services also 

carefully considered where current 

conditions or protections are present 

specifically because green turtles are 

listed under the ESA, and whether those 

conditions would likely exist absent 

such a listing. We note that the latter 

was not considered by the SRT, 

meaning the SRT conducted all risk 

analyses assuming all protections would 

remain in place. 

VII. North Atlantic DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters 

for the North Atlantic DPS 

The range of the North Atlantic DPS 

extends from the boundary of South and 

Central America north along the coast to 

the northern extent of the green turtle’s 

range to include Panama, Costa Rica, 

Nicaragua, Honduras, Belize, Mexico, 

and the United States. It then extends 

due east across the Atlantic Ocean at 48° 

N.; follows the coast south to include 

the northern portion of the Islamic 

Republic of Mauritania (Mauritania; to 

19° N.) on the African continent; and 

west along the 19° N. latitude to the 

Caribbean basin, turning south and west 

at 63.5° W., 19° N., and due south at 7.5° 

N., 77° W. to the boundary of South and 

Central to include Puerto Rico, the 

Bahamas, Cuba, Turks and Caicos 

Islands, Republic of Haiti (Haiti), 

Dominican Republic, Cayman Islands, 

and Jamaica. The North Atlantic DPS 

includes the Florida breeding 

population, which was originally listed 

as endangered (43 FR 32800, July 28, 

1978). Critical habitat was previously 

designated for areas within the range of 

this DPS (i.e., coastal waters 

surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto 

Rico; 63 FR 46693, September 2, 1998). 

Green turtle nesting sites in the North 

Atlantic are some of the most studied in 

the world, with time series exceeding 40 

years in Costa Rica and 35 years in 

Florida. Seventy-three nesting sites were 

identified within the North Atlantic 

DPS, although some represent numerous 

individual beaches. For instance, 

Florida nesting beaches were listed by 

county with the numerous beaches in 

each county representing one site and, 

for other U.S. beaches (from Texas to 

North Carolina), each state’s nesting 

beaches were represented as one site. 

There are four regions that support high 

density nesting concentrations for 

which data were available: Tortuguero, 

Costa Rica; Mexico (Campeche, 

Yucatan, and Quintana Roo); Florida, 

United States; and Cuba. There is one 

nesting site with >100,000 nesting 

females (Tortuguero at 131,751; 

Chaloupka et al., 2008a; Sea Turtle 

Conservancy, 2013), one with 10,001– 

100,000 (Quintana Roo, Mexico at 

18,257; Julio Zurita, pers. comm. 2012) 

and six with 1,001–5,000: Cayo Largo, 

Cuba; Campeche, Yucatan, and 

Veracruz, Mexico; and Brevard and 

Palm Beach Counties, FL, United States. 

There are four with 501–1,000; 

Tamaulipas, Mexico; Vieques, Puerto 

Rico; Martin and Indian River Counties, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15288 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

FL, United States; nine with 101–500; 

26 with <50; and 26 with numbers 

unquantified. Seventy-nine percent of 

the nesting turtles in this DPS nest at 

Tortuguero. 

Of the nesting sites with long-term 

data sets, both Tortuguero and the index 

beaches in Florida exhibit a strong 

positive trend in the PVAs that were 

conducted on them, as does Isla 

Aguada, Mexico (one beach in the 

Campeche group). Three beaches in 

Cuba (total of 489 nesting females) 

either showed no trend or a modest 

positive trend. One beach in Mexico (El 

Cuyo, Yucatan) exhibited no trend. 

Genetic sampling in the North 

Atlantic DPS has been generally 

extensive with good coverage of large 

populations in this region; however, 

some smaller Caribbean nesting sites are 

absent and coastal nesting sites in the 

Gulf of Mexico are under-represented. 

Genetic differentiation based on mtDNA 

indicated that there are at least four 

independent nesting subpopulations in 

the North Atlantic DPS characterized by 

shallow regional substructuring: (1) 

Florida (Hutchinson Island; Lahanas et 

al., 1994), (2) Cuba (Guanahacabibes 

Penı ́nsula and Cayerı ́a San Felipe; RuizUrquiola et al., 2010), (3) Mexico 

(Quintana Roo; Encalada et al., 1996), 

and (4) Costa Rica (Tortuguero; Lahanas 

et al., 1994). These nesting sites are 

characterized by common and 

widespread haplotypes dominated by 

CM–A1 and/or CM–A3. A relatively low 

level of spatial structure is detected due 

to shared common haplotypes, although 

there are some rare/unique haplotypes 

at some nesting sites. Connectivity may 

indicate recent shared common 

ancestry. 

Green turtles nest on both continental 

and island beaches throughout the range 

of the DPS (Witherington et al., 2006). 

Major nesting sites are primarily 

continental with hundreds of lower 

density sites scattered throughout the 

Caribbean. Green turtles nesting in 

Florida seem to prefer barrier island 

beaches that receive high wave energy 

and that have coarse sands, steep slopes, 

and prominent foredunes. The greatest 

nesting is on sparsely developed 

beaches that have minimal levels of 

artificial lighting. A high-low nesting 

pattern for Florida and Mexico occurs 

during the same years; however, nesting 

in Tortuguero, Costa Rica is not always 

in sync with Florida and Mexico (e.g., 

2011 was a high nesting year in Florida, 

but for Tortuguero the high nesting year 

was 2010). The nesting season is similar 

throughout the range of the DPS, with 

green turtles nesting from June to 

November in Costa Rica (Bjorndal et al., 

1999), and May through September in 

the United States, Mexico, and Cuba 

(Witherington et al., 2006). 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

North Atlantic DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

Within the range of the North Atlantic 

DPS, nesting beaches continue to be 

degraded from a variety of activities. 

Destruction and modification of green 

turtle nesting habitat results from 

coastal development, coastal armoring, 

beachfront lighting, erosion, sand 

extraction, and vehicle and pedestrian 

traffic on nesting beaches (Witherington 

and Bjorndal, 1991; Witherington, 1992; 

Witherington et al., 1996; Lutcavage et 

al., 1997; Bouchard et al., 1998; Mosier, 

1998; Witherington and Koeppel, 2000; 

Mosier and Witherington, 2002; Leong 

et al., 2003; Roberts and Ehrhart, 2007). 

In addition, sea level rise resulting from 

climate change poses a threat to all 

nesting beaches. Portions of the 

Southern United States and Caribbean 

are found be to highly vulnerable to sea 

level rise (Melillo et al., 2014). For 

instance, along the southern portion of 

the Florida coastline, one climate 

change model predicted one meter of 

sea level rise by 2060, resulting in the 

inundation of more than 50 percent of 

coastal wildlife refuges (Flaxman and 

Vargas-Moreno, 2011). Most green turtle 

nesting in the United States is 

concentrated along the southeastern 

coast of Florida with more than 90 

percent of nesting occurring from 

Brevard to Broward counties (http://

ocean.floridamarine.org/SeaTurtle/

nesting/FlexViewer/). Loss of nesting 

habitat as a result of sea level rise poses 

a threat to the population. Sea level rise 

is exacerbated by coastal development 

and armoring, which prevents the beach 

from migrating and causes nesting green 

turtles to abandon their nesting attempts 

more frequently as a result of their 

encounter with such structures (Mosier, 

1998; Mosier and Witherington, 2000; 

Rizkalla and Savage, 2011). Females 

might nest in sub-optimal habitats, 

where nests are more vulnerable to 

erosion or inundation (Rizkalla and 

Savage 2011). As a result, nests would 

be subject to more frequent inundation, 

exacerbated erosion, and increased 

moisture from tidal overwash, which 

can potentially alter thermal regimes, an 

important factor in determining the sex 

ratio of hatchlings. 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

Green turtles in the post-hatchling 

and early-juvenile stages are closely 

associated with Sargassum algae in the 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

(Witherington et al., 2012), and 

vulnerable to ingesting contaminants 

such as tar balls and plastics that 

aggregate in convergent zones where 

Sargassum aggregates (Witherington, 

2002). Juvenile and adult green turtles 

and their nearshore foraging habitats are 

also exposed to high levels of 

pollutants, such as agricultural and 

residential runoff, and sewage which 

result in degraded foraging habitat 

(Smith et al., 1992). Further, increased 

nutrient load in these coastal waters 

causes eutrophication. Eutrophication is 

linked to harmful algal blooms that 

result in the loss and degradation of 

seagrass beds, and possibly 

fibropapilloma tumors in green turtles 

(Milton and Lutz, 2003). 

In Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and 

Panama, water quality is also affected by 

sewage and industrial and agricultural 

runoff. Pollution remains a major threat 

in the waters of Jamaica. Major sources 

of pollution are industrial and 

agricultural effluent, garbage dumps and 

solid waste, and household sewage 

(Greenway, 1977; Green and Webber, 

2003). 

Nearshore foraging habitats such as 

seagrass beds are affected by propeller 

scarring, anchor damage, dredging, sand 

mining, and marina construction 

throughout the range of the DPS (Smith 

et al., 1992; Dow et al., 2007; Patrı ́cio et 

al., 2011). Sand placement projects 

along the Florida coastline affect 

nearshore reefs as a result of direct 

burial of portions of the reef habitat and 

loss of food sources available to green 

turtles (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999). 

The SRT found, and we concur, that 

the North Atlantic DPS of the green 

turtle is negatively affected by ongoing 

changes in both its terrestrial and 

marine habitats as a result of land and 

water use practices as considered above 

in Factor A. The increasing threats to 

the terrestrial and marine habitats are 

not reflected in the current trend for the 

North Atlantic DPS, as it was based on 

nesting numbers and not on all current 

life stages. These increasing threats to 

the population will become apparent 

when those life stages affected by the 

threats return to nest, as the trend 

information is based solely on numbers 

of nests. This lag time was considered 

in our analysis. For example, a threat 

that affects the oceanic juvenile phase 

would not be detected until those turtles 

return to nest, approximately 15 to 20 

years later. The SRT also found, and we 

concur, that coastal development, 

beachfront lighting, erosion, sand 

extraction, and sea level rise 

increasingly impact nesting beaches of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15289 

this DPS and are increasing threats to 

the DPS. 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

A partial list of the countries within 

the range of the North Atlantic DPS 

where ongoing intentional capture of 

green turtles occurs, includes Costa Rica 

(Mangel and Troe ̈ng, 2001; Gonzalez 

Prieto and Harrison, 2012), Mexico 

(Seminoff, 2000; Gardner and Nichols, 

2001; Dirado et al., 2002; Guzma ́nHerna ́ndez and Garcı ́a Alvarado, 2011), 

Cuba (Fleming, 2001; F. Moncado, 

Ministerio de la Industria Pesquera, 

pers. comm., 2013), Nicaragua (Lagueux, 

1998; Humber et al., 2014), the Bahamas 

(Fleming, 2001), Jamaica (HaynesSutton et al., 2011), and the Cayman 

Islands (Fleming, 2001). Harvest 

remains legal in several of these 

countries (Humphrey and Salm, 1996; 

Wamukoya et al., 1996; Fleming, 2001; 

Fretey, 2001; Bra ̈utigam and Eckert, 

2006). 

The commercial artisanal green turtle 

fishery in Nicaragua continues to be a 

threat to the Tortuguero nesting 

population, the largest remaining green 

turtle population in the Atlantic 

(Campbell and Lagueux, 2005). Local 

demand for turtle meat in coastal 

communities continues (Garland and 

Carthy, 2010). There is a legal turtle 

fishery on the Caribbean coast that is 

located in the most important 

developmental and foraging habitat for 

Caribbean green turtles (Fleming, 2001; 

Campbell and Lagueux, 2005). The 

hunting of juvenile and adult turtles 

continues both legally and illegally in 

many foraging areas where green turtles 

originating from Florida nesting beaches 

are known to occur (Chaco ́n, 2002; 

Fleming, 2001). 

Direct take of eggs is also an ongoing 

threat in Panama (Evans and Vargas, 

1998). Green turtles nesting on Belize’s 

beaches and foraging along its coast are 

harvested in the Robinson Point area 

and sold in markets and restaurants 

(Searle, 2003). Large numbers of green 

turtles are captured in the area southeast 

of Belize, an area which may be an 

important migratory corridor (Searle, 

2004). There are important feeding 

grounds in the Banc d’Arguin, 

Mauritania. While the frequency of 

green turtle nesting in Mauritania is not 

known, green turtle nests are reported as 

being harvested there (Fretey, 2001; 

Fretey and Hama, 2012). 

Commercial harvest of green turtles 

was a factor that contributed to the 

historic decline of this DPS. Current 

harvest of green turtles and eggs, in a 

portion of this DPS, continues to be 

significant threat to the persistence of 

this DPS. 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

Fibropapillomatosis (FP) has been 

found in green turtle populations in the 

United States (Hirama, 2001; Ene et al., 

2005; Foley et al., 2005; Hirama and 

Ehrhart, 2007), the Bahamas, the 

Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico (Dow 

et al., 2007; Patrı ́cio et al., 2011), 

Cayman Islands (Wood and Wood, 1994; 

Dow et al., 2007), Costa Rica 

(Tortuguero; Mangel and Troe ̈ng, 2001), 

Cuba (Moncada and Prieto, 2000), 

Mexico (Yucatan Peninsula; K. Lopez, 

pers. comm., as cited in MTSG, 2004), 

and Nicaragua (Lagueux, 1998). 

FP continues to be a major problem in 

some lagoon systems and along the 

nearshore reefs of Florida. It is a 

chronic, often lethal disease occurring 

predominantly in green turtles (Van 

Houtan et al., 2014). A correlation 

appeared to exist between these 

degraded habitats and the prevalence of 

FP in the green turtles that forage in 

these areas but no direct link was 

established (Aguirre and Lutz, 2004; 

Foley et al., 2005). Indeed, across green 

turtle populations, it is widely observed 

that FP occurs most frequently in 

eutrophied and otherwise impaired 

waterways (Herbst, 1994; Van Houtan et 

al., 2010). A recent study establishes 

that eutrophication substantially 

increases the nitrogen content of 

macroalgae, thereby promoting the 

latent herpes virus which causes FP 

tumors in green turtles (Van Houtan et 

al., 2014) although it is argued that there 

is no inferential framework to base this 

conclusion (Work et al., 2014). Despite 

the high incidence of FP among foraging 

populations, there is no conclusive 

evidence on the effect of FP on 

reproductive success (Chaloupka and 

Balazs, 2005). 

Harmful algal blooms, such as a red 

tide, also affect green turtles in the 

North Atlantic DPS. In Florida, the 

species that causes most red tides is 

Karenia brevis, a dinoflagellate that 

produces a toxin (Redlow et al., 2002). 

Since 2007, there were two red tide 

events, one in 2007 along the east coast 

of Florida, and one in 2012 along the 

west coast of Florida. Sea turtle 

stranding trends indicated that these 

events were acting as a mortality factor 

(A. Foley, Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, pers. comm., 

2013). These events may impact a 

population’s present and future 

reproductive status. 

Predators such as raccoons (Procyon 

lotor), feral hogs (Sus scrofa), foxes 

(Urocyon cinereoargenteus and Vulpes 

vulpes), and coyotes (Canis latrans) may 

take significant numbers of turtle eggs 

(Stancyk, 1982; Allen et al., 2001). Nest 

protection programs are in place at most 

of the major nesting beaches in the 

North Atlantic DPS, although they are 

managed at varying levels and degrees 

of effectiveness (Engeman et al., 2005). 

Predator species that are particularly 

difficult to manage include red fire ants 

(Solenopsis invicta) and jaguars 

(Panthera onca) (Wetterer, 2006; Prieto 

and Harrison, 2012). 

Although FP disease is of major 

concern, with increasing levels in some 

green turtle populations in this DPS, it 

should be noted there is uncertainty of 

the long-term survivability and effect on 

the reproductive effort of the 

population. Predation is known to occur 

throughout this DPS, and we find it to 

be a significant threat to this DPS in the 

absence of well managed nest protection 

programs. 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

At least 15 regulatory mechanisms 

that apply to green turtles regionally 

(e.g., U.S. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act) or 

globally (e.g., Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) apply 

to green turtles within the North 

Atlantic Ocean. The analysis of these 

existing regulatory mechanisms 

assumed that all would remain in place 

at their current levels. 

In the United States, regulatory 

mechanisms that protect green turtles 

are in place and include State, Federal, 

and international laws. The green turtle 

was listed under the ESA in 1978, 

providing relatively comprehensive 

protection and recovery activities to 

minimize the threats to green turtles in 

the United States. Considering the 

dependence of the species on 

conservation efforts, significant 

concerns remain regarding the 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms. 

The development and implementation 

of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in the 

shrimp trawl fishery was likely the most 

significant conservation 

accomplishment for North Atlantic 

green turtles in the marine environment 

since their 1978 ESA listing. In the 

southeast United States and Gulf of 

Mexico, TEDs have been mandatory in 

shrimp and flounder trawls for over a 

decade. These regulations are 

implemented and enforced to varying 

degrees throughout the Gulf and U.S. 

Southeast Atlantic. For example, the 

State of Louisiana prohibits enforcement 

of TED regulations and tow time limits. 

In other States, enforcement of TED 

regulations depends on available 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15290 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

resources, and illegal or improperly 

installed TEDs continue to contribute to 

mortality of green turtles. Further, TEDs 

are not required in all trawl fisheries, 

and green turtle mortality continues in 

the Gulf of Mexico, where shrimp 

trawling is the highest (Lewison et al., 

2014). There are also regulatory 

mechanisms in place that address the 

loss of nesting habitat, such as the 

Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B– 

33.0155, which addresses threats from 

armoring structures. However, these 

regulatory mechanisms allow for 

variances and armoring permits 

continue to be issued along nesting 

beaches. 

Other threats, such as light pollution 

on nesting beaches, marine debris, 

vessel strikes, and continued direct 

harvest of green turtles in places like 

Nicaragua, are being addressed to some 

extent by regulatory mechanisms, 

although they remain a problem. In 

addition, other regional and national 

legislation to conserve green turtles 

(often all sea turtles) exists throughout 

the range of the DPS. The extent to 

which threats have been reduced as a 

result of these efforts is difficult to 

ascertain. When the SRT assessed 

conservation efforts, it assumed that all 

conservation efforts would remain in 

place at their current levels. The 

following countries have laws to protect 

green turtles: The Bahamas, Belize, 

Bermuda, Canary Islands, Cayman 

Islands, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican 

Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, 

Jamaica, Mauritania, Mexico, Nicaragua, 

Panama, and the United States 

(including the commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico). 

With regard to the United States, the 

key law currently protecting green 

turtles is the ESA. This law has been 

instrumental in conserving sea turtles, 

eliminating directed take of turtles in 

U.S. waters unless authorized by permit 

and reducing indirect take. In addition, 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Management and Conservation Act has 

been effective at mandating responsible 

fishing practices and bycatch mitigation 

within fleets that sell fisheries products 

to the United States, and the Marine 

Turtle Conservation Act authorizes a 

dedicated fund to support marine turtle 

conservation projects in foreign 

countries, with emphasis on protecting 

nesting populations and nesting habitat. 

In addition, at least 12 international 

treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms 

apply to the conservation of green 

turtles in the North Atlantic DPS. 

Outside of the United States, there are 

some national regulations that address 

the harvest of green turtles as well as the 

import and export of turtle parts. These 

regulations allow for the harvest of 

green turtles of certain sizes, months, or 

for ‘‘traditional’’ use. Gear restrictions 

and TED requirements exist in a few 

countries, although the compliance 

level is unknown. Our Status Review 

did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in 

place to specifically address marine 

pollution, sea level rise, and other 

effects of climate change that continue 

to contribute to the extinction risk of 

this DPS. 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

Fisheries bycatch in artisanal and 

industrial fishing gear continues to be a 

major threat to green turtles in the North 

Atlantic DPS. The adverse impacts of 

bycatch on sea turtles has been 

documented in marine environments 

throughout the world (National 

Research Council, 1990b; Epperly, 2003; 

Lutcavage et al., 1997). The lack of 

comprehensive and effective monitoring 

and bycatch reduction efforts in many 

pelagic and near-shore fisheries 

operations throughout the range of the 

North Atlantic DPS still allows 

substantial direct and indirect mortality 

(NMFS and USFWS, 2007). 

i. Gill Net and Trawl Fisheries 

Gill net fisheries may be the most 

ubiquitous of fisheries operating in the 

neritic range of the North Atlantic DPS. 

In the United States, some states (e.g., 

South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, 

Louisiana, and Texas) have prohibited 

gill nets in their waters, but there 

remain active gill net fisheries in other 

U.S. states, in U.S. Federal waters, 

Mexican waters, Central and South 

America, and the Northeast Atlantic. 

Finfish fisheries accounted for the 

greatest proportion of turtle bycatch (53 

percent) in Cuba. In Jamaica, fish traps 

and gill nets are the gear primarily 

identified in sea turtle bycatch. Purse 

seine and gill nets are used commonly 

in the waters of the Dominican Republic 

(Dow et al., 2007). In Costa Rica, gill 

nets, hook and line, and trawls are the 

main gear types deployed (Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, 2004). Shark-netting operations 

in Panama are known to capture green 

turtles (Meylan et al., 2013). 

The development and implementation 

of TEDs in the U.S. shrimp trawl fishery 

was likely the most significant 

conservation accomplishment for North 

Atlantic green turtles in the marine 

environment since their 1978 ESA 

listing. In the southeast United States 

and Gulf of Mexico, TEDs have been 

mandatory in shrimp and flounder 

trawls for over a decade. However, 

compliance varies throughout the 

States, and green turtle mortality 

continues in the Gulf of Mexico, where 

shrimp trawling is the highest (Lewison 

et al., 2014). With the current 

regulations in place, an estimated 3,000 

green turtles are captured (1,400 killed) 

by shrimp trawls each year in the Gulf 

and U.S. Southeast Atlantic (http://

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_

resources/section_7/freq_biop/

documents/fisheries_bo/shrimp_biop_

2014.pdf). These regulations are 

implemented and enforced to varying 

degrees throughout the Gulf and U.S. 

Southeast Atlantic (see discussion in 

Factor D). 

ii. Dredge Fishing 

Dredge fishing gear is the 

predominant gear used to harvest sea 

scallops off the mid- and northeastern 

U.S. Atlantic coast. Sea scallop dredges 

are composed of a heavy steel frame and 

cutting bar located on the bottom part of 

the frame and a bag made of metal rings 

and mesh twine attached to the frame. 

Turtles can be struck and injured or 

killed by the dredge frame and/or 

captured in the bag, where they may 

drown or be further injured or killed 

when the catch and heavy gear are 

dumped on the vessel deck. 

b. Channel Dredging 

In addition to the destruction or 

degradation of habitat as described in 

Factor A above, periodic dredging of 

sediments from navigational channels 

can also result in incidental mortality of 

sea turtles. Direct injury or mortality of 

green turtles by dredges has been well 

documented in the southeastern and 

mid-Atlantic U.S. (National Research 

Council, 1990b). From 1980 to 2013, 105 

green turtles were impacted as a result 

of dredging operations in the U.S 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Solutions, 

including modification of dredges, have 

been successfully implemented to 

reduce mortalities and injuries to sea 

turtles in the United States (73 FR 

18984, April 8, 2008; 77 FR 20728, April 

6, 2012), and NMFS imposes annual 

take limits based on the expected 

number of green turtles impacted that 

will not, directly or indirectly, 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

survival and recovery of the green turtle 

in the wild. 

c. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic 

Boat strikes have been shown to be a 

major mortality source in Florida 

(Singel et al., 2003). Vessel strikes are a 

growing concern and, as human 

populations increase in coastal areas, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15291 

vessel strikes are likely to increase 

(NMFS and FWS, 2008). From 2005 to 

2009, 18.2 percent of all stranded green 

turtles (695 of 3,818) in the U.S. Atlantic 

(Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf of 

Mexico) were documented as having 

sustained some type of propeller or 

collision injuries (L. Belskis, NMFS, 

pers. comm., 2013). It is quite likely that 

this is a chronic, albeit unreported, 

problem near developed coastlines in 

other areas as well, such as Panama 

(e.g., Oro ́ s et al., 2005). 

d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disasters 

While sea turtles have survived past 

eras that have included significant 

temperature fluctuations, future climate 

change is expected to happen at 

unprecedented rates, and if turtles 

cannot adapt quickly, they may face 

local to widespread extirpations 

(Hawkes et al., 2009). Climate change 

and sea level rise have the potential to 

affect green turtles significantly in the 

North Atlantic DPS. North Atlantic 

turtle populations could be affected by 

the alteration of thermal sand 

characteristics of beaches (from 

warming temperatures), resulting in the 

reduction or cessation of male hatchling 

production (Hawkes et al., 2009; 

Poloczanska et al., 2009). Increased sea 

surface temperatures may alter the 

timing of nesting for some stocks 

(Weishampel et al., 2004), although the 

implications of changes in nesting 

timing are unclear. Changes in sea 

temperatures will also likely alter 

seagrass, macroalgae, and invertebrate 

populations in coastal habitats in many 

regions (Scavia et al., 2002). Further, a 

significant rise in sea level, as is 

projected for areas within the range of 

the North Atlantic DPS (Flaxman and 

Vargas-Moreno, 2011), could 

significantly restrict green turtle nesting 

habitat due to coastal development. 

Structures on the landward side of the 

beach can effectively prevent access to 

nesting habitat and reduce available 

nesting habitat (Mosier, 1998). The 

increasing interaction between the 

structures and the hydrodynamics of 

tide and current, due to sea level rise, 

often results in the alteration of the 

beach profile seaward and in the 

immediate vicinity of the structure 

(Pilkey and Wright, 1988; Terchunian, 

1988; Tait and Griggs, 1990; Plant and 

Griggs, 1992), increased longshore 

currents that move sand away from the 

area, loss of interaction between the 

dune and the beach berm, and 

concentration of wave energy at the 

ends of the structure (Schroeder and 

Mosier, 1996). Impacts from global 

climate change induced by human 

activities are likely to become more 

apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007). 

Periodic hurricanes and other weather 

events are generally localized and rarely 

result in whole-scale losses over 

multiple nesting seasons. However, 

storm intensity and frequency are 

predicted to increase as a result of 

climate change (Melillo et al., 2014). 

The negative effects of hurricanes on 

low-lying and/or developed shorelines 

may be longer-lasting and a greater 

threat to the DPS overall when 

combined with the effects of climate 

change, and particularly sea level rise. 

e. Effects of Cold Stunning 

Cold stunning is the hypothermic 

reaction that occurs when sea turtles are 

exposed to prolonged cold water 

temperatures. Cold stunning of green 

turtles regularly occurs at several 

locations in the United States, including 

Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts (Still et 

al., 2002); Long Island Sound, New York 

(Meylan and Sadove, 1986; Morreale et 

al., 1992); the Indian River Lagoon 

system and the panhandle of Florida 

(Mendonc ̧a and Ehrhart, 1982; 

Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989; Foley 

et al., 2007); and Texas inshore waters 

(Hildebrand, 1982; Shaver, 1990). Coldstunning events at these foraging areas 

(Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989; 

McMichael et al., 2006) leads to 

mortality of juvenile and adult green 

turtles, which may affect the present 

and future green turtle population trend. 

f. Contaminants and Marine Debris 

Several activities associated with 

offshore oil and gas production, 

including oil spills, operational 

discharge, seismic surveys, explosive 

platform removal, platform lighting, and 

drilling and production activities, are 

known to affect sea turtles (National 

Research Council, 1996; Davis et al., 

2000; Viada et al., 2008; Conant et al., 

2009; G. Gitschlag, NMFS, pers. comm., 

2007, as cited in Conant et al., 2009). Oil 

spills near nesting beaches just prior to 

or during the nesting season place 

nesting females, incubating egg 

clutches, and hatchlings at significant 

risk from direct exposure to 

contaminants (Fritts and McGehee, 

1982; Lutcavage et al., 1997; 

Witherington, 1999), and have negative 

impacts on nesting habitat. The 

Deepwater Horizon (Mississippi Canyon 

252) oil spill, which started April 20, 

2010, discharged oil into the Gulf of 

Mexico through July 15, 2010. 

Witherington et al. (2012) note that the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill was 

particularly harmful to pelagic juvenile 

green turtles. Due to their size, turtles in 

these stages are more vulnerable as a 

result of ingesting contaminants 

(Witherington, 2002). 

Green turtles are affected by 

anthropogenic marine debris (including 

discarded fishing gear) and plastics 

throughout the North Atlantic DPS. 

Juvenile green turtles in pelagic waters 

are particularly susceptible to these 

effects as they feed on Sargassum in 

which there is a high occurrence of 

debris (Wabnitz and Nichols, 2010; 

Witherington et al., 2012). In recent 

decades, there has been an increase in 

stranded green turtles reported as 

affected by discarded fishery gear 

throughout the southeastern United 

States (Teas and Witzell, 1996; Adimey 

et al., 2014). 

C. Conservation Efforts for the North 

Atlantic DPS 

In the North Atlantic, nest protection 

efforts have been implemented on two 

major green turtle nesting beaches, 

Tortuguero National Park in Costa Rica 

and Florida, and progress has been 

made in reducing mortality from 

human-related impacts on other nesting 

beaches. Tortuguero National Park was 

established in 1976 to protect the 

nesting turtles and habitat at this 

nesting beach, which is by far the largest 

in the DPS and the western hemisphere. 

Since that time, the harvest of nesting 

turtles on the beach has been reduced 

by an order of magnitude (Bjorndal et 

al., 1999). At Tortuguero, Sea Turtle 

Conservancy researchers and volunteers 

regularly monitor green turtle nesting 

trends, growth rates and reproductive 

success, and also conduct sea turtle 

lighting surveys, education, and 

community outreach. 

In Florida, a key effort was the 

acquisition of the Archie Carr National 

Wildlife Refuge in Florida in 1991 by 

Federal, State, Brevard and Indian River 

counties, and a non-governmental 

organization, where nesting densities 

range from 36 nests/km (22 nests/mi) to 

262 nests/km (419 nests/mi) (D. Bagley, 

University of Central Florida, pers. 

comm., 2014; K. Kneifl, USFWS, pers. 

comm., 2014). Over 60 percent of the 

available beachfront acquisitions for the 

Refuge have been completed as the 

result of a multi-agency land acquisition 

effort. In addition, Hobe Sound National 

Wildlife Refuge, as well as coastal 

national seashores such as the Dry 

Tortugas National Park and Canaveral 

National Seashore, military installations 

such as Patrick Air Force Base and 

Canaveral Air Force Station, and State 

parks where green turtles regularly nest, 

provide protection for nesting turtles. 

However, despite these efforts, 

alteration of the coastline continues 

and, outside of publicly-owned lands, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15292 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

coastal development and associated 

coastal armoring remain serious threats. 

Considerable effort has been 

expended since the 1980s to document 

and reduce commercial fishing bycatch 

mortality. In the Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico, measures (such as gear 

modifications, changes to fishing 

practices, and time/area closures) are 

required to reduce sea turtle bycatch in 

pelagic longline, mid-Atlantic gill net, 

Virginia pound net, scallop dredge, and 

southeast shrimp and flounder trawl 

fisheries. However, enforcement of 

regulations depends on available 

resources, and bycatch continues to 

contribute to mortality. Since 1989, the 

United States has prohibited the 

importation of shrimp harvested in a 

manner that adversely affects sea turtles. 

As a result of conservation efforts, 

many of the intentional impacts 

directed at sea turtles have been 

lessened. For example, harvest of eggs 

and adults has been reduced at several 

nesting areas, including Tortuguero, and 

an increasing number of communitybased initiatives are in place to reduce 

the take of turtles in foraging areas. 

However, despite these advances, 

human impacts continue throughout the 

North Atlantic. The lack of effective 

monitoring in pelagic and near-shore 

fisheries operations still allows 

substantial direct and indirect mortality, 

and the uncontrolled development of 

coastal and marine habitats threatens to 

destroy the supporting ecosystems of 

long-lived green turtles. 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the North Atlantic DPS 

In the North Atlantic DPS, there are 

several regions that support high 

density nesting concentrations, 

including possibly the largest in the 

world at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Green 

turtle nesting population trends have 

been encouraging, exhibiting long-term 

increases at all major nesting sites, 

including Tortuguero (Troe ̈ng, 1998; 

Campbell and Lagueux, 2005; Troe ̈ng 

and Rankin, 2005) and Florida 

(Chaloupka et al., 2008; B. 

Witherington, Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, pers. comm., 

2013). The North Atlantic DPS is 

characterized by geographically 

widespread nesting at a diversity of 

sites, both mainland and insular. The 

increasing threats are not reflected in 

the current trend for the North Atlantic 

DPS as it was based on nesting numbers 

and not all current life stages. These 

increasing threats to the population will 

become apparent when those life stages 

affected by the threats return to nest as 

the trend information is based solely on 

numbers of nests. This lag time was 

considered in our analysis. However, 

the 5-factor (section 4(a)(1) of the ESA) 

analysis revealed continuing threats to 

green turtles and their habitat that affect 

all life stages. 

On nesting beaches, many portions of 

the DPS continue to be exposed to, and 

are negatively impacted by, coastal 

development and associated beachfront 

lighting, coastal armoring, and erosion 

as described in Factor A above. Impacts 

from such development are further 

exacerbated by existing and planned 

shoreline development and shoreline 

engineering. The current and 

anticipated increase in armored 

shoreline along high density nesting 

beaches, particularly in Florida, is a 

substantial unresolved threat to the 

recovery and stability of this DPS as it 

will result in the permanent loss of 

nesting habitat. 

Nests and hatchlings are susceptible 

to predation which is prevalent 

throughout the beaches within the range 

of the North Atlantic DPS. Predation 

would be an increasing threat without 

nest protection and predatory control 

programs in place. 

Nesting beaches are also extremely 

susceptible to sea level rise, which will 

exacerbate some of the issues described 

above in addition to leading to the 

potential loss of nesting beaches. Along 

the southeastern United States, one 

climate change model predicted a 

1-meter sea level rise by 2060, resulting 

in the inundation of more than 50 

percent of coastal wildlife refuges 

(Flaxman and Vargas-Moreno, 2011). 

Green turtle nesting in Florida is 

concentrated along coastal wildlife 

refuges in southern Florida such as 

Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge 

and the Archie Carr National Wildlife 

Refuge, with more than 90 percent of 

nesting occurring along southeast 

Florida. This increase in sea level will 

result in the permanent loss of current 

green turtle nesting habitat. Loss of 

beach is expected to be worse as a result 

of the increase in hurricane frequency 

and intensity (Flaxman and VargasMoreno, 2011). The increasing threat of 

coastal erosion due to climate change 

and sea level rise is expected to be 

exacerbated by increasing humaninduced pressures on coastal areas 

(IPCC, 2007). 

In the water, fisheries bycatch, habitat 

degradation, direct harvest, and FP are 

major threats to green turtles in the 

North Atlantic DPS. Artisanal and 

industrial fishing gear, including drift 

nets, set nets, pound nets, and trawls, 

still cause substantial direct and 

indirect mortality of green turtles 

(NMFS and USFWS, 2007). In addition, 

degradation and loss of foraging habitat 

due to pollution, including agricultural 

and residential runoff, anchor damage, 

dredging, channelization, and marina 

construction remains a threat to both 

juvenile and adult green turtles. Many 

green turtles in this DPS remain 

susceptible to direct harvesting. Current 

legal and illegal harvest of green turtles 

and eggs for human consumption 

continues in the eastern Atlantic and 

the Caribbean. A remaining threat is the 

directed harvest of turtles in Nicaragua 

that nest at Tortuguero and thus belong 

to the largest and arguably the most 

important population within the DPS 

(although this population continues to 

increase in spite of the harvest). 

However, potential degradation or loss 

of other, smaller populations is also of 

concern, as these contribute to the 

diversity and resilience of the DPS. 

Finally, the prevalence of FP has 

reached epidemic proportions in some 

parts of the North Atlantic DPS. The 

extent to which this will affect the longterm outlook for green turtles in the 

North Atlantic DPS is unknown. Nesting 

trends across the DPS continue to 

increase despite the high incidence of 

the disease. 

While the Status Review indicates 

that the DPS shows strength in many of 

the critical population parameters 

(abundance, population trends, spatial 

structure, and diversity/resilience), as 

indicated above, numerous threats 

continue to act on the DPS, including 

habitat degradation (coastal 

development and armoring, loss of 

foraging habitat, and pollution), bycatch 

in fishing gear, continued turtle and egg 

harvesting, FP, and climate change. 

Importantly, the analysis of threats in 

the Status Review was conducted 

assuming current management regimes 

would continue. 

Many of the gains made by the species 

over the past few decades are a direct 

result of ESA protections in the United 

States, as well as protections by U.S. 

States and local jurisdictions and other 

countries within the DPS range that are 

influenced by the species’ ESA status. 

Because the green turtle is currently 

listed under the ESA, take can only be 

authorized in the United States through 

the processes provided in sections 7 and 

10 of the ESA and their implementing 

regulations. In the southeastern United 

States, threats to nesting beaches and 

nearshore waters include: Sand 

placement on nesting beaches and 

associated impacts to nearshore 

hardbottom habitat; groin, jetty and 

dock construction; and other activities. 

Any such activities that are currently 

funded, permitted and/or authorized by 

Federal agencies are subject to 

consultation with USFWS and NMFS, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15293 

and therefore are subject to reasonable 

and prudent measures to minimize 

effects of these activities as well as 

conservation recommendations 

associated with those consultations. 

Federally-managed fisheries are also 

subject to interagency consultation 

under section 7 of the ESA. During the 

consultation process NMFS and USFWS 

have an opportunity to work with the 

action agency to design practices to 

minimize effects on green turtles, such 

as when the activity occurs in areas or 

habitats used mostly by green turtles 

(i.e., seagrass beds and nesting beaches). 

Activities that affect green turtles and 

do not involve Federal agencies, such as 

beach driving, some beach armoring, 

and research, must comply with section 

10 of the ESA to avoid violating the 

statute. Section 10 permits require 

avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating 

impacts to green turtles to the extent 

possible. In addition to the above 

requirements, the requirement for use of 

TEDs in fisheries within the United 

States and in fisheries outside of the 

United States that export wild-caught 

shrimp to the United States is tied to 

listing under the ESA. 

This DPS has exhibited increases at 

major nesting sites, and has several 

stronghold populations. Green turtles in 

the U.S. Atlantic have increased steadily 

since being protected by the ESA 

(Suckling et al., 2006). ESA driven 

programs such as land acquisition, nest 

protection, development of the TEDs, 

and educational programs provide a 

conservation benefit to green turtles. 

The species is conservation dependent 

or conservation-reliant in that even 

when biological recovery goals are 

achieved, maintenance of viable 

populations will require continuing, 

species-specific intervention (Scott et 

al., 2010). Without alternate 

mechanisms in place to continue certain 

existing conservation efforts and 

protections, threats would be expected 

to increase and population trends may 

be curtailed or reversed. Considering the 

conservation dependence of the species, 

significant concerns remain regarding 

the inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms (one of the five section 

4(a)(1) factors (Factor D), especially 

when we evaluate the status of the DPS 

absent the protections of the ESA. 

For the above reasons, we propose to 

list the North Atlantic DPS as 

threatened. We do not find the DPS to 

be in danger of extinction presently 

because of the increasing nesting 

population trends and geographically 

widespread nesting at a diversity of 

sites; however, continued threats are 

likely to endanger the DPS within the 

foreseeable future. 

VIII. Mediterranean DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters 

for the Mediterranean DPS 

The Mediterranean Sea is a virtually 

enclosed basin occupying an area of 

approximately 2.5 million square 

kilometers. The Mediterranean DPS is 

bounded by the entire coastline of the 

Mediterranean Sea, excluding the Black 

Sea. The westernmost border of the 

range of this DPS is marked by the Strait 

of Gibraltar (Figure 2). 

Nesting in the Mediterranean occurs 

mostly in the eastern Mediterranean, 

with three nesting concentrations in 

Turkey, Cyprus, and Syria. Currently, 

approximately 452 to 2,051 nests are 

laid in the Mediterranean each year— 

about 70 percent in Turkey, 15 percent 

in Cyprus, and 15 percent in Syria, with 

trace nesting in Israel, Egypt, the 

Hellenic Republic (Greece), and 

Lebanon (Kasparek et al., 2001; Rees et 

al., 2008; Casale and Margaritoulis, 

2010). There are no sites with greater 

than 500 nesting females. These 

numbers are depleted from historical 

levels (Kasparek et al., 2001). In terms 

of distribution of nesting sites in the 

Mediterranean, there are 32 sites, with 

Akyatan, Turkey being the largest 

nesting site, hosting 25 percent of the 

total annual nesting (35–245 nesting 

females; Tu ̈rkozan and Kaska, 2010). 

There are seven sites for which 10 

years or more of recent data are 

available for annual nesting female 

abundance (a criterion for presenting 

trends in a bar graph). Of these, only 

one site—West Coast, Cyprus—met our 

standards for conducting a PVA. Of the 

seven sites, five appeared to be 

increasing, although some only slightly, 

and two had no apparent trend. 

However, while the Mediterranean DPS 

appears to be stable or increasing, it is 

severely depleted relative to historical 

levels. This dynamic is particularly 

apparent along the coast of Palestine/

Israel, where 300–350 nests were 

deposited each year in the 1950s (Sella, 

1995) compared to a mean of eight nests 

each year from 1993 to 2008 (Casale and 

Margaritoulis, 2010). 

With regard to spatial structure, 

genetic sampling in the Mediterranean 

has been extensive and the coverage in 

this region is substantial. Within the 

Mediterranean, rookeries are 

characterized by one dominant 

haplotype CM–A13 and a recent study 

showed no population substructuring 

between several rookeries in Cyprus and 

Turkey (Bagda et al., 2012). However, 

analysis using unpublished data from 

additional rookery samples in Cyprus 

shows evidence for two stocks: Cyprus 

(Karpaz, North Cyprus and Lara Bay; 

Bagda et al., 2012; Dutton unpublished 

data, 2013); and Turkey (Akayatan, 

Alata, Kazanli, Samandag and 

Yumurtal(k; Bagda et al., 2012). The 

demography of green turtles in the 

Mediterranean appears to be consistent 

among the various nesting assemblages 

(Broderick and Godley, 1996; Broderick 

et al., 2002a). This consistency in 

parameters such as mean nesting size, 

inter-nesting interval, clutch size, 

hatching success, nesting season, and 

clutch frequency suggests a low level of 

population structuring in the 

Mediterranean. Mediterranean turtles 

have not been detected foraging outside 

the Mediterranean (e.g., Lahanas et al., 

1998; Monzo ́n-Argu ̈ ello et al., 2010). 

Despite years of flipper tagging 

(Demetropoulos and 

Hadjichristophorou, 1995, 2010; Y. 

Kaska, Pamukkale University, pers. 

comm., 2013), few tag recoveries have 

been reported. However, satellite 

tracking revealed that post-nesting 

turtles migrate primarily along the coast 

from their nesting beach to foraging 

grounds, increasing the likelihood of 

interacting with fisheries (Broderick et 

al., 2002a). 

With regard to diversity and 

resilience, the overall spatial range of 

the DPS is limited. Green turtle nesting 

is found primarily in the eastern 

Mediterranean (Turkey, Syria, Cyprus, 

Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt: Kasparek et 

al., 2001). The nesting season is 

consistent throughout the range of this 

DPS (June to August; Broderick et al., 

2002a), thus limiting the temporal 

buffering against climate change in 

terms of impacts due to storms and 

other seasonal events. The fact that 

turtles nest on both insular and 

continental sites suggests some degree 

of nesting diversity, but with the sites so 

close together, the benefits of this 

diversity may be minimal. 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Mediterranean DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

In the Mediterranean, destruction and 

modification of green turtle nesting 

habitat result from coastal development 

and construction, beachfront lighting, 

sand extraction, beach erosion, 

vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and 

beach pollution (Kasparek et al., 2001; 

Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010). These 

activities may directly affect the amount 

and suitability of nesting habitat 

available to nesting females and thus 

affect the nesting success of green 

turtles, as well as the survivability of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15294 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

eggs and hatchlings. In Turkey, coastal 

construction on Samandag ̆ and Kazanli 

beaches is of concern, particularly from 

associated lighting and human activities 

on the beach (Tu ̈rkozan and Kaska, 

2010). In Cyprus, the increased 

construction of beachfront hotels and 

other properties in some areas in recent 

years, as well as the associated increase 

in beachfront lighting and human 

activity on the beach, is decreasing the 

quality of nesting habitat 

(Demetropoulos and 

Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al., 

2010). In Turkey and Latakia beach in 

Syria, beach erosion and sand extraction 

also pose a problem to green turtle 

nesting habitat (Tu ̈rkozan and Kaska, 

2010; Rees et al., 2010). 

Nesting beaches in the eastern 

Mediterranean are exposed to high 

levels of pollution and marine debris, in 

particular the beaches of Cyprus, 

Turkey, and Egypt (Camin ̃ as, 2004). In 

Turkey, marine debris washing ashore is 

a substantial problem and has degraded 

nesting beaches, especially Akyatan and 

Samandag ̆ beaches. In Syria, Jony and 

Rees (2008) reported that beaches 

contain a large amount of plastic litter 

that washes ashore or is blown in from 

dumps located in the beach dunes; this 

litter has been documented as 

accumulating in such large amounts that 

it can hinder nesting females from 

locating suitable nesting sites and cause 

emergent hatchlings to have difficulty 

crawling to the sea (Rees et al., 2010). 

In Cyprus, marine debris has also been 

a significant problem on some beaches, 

although organized beach clean-ups in 

recent years have greatly reduced the 

amount of litter on the beach 

(Demetropoulos and 

Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al., 

2010). 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

Dynamite fishing and boat anchors 

affect green turtles and their habitat in 

the Mediterranean. Khalil et al. (2009) 

reported that dynamite fishing offshore 

of nesting beaches is a common problem 

in Lebanon. Illegal dynamite fishing 

also occurs year round in Libya (Hamza, 

2010), and, although illegal, explosions 

at sea that are likely due to dynamite 

fishing have been reported off the coast 

of Syria (Saad, unpubl. data, as cited in 

Rees et al., 2010). Further, the 

Mediterranean is a site of intense tourist 

activity, and corresponding boat 

anchoring also may affect green turtle 

foraging habitat in the neritic 

environment. 

Because the Mediterranean is an 

enclosed sea, organic and inorganic 

wastes, toxic effluents, and other 

pollutants rapidly affect the ecosystem 

(Camin ̃ as, 2004). The Mediterranean has 

been declared a ‘‘special area’’ by the 

MARPOL Convention (International 

Convention for the Prevention of 

Pollution from Ships), in which 

deliberate petroleum discharges from 

vessels are banned, but numerous 

repeated offenses are still thought to 

occur (Pavlakis et al., 1996). 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Overutilization for commercial 

purposes likely was a factor that 

contributed to the historical declines of 

this DPS. Egg collection and turtle 

harvest for individual consumption still 

occurs in Egypt (Clarke et al., 2000; 

Nada and Casale, 2008). A study found 

that the open selling of sea turtles in 

Egypt generally has been curtailed due 

to enforcement efforts, but a high level 

of intentional killing for the black 

market or for direct personal 

consumption still exists (Nada and 

Casale, 2008). Several hundred turtles 

are currently estimated to be 

slaughtered each year in Egypt (Nada 

and Casale, 2008). In Syria and Egypt, 

as reported for other countries, green 

turtles incidentally captured by fishers 

are sometimes eaten (Nada and Casale, 

2008; Rees et al., 2010). Small quantities 

of stuffed turtles and juvenile turtle 

carapaces, presumably of Syrian origin, 

have been observed for sale in Latakia 

and Damascus (Rees et al., 2010). 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

Nest and hatchling predation likely 

was a factor that contributed to the 

historical decline of the Mediterranean 

DPS. There have been no records of FP 

or other diseases in green turtles in this 

DPS. In this DPS, green turtle eggs and 

hatchlings are subject to depredation by 

wild canids (i.e., foxes (Vulpes vulpes), 

golden jackals (Canis aureus), feral and 

domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), 

and ghost crabs (Ocypode cursor; van 

Piggelen and Strijbosch, 1993; Brown 

and MacDonald, 1995; Aureggi et al., 

1999, 2005; Simms et al., 2002; Akcinar 

et al., 2006; Jony and Rees, 2008; Khalil 

et al., 2009; Aureggi and Khalil, 2010; 

Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, 

2010; Fuller et al., 2010; Rees et al., 

2010). 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

There are at least 13 international 

treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms 

that pertain to the Mediterranean, and 

nearly all countries lining the 

Mediterranean have some level of 

national legislation directed at sea turtle 

protection. The SRT analysis of these 

existing regulatory mechanisms 

assumed that all would remain in place 

at their current levels. 

Regulatory mechanisms are in place 

throughout the range of the DPS that 

address the direct capture of green 

turtles for most of the countries within 

this DPS. Most Mediterranean countries 

have developed national legislation to 

protect sea turtles and nesting habitats 

(Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010). The 

following countries have laws to protect 

green turtles: Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, 

Egypt, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, 

Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey. In 

addition, at least 13 international 

treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms 

apply to the conservation of green 

turtles in the Mediterranean DPS. 

National protective legislation generally 

prohibits intentional killing, 

harassment, possession, trade, or 

attempts at these (Margaritoulis et al., 

2003). In addition, some countries have 

site-specific legislation or conservation 

designation for turtle habitat protection. 

These are implemented to various 

degrees throughout the range of the 

DPS. There are some national 

regulations, within this DPS, that 

specially address the harvest of green 

turtles. 

In western Cyprus, Lara-Toxeftra 

beaches have been afforded protection 

through the Fisheries Law and 

Regulations since 1989 (Margaritoulis, 

2007). In northern Cyprus, four beaches 

(Alagadi Beach, Karpaz Peninsular, 

South Karpaz, and Akdeniz) have been 

designated as Special Protected Areas 

(Fuller et al., 2010). These four areas 

include the third and fifth most 

important green turtle nesting beaches 

in the Mediterranean (Kasparek et al., 

2001). In Syria, establishment of a 

protected area at Latakia beach, the most 

important green turtle nesting beach in 

the country, is being sought but is facing 

strong opposition from the tourism 

sector (Rees et al., 2010). While it is 

important to recognize the success of 

these protected areas, we must also note 

that the protection has been in place for 

some time and the threats to the species 

remain (particularly from increasing 

tourism activities). It is unlikely that the 

protective measures discussed here are 

sufficient for the conservation of the 

species in the Mediterranean. 

Regulatory mechanisms are not in 

place in many countries within this DPS 

to address the major threat of sea turtle 

bycatch. Some of the countries in which 

this DPS is located limit the number and 

type of fishing licenses issued but sea 

turtle bycatch is not considered in these 

authorizations. It is unlikely that 

bycatch mortality can be sufficiently 

reduced across the range of the DPS in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15295 

the near future because of the diversity 

and magnitude of the fisheries operating 

in the DPS, the lack of comprehensive 

information on fishing distribution and 

effort, limitations on implementing 

demonstrated effective conservation 

measures, geopolitical complexities, 

limitations on enforcement capacity, 

and lack of availability of 

comprehensive bycatch reduction 

technologies. Our Status Review did not 

reveal regulatory mechanisms in place 

to specifically address coastal 

development, marine pollution, sea 

level rise, and effects of climate change 

that continue to contribute to the 

extinction risk of this DPS. 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

Incidental capture of sea turtles in 

artisanal and commercial fisheries is a 

significant threat to the survival of green 

turtles in the Mediterranean. Fishing 

practices alone have been estimated to 

result in over 150,000 sea turtle captures 

per year, with approximately 50,000 

mortalities (Lucchetti and Sala, 2009; 

Casale, 2011) and sea turtle bycatch in 

multiple gears in the Mediterranean is 

considered among the most urgent 

conservation priorities globally (Wallace 

et al., 2010). 

i. Longline Fisheries 

In the Mediterranean, surface longline 

fisheries are a source of green turtle 

bycatch (Camin ̃ as, 2004). Incidental 

captures have been reported from 

Cyprus (Godley et al., 1998), Turkey 

(Godley et al., 1998), Italy (Laurent et 

al., 2001), and Egypt (Nada, 2001; 

Camin ̃ as, 2004). In Egypt, based on fleet 

data and catch rates reported by fishers 

during the 2000s, the total number of 

sea turtles (i.e., all species) bycaught in 

longlines was estimated to be over 2,200 

per year (Nada and Casale, 2008). 

Fishers also reported that some of the 

caught turtles are dead, and the 

incidence of mortality is particularly 

high in longlines and gill nets. 

ii. Set Net (Gill Net) Fishing 

Casale (2008) considered mortality by 

set nets to be 60 percent, with a 

resulting estimate of 16,000 turtles 

killed per year. However, a breakdown 

of these estimates by turtle species is 

not available. Most of these turtles are 

likely juveniles, with an average size of 

45.4 cm CCL (n=74, Casale, 2008). 

iii. Trawl Fisheries 

Green turtles have been reported as 

incidentally captured in bottom trawls 

in Egypt (Nada and Casale, 2011), 

Greece (Margaritoulis et al., 2003), 

Tunisia (Laurent et al., 1990), Turkey 

(Laurent et al., 1996; Oruc ̧, 2001), Syria, 

Israel, and Libya (Casale et al., 2010), 

but are likely also captured by bottom 

trawlers in other neritic foraging areas 

in the eastern Mediterranean (Casale et 

al., 2010). Laurent et al. (1996) 

estimated that approximately 10,000 to 

15,000 sea turtles were being captured 

annually by bottom trawling in the 

eastern Mediterranean. Although most 

of the turtles taken were loggerheads, 

they estimated that the number of green 

turtles taken was 1,000 to 3,000 

annually in Turkey and Egypt alone. 

More recently, Casale (2011) compiled 

available trawl bycatch data throughout 

the Mediterranean and reported that 

Italy and Tunisia have the highest level 

of sea turtle bycatch, potentially over 

20,000 captures per year combined, and 

Croatia, Greece, Turkey, Libya, Greece, 

and Egypt each have an estimated 1,900 

or more sea turtle captures per year. 

Further, Albania, Algeria, Cyprus, 

Morocco, Slovenia, Spain, and Syria 

may each capture a few hundred sea 

turtles per year (Casale, 2011). Available 

data suggest the annual number of sea 

turtle captures by all Mediterranean 

trawlers may be greater than 39,000 

(Casale, 2011). Although most of the 

turtles reported by Casale (2011) as 

taken by bottom trawlers were 

undoubtedly loggerheads, a few 

thousand were likely green turtles based 

on earlier reports (Laurent et al., 1990; 

Laurent et al., 1996; Oruc ̧, 2001; 

Margaritoulis et al., 2003; Nada and 

Casale, 2008). 

b. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic 

Propeller and collision injuries from 

boats and ships are becoming more 

common for sea turtles in the 

Mediterranean, although it is unclear as 

to whether the events, or just the 

reporting of the injuries, are increasing. 

Speedboat and jet-ski impacts are of 

particular concern in areas of intense 

tourist activity, such as Greece, Turkey, 

and Syria. Boats operating near sea 

turtle nesting beaches during the nesting 

season are likely to either cause females 

to abandon nesting attempts or cause 

their injury or death (Camin ̃ as, 2004). 

Males may also be affected in high-use 

boating areas where sea turtle mating 

occurs (Demetropoulos, 2000; Rees et 

al., 2010). 

c. Pollution 

Unattended or discarded nets, floating 

plastics and bags, and tar balls are of 

particular concern in the Mediterranean 

(Camin ̃ as, 2004; Margaritoulis, 2007). 

Monofilament netting appears to be the 

most dangerous waste produced by the 

fishing industry (Camin ̃ as, 2004). 

The discharge of chemical substances, 

including highly toxic chromium 

compounds from a soda-chromium 

factory close to the Kazanli nesting 

beach in Turkey, is cause for concern 

(Kasparek et al., 2001; Venizelos and 

Kasparek, 2006). 

d. Effects of Climate Change 

Both the marine and terrestrial realms 

will be influenced by temperature 

increases and will likely undergo 

alterations that will adversely affect 

green turtles. Mediterranean turtle 

populations could be affected by the 

alteration of thermal sand 

characteristics (from global warming), 

resulting in the reduction or cessation of 

male hatchling production (Kasparek et 

al., 2001; Camin ̃ as, 2004; Hawkes et al., 

2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009). In 

northern Cyprus, green turtle hatchling 

sex ratios are already thought to be 

highly female biased (approximately 95 

percent female; Wright et al., 2012). 

This, in tandem with predicted future 

rises in temperatures, is cause for 

concern (Fuller et al., 2010). As 

temperatures increase, there is also 

concern that incubation temperatures 

will reach levels that exceed the thermal 

tolerance for embryonic development, 

thus increasing embryo and hatchling 

mortality (Fuller et al., 2010). Further, a 

significant rise in sea level would 

restrict green turtle nesting habitat in 

the eastern Mediterranean. While sea 

turtles have survived past eras that have 

included significant temperature 

fluctuations, future climate change is 

expected to happen at unprecedented 

rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly 

they may face local to widespread 

extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). 

Impacts from global climate change 

induced by human activities are likely 

to become more apparent in future years 

(IPCC, 2007). 

In summary, within Factor E, we find 

that fishery bycatch and marine 

pollution that occurs throughout the 

range of the Mediterranean DPS are 

significant threats to this DPS. In 

addition, boat strikes and changes likely 

to result from climate change are an 

increasing threat to the persistence of 

this DPS. 

C. Conservation Efforts 

Regional and national efforts are 

underway to conserve green turtles 

(often all sea turtles) throughout the 

range of the DPS. The extent to which 

threats have been reduced as a result of 

these efforts is difficult to ascertain. 

Green turtle nesting primarily occurs 

in Turkey, Cyprus, and Syria, and a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15296 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

notable proportion of nesting in those 

areas is protected through various 

mechanisms. In Turkey, three important 

green turtle nesting beaches (Alata, 

Kazanli, and Akyatan) were all 

designated as protected areas by the 

Turkish Ministry of Culture, while two 

other beaches (Belek and Go ̈ sku Delta) 

also have some level of protected status 

(Kasparek et al., 2001; Fuller et al., 

2010). These five protected beaches 

represent approximately 60 percent of 

nesting in Turkey (see Canbolat et al., 

2009 and Fuller et al., 2010). 

There has been success within these 

protected areas, but as the protection 

has been in place for some time and the 

threats to the species remain 

(particularly from increasing tourism 

activities), it is unlikely that the 

protective measures discussed here are 

sufficient for the conservation of the 

species in the Mediterranean. 

Marine debris is also a significant 

problem on many green turtle nesting 

beaches in the eastern Mediterranean, in 

particular the nesting beaches of Cyprus 

and Turkey (Camin ̃ as, 2004; 

Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, 

2010; Fuller et al., 2010; Tu ̈rkozan and 

Kaska, 2010). Although organized beach 

clean-ups in recent years on some 

beaches in Cyprus have greatly reduced 

the amount of litter on the beach 

(Demetropoulos and 

Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al., 

2010), it is still an overall pervasive 

problem. 

Protection of marine habitats is in the 

early stages in the Mediterranean, as in 

other areas of the world. Off the LaraToxeftra nesting beaches in western 

Cyprus, a marine protection zone 

extends to the 20-m isobath (i.e., 20-m 

depth line) as delineated by the 

Fisheries Regulation (Margaritoulis, 

2007; Demetropoulos and 

Hadjichristophorou, 2010). As 

mentioned above, establishment of a 

protected area at Latakia beach in Syria 

is being sought and would include 

protection of a section of sea offshore; 

however, it is facing strong opposition 

from the tourism sector (Serra, 2008; 

Rees et al., 2010). 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings 

The Mediterranean DPS is 

characterized by low green turtle 

nesting abundance at 32 different 

locations, with many of these sites 

having only one or two known nesting 

females and none having greater than 

245 nesting females. While some of 

these sites show stable or increasing 

trends, the extremely low nesting 

abundance of this DPS compared to 

historical abundance creates an 

intrinsically high risk to the long-term 

stability of the population. The spatial 

range of the population is limited to the 

eastern Mediterranean, and the nesting 

season is consistent throughout this DPS 

(June to August; Broderick et al., 2002a), 

thus limiting the temporal buffering 

against climate change in terms of 

impacts due to storms and other 

seasonal events. The fact that turtles 

nest on both insular and continental 

sites suggests some degree of nesting 

diversity but, with the sites so close 

together, the benefits of this diversity 

may be minimal. Mitochondrial DNA 

studies have identified two stocks but, 

in general there is low population 

substructuring in the Mediterranean. 

The five-factor analysis in the Status 

Review reveals numerous significant 

threats to green turtles within the range 

of the DPS. Coastal development, 

beachfront lighting, erosion resulting 

from sand extraction, illegal harvest, 

detrimental fishing practices, and 

marine pollution both at nesting 

beaches and important foraging grounds 

are continuing concerns across the 

Mediterranean DPS, and are 

insufficiently tempered by conservation 

efforts. Current illegal harvest of green 

turtles for human consumption 

continues as a moderate threat to this 

DPS. Fishery bycatch occurs throughout 

the Mediterranean Sea, particularly 

bycatch mortality of green turtles in 

pelagic longline, set net, and trawl 

fisheries. Additional threats from boat 

strikes, which are becoming more 

common, and changes likely to result 

from climate change will negatively 

affect this DPS. 

For the above reasons, we propose to 

list the Mediterranean DPS as 

endangered. Based on its low nesting 

abundance, limited spatial distribution, 

and exposure to increasing threats, we 

find that this DPS is presently in danger 

of extinction throughout its range. 

IX. South Atlantic DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters 

for the South Atlantic DPS 

The South Atlantic DPS’s range 

boundary begins at the border of 

Panama and Colombia at 7.5° N., 77° W., 

heads due north to 10.5° N., 77° W., 

then northeast to 19° N., 63.5° W., and 

along 19° N. latitude to Mauritania in 

Africa, to include the U.S. Virgin 

Islands in the Caribbean. It extends 

along the coast of Africa to South Africa, 

with the southern border being 40° S. 

latitude. 

Green turtle nesting occurs on 

beaches along the western coast of 

Africa from southern Mauritania to 

South Africa, in the middle of the South 

Atlantic on Ascension Island, in the 

Caribbean portion of the South Atlantic 

including Caribbean South America, 

and along eastern South America down 

through Brazil (Figure 2). In the eastern 

South Atlantic, significant sea turtle 

habitats have been identified, including 

green turtle feeding grounds in Corisco 

Bay, Equatorial Guinea/Gabon (Formia, 

1999); Congo (Bal et al., 2007; Girard et 

al., 2014); Mussulo Bay, Angola (Carr 

and Carr, 1991); and Principe Island 

(SWOT, 2010). In the western South 

Atlantic, juvenile and adult green turtles 

utilize foraging areas throughout the 

Caribbean areas of the South Atlantic, 

often resulting in interactions with 

fisheries occurring in those same waters 

(Dow et al., 2007). While no nesting 

occurs as far south as Uruguay and 

Argentina, both countries have 

important foraging grounds for South 

Atlantic green turtles (LopezMendilaharsu et al., 2006; Lezama, 

2009; Gonza ́lez Carman et al., 2011; 

Prosdocimi et al., 2012; Rivas-Zinno, 

2012). Within the range of the South 

Atlantic DPS, there are a total of 51 

nesting sites (some being individual 

beaches and others representing 

multiple nesting beaches) that can be 

roughly divided into four regions: 

western Africa, Ascension Island, 

Brazil, and the South Atlantic Caribbean 

(including Colombia, the Guianas, and 

Aves Island in addition to the numerous 

small, insular nesting sites). Much of the 

South Atlantic is data poor with only 

occasional or incomplete nesting 

surveys. Therefore, for 37 of the 51 

identified nesting areas of this DPS, we 

were not able to estimate nesting female 

abundance, even for relatively large 

nesting sites such as French Guiana. Of 

the nesting sites for which an estimate 

could be derived, three account for the 

bulk of the nesting: Poila ̃o, GuineaBissau (29,016 nesting females; Catry et 

al., 2009); Ascension Island, UK (13,417 

nesting females; S. Weber, Ascension 

Island Government, pers. comm., 2013); 

and the Galibi Reserve, Suriname (9,406 

nesting females; Schulz, 1975; 

Weijerman et al., 1998). There are two 

sites with >10,000 nesting females 

(Poila ̃o and Ascension Island); one site 

with 5,001–10,000 nesting females 

(Suriname); three sites with 1,001–5,000 

nesting females (Trindade Island, Brazil 

(2,016; Almeida et al., 2011; Projecto 

Tamar, 2011); Aves Island, Venezuela 

(2,833; Prieto et al., 2012); and Matapica 

Reserve, Suriname (3,661; A. Turney, 

pers. comm., 2012). There are three sites 

with 501–1,001 nesting females, three 

sites with 101–500, two sites with 51– 

100, and 37 unquantified sites. Poila ̃o 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15297 

accounts for almost 46 percent of the 

total number of nesting females. 

Long-term monitoring data for this 

DPS are relatively scarce. There are 

three sites for which 10 or more years 

of recent data are available for annual 

nesting female abundance (a criterion 

for presenting trends in a bar graph in 

the Status Review): (1) Ascension 

Island, UK; (2) Galibi and Matapica 

Reserves, Suriname; and (3) Atol das 

Rocas, Brazil. Together, the first two 

sites represent approximately 26,759 

nesting females (42 percent of the 

population), while the third site has 

only 275 nesting females (Bellini et al., 

2013). Ascension Island, and Galibi and 

Matapica Reserves have exhibited 

substantial increases since the 1970s. 

Although they did not meet the criteria 

for presenting bar graphs, there are 

indications of trends at other beaches in 

the South Atlantic, such as increasing 

trends at Isla Trindade, Brazil, and Aves 

Island, Venezuela, and decreasing 

trends at Bioko Island, Equatorial 

Guinea. 

With regard to spatial structure, the 

phylogenic relationship of the eastern 

Caribbean nesting sites indicates that, 

despite the close proximity of other 

Caribbean nesting sites, they are more 

closely related to the nesting sites in the 

South Atlantic (M. Jensen, NRC, unpubl. 

data). Green turtle nesting sites found in 

Brazil, Ascension Island, and West 

Africa have shallow structuring and are 

dominated by a common and 

widespread haplotype, CM–A8, that is 

found in high frequency across all 

nesting sites in the South Atlantic 

(Bjorndal et al., 2006; Formia et al., 

2006). A recent study showed that a 

large proportion of juvenile green turtles 

foraging in Cape Verde in the eastern 

Atlantic originated from distant nesting 

sites across the Atlantic, namely 

Suriname (38 percent), Ascension Island 

(12 percent), and Guinea Bissau (19 

percent), suggesting that, like the 

loggerheads, green turtles in the Atlantic 

undertake transoceanic developmental 

migrations (Monzo ́n-Argu ̈ ello et al., 

2010). The fact that long distance 

dispersal is only seen for juvenile turtles 

suggests that larger adult-sized turtles 

return to forage within the region of 

their natal nesting sites, thereby limiting 

the potential for gene flow across larger 

scales (Monzo ́n-Argu ̈ ello et al., 2010). 

Important foraging grounds in the 

western South Atlantic, such as those 

off of Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, are 

shared by turtles from various nesting 

assemblages in the western South 

Atlantic and Ascension Island. 

Important foraging grounds in the 

eastern South Atlantic, such as the Gulf 

of Guinea, are shared by turtles from the 

eastern South Atlantic as well as 

juveniles from Suriname and Ascension 

Island. 

Overall, many demographic 

parameters of green turtles in the South 

Atlantic appear to vary widely among 

the various nesting assemblages. 

However, this variability in parameters 

such as remigration interval, clutch size, 

hatching success, sex ratio, and clutch 

frequency is not separated out 

regionally within the range of the DPS 

and therefore does not necessarily 

suggest a high level of population 

structuring. Average sizes of nesting 

females are the largest reported for 

females globally (Hirth, 1997; Almeida 

et al., 2011; Bellini et al., 2013). 

With regard to diversity and 

resilience, the overall range of the DPS 

is extensive and varied, with both 

insular and continental nesting. 

Ascension Island, one of the largest 

nesting sites, is isolated and protected 

in the middle of the South Atlantic, and 

appears to have migratory connections 

to nesting sites on the eastern and 

western ends of the DPS’s range. The 

insular sites vary quite a bit in terms of 

potential impacts from sea level rise and 

tropical weather. Aves Island, one of the 

largest Caribbean nesting sites within 

the range of the South Atlantic DPS is 

particularly vulnerable to sea level rise 

as it is a very low-lying island. 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

South Atlantic DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

At continental sites in the South 

Atlantic DPS destruction and 

modification of sea turtle nesting habitat 

(for green turtles and other species) 

result from coastal development and 

construction, placement of erosion 

control structures and other barriers to 

nesting, beachfront lighting, vehicular 

and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction, 

beach erosion, beach sand placement, 

beach pollution, removal of native 

vegetation, and planting of non-native 

vegetation (D’Amato and Marczwski, 

1993; Marcovaldi and dei Marcovaldi, 

1999; Naro-Maciel et al., 1999; 

Broderick et al., 2002b; Marcovaldi et 

al., 2002; Formia et al., 2003; Tanner, 

2013). 

In very low-lying islands such as 

Aves, rising sea levels and increased 

storms could result in a loss of nesting 

habitat, thus potentially eliminating 

their functionality as nesting beaches. 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

On the western side of the South 

Atlantic, the Brazil Current Large 

Marine Ecosystem (LME) region is 

characterized by the Global 

International Waters Assessment 

(GIWA) as suffering severe impacts in 

the areas of pollution, coastal habitat 

modification, and overexploitation of 

fish stocks (Marques et al., 2004). The 

Patagonian Shelf LME is moderately 

affected by pollution, habitat 

modification, and overfishing (Mugetti 

et al., 2004). In the Canary Current LME, 

the area is characterized by the GIWA as 

severely impacted in the area of 

modification or loss of ecosystems or 

ecotones and health impacts, but these 

impacts are decreasing (http://

www.lme.noaa.gov). The Celtic-Biscay 

Shelf LME is affected by alterations to 

the seabed, agriculture, and sewage 

(Valde ́z-Gonza ́lez and Ramı ́rez-Bautista, 

2002). The Gulf of Guinea has been 

characterized as severely impacted in 

the area of solid wastes by the GIWA; 

this and other pollution indicators are 

increasing (http://www.lme.noaa.gov). 

On the eastern side of the South 

Atlantic, the Benguela Current LME has 

been moderately impacted by 

overfishing, with future conditions 

expected to worsen by the GIWA 

(Prochazka et al., 2005). 

In Brazil, green turtles in degraded 

coastal areas that have ingested plastic 

debris have been found to have diets 

that are lower in diversity and quality 

(Santos et al., 2011). Off the 

northwestern coast of Suriname run-off 

from rice production and other 

agricultural activities is a problem 

(Reichart and Fretey, 1993) and likely 

would have similar impacts. The 

reduction of carrying capacity for green 

turtles in seagrass beds impacted by 

anchor damage in popular bays in the 

U.S. Virgin Islands has also been 

documented (Williams, 1988). Likewise, 

sediment contamination from coastal 

and upstream industrial sites has been 

recognized in the Caribbean, including 

St. Croix (Ross and DeLorenzo, 1997), 

and has the potential to impact green 

turtle habitat as well as the turtles 

themselves. Such coastal degradation 

has been seen throughout the Caribbean 

areas that fall within the range of the 

South Atlantic DPS (Dow et al., 2007). 

In summary, we find that the South 

Atlantic DPS of the green turtle is 

negatively affected by ongoing changes 

in both its terrestrial and marine 

habitats as a result of land and water use 

practices as considered above in Factor 

A. However, sufficient data are not 

available to assess the significance of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15298 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

these threats to the persistence of this 

DPS. 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Overutilization for commercial 

purposes likely was a factor that 

contributed to the historical declines of 

this DPS. Although legal and illegal 

collection of eggs and harvest of turtles 

persists as a threat to this DPS, it does 

not appear to be a significant threat to 

its resilience. Eggs are taken for human 

consumption in Brazil, but the amount 

is considered minor when compared to 

historical rates of egg collection 

(Marcovaldi and dei Marcovaldi, 1999; 

Marcovaldi et al., 2005; Almeida and 

Mendes, 2007). Use of sea turtles, 

including green turtles, for medicinal 

purposes occasionally occurs in 

northeastern Brazil (Alvez and Rosa, 

2006; Braga-Filho and Schiavetti, 2013). 

Egg harvest occurred in the Galibi area 

until 1967 when a ban was enacted. 

Subsequently, a controlled harvest was 

allowed until the early 2000s via permit 

with poaching continuing at 

approximately 100 to 450 nests per year 

(Reichart and Fretey, 1993). 

Throughout the Caribbean areas of the 

South Atlantic DPS, harvest of green 

turtle eggs and turtles, both illegal and 

legal, continues (Dow et al., 2007). 

Among the British Caribbean territories 

within the South Atlantic DPS 

(including Anguilla, Turks and Caicos, 

the British Virgin Islands, and 

Montserrat) there are legal sea turtle 

fisheries, with anywhere from a few 

(Montserrat) to over a thousand (Turks 

and Caicos) green turtles taken per year 

(Godley et al., 2004). 

Turtles are harvested along the west 

African coast and, in some areas, are 

considered a significant source of food 

and income due to the poverty of many 

residents (Formia et al., 2003; Toma ́s et 

al., 2010). In the Bijago ́ s Archipelago 

(Guinea-Bissau), all sea turtles are 

protected by national law, but 

enforcement is limited and many turtles 

are killed by locals for consumption 

(Catry et al., 2009). 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

FP is highly variable in its presence 

and severity throughout the range of the 

DPS, with areas of lower water quality, 

especially due to nutrient enrichment, 

often being the sites with the most 

prevalent and most severe cases of FP. 

In Brazilian waters, FP has been 

documented but is highly variable 

among sites (Williams and BunkleyWilliams, 2000). FP has been confirmed 

among green turtles of Africa’s Atlantic 

coast, from Gabon and Equatorial 

Guinea (Formia et al., 2013), GuineaBissau (Catry et al., 2009), Gambia, and 

Senegal (Barnett et al., 2004), the Congo 

and Principe Island (Girard et al., 2013). 

The prevalence varies greatly among 

locations. 

Eggs and nests in Brazil experience 

depredation, primarily by foxes 

(Dusycion vetulus; Marcovaldi and 

Laurent, 1996). Nests laid by green 

turtles in the southern Atlantic African 

coastline experience predation from 

local wildlife and feral animals, such as 

jackals (Canus sp.; Weir et al., 2007). 

Shark predation on green turtles, 

especially by tiger sharks (Galeocerdo 

cuvier), has been documented off 

northeastern Brazil at a frequency high 

enough to indicate that green turtles 

may be an important food source for 

tiger sharks off Brazilian waters 

(Bornatowski et al., 2012). Predation on 

nesting females can also occur from 

large predators, such as jaguars 

(Panthera onca) in Suriname (Autar, 

1994). On Ascension Island predation 

by domestic and feral cats (Felus sp.) 

and dogs (Canus sp.), frigate birds 

(Fregata minor), land crabs (subphylum 

Crustacea), and fish (class Osteichthyes) 

have all been cited as mortality sources 

for hatchling green turtles (Broderick et 

al., 2002a). On the Bijago ́ s Archipelago 

nest predation by monitor lizards 

(Varanus sp.) was highly variable, with 

green turtle nests experiencing 76 

percent predation rates on Joa ̃o Vieira 

(da Silva Ferreira, 2012). On the 

southern beaches of Bioko in the Gulf of 

Guinea, predation on eggs and 

hatchlings can come from a wide variety 

of species, such as ghost crabs (family 

Ocypodidae), ants (family Formicidae), 

monitor lizards, monkeys (suborder 

Haplorrhini), porcupines (order 

Rodentia), vultures (family Accipitridae) 

and crows (Corvus sp.), in addition to 

village dogs (Toma ́s et al., 1999). 

Although disease and predation are 

known to occur, quantitative data are 

not sufficient to assess the degree of 

impact of these threats on the 

persistence of this DPS. 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

There are at least 20 national and 

international treaties and/or regulatory 

mechanisms that pertain to the South 

Atlantic DPS. Regulatory mechanisms 

that address the direct capture of green 

turtles for most of the countries within 

this DPS are implemented to various 

degrees throughout the range of the 

DPS, with some countries having no 

commitment to the implementation of 

the regulation. The main threats to 

South Atlantic green turtles include 

fishery bycatch, marine debris and 

pollution, habitat destruction affecting 

eggs and hatchlings at nesting beaches, 

and nest and hatchling predation. Most 

South Atlantic countries, including 

those in South America, the Caribbean, 

and Africa, have developed national 

legislation and have various projects 

sponsored by governments, local 

communities, academic institutions, 

and non-governmental organizations to 

protect sea turtles and nesting and 

foraging habitats to varying degrees 

(Dow et al., 2007; Formia et al., 2003). 

The consistency and effectiveness of 

such programs likely vary greatly across 

countries and over time based on 

resource availability and political 

stability. In addition, some countries 

have site specific legislation or 

conservation designation for turtle 

habitat protection. Regional and 

national legislation to conserve green 

turtles (often all sea turtles) exists 

throughout the range of the DPS. The 

extent to which threats have been 

reduced as a result of these efforts is 

difficult to ascertain. The following 

countries have laws to protect green 

turtles: Angola, Argentina, Ascension 

Island, Benin, Brazil, British Virgin 

Islands, Cameroon, Cape Verde, 

Colombia, Congo, Democratic Republic 

of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, French 

Guiana, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, 

Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Guyana, Ivory 

Coast, Liberia, Namibia, Nigeria, St. 

Helena, Sao Tome and Principe, 

Senegal, Sierra-Leone, South Africa, 

Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, 

Turks and Caicos Islands, U.S. Virgin 

Islands, Uruguay, Venezuela. 

The Status Review described limited 

regulatory mechanisms to address 

bycatch, such as TED requirements; 

however, there are no widespread 

regulations to address bycatch as a 

result of the gill net fisheries. A variety 

of countries operate industrial trawling 

off Guinea-Bissau. The national 

government does not have any 

requirements for TED use in their 

waters. There is also extensive illegal 

fishing occurring (Catry et al., 2009). 

While the Bolama-Bijago ́ s Biosphere 

Reserve covers the entire archipelago 

and provides some protection through 

the management of the reserve and the 

survey work patrolling the areas, limited 

enforcement and resource shortages 

limit the effectiveness of the reserve. It 

is unlikely that bycatch mortality, 

discussed in more detail in Factor E, can 

be sufficiently reduced across the range 

of the DPS in the near future because of 

the diversity and magnitude of the 

fisheries operating in the DPS, the lack 

of comprehensive information on 

fishing distribution and effort, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15299 

limitations on implementing 

demonstrated effective conservation 

measures, geopolitical complexities, 

limitations on enforcement capacity, 

and lack of availability of 

comprehensive bycatch reduction 

technologies. 

The Status Review did not reveal any 

regulatory mechanisms in place to 

specifically address coastal 

development, marine pollution, sea 

level rise, and effects of climate change 

that continue to contribute to the 

extinction risk of this DPS. 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

Green turtles are incidentally 

captured throughout the South Atlantic 

DPS in pelagic and demersal longlines, 

drift and set gill nets, bottom and midwater trawls, fishing dredges, pound 

nets and weirs, haul and purse seines, 

pots and traps, and hook and line gear. 

There is also substantial 

documentation of the interaction of 

small-scale artisanal gill net fisheries 

with green turtles in their foraging 

grounds along the western South 

Atlantic, with green turtles documented 

as the most common species stranded 

throughout the coast of Brazil 

(Marcovaldi et al., 2009); Lima et al., 

2010; Barata et al., 2011; Lo ́pez-Barrera 

et al., 2012). Similarly, artisanal gill net 

fisheries in the coastal waters of the Rio 

de la Plata area of Uruguay were 

estimated to have captured 1,861 green 

turtles over the 13-month duration of a 

study, despite a time-area closure 

during the ‘‘peak’’ season identified in 

Lezama (2009). 

Incidental captures of juvenile green 

turtles have also been documented on 

important foraging grounds off 

Argentina, especially Samborombo ́n Bay 

and El Rinco ́n, primarily from gill nets 

used by the artisanal fisheries, but also 

from shrimp nets and other artisanal 

fishing gear (Gonza ́lez Carman et al., 

2011). Green turtles utilizing foraging 

grounds off Argentina have been 

demonstrated to be primarily from the 

Ascension Islands nesting beaches, 

although individuals from Trindade 

Island, Suriname, and Aves Island 

nesting assemblages were also utilizing 

the Argentine foraging grounds 

(Prosdocimi et al., 2012). Therefore 

impacts to green turtles off Argentina 

affect a variety of nesting assemblages 

within the western and central South 

Atlantic. 

A variety of countries operate 

industrial trawling off Guinea-Bissau. 

The national government does not have 

any requirements for TED use in their 

waters. There is also extensive illegal 

fishing occurring (Catry et al., 2009). 

While the Bolama-Bijago ́ s Biosphere 

Reserve covers the entire archipelago 

and provides some protection through 

the management of the reserve and the 

survey work patrolling the areas, limited 

enforcement and resource shortages 

limit the effectiveness of the reserve. 

In Ghana and the Ivory Coast, fish 

stocks have been reduced through 

overfishing and environmental 

degradation, and many fishers that 

incidentally catch sea turtles will keep 

and kill the turtle to feed their families 

(Tanner, 2013). Since 2001, a push has 

been made to generate alternative 

sources of income for the local 

populations of the Ivory Coast and to 

employ ex-poachers to patrol the 

beaches (Pen ̃ ate et al., 2007). 

b. Marine Debris and Pollution 

Various studies have shown high 

prevalence of marine debris ingestion by 

green turtles in the western South 

Atlantic, in some cases occurring in 100 

percent of the individuals examined 

(Bugoni et al., 2001; Tourinho et al., 

2010; Guebert-Bartholo et al., 2011; 

Murman, 2011). 

Oil exploration and extraction within 

the Gulf of Guinea rapidly increased 

since the discovery of oil reserves in the 

1980s and 1990s (Formia et al., 2003), 

with the associated activities and 

potential for oil spills and other 

pollution creating a threat to the 

important foraging areas and nesting 

beaches for green turtles in the area. 

c. Effects of Climate Change 

As in other areas of the world, climate 

change and sea level rise have the 

potential to affect green turtles in the 

South Atlantic. Effects of climate change 

include, among other things, increased 

sea surface temperature, the alteration of 

thermal sand characteristics of beaches 

(from warming temperatures), which 

could result in the reduction or 

cessation of male hatchling production 

(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 

2009), and a significant rise in sea level, 

which could significantly restrict green 

turtle nesting habitat. In very low-lying 

islands such as Aves, rising sea levels 

and increased storms could potentially 

eliminate its functionality as a nesting 

beach. Some beaches will likely 

experience lethal incubation 

temperatures that will result in losses of 

complete hatchling cohorts (Fuentes et 

al., 2010; Fuentes et al., 2011; Glen and 

Mrosovsky, 2004). While sea turtles 

have survived past eras that have 

included significant temperature 

fluctuations, future climate change is 

expected to happen at unprecedented 

rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly 

they may face local to widespread 

extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). 

Impacts from global climate change 

induced by human activities are likely 

to become more apparent in future years 

(IPCC, 2007). 

In summary, within Factor E, we find 

that bycatch that occurs throughout the 

South Atlantic, particularly bycatch 

mortality of green turtles from nearshore 

gill net fisheries, continues to be a 

significant threat to this DPS. In 

addition, changes likely to result from 

climate change are also an increasing 

threat to this DPS and likely a 

significant threat to the persistence of 

this DPS. 

C. Conservation Efforts for the South 

Atlantic DPS 

The main in-water threat to green 

turtles in the South Atlantic DPS is 

incidental capture in fisheries, although 

marine debris and pollution are also 

threats. The main threat on beaches is 

habitat destruction, followed by 

hatchling predation. Most South 

Atlantic countries, including those in 

South America, the Caribbean, and 

Africa, have developed national 

legislation and have various projects 

sponsored by governments, local 

communities, academic institutions, 

and non-governmental organizations to 

protect sea turtles, and nesting and 

foraging habitats to varying degrees 

(Dow et al., 2007; Formia et al., 2003). 

The consistency and effectiveness of 

such programs likely vary greatly across 

countries and over time based on 

resource availability and political 

stability. In addition, some countries 

have site specific legislation or 

conservation designation for turtle 

habitat protection. When assessing 

conservation efforts, we assumed that 

all conservation efforts would remain in 

place at their current levels. 

Conservation through education is a 

widely-used and valuable tool 

throughout nations within the range of 

the South Atlantic DPS and around the 

world. Such education initiatives can be 

highly successful. In Akassa, Nigeria, a 

dedicated, intensive conservation 

education program by the Akassa 

Community Development Project 

resulted in sea turtles being recognized 

locally as an essential part of the area’s 

natural heritage. This has resulted in the 

majority of the nests in Akassa being 

protected, and when live stranded 

turtles are found, they are released 

(Formia et al., 2003). However, in areas 

where the utilization of sea turtles is 

deeply ingrained in the local culture, 

such as the La Guajira region of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15300 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Colombia (Patino-Martinez et al., 2012), 

changing people’s attitudes about the 

use of sea turtles can be a long, slow 

process. 

In the Caribbean, green turtle 

conservation on the nesting beach varies 

widely among the 22 nations and 

territories. However, programs at the 

three largest nesting sites—Aves Island, 

French Guiana, and Suriname—with 

over 500 crawls per year (Dow et al., 

2007), provide protection to a 

significant proportion of nesting in the 

area. 

In South America, outside of the 

Caribbean, Brazil is the only nation with 

substantial green turtle nesting. In 

Brazil, the primary nesting areas are 

monitored by Projeto TAMAR, the 

national sea turtle conservation 

program, and many detrimental human 

activities are restricted by various state 

and Federal laws (Marcovaldi and dei 

Marcovaldi, 1999; Marcovaldi et al., 

2002; 2005). Nevertheless, tourism 

development in coastal areas in Brazil is 

high, and Projeto TAMAR works toward 

raising awareness of turtles and their 

conservation needs through educational 

and informational activities at their 

Visitor Centers that are dispersed 

throughout the nesting areas 

(Marcovaldi et al., 2005; Marcovaldi 

2011). Since 1990, TAMAR has worked 

along green turtle foraging areas such as 

Almofala and Ubatuba (Marcovaldi et 

al., 2002). 

The South Atlantic Association is a 

multinational group that includes 

representatives from Brazil, Uruguay, 

and Argentina that meets bi-annually to 

share information and develop regional 

action plans to address threats, 

including bycatch. In 2001, the 

Brazilian Plan for Reduction of 

Incidental Sea Turtle Capture in 

Fisheries was created to address 

incidental capture of the five species in 

the country (Marcovaldi et al., 2002, 

2006). This national plan includes 

various activities to mitigate bycatch, 

including time-area restrictions of 

fisheries, use of bycatch reduction 

devices, and working with fishers to 

successfully release live-captured 

turtles. In Uruguay, all sea turtles are 

protected from human impacts, 

including fisheries bycatch, by 

presidential decree (Decreto 

Presidencial 144/98). The Karumbe 

conservation project in Uruguay has 

been working on assessing in-water 

threats to marine turtles for several 

years (see http://cicmar.org/proyectos/

promacoda), with the objective of 

developing mitigation plans in the 

future. In Argentina, various 

conservation organizations are working 

toward assessing bycatch of green 

turtles and other sea turtle species in 

fisheries, with the objective of 

developing mitigation plans for this 

threat (http://www.prictma.com.ar). 

Green turtle nesting occurs on many 

beaches along the western coast of 

Africa, and there have been, and 

continue to be, sea turtle projects in 

many of the nations in the area ranging 

from research to public awareness to 

government conservation efforts (see 

Formia et al., 2003 for a regional 

synopsis). The largest nesting 

assemblages occur on Poila ̃o, Bijago ́ s 

Archipelago, Guinea Bissau, and on 

Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea. While 

conservation efforts on the beaches have 

been established, issues with 

enforcement capabilities and resources 

make consistent protection problematic 

(Catry et al., 2009; Formia et al., 2003; 

Toma ́s et al., 2010). Since 2001, a push 

has been made to generate alternative 

sources of income for the local 

populations of the Ivory Coast and to 

employ ex-poachers to patrol the 

beaches (Pen ̃ ate et al., 2007). 

Green turtle conservation efforts on 

Ascension Island have involved 

extensive monitoring, outreach, and 

research. The group Turtles in the UK 

Overseas Territories promotes the 

conservation, research, and management 

of marine turtle populations and their 

habitats, and has worked extensively on 

Ascension Island (http://

www.seaturtle.org/mtrg/projects/tukot/

ascension.shtml). Additionally, there 

are legal prohibitions protecting sea 

turtles on Ascension. 

Overall, conservation efforts for green 

turtles in the South Atlantic DPS are 

inconsistent. While there are numerous 

and varied conservation efforts, 

especially on the primary nesting 

beaches, many issues remain due to 

limited enforcement of existing laws 

and marine protected areas as well as 

extensive fishery bycatch, especially in 

coastal waters. The effectiveness and 

consistency of conservation measures 

will need to be increased substantially 

to prevent the further decline, and allow 

the recovery, of this DPS in the future. 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the South Atlantic DPS 

Nesting abundance for this DPS is 

relatively high, with large rookeries 

spread out geographically, the two 

largest at Poila ̃o, Guinea-Bissau, and 

Ascension Island, UK. Population 

trends within rookeries are inconsistent 

and, in many cases, the data are limited 

and a trend could not be determined, 

even for major rookeries. While some 

nesting beaches such as Ascension 

Island, Aves Island, and Galibi appear to 

be increasing, others such as Poila ̃o, 

Trindade, and Atol das Rocas seem to be 

stable or do not have sufficient data to 

make a determination. Bioko, Equatorial 

Guinea, appears to be in decline. The 

diversity/resilience of the DPS is 

bolstered by the widespread nature of 

the rookeries, but a potential concern is 

the domination of the DPS by insular 

nesting sites, which has the potential to 

reduce the resilience of the DPS in the 

face of sea level rise and increasing 

tropical storm activity. 

The 5-factor analysis in the Status 

Review revealed numerous continuing 

threats to green turtles within the South 

Atlantic DPS. Habitat destruction and 

degradation both at nesting beaches and 

important foraging grounds is a 

continuing concern, though inconsistent 

across the DPS. Overutilization (harvest) 

of green turtles within the South 

Atlantic was likely a primary factor in 

past declines. While reduced from those 

levels due to increased legal protections, 

harvest is still thought to be fairly 

extensive in some areas of western 

Africa. Fishery bycatch also continues 

to be a major concern throughout the 

range of the DPS, near nesting beaches 

and foraging areas as well as on the high 

seas. Despite increasing legal 

protections for sea turtles within the 

DPS, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms is a noted issue. 

While many international and national 

laws purporting to protect sea turtles 

exist, limitations in resources and 

political will create a situation of 

inconsistent or sometimes nonexistent 

practical measures to enforce those 

laws. Increasing awareness and 

conservation efforts by governments, 

local communities, non-governmental 

organizations, and industries have 

helped to reduce threats, but efforts 

remain inconsistent and often resource 

limited. 

While the Status Review indicates 

that the DPS shows strength in many of 

the critical population parameters, there 

are still concerns about the impacts of 

ongoing threats. The increasing threats 

are not reflected in the current trend for 

the South Atlantic DPS as it was based 

on nesting numbers and not all current 

life stages. These increasing threats to 

the population will only become 

apparent when those life stages affected 

by the threats return to nest and the 

beaches are consistently monitored, as 

the trend information is based solely on 

numbers of nests. This lag time and 

nesting data were considered in our 

analysis. 

For the above reasons, we propose to 

list the South Atlantic DPS as 

threatened. We do not find the DPS to 

be in danger of extinction presently 

because of high nesting abundance and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15301 

geographically widespread nesting at a 

diversity of sites; however, the 

continued threats are likely to endanger 

the DPS within the foreseeable future. 

X. Southwest Indian DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters 

for the Southwest Indian DPS 

The range of the Southwest Indian 

DPS has as its western boundary the 

shores of continental Africa from the 

equator, just north of the Kenya-Somalia 

border, south to the Cape of Good Hope 

(South Africa), and extends south from 

there along 19° E. longitude to 40° S., 

19° E. Its southern boundary extends 

along 40° S. latitude from 19° E. to 84° 

E., and its eastern boundary runs along 

84° E. longitude from 40° S. latitude to 

the equator. Its northern boundary 

extends along the equator from 84° E. to 

the continent of Africa just north of the 

Kenya-Somalia border (Figure 2). 

Nesting occurs along the east coast of 

Africa as far south as 25° S., the north, 

west, and south coasts of Madagascar, 

and scattered offshore islands in the 

southwest Indian Ocean (Figure 8.1 in 

the Status Review). Foraging occurs 

along the east coast of Africa, around 

Madagascar where numerous seagrass 

beds are found, and on shallow banks 

and shoals throughout the region, 

including those associated with 

virtually every island in Seychelles 

(Mortimer, 1984; Mortimer et al., 1996). 

Small and immature turtles are also 

concentrated in Mozambique around 

Bazaruto and Inhassoro and in Maputo 

Bay (Bourjea, 2012). Along the coast of 

Kenya, an aerial survey in 1994 

indicated that sea turtles are widely 

distributed within the 20-m isobaths 

mainly within seagrass beds and coral 

reefs (Frazier, 1975; Wamukoya et al., 

1996; Okemwa et al., 2004). The eastern 

seaboard of South Africa serves as a 

feeding and developmental area for 

green turtles (Bourjea, 2012). 

For the DPS, there are 14 nesting sites 

with some measure of abundance, four 

of which have more than 10,000 nesting 

females: Europa (Eparses Islands, 

France; 25,500; Lauret-Stepler et al., 

2007; Bourjea, 2012), Aldabra Atoll 

(Seychelles; 16,000 (Mortimer et al., 

2011; Mortimer, 2012; J. Mortimer 

unpubl. data)), Mohe ́li (Comoros; 15,000 

(Bourjea, 2012), and Mayotte (France; 

12,000; Bourjea et al., 2007a; Bourjea, 

2012). Les Glorieuses has 5,001–10,000 

nesting females (6,000; Lauret-Stepler et 

al., 2007; Bourjea, 2012). Five sites have 

1,001–5,000 nesting females: Tromelin 

Island; 4,500 (Lauret-Stepler et al., 2007; 

Bourjea, 2012); Kenya; 1,500 (Okemwa 

et al., 2004); Tanzania; 1,500 (Muir, 

2005; Bourjea, 2012); Mauritius; 1,800 

(Bourjea, 2012); and Assumption, 

Cosmoledo, Astove, and Farquhar in the 

Seychelles; ∼2,000 (J. Mortimer unpubl. 

data). There are four sites with <500 

nesting females: Madagascar; 

Mozambique; Amirantes Group, 

Seychelles; and Inner Islands of the 

Seychelles; and 23 more sites with 

unquantified numbers of nesting 

females. The largest nesting site, 

Europa, accounts for approximately 30 

percent of all nesting. 

Green turtles in the Southwest Indian 

Ocean were exploited for many decades 

(Hughes, 1974; Frazier, 1980, 1982; 

Mortimer et al., 2011); however, the 

species has successfully recovered at 

some nesting beaches in the recent years 

and trend data show increasing trends, 

albeit largely at protected sites (Bourjea, 

2012). At protected nesting sites with 

long-term monitoring, five out of six 

monitoring sites have shown increase in 

nesting activities (Europa, Glorieuses, 

Mayotte, Mohe ́li, and Aldabra), whereas 

a declining trend has been reported for 

Tromelin Island (Bourjea, 2012). There 

are three nesting sites with greater than 

10 years of recent monitoring data: Les 

Glorieuses, Europa and Tromelin, 

Eparses Islands, the trends of which are 

discussed above. No sites met our 

standards for conducting a PVA. 

With regard to spatial structure, 

genetic sampling in the Southwest 

Indian DPS has been fairly extensive 

and nesting sites are relatively well 

represented, with the exception of the 

northern nesting sites. Mitochondrial 

DNA studies indicate a moderate degree 

of spatial structuring within this DPS, 

with connectivity between proximate 

nesting sites (see below). Overall, the 

Southwest Indian DPS appears to have 

at least two genetic stocks: (1) The 

South Mozambique Channel consisting 

of Juan de Nova and Europa; and (2) the 

numerous nesting sites in the North 

Mozambique Channel consisting of 

Nosy Iranja, Mayotte, Mohe ́li, 

Glorieuses, Cosmoledo, Aldabra, 

Farquhar, also including Tromelin 

located east of Madagascar (Bourjea et 

al., 2006). Satellite telemetry data are 

available for green turtles that nest at 

some nesting beaches within the range 

of this DPS. Green turtles nesting along 

the East African coast confine their 

migration to along the coast. This is in 

contrast to those nesting on islands (e.g., 

Comoros, Eparses, and Seychelles), 

which reach the East African or 

Malagasy coast via ‘migration corridors’ 

or along mid-oceanic seagrass beds. This 

behavior is believed to be mainly 

attributable to the fact that those areas 

are characterized by a network of large 

seagrass beds (Bourjea, 2012). 

With regard to diversity and 

resilience, nesting in the Southwest 

Indian DPS occurs throughout the range 

of this DPS on islands, atolls, and on the 

main continent of Africa in Kenya. The 

nesting substrate can be variable as 

some of the nesting beaches are volcanic 

islands and the atolls are made of 

coralline sand. Nesting occurs 

throughout the year with peaks that vary 

among nesting sites (Dalleau et al., 

2012; Mortimer, 2012). The fact that 

turtles nest on both insular and 

continental sites, in variable substrates 

and at different peak seasons suggests a 

high degree of nesting diversity and 

indicates some resiliency. 

The genetic structure of this DPS is 

characterized by high diversity and a 

mix of unique and rare haplotypes, as 

well as common and widespread 

haplotypes. These common and 

widespread haplotypes (CM–A8, CmP47 

and CmP49) make up the majority of the 

haplotypes present in the Southwest 

Indian DPS and appear to be ancestral 

haplotypes (based on presence in the 

South Atlantic and Southwest Pacific 

DPSs). The Southwest Indian Ocean 

represents a genetic hotspot with 0.3 to 

6.5 percent (mean = 4.2 percent) 

estimated sequence divergence among 

the seven haplotypes identified. These 

haplotypes belong to three highly 

diverged genetic clades of haplotypes 

and highlights the complex colonization 

history of the region. There have been 

no nDNA studies from this region, nor 

are there studies published on genetic 

stock composition at foraging areas 

within the range of the Southwest 

Indian DPS. 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Southwest Indian DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

Habitat degradation is reported as an 

important source of additional mortality 

for this DPS, although the exact scale of 

habitat destruction at nesting beaches 

often is undocumented (Bourjea, 2012). 

In particular, habitat destruction due to 

development of the coastline and 

dredging or land-fill in foraging areas is 

a threat to green turtles throughout the 

Seychelles (Mortimer et al., 1996). 

Increases in tourism and human 

population growth on Mayotte Island 

may lead to further negative impacts 

upon this coastal environment (Bourjea 

et al., 2007). The possible negative 

effects of artificial lighting at a main 

nesting beach on Aldabra are of concern 

at the Seychelles (Mortimer et al., 2011), 

although it is currently being addressed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15302 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(J. Mortimer, Seychelles Dept. of 

Environment, pers. comm., 2014). 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

In Mohe ́li, Comoros Islands, habitat 

degradation due to sedimentation, sand 

extraction, and coral reef/seagrass bed 

degradation is also a concern (Ahamada, 

2008). Similar situations are reported for 

Tanzania (Bourjea, 2012) and 

Madagascar (Ciccione et al., 2002; 

Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994 as cited 

in Bourjea, 2012). 

For both the terrestrial and the 

neritic/oceanic zones, we believe that 

sufficient data are not available to assess 

the significance of these threats to the 

persistence of this DPS. 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Legal and illegal collection of eggs 

and harvest of turtles throughout the 

Southwest Indian DPS for human 

consumption persists as a threat to this 

DPS. Egg poaching has been reported for 

Comoros Islands (Ahamada, 2008; 

Bourjea, 2012); Mozambique (Costa et 

al., 2007; Videira et al., 2008); Tanzania 

(Bourjea, 2012); Madagascar 

(Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994; 

Ciccione et al. 2002 as cited in Bourjea, 

2012; Lilette, 2006 as cited in Bourjea, 

2012); and Kenya (Bourjea, 2012). Egg 

exploitation has affected green turtle 

populations in the Maldives (Seminoff 

et al., 2004). Illegal egg collection in 

Mauritius seems to be an important 

source of mortality but no data are 

available. 

Nesting green turtle numbers in the 

Seychelles have increased at protected 

sites, but declined where there has been 

heavy poaching, as on the developed 

islands of Mahe ́, Praslin, and La Digue 

(Bourjea, 2012). On Assumption Island 

and Aldabra, the number of nesting 

females was known to have decreased 

due to overharvesting (Mortimer, 1984), 

but they have been protected at Aldabra 

since 1968 (J. Mortimer, pers. comm., 

Seychelles Dept. of Environment, 2014). 

Areas of particularly heavy 

exploitation of green turtles include 

foraging locations in the Western Indian 

Ocean such as Madagascar 

(Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994; Mbindo, 

1996; Bourjea, 2012). Artisanal fisheries, 

such as beach seines and gill nets, have 

been reported to take tens of thousands 

of turtles annually (Hughes, 1981; 

Rakotonirina, 1987; Rakotonirina and 

Cooke, 1994; Lilette, 2006; Humber et 

al., 2010). This exploitation affects 

turtles nesting in the Eparses Islands, 

where poaching and illegal trade at 

international foraging grounds are also a 

threat (Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994; 

Lauret-Stepler et al., 2007). Similarly, 

commercial and small-scale fisheries at 

foraging grounds along the east African 

coast, mainly Tanzania and Kenya, 

affect green turtles nesting on Mayotte, 

Comoros Islands (Bourjea et al., 2007). 

Intentional capture of green turtles 

continues in the Seychelles (Seminoff et 

al., 2004) and in the east coast of Africa 

(Baldwin et al., 2003; Louro et al., 

2006). 

In summary, current legal and illegal 

collection of eggs and harvest of turtles 

persists as a threat throughout this DPS. 

The killing of nesting females continues 

to threaten the stability of green turtle 

populations in many areas affecting the 

DPS by reducing adult abundance and 

egg production. 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

The prevalence of FP in the 

Southwest Indian DPS is not known. FP 

is extremely rare among green turtles in 

Seychelles (J.A. Mortimer, unpublished 

data). Side striped jackals (Canis 

adustus) and honey badgers (Melivora 

capensis) are known to depredate nests 

on the mainland coast of East Africa 

(Baldwin et al., 2003). 

However, quantitative data are not 

sufficient to assess the degree of impact 

of these threats on the persistence of 

this DPS. 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

There are at least 15 national and 

international treaties and/or regulatory 

mechanisms that pertain to the 

Southwest Indian DPS. The analysis of 

these existing regulatory mechanisms 

assumed that all would remain in place 

at their current levels; however, some 

are not realizing their full potential 

because they are not adequately 

enforced. 

Regulatory mechanisms that address 

the direct capture of green turtles are 

implemented to various degrees 

throughout the range of the DPS with 

some countries having no commitment 

to the implementation of the regulation. 

Existing regulatory mechanisms to 

address bycatch and coastal 

development are not implemented 

adequately as evident by the high level 

of bycatch within this DPS. 

In addition to broad-reaching 

international instruments, the following 

countries have laws to protect green 

turtles: Mozambique, Republic of 

Seychelles, Comoros Islands, Mayotte 

Island, and the French Eparses Islands. 

However, these regulatory mechanisms 

are not range-wide and do not address 

the loss of the nesting beach, 

overutilization, and bycatch that are 

significant threats to this DPS. The 

Status Review revealed a lack of existing 

regulatory mechanisms to address sea 

level rise, and effects of climate change 

that continue to contribute to the 

extinction risk of this DPS. 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

Quantifying the magnitude of the 

threat of fisheries on green turtles in the 

Southwest Indian DPS is very difficult 

given the low level of observer coverage 

and dearth of investigations into 

bycatch conducted by countries that 

have large fishing fleets. Sea turtles are 

caught in demersal and pelagic 

longlines, trawls, gill nets, and seines 

(Peterson, 2005; Louro et al., 2006; 

Costa et al., 2007; Fennessy and Isaksen, 

2007; Peterson et al., 2007; 2009). 

Bycatch is a concern along the east coast 

of Africa and in many island Exclusive 

Economic Zones (EEZs), including the 

Seychelles, Mayotte, Comoros, 

Tanzania, Kenya, and South Africa. 

(Mortimer et al., 1996; Bourjea et al., 

2007a; Bourjea, 2012). 

b. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disasters 

Effects of climate change include, 

among other things, increased sea 

surface temperatures, the alteration of 

thermal sand characteristics of beaches 

(from warming temperatures), which 

could result in the reduction or 

cessation of male hatchling production 

(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 

2009), and a significant rise in sea level, 

which could significantly restrict green 

turtle nesting habitat. In the Southwest 

Indian DPS, climate change could have 

profound long-term impacts on nesting 

populations because much of the 

nesting occurs in low-lying islands and 

atolls. The pending sea level rise from 

climate change is a potential problem, 

as this will inundate nesting sites and 

decrease available nesting habitat 

(Daniels et al., 1993). While sea turtles 

have survived past eras that have 

included significant temperature 

fluctuations, future climate change is 

expected to happen at unprecedented 

rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly 

they may face local to widespread 

extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). 

Impacts from global climate change 

induced by human activities are likely 

to become more apparent in future years 

(IPCC, 2007). 

In summary, within Factor E, we find 

that fishery bycatch that occurs 

throughout the range of the DPS, 

particularly bycatch of green turtles 

from long lining operations, small 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15303 

prawn trawl fishery, and coastal gill 

nets, can affect juvenile to adult size 

turtles. In addition, climate change and 

natural disasters are expected to be an 

increasing threat to the persistence of 

this DPS. 

C. Conservation Efforts for the 

Southwest Indian DPS 

Nine countries of the southwest 

Indian Ocean developed and signed the 

Indian Ocean Southeast Asian Marine 

Turtle Memorandum of Understanding 

(IOSEA; www.ioseaturtles.org): Comoros 

in June 2001, United Republic of 

Tanzania in June 2001, Kenya in May 

2002, Mauritius in July 2002, 

Madagascar in January 2003, Seychelles 

in January 2003, South Africa in 

February 2005; and Mozambique and 

France (Indian Ocean) in December 

2008. IOSEA aims to develop and assist 

countries of the region in the 

implementation of the IOSEA regional 

strategy for management and 

conservation of sea turtles and their 

habitats. Accordingly, IOSEA has been 

successfully coordinating and closely 

monitoring region-wide conservation 

efforts in the Indian Ocean for years. 

This has included the development of a 

state-of-the-art online reporting facility, 

satellite tracking, genetic regional 

database, flipper tag inventory, and a 

global bibliographic resource. 

Also within the Southwest Indian 

DPS, the Western Indian Ocean-Marine 

Turtle Task Force plays a role in sea 

turtle conservation. This is a technical, 

non-political working group comprised 

of specialists from eleven countries: 

Comoros, France (La Re ́union), Kenya, 

Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, 

Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, 

United Kingdom and Tanzania, as well 

as representatives from 

intergovernmental organizations, 

academic, and non-governmental 

organizations within the region. 

The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission 

(IOTC) is playing an increasingly 

constructive role in turtle conservation. 

In 2005, the IOTC adopted Resolution 

05/08, superseded by Resolution 09/06 

on Sea Turtles, which sets out reporting 

requirements on interactions with sea 

turtles and accordingly provides an 

executive summary per species for 

adoption at the Working Party on 

Ecosystem and By-catch and then 

subsequently at the Scientific 

Committee. In 2011, IOTC developed a 

‘‘Sea Turtle Identification Card’’ to be 

distributed to all long-liners operating 

in the Indian Ocean (http://

www.iotc.org/). 

Although there is considerable 

uncertainty in anthropogenic 

mortalities, especially in the water, the 

DPS may have benefitted from 

conservation efforts at the nesting 

beaches. 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the Southwest Indian DPS 

The Southwest Indian DPS is 

characterized by relatively high levels of 

green turtle nesting abundance and 

increasing trends. The overall nesting 

range for the Southwest Indian DPS 

occurs throughout the range of this DPS 

on islands, atolls, and on the main 

continent of Africa in Kenya. The fact 

that turtles nest on both insular and 

continental sites, and nesting substrate 

can be variable as some of the nesting 

beaches are volcanic islands and the 

atolls are made of coralline sand, 

suggests a high degree of nesting 

diversity. Nesting also occurs 

throughout the year with peaks that vary 

among rookeries (Dalleau et al., 2012; 

Mortimer, 2012). The genetic structure 

of this DPS is characterized by high 

diversity and a mix of unique and rare 

haplotypes, as well as common and 

widespread haplotypes. However, the 

five-factor analysis in the Status Review 

revealed continuing threats to green 

turtles and their habitat within the range 

of the DPS. 

Nesting beaches throughout the range 

of this DPS are susceptible to coastal 

development and associated beachfront 

lighting, erosion, and sea level rise. 

Coral reef and seagrass bed degradation 

continues in portions of the range of the 

DPS affecting foraging turtles. Direct 

capture of juvenile and adult turtles 

continues to take place using a variety 

of gear types in artisanal and industrial 

fisheries. 

The Southwest Indian DPS is 

protected by various international 

treaties and agreements as well as a few 

national laws, and there are protected 

beaches throughout the range of this 

DPS. As a result of these designations 

and agreements, many of the intentional 

impacts directed at sea turtles have been 

lessened, such as the harvest of eggs and 

adults in several nesting areas, although 

the extent to which they are reduced is 

not clear. 

While the Status Review indicates 

that the DPS shows strength in many of 

the critical population parameters, there 

are still concerns about threats to the 

DPS from fisheries interactions, direct 

harvest (eggs and adults), and climate 

change. 

For the above reasons, we propose to 

list the Southwest Indian DPS as 

threatened. We do not find the DPS to 

be in danger of extinction presently 

because of the high nesting abundance 

and geographically widespread nesting 

at a diversity of sites; however, the 

continued threats are likely to endanger 

the DPS within the foreseeable future. 

XI. North Indian DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters 

for the North Indian DPS 

The range of the North Indian DPS 

begins at the border of Somalia and 

Kenya north into the Gulf of Aden, Red 

Sea, Persian Gulf and east to the Gulf of 

Mannar off the southern tip of India and 

includes a major portion of India’s 

southeastern coast up to Andra Pradesh. 

The southern and eastern boundaries 

are the equator (0°) and 84° E., 

respectively, which intersect in the 

southeast corner of the range of the DPS. 

It is bordered by the following countries 

(following the water bodies from west to 

east): Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Sudan, 

Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, 

Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, 

Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, 

Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka (Figure 

2). 

Nesting is concentrated primarily in 

the northern and western region of the 

range of the North Indian DPS from the 

Arabian Peninsula to the PakistaniIndian border, with smaller but 

significant nesting colonies occurring in 

Sri Lanka, India’s Lakshadweep Island 

group, and the Red Sea. Nesting in the 

Arabian Gulf occurs in low numbers. 

Seagrass beds are extensive within the 

range of the DPS, although a 

comprehensive understanding of 

juvenile and adult foraging areas is 

lacking. There are extensive foraging 

areas in the Arabian Gulf, on the coasts 

of Oman and Yemen, Gulf of Aden, and 

in the Red Sea (Ross and Barwani, 1982; 

Salm, 1991; Salm and Salm, 2001). Barr 

al Hickman, along the Sahil al Jazit 

coastline in Oman, is one of the most 

important known foraging grounds for 

green turtles. Although development of 

dense seagrass beds is limited 

seasonally due to monsoons, the 

Arabian Sea coast’s foraging areas are 

extensive (Jupp et al., 1996 as cited in 

Ferreira et al., 2006). Juvenile green 

turtles have been sighted and captured 

year-round in the lagoons in Agatti and 

Kavaratti. These Lakshadweep lagoons 

are known to be important 

developmental habitat for green turtles 

in this DPS (Tripathy et al., 2002; 

Tripathy et al., 2006). 

Thirty-eight total nesting sites were 

identified by the SRT, some being 

individual beaches and others 

representing multiple nesting beaches, 

although nesting data is more than a 

decade old for the vast majority of these 

sites. Nonetheless, our best estimates 

indicate that, of the 38 sites, two have 

>10,000 nesting females (Ras Sharma, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15304 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Yemen; 18,000 (PERSGA/GEF, 2004) 

and Ras Al Hadd, Oman; 16,184 (Ross, 

1979; AlKindi et al., 2008)); one has 

5,001–10,000 nesting females (Kamgar 

Beach at Ormara, Pakistan; 6,000 

(Groombridge et al., 1988)); five have 

1,001–5,000 nesting females (Saudi 

Arabian Gulf Islands; 2,410 (AlMerghani et al., 2000; Pilcher, 2000); 

north coast of Ras Al Hadd, Oman; 

1,875 (Salm et al., 1993); Ra’s Jifan to 

Ra’s Jibsh, Oman; 1,500 (Ross, 1979; 

AlKindi et al., 2008); Masirah Island, 

Oman; 1,125 (Grobler et al., 2001); and 

Gujarat, India; 1,125 (Sunderraj et al., 

2006a, 2006b; K. Shanker pers. comm., 

2013); 15 sites have 101–500 nesting 

females; 10 have fewer than 50; and one 

is unquantified. The largest site, Ras 

Sharma in Yemen, accounts for 33 

percent of the nesting females. Daran 

Beach, Jiwani, Pakistan, with an 

estimated 371 nesting females (Waqas et 

al., 2011), and Zabargard Island, Egypt, 

with an estimated 444 nesting females 

(Hanafy, 2012; El-Sadek et al., 2013), are 

the only sites for which 10 or more 

years of recent data are available for 

annual nesting female abundance (the 

standards for representing trends in bar 

plot in this report). It is difficult to 

ascertain any trend from these data. No 

sites met the standards for PVA. 

However, some other sites were 

examined, with caveats, as follows. 

Nesting at Ras Al Hadd appears to 

have increased from approximately 

6,000 females nesting each year for the 

period 1977 to 1979 (Ross and Barwani, 

1982) through the late 1980s 

(Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989), to 

the estimate of 16,184 nesting females, 

as calculated from 21,578 nests found in 

2007 (AlKindi et al., 2008). Declines are 

evident at Hawkes Bay and Sandspit, 

Pakistan, where a mean of 

approximately 1,300 nests were 

deposited annually from 1981 to 1985 

(Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989) and 

a mean of approximately 600 nests were 

laid from 1994 to 1997 (Asrar, 1999). At 

Gujarat, India, 866 nests were deposited 

in 1981 (Bhaskar, 1984) and 461 nests 

in 2000 (Sunderraj et al., 2006); 

however, because there are only two 

data points, it is not possible to 

determine a trend. At Ras Sharma, 

counts of nightly nesting females during 

peak nesting season in 1966 and 1972 

(30–40 females; Hirth, 1968; Hirth and 

Hollingsworth, 1973) versus the same 

index during the peak of the 1999 

nesting season (15 females; Saad, 1999) 

are suggestive of a decline. Again the 

lack of multiple-year data sets for both 

Gujarat and Ras Sharma preclude trend 

assessment. 

With regard to spatial structure, only 

one stock from this DPS (in Saudi 

Arabia) has been characterized 

genetically based on limited sampling; 

however, it was found to be very 

distinct from other nesting sites 

elsewhere in the Indian Ocean based on 

mtDNA analysis. There are no studies of 

foraging grounds within the range of the 

North Indian DPS to provide 

information on the distribution or the 

mixing of turtles outside of this DPS. A 

few flipper tag recoveries have been 

reported with no reported recoveries 

outside of the range of the North Indian 

DPS. Adult females from Egypt, Sri 

Lanka, and Oman were satellite tagged 

and tracked during post-nesting 

migrations, and all remained within the 

range of the North Indian DPS. The 

satellite telemetry data for nesting 

females in Sri Lanka provided some 

information on possible foraging 

locations which were within the inshore 

waters of southern Sri Lanka and the 

Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve, 

although sample size was limited 

(Richardson et al., 2013). Satellite 

telemetry for nesting females in Kuwait 

verified nesting in Qaru Island. These 

turtles migrated to the shallow seas in 

Saudi Arabia (Rees et al., 2013). 

With regard to diversity and 

resilience, the demography of green 

turtles in the North Indian DPS appears 

to vary among nesting assemblages, 

suggesting a complex population 

structuring in the North Indian DPS. 

The population is moderately dispersed 

within the range of the North Indian 

DPS, although the greatest nesting is 

concentrated in the northern and 

western region of the DPS’s range, with 

about 72 percent of the nesting 

concentrated in Oman and Yemen. The 

nesting season varies widely within the 

range of the DPS. The peak nesting 

season in Ras Sharma, Yemen is July, in 

Gujarat, India, it is from August to 

March (Sunderraj et al., 2006), and in 

Oman, nesting occurs year-round. 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

North Indian DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

One of the largest green turtle nesting 

populations within this DPS is 

concentrated on the nesting beaches of 

Ras Al Hadd, Oman (Ross, 1979). Ras Al 

Hadd, Ras al Jinz, and the numerous 

smaller nesting beaches south of it are 

protected from development as part of 

the Ras Al Hadd Nature Reserve. 

However, upland light pollution is 

negatively impacting these otherwise 

suitable nesting habitats (E. Possardt, 

USFWS, pers. comm., 2013). The most 

important green turtle nesting beaches 

in Yemen fall within the Ras Sharma 

Protected Area, and this nesting habitat 

is secure from beach development 

threats. 

Light pollution is increasing near the 

Karan Island, Saudi Arabia site from oil 

rig developments, but the impact on 

hatchlings and nesting females is 

unknown (J. Miller, Biological Research 

and Education Consultants, pers. 

comm., 2013). At Ras Baridi, one of the 

main nesting beaches in Saudi Arabia, 

uncontrolled particulate emissions from 

a large cement factory has coated the 

beaches at times and poses a threat to 

hatchlings because they are unable to 

emerge from the nest due to the 

hardened sand (PERSGA/GEF, 2004; 

Pilcher, 1999). 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

Trawling occurs throughout much of 

the range of the North Indian DPS and 

has the potential to destroy bottom 

habitat in these areas. Marine pollution, 

including direct contamination and 

structural habitat degradation, affects 

green turtle neritic and oceanic habitat. 

The most dramatic example of the 

threats to sea turtles and their habitat 

from oil pollution in the region is the 

Gulf War oil spill in the Arabian Gulf in 

1991, which is estimated to be the 

largest oil spill in history at the time of 

the 2010 report (ABC, 2010). 

In the Arabian Gulf, extensive 

seagrass beds provide important 

foraging sites for green turtles within 

waters of Bahrain, United Arab 

Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, but 

these are being degraded and lost from 

the continual threat of dredging, 

siltation, and land reclamation (Pilcher, 

2000, 2006; Al-Muraikhi et al., 2005; 

Abdulqader, 2008; Al-Abdessalaam et 

al., 2008). 

In the waters surrounding the 

Lakshadweep islands in India, there 

exist high densities of green turtles that, 

without the natural level of control from 

the top predators such as tiger sharks, 

can cause an increase in grazing 

pressure and reduce the amount of 

healthy seagrass beds available (Kelkar 

et al., 2013). 

In summary, we find that the North 

Indian DPS of the green turtle is 

negatively affected by ongoing changes 

in both its terrestrial and marine 

habitats as a result of land and water use 

practices. Beach and marine pollution 

are an increasing threat to this DPS. 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Directed take of eggs and turtles by 

humans occurs at the primary green 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15305 

turtle nesting beaches and in waters off 

of Saudi Arabia (Al-Merghani et al., 

1996; Pilcher, 2000), Yemen (K. Nasher, 

Sana’a University, pers. comm., 2013), 

Oman (R. Baldwin, Five Oceans LLC, 

pers. comm., 2013), Djibouti and 

Somalia (PERSGA 2001; van de Elst, 

2006; Galair, 2009; van de Giessen, 

2011; Witsen, 2012), Eritrea (Howe 

et al., 2004; Pilcher, 2006; Teclemariam 

et al., 2009), the Islamic Republic of Iran 

(Mobaraki, 2004; 2007; 2011), India 

(Sunderraj et al., 2006), and Sri Lanka 

(Rajakaruna et al., 2009; Turtle 

Conservation Project, 2009). Directed 

take of nesting females is also still 

common at nesting beaches in Yemen 

(K. Nasher, Sana’a University, pers. 

comm., 2013). In spite of wildlife 

protection laws, green turtles are still 

killed opportunistically for food in 

Oman (R. Baldwin, Five Oceans LLC, 

pers. comm., 2013). 

Illegal and legal capture of sea turtles 

and the collection of turtle eggs is fairly 

widespread in the Djibouti and Somalia 

region of the Gulf of Aden and the Red 

Sea, and turtle meat, oil and eggs are an 

important source of subsidiary food for 

artisanal fishers (PERSGA, 2001; van de 

Elst, 2006; Galair, 2009; van de Giessen, 

2011; Witsen, 2012). Harvesting of sea 

turtle eggs and meat for consumption by 

local communities and fishers occurs at 

a subsistence level in Eritrea (Howe et 

al., 2004; Pilcher, 2006; Teclemariam et 

al., 2009); however, the pressure on 

green turtle populations is reported to 

be high because they are prized for their 

meat products (Teclemariam et al., 

2009). Egg harvesting has also been 

reported as a threat impacting green 

turtles in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 

with eggs being used for both 

consumption (in some cases as an 

aphrodisiac) and for use in traditional 

medicines (Mobaraki, 2004; 2007; 2011). 

In spite of wildlife protection laws, 

green turtles are still killed 

opportunistically for trade in the Bay of 

Mannar between India and Sri Lanka 

(Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2006). In 

India, green turtle export was banned in 

the 1980s; however, subsistence 

harvesting continues (Bhupathy and 

Saravanan, 2006). An increase in the 

number of green turtles killed by fishers 

has been reported in Agatti Island, 

Lakshadweep, India. The cause for the 

killing has been linked to increases in 

green turtles within the area. The 

perception is that green turtles damage 

fishing gear and overgraze seagrass 

thereby reducing catch levels (Arthur 

et al., 2013). 

In summary, current legal and illegal 

collection of eggs and harvest of turtles 

throughout the range of the North 

Indian DPS for human consumption 

persists as a threat to this DPS. The 

harvest of nesting females continues to 

threaten the stability of green turtle 

populations in many areas affecting the 

DPS by reducing adult abundance and 

egg production. 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

The prevalence of FP in the North 

Indian DPS is not known. Predation of 

hatchlings and eggs by red foxes (Vulpes 

vulpes arabica) is common at the Ras al 

Jinz, Oman green turtle nesting beach 

(Mendonc ̧a et al., 2010), and 

depredation by feral dogs has been 

identified as a major threat at sea turtle 

nesting beaches in Pakistan (Asrar, 

1999; Firdous, 2001) and the main green 

turtle nesting beach at Ras Sharma 

(Stanton, 2008). On two Egyptian Red 

Sea beaches (Ras Honkorab and Om AlAbath beaches, which are both within 

Wadi Gimal National Park limits), 

predation is reported to be very high 

with only a few nests surviving 

(Mancini, 2012). The most common 

predators observed on these two 

beaches in Egypt were desert foxes (V. 

zerda) and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), 

but ghost crabs were regularly observed 

near nests as well. In Qatar, depredation 

of eggs and hatchlings by foxes has been 

identified as a key source of turtle 

mortality (Al-Muraikhi et al., 2005; 

Pilcher, 2006). Along the beaches of 

Gujarat in India, dogs, jackals, monitor 

lizards, crabs, crows, and possibly 

hyenas and feral pigs depredate nests 

and eat hatchings (Sunderraj et al., 

2006). 

Although disease and predation are 

known to occur, quantitative data are 

not sufficient to assess the degree of 

impact of these threats on the 

persistence of this DPS. 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

There are several international treaties 

and/or regulatory mechanisms that 

pertain to the North Indian DPS, and 

nearly all countries lining the North 

Indian DPS have some level of national 

legislation directed at sea turtle 

protection. The following countries 

have laws to protect green turtles: 

Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India, 

Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, 

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, 

Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and 

Yemen. In addition, at least 14 

international treaties and/or regulatory 

mechanisms apply to the conservation 

of green turtles in the North Indian DPS. 

Within the last decade, since the 

establishment of the Jeddah Convention 

(The Regional Convention for the 

Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of 

Aden Environment), there is more of an 

effort to strengthen participation in 

international and regional agreements 

(PERSGA, 2010). The analysis of these 

existing regulatory mechanisms 

assumed that all would remain in place 

at their current levels. The overall 

effectiveness and enforcement of these 

laws varies among the countries and 

relies on each country’s priorities. Often 

the enforcement of these laws is done in 

collaboration with non-governmental 

agencies such as HEPCA in the Red Sea 

(http://www.hepca.org/). 

Regulatory mechanisms that address 

the direct capture of green turtles are 

implemented to various degrees 

throughout the range of the DPS with 

some countries having no regulation in 

place. Our Status Review reported no 

widespread regulations for the gill net 

and trawl fisheries to address the threat 

of bycatch. The Status Review revealed 

a lack of existing regulatory mechanisms 

to address coastal development, sea 

level rise, and effects of climate change 

that continue to contribute to the 

extinction risk of this DPS. 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

Sea turtle bycatch from gill nets, 

trawls, and longline fisheries is a 

significant cause of sea turtle mortality 

for the North Indian DPS, although there 

are fewer bycatch data than for other 

regions of the world (Wright and 

Mohanty, 2002; Project GloBAL, 2007; 

Bourjea et al., 2008; Abdulqader, 2010; 

Wallace et al., 2010). The magnitude of 

trawl, gill net, and longline fisheries 

within the range of the North Indian 

DPS is great with no substantive sea 

turtle protection measures in place to 

reduce sea turtle bycatch mortality. 

Along the coast of Ras Al Hadd, one of 

the densest nesting beaches of this DPS, 

fishery related mortality is particularly 

high where green turtles are incidentally 

caught in fishing gear (Salm, 1991). 

i. Gill Net Fisheries 

Gill nets are widely deployed and 

used throughout the region and known 

to kill thousands of sea turtles in some 

regions (Project GloBAL, 2007). Two 

member Indian Ocean Tuna 

Commission parties, Iran and Kenya, 

alone reported the use of 12,023 gill nets 

in the Indian Ocean in 2012. In 

Lakshadweep and Tamil Nadu, India, 

the most common net fisheries (i.e., gill 

net, shore seine, anchor net and drag 

nets) are known to incidentally catch 

green turtles (Tripathy et al., 2006; 

Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2006). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15306 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Incidental capture of sea turtles in 

fishing nets (presumably in gill nets or 

set nets) has been identified as the main 

cause of mortality of juvenile green 

turtles within Iranian and the United 

Arab Emirates foraging areas (Mobaraki, 

2007; Al-Abdessalaam et al., 2008). In 

Qatar, entrapment of turtles in fishing 

nets has been identified as a key source 

of mortality (Al-Muraikhi et al., 2005). 

ii. Trawl Fisheries 

Shrimp trawling occurs in many 

countries throughout the range of the 

North Indian DPS including Pakistan, 

India, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. In 

Yemen, trawling is believed to be a 

significant threat to sea turtles, mainly 

hawksbill and greens; however, no data 

are available (Bourjea et al., 2008). 

Pakistan and India require the use of 

TEDs to meet the requirements of U.S. 

Public Law 101–162, section 609 for 

exporting shrimp to the United States, 

but the level of compliance is unclear 

(E. Possardt, USFWS, pers. obs. 2013). 

Nowhere else within the range of the 

North Indian DPS are TEDs being used 

and it can be assumed that significant 

sea turtle bycatch occurs. One 

documented assessment of the impact of 

trawling on sea turtles in this region is 

from Bahrain where trawls were 

reported to capture over 300 sea turtles 

annually, mostly greens (Abdulqader 

and Miller, 2012; Abdulqader, 2010). 

b. Vessel Strikes 

Boat strikes have been identified as a 

major cause of sea turtle mortality in the 

United Arab Emirates (Al-Abdessalaam 

et al., 2008) and Qatar (Al-Muraikhi et 

al., 2005). Boat strikes of sea turtles also 

have been identified as a regular 

occurrence in Iran and seem to be 

increasing in some areas (Mobaraki, 

2011). Boat strikes are undoubtedly a 

regular occurrence throughout the 

Arabian Gulf and other important green 

turtle foraging grounds within the range 

of the North Indian DPS and, 

cumulatively, are likely significant, but 

quantification is lacking. 

c. Beach Driving 

Beach driving by fishers who haul 

and launch boats from Ras al Jinz beach 

in Oman is highly problematic, and 

hatchling turtles are likely being caught 

in ruts, struck or run over. However, no 

assessment has been conducted to 

determine the extent of impacts on 

nesting turtles and hatchlings (E. 

Possardt, USFWS, pers. comm., 2013). 

d. Pollution 

Pollution has been identified as a 

main threat to sea turtles in Iran 

(Mobaraki, 2007) and Pakistan (Firdous, 

2001); however, no specific information 

about the type of pollution was 

provided. In Sri Lanka, Kapurusinghe 

(Kapurusinghe, 2006) stated that 

polluted inland water flows into Beira 

Lake and subsequently the sea, and that 

garbage, including polythene and 

plastics, dumped on beaches in some 

areas is washed into the sea, where it 

can be lethal to sea turtles. In Gujarat, 

India, the increase in ports and shipping 

traffic results in problems from oil 

spills, garbage, and other pollutants 

such as fertilizers and cement (Surderraj 

et al., 2006). 

e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disasters 

Similar to other areas of the world, 

climate change and sea level rise have 

the potential to affect green turtles in 

the North Indian DPS. Effects of climate 

change include, among other things, 

increased sea surface temperatures, the 

alteration of thermal sand 

characteristics of beaches (from 

warming temperatures), which could 

result in the reduction or cessation of 

male hatchling production (Hawkes et 

al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009), and 

a significant rise in sea level, which 

could significantly restrict green turtle 

nesting habitat. In addition, cyclones 

such as those occurring in consecutive 

years in 1998 and 1999 in Kachchch, 

India, cause severe erosion of the 

nesting beach (Surderraj et al., 2006) 

and, when combined with the effects of 

sea level rise, may have increased 

cumulative impacts in the future. While 

sea turtles have survived past eras that 

have included significant temperature 

fluctuations, future climate change is 

expected to happen at unprecedented 

rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly 

they may face local to widespread 

extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). 

Impacts from global climate change 

induced by human activities are likely 

to become more apparent in future years 

(IPCC, 2007). 

Within Factor E, we find that fishery 

bycatch (longline, gill net, and trawl 

fishing) occurs throughout the range of 

the DPS and is a significant threat to 

this DPS. In addition, pollution, vessel 

strikes, climate change and natural 

disasters are expected to be an 

increasing threat to the persistence of 

this DPS. 

C. Conservation Efforts for the North 

Indian DPS 

In 2012, the IOTC began requiring its 

31 contracting Parties to report sea turtle 

bycatch and to use safe handling and 

release techniques for sea turtles on 

longline vessels. The IOTC and IOSEA 

also recently completed an ‘‘Ecological 

Risk Assessment and Productivity— 

Susceptibility Analysis of sea turtles 

overlapping with fisheries in the IOTC 

region.’’ One conclusion was that green 

turtles account for 50 88 percent of 

artisanal and commercial gill nets 

bycatch. Two methods of estimating 

total bycatch were used, and resulted in 

an annual gill net bycatch estimate of 

29,488 sea turtles within the IOTC 

region. 

While conservation efforts for the 

North Indian DPS are extensive and 

expanding, they still remain inadequate 

to ensure the long-term viability of the 

population. Efforts have been largely 

focused on the nesting beaches, and 

there are only recent efforts underway to 

understand the extent of green turtle 

interactions with gill nets and trawlers 

and the resulting cumulative effects 

from bycatch—one of the major threats 

to this DPS. Concerted efforts to identify 

and protected critical foraging grounds 

is also lacking. 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the North Indian DPS 

The North Indian DPS has a high level 

of green turtle nesting abundance with 

two of the largest nesting assemblages of 

green turtles in the world nesting in 

Yemen and Oman. The North Indian 

DPS also has expansive, largely 

undeveloped nesting beaches, and many 

of these beaches are protected from 

development as nationally designated 

reserves or protected areas, although 

threats still remain. The North Indian 

DPS also features extensive coastal 

seagrass beds distributed throughout the 

region, which provide abundant 

foraging grounds for this species. 

Nesting beaches are distributed broadly 

throughout the region. 

Coastal development, beachfront 

lighting, fishing practices, and marine 

pollution at nesting beaches and 

important foraging grounds are 

continuing concerns across the DPS. 

Current illegal harvest of green turtles 

and eggs for human consumption is a 

continuing but limited threat to this 

DPS. Fishery bycatch occurs throughout 

the North Indian DPS, particularly 

bycatch mortality of green turtles from 

gill nets and trawl fisheries, and the 

cumulative mortality from these 

fisheries is probably the greatest threat 

to this DPS. Additional threats from 

boat strikes, which are becoming more 

common, and expected impacts of 

climate change, will negatively affect 

this DPS. 

Conservation efforts are substantial 

but uneven in the range of the North 

Indian DPS and focused almost entirely 

on nesting beaches. The ability for some 

countries to sustain or develop needed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15307 

conservation programs in the context of 

political instability within the region is 

of concern. Further, our analysis did not 

consider the scenario in which current 

laws or regulatory mechanisms were not 

continued. Given the conservation 

dependence of the species, without 

mechanisms in place to continue 

conservation efforts in this DPS, some 

threats could increase and population 

trends could be affected. 

For the above reasons, we propose to 

list the North Indian DPS as threatened. 

We do not find the DPS to be in danger 

of extinction presently because of high 

nesting abundance in protected areas; 

however, the continued threats are 

likely to endanger the DPS within the 

foreseeable future. 

XII. East Indian-West Pacific DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters 

for the East Indian-West Pacific DPS 

The western boundary for the range of 

the East Indian–West Pacific DPS is 84° 

E. longitude from 40° S. to where it 

coincides with India near Odisha, 

northeast along the shoreline and into 

the West Pacific Ocean to include 

Taiwan extending east at 41° N. to 146° 

E. longitude, south and west to 4.5° N., 

129° E., then south and east to West 

Papua in Indonesia and the Torres 

Straits in Australia. The southern 

boundary is 40° S. latitude, 

encompassing the Gulf of Carpentaria 

(Figure 2). 

Green turtle nesting is widely 

dispersed throughout the range of the 

East Indian–West Pacific DPS, with 

important nesting sites occurring in 

Northern Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia 

(Sabah and Sarawak Turtle Islands), 

Peninsular Malaysia, and the Philippine 

Turtle Islands. The in-water range of the 

East Indian-West Pacific DPS is 

similarly widespread with shared 

foraging sites throughout the range of 

the DPS. The largest nesting site lies 

within Northern Australia, which 

supports approximately 25,000 nesting 

females (Limpus, 2009). Nonetheless, 

populations are substantially depleted 

from historical levels. 

There are 58 known nesting sites, 

although we note that the nesting female 

estimates for many of these sites are 

over a decade old. The largest, 

Wellesley Group, lies in northern 

Australia and supports approximately 

25,000 nesting females (EPA 

Queensland Turtle Conservation Project 

unpublished data cited in Limpus, 

2009). Five sites have 5,001–10,000 

nesting females: Bilang-Bilangan, 

Indonesia (7,156; Reischig et al., 2012); 

Sabah Turtle Island Park, Malaysia 

(7,011; de Silva, 1982; Basintal, 2002; P. 

Bastinal pers. comm., 2011); Ningaloo, 

North West Cape, Australia (6,269; 

Prince, 2003; Markovina, 2008; Bool et 

al., 2009; Gourlay et al., 2010; Kelliher 

et al., 2011); Baguan Island, Philippines 

(5,874; Pawikan Conservation Project, 

2013); and Pangumbahan, Indonesia 

(5,199; Muhara and Herlina, 2012). 

Seven sites have 1,001–5,000 nesting 

females: Sangalaki (2,740; Reischig et 

al., 2012), Enu (2,048; Dethmers, 2010), 

Mataha (1,652; Reischig et al., 2012), 

and Belambangan Island, Indonesia 

(1,736; Dermawan, 2002); Terranganu 

(1,875; Chan, 2010) and Sarawak Turtle 

Island, Malaysia (1,155; Groombridge 

and Luxmoore, 1989; Chan 2006; Chan, 

2010); and Lihiman, Philippines (1,217; 

Pawikan Conservation Project, 2013). 

Eight sites have 501–1,000 nesting 

females, 30 have <500 nesting females, 

and seven are unquantified. 

Green turtle populations within the 

range of the East Indian-West Pacific 

DPS have experienced apparent 

declines at some nesting sites, and 

increases at others in the past several 

decades. For instance, in Southeast 

Asia, data suggest that populations have 

declined in the Gulf of Thailand, 

Vietnam, and the Berau Islands, Meru 

Betiri National Park, Pangumbahan, 

Thamihla Kyun, and perhaps Enu 

Island, all in Indonesia, although the 

lack of recent and/or multiple year data 

prevents an assessment of the current 

trends at these sites. At Sipadan, 

Sarawak and Terengganu in Malaysia, 

nesting appears to be stable, although 

Terengganu might be decreasing. 

Nesting has remained stable in the 

Philippine Turtle Islands and may have 

increased at the Sabah Turtle Islands, 

Malaysia. In Western Australia, data are 

not sufficient to draw any conclusions 

regarding long-term trends, although 

these sites, together with the Wellesley 

Group in Northern Australia (the largest 

nesting site), may constitute the most 

important green turtle nesting 

concentration in the Indian Ocean. 

When examining spatial structure for 

the East Indian-West Pacific DPS, the 

SRT examined three lines of evidence: 

genetic data, flipper and satellite 

tagging, and demographic data. Genetic 

sampling in the East Indian-West Pacific 

DPS has occurred at 22 nesting sites. 

There appears to be a complex 

population structure, even though there 

are gaps in sampling relative to 

distribution. Overall, this region is 

dominated by a few common and 

widespread haplotypes and has varying 

levels of spatial structure characterized 

by the presence of rare/unique 

haplotypes at most nesting sites. There 

is significant population substructuring. 

Tagging and tracking studies have 

been geared to studying internesting 

migrations, and defining the range of 

internesting habitats and post-nesting 

migrations. Green turtles that were 

satellite tracked from Pulau Redang, 

Terengganu indicate migrations to the 

South China Sea and Sulu Sea areas 

(Liew, 2002). Cheng (2000) reported 

movements of eight post-nesting green 

turtles from Wan-An Island, Taiwan that 

were satellite tracked, and which 

distributed widely on the continental 

shelf to the east of mainland China. 

Satellite telemetry studies conducted 

from 2000 to 2003 demonstrated that the 

green turtles nesting at Taipin Tao are 

a shared natural resource among the 

nations in the southern South China 

Sea. Female green turtles tracked in the 

same area travelled long distances in a 

post-nesting migration, ending in the 

Sulu Sea in the Philippines and the 

Malaysia Peninsula with distances that 

ranged from 456 to 2,823 km 

(Charuchinda et al., 2002) and in the 

coastal region of Japan (Wang, 2006). 

Waayers and Fitzpatrick (2013) found 

that in the Kimberly region of Australia, 

the green turtle appears to have a broad 

migration distribution and numerous 

potential foraging areas. 

Mixed stock analysis of foraging 

grounds shows that green turtles from 

multiple nesting beach origins 

commonly mix at feeding areas in 

foraging grounds across northern 

Australia (Dethmers et al., 2010) and 

Malaysia (Jensen, 2010) with higher 

contributions from nearby large nesting 

sites. There is evidence of low 

frequency contribution from nesting 

sites outside the range of the DPS at 

some foraging areas. 

The demography of green turtles in 

the East Indian-West Pacific DPS varies 

throughout the nesting assemblages. 

This variation in parameters such as 

mean nesting size, remigration interval, 

internesting interval, clutch size, 

hatching success, and clutch frequency 

suggests a high level of population 

structuring in this DPS. 

With regard to diversity and 

resilience, nesting and foraging areas are 

widespread within the range of this 

DPS, providing a level of population 

resilience through habitat diversity. The 

nesting season varies throughout the 

range of the DPS, with nesting from June 

to August in the inner Gulf of Thailand, 

peak nesting from March to July on 

Derawan Island (Charuchinda and 

Monanunsap, 1998; Abe et al., 2003; 

Aureggi et al., 2004; Adnyana et al., 

2008), year-round nesting in Thameela 

Island, Myanmar and Aru, Indonesia 

(although peaking from November to 

March; (Dethmers, 2010; Lwin, 2009), 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15308 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

and peak nesting from November to 

March in Aru, Indonesia (Dethmers, 

2010), Sukamade, southeastern Java 

(Arinal, 1997), Barrow Island, and 

western Australia (Pendoley, 2005). 

Nesting occurs on both insular and 

continental sites, yielding a degree of 

nesting diversity. Limited information 

also suggests that there are two types of 

nesting females within the DPS: Those 

with high site fidelity which nest 

regularly at one site, such as the Sabah 

Turtle Islands; and those with low site 

fidelity such as at Ishigaki Island which 

select different nesting sites allowing for 

increased diversity and resilience for 

the DPS (Basintal, 2002; Abe et al., 

2003). 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

East Indian-West Pacific DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

In the East Indian-West Pacific DPS, 

the majority of green turtle nesting 

beaches are extensively eroded. Nesting 

habitat is degraded due to a variety of 

human activities largely related to 

tourism. Coastal development and 

associated artificial lighting, sand 

mining, and marine debris affect the 

amount and quality of habitat that is 

available to nesting green turtles. 

However, there are sanctuaries and 

parks throughout the region where nests 

are protected to various degrees. 

Most of the beaches in Vietnam have 

a large amount of marine debris, which 

includes glass, plastics, polystyrenes, 

floats, nets, and light bulbs. This debris 

can entrap turtles and impede nesting 

activity. 

In Australia, the majority of green 

turtle nesting along the beaches of the 

Gulf of Carpentaria occurs outside of the 

protection of the National Park. Other 

minor nesting sites lie within the 

protected lands of the Indigenous 

Protected Areas (Limpus, 2009). In 

Western Australia, the impacts to 

nesting and hatchling green turtles by 

independent turtle watchers as well as 

off-road vehicles has increased in the 

Ningaloo region as the number of 

visitors has increased over the years 

(Waayers, 2010). Nesting turtles and 

hatchlings are routinely disturbed by 

people with their cars and flashlights 

(Kelliher et al., 2011). Burn-off flares 

associated with oil and gas production 

on the Northwest shelf of Australia are 

in sufficiently close proximity to the 

green turtle nesting beaches to possibly 

cause hatchling disorientation 

(Pendoley, 2000) 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

Green turtles forage in the seagrass 

beds around the Andaman and Nicobar 

Islands in India. Some of these seagrass 

beds in the South Andaman group are 

no longer viable foraging habitat 

because of siltation and degradation due 

to waste disposal, a byproduct of the 

rapid increase in tourism (Andrews, 

2000). Green turtles that forage off the 

waters of the Bay of Bengal in south 

Bangladesh also face depleted foraging 

habitat from divers collecting seagrass 

for commercial purposes and by 

anchoring of commercial ships, ferries, 

and boats in this habitat (Sarkar, 2001). 

In the nearshore waters of Thailand, 

seagrass beds are partially protected 

since fishing gear such as trawls are 

prohibited (Charuchinda et al., 2002). In 

the waters surrounding the islands of 

Togean and Banggai in Indonesia, the 

use of dynamite and potassium cyanide 

are common, and this type of fishing 

method destroys green turtle foraging 

habitat (Surjadi and Anwar, 2001). 

Seagrass beds are found throughout 

the nearshore areas of Vietnam’s 

mainland coast and islands (Ministry of 

Fisheries, 2003). Destructive fishing 

practices have been and possibly 

continue to be a major threat to this 

habitat in 21 of Vietnam’s 29 provinces 

(Asia Development Bank, 1999 as cited 

in the Ministry of Fisheries, 2003) and 

in the waters of Indonesia (Cruz, 2002; 

Dethmers, 2010). Although these 

destructive fishing practices are 

prohibited by legislation passed in 1989, 

enforcement may not be sufficient to 

prevent these practices from occurring. 

Green turtle foraging habitat is under 

increased threat from decreased water 

quality through river run-off and 

development (Ministry of Fisheries, 

2003). 

In summary, within Factor A, we find 

that coastal development, beachfront 

lighting, erosion resulting from sand 

mining, and sea level rise, are a 

significant threat to a large portion of 

this DPS. The extent of fishing practices, 

depleted seagrass beds, and marine 

pollution is broad with high levels 

occurring in waters where high numbers 

of green turtles are known to forage and 

migrate are significant threats to the 

persistence of this DPS. 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

The green turtle populations within 

this DPS have been declining 

throughout their range. Populations 

throughout Asia have been depleted by 

long-term harvests of eggs and adults, 

and by by-catch in the ever-growing 

fisheries (Shanker and Pilcher, 2003). 

On St. Martins Island, Bangladesh, overexploitation has brought the nesting 

turtles to near extinction (Hasan, 2009). 

Nesting females continue to be killed in 

countries within Southeast Asia and the 

Indian Ocean (Fleming, 2001; Fretey, 

2001; Cruz, 2002). Despite substantial 

declines in green turtle nesting 

numbers, egg harvest remains legal in 

several of the countries within the range 

of this DPS. Some countries have 

protections in place; however, harvest 

continues due to lack of enforcement. 

In Myanmar and Thailand, hatcheries 

are set up to protect a portion of the 

eggs. However, these hatcheries retain 

hatchlings for several days for tourism 

purposes, thus reducing the likelihood 

of hatchling survival (Charuchinda et 

al., 2002). 

Turtle nesting numbers have 

decreased in peninsular Malaysia and 

the Philippines due to more than 40 

years of overharvesting of eggs and 

females (Siow and Moll, 1982; de Silva, 

1982; Limpus, 1995; Cruz, 2002). In 

order to provide some protection for 

turtles, all three Sabah Turtle Islands 

were acquired and protected by the 

Sabah State Government in the 1970s 

(de Silva, 1982). After more than 20 

years of conservation efforts (1970– 

1990), the population had still not 

shown signs of recovery (Limpus et al., 

2001). 

Local islanders in Indonesia have 

traditionally considered turtles, 

especially green turtles, as part of their 

diet (Hitipeuw and Pet-Soede, 2004 as 

cited in FAO, 2004). Illegal egg 

harvesting continues, but there is an 

increased effort to fully protect green 

turtles from harvest on the islands of 

Bilang-Bilangan and Mataha in 

Indonesia (Reischig et al., 2012). 

Despite legal protections for sea 

turtles, at-sea poaching of turtles is a 

continuing problem in Southeast Asia, 

especially by Hainanese and Vietnamese 

vessels. The poaching occurs in a wideranging area of the region, and has 

moved as turtle stocks have been 

depleted, with vessels being 

apprehended off Malaysia, Indonesia, 

and the Philippines (Pilcher et al., 2009 

as cited in Lam et al., 2011). 

In Australia, green turtles are 

harvested by Aboriginal and Torres 

Strait Islanders for subsistence 

purposes. There is a widespread use of 

motorized aluminum boats in contrast 

to the traditional dugout canoes 

powered by paddles or sail. The total 

harvest of green turtles by indigenous 

people across northern and Western 

Australia is probably several thousand 

annually (Kowarsky, 1982; Henry and 

Lyle, 2003 as cited in Limpus, 2009). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15309 

The indigenous harvest of eggs may be 

unsustainable in northeast Arnhem 

Land (Kennett and Yunupingu, 1998). 

Current legal and illegal collection of 

eggs and harvest of turtles occur 

throughout the East Indian-West Pacific 

DPS and persists as a significant threat 

to this DPS. The harvest of nesting 

females continues to threaten the 

stability of green turtle populations in 

many areas affecting the DPS by 

reducing adult abundance and reducing 

egg production. 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

FP has been found in green turtles in 

Indonesia (Adnyana et al., 1997), Japan 

(Y. Matsuzawa, Japanese Sea Turtle 

Association, pers. comm., 2004), the 

Philippines (Nalo-Ochona, 2000), 

Western Australia (Raidal and Prince, 

1996; Aguirre and Lutz, 2004), and on 

PhuQuoc in Vietnam (Ministry of 

Fisheries, 2003). Epidemiological 

studies indicate rising incidence of this 

disease (George, 1997), thus the above 

list will likely grow in the future. 

The best available data suggest that 

current nest and hatchling predation on 

the East Indian-West Pacific DPS is 

prevalent and may be an increasing 

threat without nest protection and 

predatory control programs in place. 

Depredation of nests by feral animals is 

also widespread in many South Asian 

areas (Sunderraj et al., 2001; Islam, 

2002). Nest predation by feral pigs and 

dogs is a major threat on the Andaman 

and Nicobar Islands of India (Fatima et 

al., 2011). Monitor lizards are also a 

significant and widespread predator in 

some areas (Andrews et al., 2006). Dog 

predation is a major threat to the green 

turtle nests on Sonadia Island in 

Bangladesh (Islam et al., 2011). Jackals, 

foxes, wild boars, and monitor lizards 

also predate green turtle nests and 

hatchlings along the beaches of 

Bangladesh, and dogs also kill or injure 

nesting females in Bangladesh (Andrews 

et al., 2006). Lizards and ghost crabs are 

the natural predators of green turtle 

nests in Thailand (Chantrapornsyl, 

1993). In Malaysia, crabs (Ocypode spp.) 

predate green turtle eggs (Ali and 

Ibrahim, 2000), and gold-ringed cat 

snakes or mangrove snakes 

(Boigadendrophila), (Asiatic) reticulated 

pythons (Python reticulatus), monitor 

lizards (Varanus sp.), and house mice 

(Mus musculus) predate hatchlings 

(Hendrickson, 1958). Monitor lizards, 

crabs, and ants predate eggs and 

hatchlings on the beaches of Vietnam 

(as cited in ‘‘Sea Turtle MigrationTracking and Coastal Habitat Education 

Program—An Educator’s Guide’’ http:// 

www.ioseaturtles.org/Education/

seaturtlebooklet.pdf). In Japan, raccoon 

dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and 

weasels (Mustela itatsi) are a threat to 

nests (Kamezaki et al., 2003). In Taiwan, 

snakes predate the nests (Cheng et al., 

2009). On the North West Cape and the 

beaches of the Ningaloo coast of 

mainland Australia, a long established 

feral European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) 

population historically preyed heavily 

on eggs and is thought to be responsible 

for the lower numbers of nesting turtles 

on the mainland beaches (Baldwin et 

al., 2003; Kelliher et al., 2011). 

Although disease and predation are 

known to occur, quantitative data are 

not sufficient to assess the degree of 

impact of these threats on the 

persistence of this DPS. 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Although conservation efforts to 

protect some nesting beaches and 

marine habitat are underway, more 

widespread and consistent protection is 

needed. There are at least 16 national 

and international treaties and/or 

regulatory mechanisms that pertain to 

the East Indian-West Pacific DPS. The 

analysis of these existing regulatory 

mechanisms assumed that all would 

remain in place at their current levels. 

The following countries have laws to 

protect green turtles: Australia, 

Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, 

Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India, 

Indonesia, Japan, Myanmar, Thailand, 

Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, and 

Vietnam. In addition, at least 17 

international treaties and/or regulatory 

mechanisms apply to the conservation 

of green turtles in the East Indian-West 

Pacific DPS. However, some regulatory 

mechanisms, including laws and 

international treaties, are not realizing 

their full potential because they are not 

enforced, or do not apply in all 

countries occupied by the DPS. 

Regulatory mechanisms are in place 

throughout the range of the DPS that 

address the direct capture of green 

turtles for most of the countries within 

this DPS. These are implemented to 

various degrees throughout the range of 

the DPS. There are some national 

regulations within this DPS that 

specially address the harvest of green 

turtles, while a few regulations are 

limited in that they only apply to 

certain size classes, or times of year, or 

allowed for traditional use. 

Fishery bycatch throughout the range 

of the East Indian-West Pacific DPS (see 

Factor E), as well as anthropogenic 

threats to nesting beaches and foraging 

grounds (Factor A) and eggs/turtles and 

foraging (Factors A, B, C, and E), are 

substantial. Although national and 

international governmental and nongovernmental entities in the East IndianWest Pacific DPS are currently working 

toward reducing green turtle bycatch as 

well as egg and turtle harvest, it is 

unlikely that this source of mortality 

can be sufficiently reduced across the 

range of the DPS in the near future. This 

is due to the lack of bycatch reduction 

in commercial and artisanal fisheries 

operating within the range of this DPS, 

the lack of comprehensive information 

on fishing distribution and effort, 

limitations on implementing 

demonstrated effective conservation 

measures, geopolitical complexities, 

limitations on enforcement capacity, 

and lack of availability of 

comprehensive bycatch reduction 

technologies. Beaches and in-water 

habitat throughout the range of the DPS 

are under various levels of protection, 

depending in part on the clarity of 

regulations and consistency of funding 

for enforcement. 

In summary, although regulatory 

mechanisms are in place that should 

address direct and incidental take of 

green turtles within this DPS, these 

regulatory mechanisms are not 

implemented throughout the range of 

this DPS. These mechanisms are not 

sufficiently implemented to address the 

direct harvest of green turtles and are 

insufficient to address the major threat 

of bycatch which remains a significant 

risk to this DPS. 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting its Continued 

Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

Incidental capture in artisanal and 

commercial fisheries is a significant 

threat to the survival of green turtles in 

the East Indian-West Pacific DPS. Green 

turtles may be caught in drift and set gill 

nets, bottom and mid-water trawling, 

fishing dredges, pound nets and weirs, 

and haul and purse seines. 

Bycatch in fisheries using gears such 

as trawlers, drift nets, and purse seines 

is thought to be one of the main causes 

of decline in the green turtle population 

in Thailand and Malaysia. The rapid 

expansion of fishing operations is 

largely responsible for the increase in 

adult turtle mortality due to bycatch 

(Settle, 1995). The most used fishing 

gears in the waters of Thailand are 

trawling and drift gill nets. Heavy 

fishing is the main threat to foraging sea 

turtles (Chan et al., 1988; 

Chantrapornsyl, 1993; Liew, 2002). 

Gill nets and set bag nets are the two 

major fishing gears used in the Bay of 

Bengal, and green turtles are likely 

captured during these fishing operations 

(Hossain and Hoq, 2010). Along the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15310 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

coast of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 

the main type of fishery is gill nets and 

purse seines with thousands of turtles 

killed annually by fisheries operations 

including the shark fishery (Chandi et 

al., 2012; Shanker and Pilcher, 2003). In 

1994, Bhaskar estimated at least 600 

green turtles were killed as a result of 

the shark fishery in this area. Over the 

last decade, there has been an increase 

in the large predator fishing industry. 

Green turtle mortality can be expected 

to be much higher than that estimated 

in the 1990s as a result of these current 

operations (Namboothri et al., 2012). 

Trawl fishing is also common in 

Bangladesh. No green turtle stranding 

information is available to determine 

the fishery threat level to the green 

turtle population; however, it is 

expected to be high as TEDs are not 

used and the population has declined 

(Ahmed et al., 2006; Khan et al., 2006). 

On the Turtle Islands in the Philippines, 

there have been an increased number of 

dead turtles as a result of fishing 

activities, such as shrimp trawlers and 

demersal nets (Cruz, 2002). 

One of the main threats to green 

turtles in Vietnam and Indonesia is the 

incidental capture from gill and trawl 

nets and the opportunistic capture by 

fishers. Hundreds of green turtles are 

captured by fisheries per year in 

Vietnam (Ministry of Fisheries, 2003; 

Hamann et al., 2006a; Dethmers, 2010). 

In Indonesia, green turtles were 

recorded as one of the main species 

caught in the longline fisheries. Trawl 

gear is still allowed in the Arafura Sea, 

posing a major threat to green turtles 

(Dethmers, 2010). Shrimp trawl captures 

in Indonesia are high because of the 

limited use of TEDs (Zainudin et al., 

2008). 

The estimated bycatch of the Japanese 

large-mesh drift net fishery in the North 

Pacific Ocean in 1990–1991 was 1,501 

turtles, of which 248 were estimated to 

be green turtles (Wetherall et al., 1993). 

Wetherall et al. (1993) report that the 

actual mortality of sea turtles taken in 

the Japanese and Taiwanese large-mesh 

fisheries may have been between 2,500 

and 9,000 per year. 

b. Marine Debris and Pollution 

Pollution from oil spills, as well as 

from agricultural and organic chemicals, 

is a major threat to the waters used by 

green turtles in the Bay of Bengal 

(Sarkar, 2001). The result of human 

population growth in China has been an 

increased amount of pollutants in the 

coastal system. Discharges from 

untreated sewage have occurred in 

Xisha Archipelago (Li et al., 2004 as 

cited in Chan et al., 2007). 

Concentrations of nine heavy metals 

(iron, manganese, zinc, copper, lead, 

nickel, cadmium, cobalt, and mercury) 

and other trace elements were found in 

liver, kidney, and muscle tissues of 

green turtles collected from Yaeyama 

Islands, Okinawa, Japan (Anan et al., 

2001). The accumulation of cadmium 

found in the green turtles is likely due 

to accumulations of this heavy metal in 

the plant materials on which they forage 

(Sakai et al., 2000). 

In the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, 

discarded fishing nets have been found 

to cause a high number of turtle deaths 

with the majority being green turtles 

(Chatto et al., 1995). 

c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disasters 

Effects of climate change include, 

among other things, increased sea 

surface temperatures, the alteration of 

thermal sand characteristics of beaches 

(from warming temperatures), which 

could result in the reduction or 

cessation of male hatchling production 

(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 

2009), and a significant rise in sea level, 

which could significantly restrict green 

turtle nesting habitat. While sea turtles 

have survived past eras that have 

included significant temperature 

fluctuations, future climate change is 

expected to happen at unprecedented 

rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly 

they may face local to widespread 

extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). 

Impacts from global climate change 

induced by human activities are likely 

to become more apparent in future years 

(IPCC, 2007). 

Natural environmental events, such as 

cyclones and hurricanes, may affect 

green turtles in the East Indian-West 

Pacific DPS. Typhoons have been 

shown to cause severe beach erosion 

and negatively affect hatching success at 

green turtle nesting beaches in Japan, 

especially in areas already prone to 

erosion. 

In summary, within Factor E, we find 

that fishery bycatch, particularly from 

drift net and purse seine fisheries, occur 

throughout the East Indian-West Pacific 

DPS, with localized high levels of 

mortality in waters where juvenile to 

adult turtles are known to forage and 

migrate are a persistent risk to this DPS. 

In addition, vessel collisions, marine 

pollution, changes likely to result from 

climate change, and natural disasters are 

expected to be an increasing threat to 

the persistence of this DPS. 

C. Conservation Efforts for the East 

Indian-West Pacific DPS 

There are numerous ongoing 

conservation efforts in this region. 

Hatcheries have been set up throughout 

the region to protect a portion of the 

eggs laid and prevent complete egg 

harvesting. In addition, bycatch 

reduction efforts have been made in 

some areas, protected areas are 

established throughout the region, and 

monitoring, outreach and enforcement 

efforts have made progress in sea turtle 

conservation. Despite these 

conservation efforts, considerable 

uncertainty in the status of this DPS lies 

with inadequate efforts to measure 

bycatch in the region, a short time-series 

of monitoring on nesting beaches, and 

missing vital rates data necessary for 

population assessments. 

In India, since 1978, the Centre for 

Herpetology/Madras Crocodile Bank 

Trust has conducted sea turtle surveys 

and studies in the islands. In a bilateral 

agreement, the Governments of the 

Philippines and Malaysia established 

The Turtle Island Heritage Protected 

Area (TIHPA), made up of nine islands 

(six in the Philippines and three in 

Malaysia). The TIHPA is one of the 

world’s major nesting grounds for green 

turtles. Management of the TIHPA is 

shared by both countries. One of the 

nesting beaches for this DPS, Australia’s 

Dirk Hartog Island, is part of the Shark 

Bay World Heritage Area and recently 

became part of Australia’s National Park 

System. This designation may facilitate 

monitoring of nesting beaches and 

enforcement of prohibitions on direct 

take of green turtles and their eggs. 

Conservation efforts on nesting beaches 

have included invasive predator control. 

Illegal trade of turtle parts continues 

to be a problem in the East Indian-West 

Pacific DPS. In order to reduce this 

threat, the Vietnamese Government, 

with assistance from IUCN, WWF, 

TRAFFIC and the Danish Government, 

formulated a Marine Turtle 

Conservation Action Plan in 2010 to 

expand awareness to fishers and 

enforcement officers, and to confiscate 

sea turtle products (Stiles, 2009; 

Ministry of Fisheries 2010). The level of 

effectiveness and progress of this 

program is not known. 

TEDs are now in use in Thailand, 

Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia 

and Brunei, expanded by initiatives of 

the South East Asian Fisheries 

Development Center (Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, 2004). In 2000, the use of TEDs 

in the Northern Australian Prawn 

Fishery was made mandatory. Prior to 

the use of TEDs, this fishery took 

between 5,000 and 6,000 sea turtles as 

bycatch annually, with a mortality rate 

estimated to be 40 percent (Poiner and 

Harris, 1996). Since the mandatory use 

of TEDs has been in effect, the annual 

bycatch of sea turtles in the Northern 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15311 

Australian Prawn Fishery has dropped 

to fewer than 200 sea turtles per year, 

with a mortality rate of approximately 

22 percent (based on recent years). 

Initial progress has been made to 

measure the threat of incidental capture 

of sea turtles in other artisanal and 

commercial fisheries in the Southeast 

Indo-Pacific Ocean (Lewison et al., 

2004; Limpus, 2009); however, the data 

remain inadequate for population 

assessments. 

As in other DPSs, persistent marine 

debris poses entanglement and ingestion 

hazards to green turtles. In 2009, 

Australia’s Department of the 

Environment, Water, Heritage and the 

Arts published a threat abatement plan 

for the impacts of marine debris on 

vertebrate marine life (http://

www.environment.gov.au/system/files/

resources/d945695b-a3b9-4010-91b4- 

914efcdbae2f/files/marine-debris-threatabatement-plan.pdf). 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the East Indian-West 

Pacific DPS 

The East Indian-West Pacific DPS is 

characterized by a relatively large 

geographic area with widespread 

nesting reported in 58 different 

locations throughout the range of the 

DPS. Although the numerous nesting 

sites have relatively high abundance of 

nesting females, decades of harvesting 

and habitat degradation have led to a 

drastic decline in the sea turtle 

populations within this DPS in the last 

century. Population trends at many of 

the higher abundance rookeries are 

decreasing, though there appears to be 

an increasing trend on Sabah in 

Malaysia and on Baguan in the 

Philippines, presumably due to effective 

conservation efforts. 

Continued harvest, coastal 

development, beachfront lighting, 

erosion, fishing practices, and marine 

pollution both at nesting beaches and 

important foraging grounds are all 

continuing concerns across the range of 

the DPS. Harvest of turtles and eggs for 

human consumption continues as a high 

threat to this East Indian-West Pacific 

DPS. Coastal development, largely due 

to tourism, is an increasing threat in 

many areas. Fishery bycatch occurs 

throughout the range of the DPS, 

particularly bycatch mortality of green 

turtles from pelagic longline, set net, 

and trawl fisheries. Additional threats 

due to climate change, such as loss of 

habitat due to sea level rise and 

increased ratio of female to male turtles, 

negatively impact this DPS. 

Conservation efforts have been effective 

in a few areas but are lacking or not 

effective in most. 

For the above reasons, we propose to 

list the East Indian-West Pacific DPS as 

threatened. We do not find the DPS to 

be in danger of extinction presently 

because of high nesting abundance and 

geographically widespread nesting at a 

diversity of sites; however, the 

continued threats are likely to endanger 

the DPS within the foreseeable future. 

XIII. Central West Pacific DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters 

for the Central West Pacific DPS 

The range of the Central West Pacific 

DPS has a northern boundary of 41° N. 

latitude and is bounded by 41° N., 169° 

E. in the northeast corner, going 

southeast to 9° N., 175° W., then 

southwest to 13° S., 171° E., west and 

slightly north to the eastern tip of Papua 

New Guinea, along the northern shore of 

the Island of New Guinea to West Papua 

in Indonesia, northwest to 4.5° N., 129° 

E. then to West Papua in Indonesia, then 

north to 41° N., 146° E. It encompasses 

the Republic of Palau (Palau), FSM, 

New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Marshall 

Islands, Guam, the CNMI, and a portion 

of Japan (Ogasawara; Figure 2). 

Green turtle nesting occurs at low 

levels throughout the geographic 

distribution of the DPS (approximately 

51 sites), with isolated locations having 

higher nesting activity. Only two 

populations are known to have >1,000 

nesting turtles, with all the rest having 

fewer than 400 nesting females, for a 

total number of known nesting females 

of approximately 6,500. The highest 

numbers of females nesting in this DPS 

are located in Gielop and Iar Island, 

Ulithi Atoll, Yap, Federated States of 

Micronesia (FSM; 1,412) or 22 percent 

of the population 2013); Chichijima 

(1,301) and Hahajima (394), Ogasawara, 

Japan; Bikar Atoll, Marshall Islands 

(300); and Merir Island, Palau (441; 

(NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Bureau of 

Marine Resources, 2005; Barr, 2006; 

Palau Bureau of Marine Resources, 

2008; Maison et al., 2010; H. Suganuma, 

Everlasting Nature of Asia, pers. comm., 

2012; J. Cruce, Ocean Society, pers. 

comm., 2013). There are numerous other 

populations in the FSM, Solomon 

Islands, Palau, Guam, and the CNMI. 

Historical baseline nesting information 

in general is not widely available in this 

region, but exploitation and trade of 

green turtles throughout the region is 

well-known (Groombridge and 

Luxmoore, 1989). 

Green turtles departing nesting 

grounds within the range of this DPS 

travel throughout the western Pacific 

Ocean. Green turtles are found in 

coastal waters in low to moderate 

densities at foraging areas throughout 

the range of the DPS. Aerial sea turtle 

surveys show that an in-water 

population exists around Guam 

(Division of Aquatic and Wildlife 

Resources, 2011). In-water green turtle 

density in the Marianas Archipelago is 

low and mostly restricted to juveniles 

(Pultz et al., 1999; Kolinski et al., 2005; 

Kolinski et al., 2006; Palacios, 2012a). 

In-water information in this DPS overall 

is particularly limited. 

There is insufficient long-term and 

standardized monitoring information to 

adequately describe abundance and 

population trends for many areas of the 

Central West Pacific DPS. The available 

information suggests a nesting 

population decrease in some portions of 

the DPS like the Marshall Islands, or 

unknown trends in other areas such as 

Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Marianas, 

Solomon Islands, or the FSM (Maison et 

al., 2010). There is only one site for 

which 15 or more years of recent data 

are available for annual nesting female 

abundance, one of the standards for 

performing a PVA. This is at Chichijima, 

Japan, one of the major green turtle 

nesting concentrations in Japan 

(Horikoshi et al.,1994). Although the 

PVA has limitations, it shows a 

continuing upward trend for the 

population. The population has 

increased in abundance from a mean of 

approximately 100 annual nesting 

females in the late 1970s/early 1980s to 

a mean of approximately 500 annual 

nesting females since 2000. Chaloupka 

et al. (2008a) reports an estimated 

annual population growth rate of 6.8 

percent per year for the Chichijima 

nesting site. 

With regard to spatial structure, 

genetic sampling in the Central West 

Pacific has recently improved, but 

remains challenging given the large 

number of small islands and atoll 

nesting sites. Stock structure analysis 

indicated that nesting sites separated by 

more than 1,000 km were significantly 

differentiated from each other while 

neighboring nesting sites within 500 km 

showed no genetic differentiation 

(Dutton et al., 2014). Based on mtDNA 

analyses, there are four independent 

stocks within the DPS (Dethmers et al. 

2006; Jensen 2010; Dutton et al. 2014). 

With respect to tagging and telemetry, 

there are records of turtles flipper tagged 

in the Philippines nesting in the FSM; 

a turtle tagged in Japan was recorded 

nesting in the FSM; turtles tagged in the 

Japan Archipelago and China were 

recorded nesting in the Ogasawara 

islands (Suganuma, pers. comm., 

Ogasawara Marine Center, Everlasting 

Nature of Asia, unpublished data); and 

turtles tagged in the FSM were 

recaptured in the Philippines, Marshall 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15312 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Islands, and Papua New Guinea (Palau 

BMR, 2008; Cruce, 2009). Satellite 

telemetry shows that nesting females 

migrate to areas both within and outside 

of the range of the Central West Pacific 

DPS. For example, satellite tracks show 

turtles moving from the Mariana Islands 

to the Philippines and Japan, and others 

moving from the Chichijima Islands of 

Ogasawara to the main islands of Japan 

(Hatase et al., 2006; Japan Fisheries 

Resource Conservation Association, 

1999). Green turtles have also been 

shown to move from the FSM to the 

Philippines and to the west (G. Balazs, 

NMFS, unpublished data; Kolinski, et 

al., unpublished data.) 

Demographic data availability is 

limited and somewhat variable for many 

nesting sites in the range of this DPS. 

Variability in parameters such as 

remigration interval, clutch size, 

hatching success, and clutch frequency 

is not separated out regionally within 

the DPS and, therefore, does not 

necessarily suggest a high level of 

population structuring. 

With regard to diversity and 

resilience, the overall range of the DPS 

is relatively widespread, which lends 

some resilience. However, nesting 

generally occurs at what appear to be 

low numbers, except in several 

locations, and only on islands and atolls 

throughout the range of the DPS. 

Nesting information is limited for some 

areas, but occurs from November to 

August in Palau; from March through 

September in the FSM; and May to 

August in Ogasawara, Japan. Some 

turtles travel outside the bounds of the 

range of this DPS, into the East Indian/ 

West Pacific DPS presumably to forage. 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Central West Pacific DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

In the Central West Pacific Ocean, 

some nesting beaches have become 

severely degraded from a variety of 

activities. Destruction and modification 

of green turtle nesting habitat results 

from coastal development and 

construction, placement of barriers to 

nesting, beachfront lighting, vehicular 

and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction, 

beach erosion, beach pollution, removal 

of native vegetation, and presence of 

non-native vegetation. 

Human populations are growing 

rapidly in many areas of the insular 

Pacific and this expansion is exerting 

increased pressure on limited island 

resources. The most valuable land on 

most Pacific islands is often located 

along the coastline, particularly when it 

is associated with a sandy beach. For 

instance, construction (and associated 

lighting) on the islands of Saipan, 

Tinian, and Rota in the CNMI, is 

occurring at a rapid rate in some areas 

and is resulting in loss or degradation of 

green turtle nesting habitat (NMFS and 

USFWS, 1998). 

In the FSM, construction of houses 

and pig pens on Oroluk beaches in 

Pohnpei State interferes with turtle 

nesting by creating barriers to nesting 

habitat (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; 

Buden, 1999). Nesting habitat 

destruction is also a major threat to 

Guam turtles and has resulted mainly 

from construction and development due 

to increased tourism (NMFS and 

USFWS, 1998; Project GloBAL, 2009a). 

Coastal construction is a moderate 

problem on Majuro Atoll in the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands (NMFS 

and USFWS, 1998); however, it is 

unknown to what extent nesting 

beaches are being affected. On the outer 

atolls of the Marshall Islands, beach 

erosion has been aggravated by airfield 

and dock development, and by urban 

development on Majuro and Kwajalein 

Atolls. In the Republic of Palau, 

increasing nesting habitat degradation 

from tourism and coastal development 

has been identified as a threat to sea 

turtles (Eberdong and Klain, 2008; 

Isamu and Guilbeaux, 2002), although 

the extent and significance of the 

impacts are unknown. 

Also in the CNMI, the majority of the 

nesting beaches on Tinian are on 

military-leased land, where the 

potential for construction impacts exists 

(CNMI Coastal Resources Management 

Office, 2011). Increased public use of 

nesting beaches is a threat to sea turtle 

nesting habitat throughout the CNMI. 

Public use of beaches includes a variety 

of recreational activities, including 

picnicking, swimming, surfing, playing 

sports, scuba diving and snorkeling 

access (CNMI Coastal Resources 

Management Office, 2011). Beach 

driving is a pastime on Saipan and 

could threaten green turtle nesting 

habitat (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; 

Palacios, 2012a; Wusstig, 2012). 

Expected U.S. military expansion 

plans for this region are likely to 

include relocation of thousands of 

military personnel to Guam and 

increased training exercises in the CNMI 

(CNMI Coastal Resources Management 

Office, 2011). 

In the Ogasawara Islands of Japan, 

nighttime tourist and resident activity 

on beaches to view and photograph 

nesting turtles is a problem, resulting in 

harassment of nesting turtles and 

increased aborted nesting attempts 

(Ishizaki et al., 2011). 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

Fishing methods not only incidentally 

capture green turtles and destroy bottom 

habitat (including seagrasses) but may 

also deplete invertebrate and fish 

populations and thus alter ecosystem 

dynamics. Dynamite fishing occurs in 

the FSM (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; 

Government of the Federated States of 

Micronesia, 2004) and the Marshall 

Islands (Hay and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005). 

Dynamite fishing, as well as use of fish 

poisons, occurs in Papua New Guinea, 

although these practices are small scale 

and relatively isolated (Berdach and 

Mandeakali, 2004). Coral reefs and 

seagrass beds within the urban centers 

of the four states of the FSM (Pohnpei, 

Yap, Chuuk, and Kosrae; NMFS and 

USFWS, 1998) and Saipan have been 

reported as being degraded by hotels, 

golf courses, and general tourist 

activities (Project GloBAL, 2009b), 

presumably as a result of runoff and 

other impacts. Coastal development in 

Guam has resulted in sedimentation, 

which has damaged Guam’s coral reefs 

and, presumably, food sources for 

turtles (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Coral 

reefs and seagrass habitat off the lagoon 

shoreline of the Kwajalein Atoll islands 

and Majuro Atoll have been degraded by 

coastal construction, dredging, boat 

anchoring, and/or eutrophication from 

sewage and runoff from landfills, grave 

sites, and pig and chicken pens (NMFS 

and USFWS, 1998; Hay and SablanZebedy, 2005). 

Dredging and filling as well as sand 

extraction have contributed to changes 

to longshore processes and coastal 

erosion in the Marshall Islands, FSM, 

Kiribati’s Gilbert Islands chain, and 

Palau (Smith et al., 1997; NMFS and 

USFWS, 1998; Government of the 

Federated States of Micronesia, 2004; 

Hay and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005; Pacific 

News Center, 2012). 

Marine pollution, including direct 

contamination and structural habitat 

degradation, can affect green turtle 

neritic and oceanic habitat. In Palau, 

environmental contamination in the 

form of sewage effluent is a problem 

around Koror State, particularly Malakal 

Harbor, and nearby urban areas (NMFS 

and USFWS, 1998). In the Solomon 

Islands, sewage discharges from land 

and discharges of garbage, bilge water, 

and other pollutants from ships have 

been identified as sources of pollution 

to the coastal and marine environments 

(Solomon Islands Ministry of 

Environment Conservation and 

Meteorology, 2008). Land-based 

activities, including logging, plantation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15313 

development, and mining, often cause 

excessive sedimentation of nearshore 

waters (Sulu et al., 2000). 

Environmental contamination was 

identified as a minor problem in the 

Marshall Islands in 1998 (NMFS and 

USFWS, 1998) and around Wake Island 

(Defense Environmental Network and 

Information Exchange, undated). 

Rudrud et al. (2007) found that there is 

a high probability of green turtles being 

exposed to toxicants remaining in the 

Marshall Islands from past wars and 

weapons testing (e.g., foraging on algae 

growing on toxic surfaces, resting near 

irradiated shipwrecks). 

In summary, we find that the Central 

West Pacific DPS of the green turtle is 

negatively affected by ongoing changes 

in both its terrestrial and marine 

habitats as a result of land and water use 

practices as considered above in Factor 

A. Destruction and modification of 

green turtle nesting habitat resulting 

from coastal development and 

construction, beachfront lighting, 

vehicular and pedestrian traffic, beach 

erosion, and pollution are significant 

threats to the persistence of this DPS. 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Directed take of eggs is a known 

ongoing problem in the Central West 

Pacific in the CNMI, FSM, Guam, 

Kiribati (Gilbert Islands chain), Papua, 

Papua New Guinea, Marshall Islands, 

and Palau (Eckert, 1993; Guilbeaux, 

2001; Hitipeuw and Maturbongs, 2002; 

Philip, 2002). In addition to the 

collection of eggs from nesting beaches, 

the killing of nesting females continues 

to threaten the stability of green turtle 

populations. Ongoing harvest of nesting 

adults has been documented in the 

CNMI (Palacios, 2012a), FSM (Cruce, 

2009), Guam (Cummings, 2002), Papua 

(Hitipeuw and Maturbongs, 2002), 

Papua New Guinea (Maison et al., 2010), 

and Palau (Guilbeaux, 2001). Mortality 

of turtles in foraging habitats is also 

problematic for recovery efforts. 

Ongoing intentional capture of green 

turtles in their marine habitats has been 

documented in southern and eastern 

Papua New Guinea (Limpus et al., 2002) 

and the Solomon Islands (D. Broderick, 

1998; Pita and Broderick, 2005). 

Green turtles have long been 

harvested for their meat in the 

Ogasawara Islands, and records show a 

rapid decline in the sea turtle 

population between 1880 and 1920 

(Horikoshi et al., 1994; Ishizaki, 2007). 

Currently, sea turtle harvest is strictly 

regulated with a harvest limit of 135 

mature turtles per year (Ishizaki, 2007). 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

The potential effects of FP and 

endoparasites also exist for green turtles 

found in the Central West Pacific Ocean, 

but the impacts to the population are 

unknown. 

The loss of eggs to non-human 

predators is a severe problem in some 

areas. These predators include domestic 

animals, such as cats, dogs, and pigs, as 

well as wild species such as rats, 

mongoose, birds, monitor lizards, 

snakes, and crabs, ants, and other 

invertebrates (Suganuma et al., 1996; 

NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Maturbongs, 

2000; Cummings, 2002; Wilson et al., 

2004; Cruce, 2008). 

Although disease and predation are 

known to occur, quantitative data are 

not sufficient to assess the degree of 

impact of these threats on the 

persistence of this DPS. 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Regional and national legislation to 

conserve green turtles (often all sea 

turtles) exists throughout the range of 

the DPS. National protective legislation 

generally prohibits intentional killing, 

harassment, possession, trade, or 

attempts at these; however, a lack of or 

inadequate enforcement of these laws 

appears to be pervasive. The following 

countries have laws to protect green 

turtles: CNMI, FSM, Guam, Japan 

(Ogasawara Islands), Kiribati, Marshall 

Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua, Papua 

New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and 

United States (Wake Island). In 

addition, at least 17 international 

treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms 

apply to the conservation of green 

turtles in the Central West Pacific DPS. 

These are implemented to various 

degrees throughout the range of the 

DPS. There are some national 

regulations, within this DPS, that 

specially address the harvest of green 

turtles while a few regulations are 

limited in that they only apply to turtles 

of certain sizes, times of years, or allow 

for harvest for tradition use. 

On December 12, 2008, the Western 

and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Commission issued a Conservation and 

Management Measure (2008–03; 

https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2008- 

03/conservation-and-management-seaturtles) to reduce sea turtle mortality 

during fishing operations, collect and 

report information on fisheries 

interactions with turtles, and encourage 

safe handling and resuscitation of 

turtles. This measure requires purse 

seine vessels to avoid encircling turtles 

and to release entangled turtles. It also 

requires longline vessels to use line 

cutters and dehookers to release turtles. 

However, enforcement mechanisms are 

not explicit, and the level of compliance 

is uncertain. 

Additional regulatory mechanisms are 

not in place in many countries within 

this DPS to address the major threat of 

bycatch within this DPS. It is unlikely 

that bycatch mortality can be 

sufficiently reduced across the range of 

the DPS in the near future because of 

the diversity and magnitude of the 

fisheries operating in the DPS, the lack 

of comprehensive information on 

fishing distribution and effort, 

limitations on implementing 

demonstrated effective conservation 

measures, geopolitical complexities, 

limitations on enforcement capacity, 

and lack of availability of 

comprehensive bycatch reduction 

technologies. Although conservation 

efforts to protect some nesting beaches 

are underway, more widespread and 

consistent protection would speed 

recovery. Some regulatory mechanisms, 

including laws and international 

treaties, are not realizing their full 

potential because they are not enforced 

adequately, or do not apply in all 

countries occupied by the DPS. 

The Status Review revealed a lack of 

existing regulatory mechanisms to 

address coastal development, pollution, 

sea level rise, and effects of climate 

change that continue to contribute to the 

extinction risk of this DPS. 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting its Continued 

Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

Incidental capture in artisanal and 

commercial fisheries is a threat to the 

survival of green turtles in the Central 

West Pacific. Sea turtles may be caught 

in longline, pole and line, and purse 

seine fisheries. 

Within the Marshall Islands, Palau, 

the FSM, and the Solomon Islands, a 

purse-seine fishery for tuna and a 

significant longline fishery operate, and 

sea turtles have been captured in both 

fisheries with green turtle mortality 

occurring (Oceanic Fisheries 

Programme, 2001; McCoy, 2003; Hay 

and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005; McCoy, 

2007a; McCoy, 2007b; Western and 

Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, 

2008). 

Numerous subsistence and smallscale commercial fishing operations 

occur along Saipan’s western coast and 

along both the Rota and Tinian coasts 

(CNMI Coastal Resources Management 

Office, 2011). Incidental catch of turtles 

in Guam’s coastal waters by commercial 

fishing vessels likely also occurs (NMFS 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15314 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

and USFWS, 1998). In 2007, 222 fishing 

vessels (200 purse-seiners and 22 

longliners) had access to Papua New 

Guinea waters (Kumoru, 2008). 

Although no official reports have been 

released on sea turtle bycatch within 

these fisheries (Project GloBAL, 2009c), 

sea turtle interactions with both 

fisheries have been commonly observed 

(Kumoru, 2008). However, the level of 

mortality is unknown. 

b. Vessel Strikes 

The impacts of vessel strikes in the 

Central West Pacific are unknown, but 

not thought to be of great consequence, 

except possibly in Palau where high 

speed skiffs constantly travel 

throughout the lagoon south of the main 

islands (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). 

However, green turtles have been 

documented as occasionally being hit by 

boats in Guam (Guam Division of 

Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, 2012). 

c. Pollution 

In the FSM, debris is dumped freely 

and frequently off boats and ships 

(including government ships). Landfill 

areas are practically nonexistent in the 

outer islands and have not been 

addressed adequately on Yap proper or 

on Chuuk and Pohnpei. The volume of 

imported goods (including plastic and 

paper packaging) appears to be 

increasing (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). 

In Palau, entanglement in abandoned 

fishing nets has been identified as a 

threat to sea turtles (Eberdong and 

Klain, 2008). In the Marshall Islands, 

debris and garbage disposal in coastal 

waters is a serious problem on Majuro 

Atoll and Ebete Island (Kwajalein Atoll), 

both of which have inadequate space, 

earth cover, and shore protection for 

sanitary landfills. This problem also 

exists to a lesser extent at Daliet Atoll 

(NMFS and USFWS, 1998). 

A study of the gastrointestinal tracts 

of 36 slaughtered green turtles in the 

Ogasawara Islands of Japan in 2001 

revealed the presence of marine debris 

(e.g., plastic bag pieces, plastic blocks, 

monofilament lines, Styrofoam pieces) 

in the majority of the turtles (Sako and 

Horikoshi, 2003). 

d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disasters 

Over the long term, Central West 

Pacific turtle populations could be 

affected by the alteration of thermal 

sand characteristics (from global 

warming), resulting in the reduction or 

cessation of male hatchling production 

(Camin ̃ as, 2004; Hawkes et al., 2009; 

Kasparek et al., 2001; Poloczanska et al., 

2009). Further, a significant rise in sea 

level would restrict green turtle nesting 

habitat in the Central West Pacific. 

Coastal erosion has been identified as a 

high risk in the CNMI due to the 

existence of concentrated human 

population centers near erosion-prone 

zones, coupled with the potential 

increasing threat of erosion from sea 

level rise (CNMI Coastal Resources 

Management Office, 2011). In the FSM, 

Yap State’s low coralline atolls are 

extremely vulnerable to rises in sea 

levels and will be adversely affected if 

rises occur (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). 

These risks are high for all beaches in 

the Central West Pacific. Interestingly, 

Barnett and Adger (2003) identified 

projected increases in sea-surface 

temperature, and not sea level rise, as 

the greatest long-term risk of climate 

change to atoll morphology and thus to 

atoll countries like those in the Central 

West Pacific. They state that coral reefs, 

which are essential to the formation and 

maintenance of the islets located around 

the rim of an atoll, are highly sensitive 

to sudden changes in sea-surface 

temperature. Thus, climate change 

impacts could have profound long-term 

impacts on green turtle nesting in the 

Central West Pacific, but it is not 

possible to project the impacts at this 

point in time. 

Natural environmental events such as 

cyclones and hurricanes may affect 

green turtles in the Central West Pacific 

DPS. These storm events have been 

shown to cause severe beach erosion 

with likely negative effects on hatching 

success at many green turtle nesting 

beaches, especially in areas already 

prone to erosion. Shoreline erosion 

occurs naturally on many islands in the 

atolls of the Marshall Islands due to 

storms, sea level rise from the El Nin ̃ o– 

Southern Oscillation, and currents 

(NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Some 

erosion of nesting beaches at Oroluk 

was reported in 1990 after passage of 

Typhoon Owen (NMFS and USFWS, 

1998). However, effects of these natural 

events may be exacerbated by climate 

change. While sea turtles have survived 

past eras that have included significant 

temperature fluctuations, future climate 

change is expected to happen at 

unprecedented rates, and if turtles 

cannot adapt quickly they may face 

local to widespread extirpations 

(Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts from 

global climate change induced by 

human activities are likely to become 

more apparent in future years (IPCC, 

2007). 

In summary, within Factor E, we find 

that fishery bycatch continues to 

threaten this DPS. In addition, changes 

likely to result from climate change and 

natural disasters are increasing threats 

to this DPS. 

C. Conservation Efforts for the Central 

West Pacific DPS 

Very few areas that host important 

green turtle nesting or foraging 

aggregations have been designated as 

protected areas within the Central West 

Pacific. However, at least one country, 

Palau, has site-specific conservation for 

sea turtle habitat protection. Two 

nationally mandated protected areas, 

Ngerukewid Islands Wildlife Preserve 

and Ngerumekaol Spawning Area, exist 

within Koror State, and restrictions are 

placed on entry and fishing within 

established boundaries. 

Marine debris is a problem on some 

green turtle nesting beaches and 

foraging areas in the Central West 

Pacific, in particular on the nesting 

beaches of the CNMI (Palacios, 2012a; 

2012b) and in the nearshore foraging 

areas of the FSM, Marshall Islands, and 

Palau (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; 

Eberdong and Klain, 2008). Organized 

beach clean-ups on some CMNI beaches 

have been conducted to help mitigate 

this impact (Palacios, 2012b). 

Overall, it appears that international 

and national laws to protect green 

turtles may be insufficient or not 

implemented effectively to address the 

needs of green turtles in the Central 

West Pacific. This minimizes the 

potential success of existing 

conservation efforts. 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the Central West Pacific 

DPS 

The Central West Pacific DPS is 

characterized by a relatively small 

nesting population spread across a 

relatively expansive area roughly 2,500 

miles wide (Palau to the Marshall 

Islands) and 2,500 miles long 

(Ogasawara, Japan to the Solomon 

Islands). This DPS is dominated by 

insular nesting. Fifty-one known nesting 

sites were analyzed, although many had 

very old data (20–30 years old). Sixteen 

sites were identified but numbers of 

nesting females were ‘‘unquantified,’’ 

and another 21 had fewer than 100 

nesting females. Only two sites had 

more than 1,000 nesting females (1,412 

and 1,301). Further study of this DPS 

would improve our understanding of it. 

The limited available information on 

trends suggests a nesting population 

decrease in some areas, an increase in 

one Japanese nesting site, and unknown 

trends in others. The second largest 

nesting site in this DPS (Chichijima, 

Japan) shows positive growth. The 

dispersed location of nesting sites and 

lack of concentration of nesting 

provides a level of habitat diversity and 

population resilience which reduces 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15315 

overall extinction risk, as does widely 

varied nesting seasons; however, the 

contribution of this characteristic to 

such diversity and resilience is reduced 

by the small size of many of these sites 

and the threats faced in each of the 

nesting and foraging areas. 

Human populations are growing 

rapidly in many areas of the insular 

Pacific and this expansion is 

accompanied by threats to green turtle 

nesting habitat resulting from coastal 

development and construction, 

beachfront lighting, degradation of 

waters and seagrass beds off of 

populated areas, and sand extraction. 

Destructive fishing methods (use of 

dynamite and poisons) not only 

incidentally capture green turtles, but 

also deplete invertebrate and fish 

populations and thus alter ecosystem 

dynamics. Fishery bycatch, particularly 

bycatch mortality of green turtles from 

longline, pole and line, and purse seine 

fisheries, continue as threats to this 

DPS. In addition, legal and illegal 

harvest of green turtles and eggs for 

human consumption remains a 

significant threat in many areas of this 

DPS. Finally, changes likely to result 

from climate change and natural 

disasters could have profound long-term 

impacts on green turtle nesting in the 

Central West Pacific. 

Although regulatory mechanisms are 

in place that should address direct and 

incidental take of Central West Pacific 

green turtles, these regulatory 

mechanisms are insufficient or are not 

being implemented effectively to 

address the population trajectories of 

green turtles. 

For the above reasons, we propose to 

list the Central West Pacific DPS as 

endangered. Based on its low nesting 

abundance and exposure to increasing 

threats, we find that this DPS is 

presently in danger of extinction 

throughout its range. 

XIV. Southwest Pacific DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters 

in the Southwest Pacific DPS 

The range of the Southwest Pacific 

DPS extends from the western boundary 

of Torres Strait, to the eastern tip of 

Papua New Guinea and out to the 

offshore coordinate of 13° S., 171° E.; 

the eastern boundary runs from this 

point southeast to 40° S., 176° E.; the 

southern boundary runs along 40° S. 

from 142° E. to 176° E.; and the western 

boundary runs from 40° S., 142° E north 

to Australian coast then follows the 

coast northward to Torres Strait (Figure 

2). 

Green turtle nesting is widely 

dispersed throughout the Southwest 

Pacific Ocean at 12 total nesting sites, 

although it should be noted that, 

perhaps more so than in other DPSs, 

proximate nesting beaches were 

grouped for analysis because nesting 

populations are small, with the 

exception of a few sites, including Raine 

Island, where the majority (>90 percent) 

of the nesting in the northern GBR 

occurs. While it would be possible to 

split the nesting aggregations into more 

than 100 different sites, because many 

of the most recent estimates are 

aggregated (Limpus, 2009), we followed 

this tendency and aggregated nesting 

within broad regional areas. The bulk of 

this DPS nests within Australia’s Great 

Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and 

eastern Torres Strait. The northern GBR 

and Torres Strait support some of the 

world’s highest concentrations of 

nesting (Chaloupka et al., 2008a). 

Nesting abundance in the northern GBR 

is not directly counted throughout the 

nesting season largely because of the 

remoteness of the site and the sheer 

numbers of turtles that may nest on any 

given night. Raine Island, with estimates 

of annual nesting females varying from 

4,000–89,000 (Seminoff et al., 2004; 

NMFS and U.S. FWS, 2007; Chaloupka 

et al., 2008a; Limpus, 2009) (note the 

Status Review used an estimate of 

25,000 nesting females), Moulter Cay, 

with 15,965 nesting females (Limpus et 

al., 2003; Limpus, 2009), and the rest of 

the Capricorn Bunker Group with 

31,249 nesting females (Limpus, 2009) 

represent the three sites with >10,000 

nesting females. Heron Island is the 

index nesting beach for the southern 

GBR, and nearly every nesting female on 

Heron Island has been tagged since 1974 

(Limpus and Nicholls, 2000). Heron 

Island (4,891 nesting females; 

Chaloupka et al., 2008a; Limpus, 2009), 

Bramble Cay in the northern GBR 

(1,660; Limpus et al., 2003; Limpus 

2009), and Huon, Leleizour and Fabre in 

New Caledonia (1,777; Limpus, 2009) 

represent the sites with 1,001–5,000 

nesting females. There are three sites 

with 501–1,000: The Coral Sea (all sites; 

1,000; Limpus, 2009), No. 8 Sandbank 

in northern GBR (637; Limpus et al., 

2003; Limpus 2009), and other northern 

GBR sites, including Murray Islands, 

other outer islands, most inner shelf 

cays and the mainland coast (535; 

Limpus 2009). Bamboo Bay in Vanuatu 

(165; MacKay and Petro, 2013) and No. 

7 Sandbank in the northern GBR 

represent the two sites with nesting 

females in the 101–500 category. The 

rest of the southern GBR (represented 

here as one site) is unquantified. 

The Raine Island and Heron Island 

sites both have high inter-annual 

variability and slightly increasing linear 

trends. These were the only two nesting 

areas for which 15 or more years of 

recent data are available for annual 

nesting female abundance, one of the 

standards for performing a PVA in the 

Status Review. Both show a continued 

increasing trend, though the Raine 

Island PVA indicates that there is a 9.1 

percent probability that this population 

will fall below the trend reference point 

(50 percent decline) at the end of 100 

years, and a 0.4 percent probability that 

it will fall below the absolute 

abundance reference (100 females per 

year) at the end of 100 years. However, 

extra caution must be used when 

interpreting results of the Raine Island 

PVA, because it only represents females 

observed during one sampling event on 

one night. The Heron Island PVA 

indicates that there is a 17.5 percent 

probability that the magnitude of adult 

females associated with Heron Island 

nesting will fall below the trend 

reference point (50 percent decline) at 

the end of 100 years, and an 8.3 percent 

probability that this population will fall 

below the absolute abundance reference 

(100 females per year) at the end of 100 

years. It should be noted that PVA 

modeling has important limitations, and 

does not fully incorporate other key 

elements critical to the decision making 

process such as spatial structure or 

threats. It assumes all environmental 

and anthropogenic pressures will 

remain constant in the forecast period 

and it relies on nesting data alone. 

Although long robust time series are 

not available for New Caledonia, recent 

and historical accounts do not suggest a 

significant decline in abundance of 

green turtles nesting in New Caledonia 

(Maison et al., 2010). The trend at 

Vanuatu has not been documented 

(Maison et al., 2010). 

With regard to spatial structure, 

genetic sampling in the Southwest 

Pacific DPS has been extensive for larger 

nesting sites along the GBR, the Coral 

Sea, and New Caledonia; however, there 

are several smaller nesting sites in this 

region that still need to be sampled (e.g. 

Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, and 

Papua New Guinea). Within this DPS, 

four regional genetic stocks have been 

identified in the Southwest Pacific 

Ocean; northern GBR, southern GBR, 

Coral Sea (Dethmers et al., 2006; Jensen, 

2010), and New Caledonia (Dethmers et 

al., 2006; Dutton et al., 2014). Mixed 

stock analysis of foraging grounds 

shows that green turtles from multiple 

nesting beach origins commonly mix in 

foraging grounds along the GBR and 

Torres Strait regions (Jensen, 2010), but 

with the vast majority originating from 

nesting sites within the GBR. There is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15316 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

evidence of low frequency contribution 

from nesting sites outside the range of 

the DPS at some foraging areas. 

With regard to diversity and 

resilience, nesting beach monitoring 

along with flipper and satellite tagging 

show the spatial structure of this DPS is 

largely consistent with viable 

populations. Nesting can occur yearround in the most northerly nesting 

sites, but a distinct peak occurs in late 

December to early January for all 

Australian nesting sites. Foraging is 

widely dispersed throughout the range 

of this DPS (Limpus, 2009). There are 

various factors that lead to resilience in 

nesting in the Southwest Pacific DPS: it 

is widely dispersed throughout the 

region, there is more than one major 

nesting site, there is evidence of some 

connectivity between nesting sites 

within each of the four regional stocks 

but no connectivity among regional 

stocks, and there is continental and 

insular nesting. Nesting, however, is not 

evenly distributed throughout the range 

of the DPS, and some of the densest 

nesting occurs on Raine Island, which 

has habitat-based threats. 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Southwest Pacific DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

Destruction and modification of green 

turtle nesting habitat in the Southwest 

Pacific DPS result from beach erosion, 

beach pollution, removal of native 

vegetation, and planting of non-native 

vegetation, as well as natural 

environmental change (Limpus, 2009). 

Coastal development and construction, 

placement of erosion control structures 

and other barriers to nesting, and 

vehicular traffic minimally impact green 

turtles in this DPS (Limpus, 2009). 

Artificial light levels have increased 

significantly for green turtles in minor 

nesting sites of the northern GBR and 

remained relatively constant for the 

mainland of Australia (part of southern 

GBR) south of Gladstone (Kamrowski et 

al., 2014). Most of the nests at the 

documented nesting sites within this 

DPS occur within the protected habitat, 

but there is still concern about the 

viability of nesting habitat (Limpus, 

2009). Total productivity is limited by 

reduced nesting and hatching success, 

which at Raine Island appear to be 

depressed due to habitat issues. At 

Raine Island, mean nesting success (i.e., 

probability that a clutch will be laid 

when a turtle comes ashore for a nesting 

attempt) can be as low as 3.3 percent 

(Limpus et al., 2007). Reduced 

recruitment can be caused by flooding 

of egg chambers by ground water, dry 

collapsing sand around egg chambers, 

and underlying rock which prevents 

appropriately deep egg chambers 

(Limpus et al., 2003). In the 1996 to 

1997 breeding season, for example, 

flooding of nests caused a near total loss 

of viable eggs, and flooding has been a 

regular event in subsequent years 

(Limpus et al., 2003; Limpus, 2009). 

Death of nesting females occurs on 

Raine Island when they enter the 

elevated interior of the island due to 

crowding on the beach and return along 

a different route, encountering hazards 

such as small cliffs, over which they 

wander and roll onto their backs. 

Nightly mortality ranges from 0 to over 

70 per night and is highest when nesting 

the previous night exceeds 1,000 

(Limpus et al., 2003). Understanding the 

root cause of changes to Raine Island 

nesting habitat is challenging and is the 

aim of several Australian and State 

Government research and monitoring 

projects. These habitat-based threats 

(particularly related to hatchling 

production) constitute serious threats to 

this DPS, given the large abundance of 

turtles nesting in the northern GBR. 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

Threats to habitat in the neritic and/ 

or oceanic zones in the Southwest 

Pacific DPS include fishing practices, 

channel dredging, and marine pollution, 

although the internesting habitat 

adjacent to the nesting sites with the 

highest documented nesting levels in 

this DPS is protected by the Great 

Barrier Reef Coastal Marine Park and the 

adjacent Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 

(Limpus, 2009). Protection for marine 

turtles in the Great Barrier Reef World 

Heritage area has been increasing since 

the mid-1990s (Dryden et al., 2008). 

In summary, we find that the 

Southwest Pacific DPS of the green 

turtle is negatively affected by ongoing 

changes in both its terrestrial and 

marine habitats as a result of land and 

water use practices as considered above 

in Factor A. Groundwater intrusion on 

high density beaches, artificial lighting, 

fishery practices, channel dredging, and 

marine pollution are continual threats to 

the persistence of this DPS. 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Southwest Pacific DPS turtles are 

vulnerable to harvest throughout 

Australia and neighboring countries 

such as New Caledonia, Fiji, Vanuatu, 

Papua New Guinea, and Indonesia 

(Limpus, 2009). Cumulative annual 

harvest of green turtles that nest in 

Australia may be in the tens of 

thousands, and it appears likely that 

historical native harvest may have been 

in the same order of magnitude 

(Limpus, 2009). The Australian Native 

Title Act (1993) gives Aboriginal and 

Torres Strait Islanders a legal right to 

hunt sea turtles in Australia for 

traditional, communal, non-commercial 

purposes (Limpus, 2009). Although 

indigenous groups, governments, 

wildlife managers and scientists work 

together with the aim of sustainably 

managing turtle resources (Maison et al., 

2010 citing K. Dobbs, Queensland Parks 

Authority, pers. comm., 2010), 

traditional harvest remains a threat to 

green turtle populations. However, 

quantitative data are not sufficient to 

assess the degree of impact of harvest on 

the persistence of this DPS. 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

Low levels of FP-associated turtle 

herpes virus is common in green turtles 

in some but not all semi-enclosed 

waters like Moreton Bay and Repulse 

Bay in Australia, more infrequent in 

nearshore open waters, and rare in offshore coral reef habitats (Limpus, 2009). 

Mortality and recovery rates from this 

virus are not quantified but stranded, 

infected turtles are regularly 

encountered in south Queensland 

(Limpus, 2009). 

Primary hatchling and egg predators 

of this DPS include crabs, birds, fish, 

and mammals. The magnitude of egg 

predation is not well documented, but 

within Australia the highest levels of 

vertebrate predation on eggs occur in 

other species, primarily loggerheads 

(Environment Australia, 2003). In 

Vanuatu, nest predation by feral dogs is 

a primary threat (Maison et al., 2010). 

Survivorship of hatchlings in the 

southern GBR during the transition from 

nest to sea (accounting for crab and bird 

predation) may be quite high (Limpus, 

1971), but survivorship of hatchlings as 

they transition across the reef flat from 

the water’s edge to deep water is likely 

considerably lower (Gyuris, 1994 as 

cited in Limpus, 2009). Similar 

survivorship estimates are not available 

for the northern GBR, but survival 

during the nest to sea transition is 

expected to be low and variable, 

depending on the predator assemblage. 

Although many birds co-occur with sea 

turtle hatchlings in the northern GBR, 

only some birds, like the rufous night 

heron (Nycticorax caledonicus), are 

important predators (Limpus et al., 

2003). Terrestrial crabs that occur 

throughout the northern GBR have been 

observed feeding on turtle hatchlings 

and eggs, but crabs are generally of low 

density (Limpus et al., 2003). Shark 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15317 

predation on hatchlings as well as 

adults has been documented (Limpus et 

al., 2003). 

Although disease and predation are 

known to occur, quantitative data are 

not sufficient to assess the degree of 

impact of these threats on the 

persistence of this DPS. 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Regulatory mechanisms are in place 

throughout the range of the DPS that 

address the direct capture of green 

turtles within this DPS. There are 

regulations, within this DPS, that 

specially address the harvest of green 

turtles while a few regulations are 

limited in that they only apply to 

certain times of year or allow for 

traditional use. Australia, New 

Caledonia and Vanuatu, the only 

countries with nesting aside from the 

Coral Sea Islands, which are a territory 

of Australia, have laws to protect green 

turtles. National protective legislation 

generally regulates intentional killing, 

possession, and trade (Limpus, 2009; 

Maison et al., 2010). In addition, at least 

17 international treaties and/or 

regulatory mechanisms apply to the 

conservation of green turtles in the 

Southwest Pacific DPS. 

The majority of nesting beaches (and 

often the associated internesting habitat) 

are protected in Australia, which is the 

country with the vast majority of the 

known nesting. 

In Australia, the conservation of green 

turtles is governed by a variety of 

national and territorial legislation. 

Conservation began with 1932 harvest 

restrictions on turtles and eggs in 

Queensland in October and November, 

south of 17° S., and by 1968 the 

restriction extended all year long for all 

of Queensland (Limpus, 2009). As 

described in the preceding section, 

other conservation efforts include 

sweeping take prohibitions, 

implementation of bycatch reduction 

devices and safer dredging practices, 

improvement of shark control devices, 

and safer dredging practices, and the 

development of community based 

management plans with Indigenous 

groups. Australia has undertaken 

extensive marine spatial planning to 

protect nesting turtles and internesting 

habitat surrounding important nesting 

sites. The GBR’s listing on the United 

Nations Educational, Scientific and 

Cultural Organization’s World Heritage 

List in 1981 has increased the protection 

of habitats within the GBR World 

Heritage Area (Dryden et al., 2008). 

In New Caledonia, 1985 fishery 

regulations contained some regional sea 

turtle conservation measures, and these 

were expanded in 2008 to include the 

EEZ, the Main Island, and remote 

islands (Maison et al., 2010). In 

Vanuatu, new fisheries regulations in 

2009 prohibit the take, harm, capture, 

disturbance, possession, sale, purchase 

of or interference, import, or export of 

green turtles Maison et al., 2010). 

There are several regulatory 

mechanisms in place that should 

address incidental take of green turtles 

within this DPS; however, these 

regulatory mechanisms are not realizing 

their full potential because they are not 

enforced at the local level. The analysis 

of these existing regulatory mechanisms 

assumed that all would remain in place 

at their current levels. 

The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to address impacts to 

nesting beach habitat and 

overutilization is a continuing concern 

for this DPS. Other threats with 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms 

include incidental bycatch in fishing 

gear, boat strikes, port dredging, debris, 

national defense, and toxic compounds. 

Lack of implementation or enforcement 

by some nations renders regulatory 

mechanisms less effective than if they 

were implemented in a more consistent 

manner across the target region. It is 

unlikely that bycatch mortality can be 

sufficiently reduced across the range of 

the DPS in the near future because of 

the diversity and magnitude of the 

fisheries operating in the DPS, the lack 

of comprehensive information on 

fishing distribution and effort, 

limitations on implementing 

demonstrated effective conservation 

measures, geopolitical complexities, 

limitations on enforcement capacity, 

and lack of availability of 

comprehensive bycatch reduction 

technologies. 

The Status Review did not reveal 

regulatory mechanisms in place to 

specifically address threats to nesting 

beaches, eggs, hatchlings, juveniles, and 

adults through harvest and incidental 

harm occur throughout the range of the 

Southwest Pacific DPS. Some threats, 

such as inundation of nests at Raine 

Island and sea level rise, cannot be 

controlled through individual national 

legislation and persist as a threat to this 

DPS. 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

Incidental capture in artisanal and 

commercial fisheries is a threat to the 

survival of green turtles in the 

Southwest Pacific Ocean. The primary 

gear types involved in these interactions 

include trawl fisheries, longlines, drift 

nets, and set nets. These are employed 

by both artisanal and industrial fleets, 

and target a wide variety of species 

including prawns, crabs, sardines, and 

large pelagic fish. 

Nesting turtles of the Southwest 

Pacific DPS are vulnerable to the 

Queensland East Coast Trawl Fisheries 

and the Torres Strait Prawn Fishery, and 

to the extent other turtles forage west of 

Torres Strait, they are also vulnerable 

(Limpus, 2009). In 2000, the use of TEDs 

in the Northern Australian Prawn 

Fishery became mandatory, due in part 

to several factors: (1) Objectives of the 

Australian Recovery Plan for Marine 

Turtles, (2) requirements of the 

Australian Environment Protection and 

Biodiversity Conservation Act for 

Commonwealth fisheries to become 

ecologically sustainable, and (3) the 

1996 U.S. import embargo on wildcaught prawns taken in a fishery 

without adequate turtle bycatch 

management practices (Robins et al., 

2002). 

Australian and international longline 

fisheries capture green turtles. Precise 

estimates of international capture of 

Southwest Pacific Ocean DPS green 

turtles by the international longline fleet 

are not available, but they are thought 

to be larger than the Australian 

component (DEWHA, 2010). In addition 

to threats from prawn trawls, green 

turtles may face threats from other 

fishing gear (summarized from Limpus, 

2009). Take of green turtles in gill nets 

(targeting barramundi, salmon, 

mackerel, and shark) in Queensland and 

the Northern Territory has been 

observed but not quantified. Untended 

‘‘ghost’’ fishing gear that has been 

intentionally discarded or lost due to 

weather conditions may entangle and 

kill many hundreds of green turtles 

annually. 

b. Shark Control Programs 

Green turtles are captured in shark 

control programs, but protocols are in 

place to reduce the impact. The 

Queensland Shark Control Program is 

managed by the Queensland Department 

of Primary Industries and Fisheries 

(Limpus, 2009) and has been operating 

since 1962 (Gribble et al., 1998). In 

1992, their operations began to be 

modified to reduce mortality of nontarget species (Gribble et al., 1998). 

Observed green turtle annual mortality 

during 1998–2003 was 2.7 per year 

(Limpus, 2009). Green turtles have been 

captured in the New South Wales sharkmeshing program since 1937, but total 

capture for all turtle species from 1950 

through 1993 is roughly five or fewer 

turtles per year (Krogh and Reid, 1996). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15318 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Post-release survival does not appear to 

have been monitored in any of the 

monitoring programs. 

c. Boat Strikes and Port Dredging 

The magnitude of mortality from boat 

strikes may be in the high tens to low 

hundreds per year in Queensland 

(Limpus, 2009). This threat affects 

juvenile and adult turtles and may 

increase with increasing high-speed 

boat traffic in coastal waters. The 

magnitude of mortality from port 

dredging in Queensland may be in the 

order of tens of turtles or less per year 

(Limpus, 2009). 

d. Toxic Compounds and Marine Debris 

Toxic compounds and 

bioaccumulative chemicals threaten 

green turtles in the Southwest Pacific 

DPS. Poor health conditions 

(debilitation and death) have been 

reported in the southern Gulf of 

Carpentaria for green turtles, many of 

which had unusual black fat (Kwan and 

Bell, 2003; Limpus, 2009). Heavy metal 

concentrations have also been reported 

in Australia (Dight and Gladstone, 1994; 

Reiner, 1994; Gordon et al., 1998; 

Limpus, 2009), but the health impact 

has not been quantified. The magnitude 

of mortality from ingestion of synthetic 

material in Queensland is expected to 

be at least tens of turtles annually 

(Limpus, 2009). 

e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disasters 

Green turtle populations could be 

affected by the effects of climate change 

on nesting grounds (Fuentes et al., 2011) 

as well as in marine habitats (Hamann 

et al., 2007; Hawkes et al., 2009). 

Potential effects of climate change 

include changes in nest site selection, 

range shifts, diet shifts, and loss of 

nesting habitat due to sea level rise 

(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 

2009). Climate change will likely also 

cause higher sand temperatures leading 

to increased feminization of surviving 

hatchlings (i.e., changes in sex ratio), 

and some beaches will likely experience 

lethal incubation temperatures that will 

result in losses of complete hatchling 

cohorts (Glen and Mrosovsky, 2004; 

Fuentes et al., 2010; Fuentes et al., 

2011). While sea turtles have survived 

past eras that have included significant 

temperature fluctuations, future climate 

change is expected to happen at 

unprecedented rates, and if turtles 

cannot adapt quickly they may face 

local to widespread extirpations 

(Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts from 

global climate change induced by 

human activities are likely to become 

more apparent in future years (IPCC, 

2007). 

In a study of the northern GBR nesting 

assemblages, Bramble Cay and Milman 

Islet were vulnerable to sea-level rise, 

and almost all sites in the study were 

expected to be vulnerable to increased 

temperatures by 2070 (Fuentes et al., 

2011). Similar data are not available for 

other nesting sites. 

The Southwest Pacific DPS contains 

some atolls, as well as coral reef areas 

that share some ecological 

characteristics with atolls. Barnett and 

Adger (2003) state that coral reefs, 

which are essential to the formation and 

maintenance of the islets located around 

the rim of an atoll, are highly sensitive 

to sudden changes in sea-surface 

temperature. Thus, climate change 

impacts could have long-term impacts 

on green turtle ecology in the Southwest 

Pacific DPS, but it is not possible to 

project the impacts at this point in time. 

In summary, within Factor E, we find 

that fishery bycatch that occurs 

throughout the range of the DPS, 

particularly bycatch mortality of green 

turtles from pelagic longline, drift nets, 

set net, and trawl fisheries, is a 

continued risk to this DPS. Additional 

threats from boat strikes, marine 

pollution, changes likely to result from 

climate change, and cyclonic storm 

events are pose an increasing risk to the 

persistence of this DPS. 

C. Conservation Efforts for the 

Southwest Pacific DPS 

Conservation efforts for the Southwest 

Pacific DPS have resulted in sweeping 

take prohibitions, implementation of 

bycatch reduction devices, 

improvement of shark control devices, 

and safer dredging practices. Australia, 

in particular, has undertaken extensive 

marine spatial planning to protect 

nesting turtles and internesting habitat 

surrounding some of the largest and 

most important nesting sites in the DPS. 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the Southwest Pacific DPS 

The Southwest Pacific DPS is 

characterized by relatively high levels of 

green turtle nesting abundance (>80,000 

nesting females) and contains the GBR, 

the largest coral reef system in the 

world, as well as continental coastline, 

islands, and atolls. The trends in nesting 

female abundance at the two index 

beaches (Raine Island and Heron Island, 

Australia) are stable or increasing. The 

spatial structure of this DPS extends 

over a large geographic area, with 

several large nesting sites spread within 

the range of this DPS, and includes both 

continental and insular nesting, thereby 

providing a level of habitat diversity 

and population resilience. This region 

has high genetic diversity resulting from 

a mix of highly divergent lineages, some 

of which are among the oldest lineages 

found in C. mydas. There are concerns 

about climate change in general and the 

nesting habitat at Raine Island in 

particular, where nests are sometimes 

flooded and nesting female mortality 

can range from 1–70 per night due to 

overcrowding. 

The threats to this Southwest Pacific 

DPS include directed harvest, incidental 

bycatch in fisheries, shark control 

programs, boat strikes, port dredging, 

debris, activities associated with 

national defense, disease, predation, 

toxic compounds, and climate change. 

Conservation efforts have resulted in 

sweeping take prohibitions, 

implementation of bycatch reduction 

devices, improvement of shark control 

devices, and safer dredging practices. 

Australia, in particular, has undertaken 

extensive marine spatial planning to 

protect nesting turtles and internesting 

habitat surrounding important nesting 

sites. In the southern GBR threats are 

well managed, harvest is low, and the 

population increasing; however, in the 

northern GBR there are concerns for 

Raine Island and harvest is a cause for 

concern. In the Coral Sea there are few 

known threats and it is remote and well 

managed from human threats. Although 

the DPS shows strength in many of the 

critical elements, there are still concerns 

about numerous threats including 

climate change and habitat degradation. 

For the above reasons, we propose to 

list the Southwest Pacific DPS as 

threatened. We do not find the DPS to 

be in danger of extinction presently 

because of high nesting abundance and 

geographically widespread nesting at a 

diversity of sites; however, the 

continued threats are likely to endanger 

the DPS within the foreseeable future. 

XV. Central South Pacific DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters 

for the Central South Pacific DPS 

The range of the Central South Pacific 

DPS extends north and east of New 

Zealand to include a longitudinal 

expanse of 7,500 km—from Easter 

Island, Chile in the east to Fiji in the 

west, and encompasses American 

Samoa, French Polynesia, Cook Islands, 

Fiji, Kiribati, Tokelau, Tonga, and 

Tuvalu. Its open ocean polygonal 

boundary endpoints are (clockwise from 

the northwest-most extent): 9° N., 175° 

W. to 9° N., 125° W. to 40° S., 96° W. 

to 40° S., 176° E., to 13° S., 171° E., and 

back to 9° N., 175° W. (Figure 2). 

Nesting occurs sporadically 

throughout the geographic distribution 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15319 

of the DPS at low levels. Green turtles 

departing nesting grounds within the 

range of this DPS travel throughout the 

South Pacific Ocean. Post-nesting green 

turtles tagged in the early 1990s from 

Rose Atoll returned to foraging grounds 

in Fiji and French Polynesia (Craig et 

al., 2004). Nesting females tagged in 

French Polynesia migrated west after 

nesting to various sites in the western 

South Pacific (Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 

1993). In addition to nesting beaches, 

green turtles are found in coastal waters 

(White and Galbraith, 2013; White, 

2013), but in-water information for this 

DPS is particularly limited. 

Based on available data, we estimate 

there are approximately 2,800 nesting 

females in this DPS at 59 nesting sites. 

The most abundant nesting area was 

Scilly Atoll, French Polynesia, which in 

the early 1990s was estimated to host 

300–400 nesting females annually 

(Balazs et al., 1995), and has an 

estimated total nesting female 

abundance of 1,050 breeding females, 

roughly one-third of all nesting females 

in the DPS (although this number is 

dated, it is used in the Status Review as 

it is the most recent data and the best 

available). However, Scilly Atoll was 

last monitored in the early 1990s (Balazs 

et al., 1995), and abundance has 

reportedly declined as a result of 

commercial exploitation (Conservation 

International Pacific Islands Program, 

2013). There are six other sites with 

101–500 nesting females according to 

the best available data, although the 

estimate for Nukunonu, Tokelau is from 

the 1970s. Many nesting areas (21 of 58, 

or 36 percent) only have qualitative 

information that nesting is present, 

indicating that there is still much to 

learn about green turtle nesting in this 

region. As these unquantified nesting 

sites most likely each have a female 

abundance in the 1–100 range, their 

collective sum is probably fewer than 

700 nesting females. Historical baseline 

nesting information in general is not 

widely available in this region, but 

exploitation and trade of green turtles 

throughout the region is well-known 

(Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989). 

No long-term monitoring programs are 

currently available at beaches in this 

population, and no single site has had 

standardized surveys for even 5 

continuous years. Most nesting areas are 

in remote, low-lying atolls that are 

logistically difficult to access. Partial 

and inconsistent monitoring from the 

largest nesting site in this DPS, Scilly 

Atoll, suggests significant nesting 

declines from persistent and illegal 

commercial harvesting (Petit, 2013). 

Historically, 100–500 females nested 

annually at Canton Island, Kiribati 

(Balazs, 1975b) but, as of 2002, it had an 

estimated 29 nesting females. Nesting 

abundance is reported to be stable to 

increasing at Tongareva Atoll (White 

and Galbraith, 2013). It is also reported 

to be stable to increasing at Rose Atoll, 

Swains Atoll, Tetiaroa, Tikehau, and 

Maiao. However, these sites are of 

relatively low abundance and in sum 

represent less than 16 percent of the 

population abundance at Scilly Atoll 

alone. 

With regard to spatial structure, 

genetic sampling in the Central South 

Pacific is limited and many of the small 

isolated nesting sites that characterize 

this region have not been covered. 

Mitochondrial DNA studies indicate 

there are at least two genetic stocks in 

American Samoa and French Polynesia 

(Dutton et al., 2014), which have unique 

haplotypes (Dutton et al., 2014). Flipper 

tag returns and satellite tracking studies 

demonstrate that post-nesting turtles 

travel the complete geographic breadth 

of the range of this DPS, from French 

Polynesia in the east to Fiji in the west, 

and sometimes even slightly beyond 

(Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993; Craig et al., 

2004; Maison et al., 2010; White, 2012), 

even as far as the Philippines (Trevor, 

2009). Limited demographic 

information suggests a low level of 

population structuring within this DPS 

(Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993; Craig et al., 

2004; White, 2012; White and Galbraith, 

2013). 

With regard to diversity and 

resilience, the Central South Pacific has 

a broad geographical area, but the 

nesting sites themselves exhibit little 

diversity. Most nesting sites are located 

in low-lying coral atolls or oceanic 

islands and thus are subject to loss of 

habitat due to sea level rise. Local 

nesting density is sparse spatially, 

typically spread over >10 km stretches 

of beach and is also low in terms of 

abundance. Only one nesting site (Scilly 

Atoll with 1,050 females; Balazs et al., 

1995) has a nesting female abundance 

exceeding 250, and this estimate is 20 

years old. Foraging areas are mostly 

coral reef ecosystems, with seagrass 

beds in Tonga and Fiji being a notable 

exception. 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Central South Pacific DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

Nesting in the Central South Pacific 

DPS is geographically widespread with 

the majority of nesting sites being 

remote and not easily accessed, and at 

low-lying oceanic islands or coral atolls. 

The largest nesting site for this DPS is 

believed to be at Scilly Atoll in French 

Polynesia. Balazs et al. (1995) report 

that the earliest human settlement at 

Scilly Atoll in French Polynesia appears 

to have occurred around 1952. It is 

unclear how much of an effect human 

habitation of the atoll has had, or is 

having, on the nesting habitat for the 

turtle. 

In the populated islands of American 

Samoa, such as Tutuila, continuous 

incremental loss of habitat has occurred 

due to varied activities of human 

populations (Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 

1993; NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Saili, 

2005). Indeed, human population 

growth and attendant village expansion 

and development on Tutuila Island have 

resulted in decreasing usage of some 

Tutuila beaches by nesting turtles and 

pre-emption of some green turtle nesting 

beaches (Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993). 

Turtles on Tutuila, possibly disoriented 

by land-based lights, are subject to 

mortality from cars (A. Tagarino, 

American Samoa DMWR, pers. comm., 

2013). Lighting is a potential problem 

affecting the quality of the nesting 

habitat on Ofu nesting beach as well 

(Tagarino, 2012). The main nesting site 

in American Samoa is Rose Atoll, which 

is uninhabited and therefore without 

current threats to terrestrial habitat. 

In Samoa, degradation of habitat 

through coastal development and 

natural disasters as cited in SPREP 

(SPREP, 2012) remains a threat (J. Ward, 

Ministry of Natural Resources and 

Environment, Samoa, pers. comm., 

2013). 

In Kiribati, historical destruction 

(bulldozing) of the vegetation zone next 

to the nesting beach on Canton Island in 

the Phoenix Islands occurred during 

World War II and may have negatively 

affected the availability of a portion of 

nesting beach area (Balazs, 1975). The 

remoteness of these islands and 

minimal amount of study of sea turtles 

in this area makes recent information on 

nesting beach condition and threats 

difficult to obtain. 

In the Cook Islands, the major nesting 

site for green turtles, Tongareva Atoll, is 

uninhabited and there are not likely 

threats related to development or 

human disturbance (White, 2012b). 

However, elsewhere in the Cook Islands, 

sand extraction (for building purposes) 

and building developments are reported 

as potential threats to sea turtles; for 

instance, the best potential site at 

Tauhunu motu on Manihiki appears to 

be no longer used for nesting (White, 

2012a). Weaver (1996) notes that sea 

turtles are negatively affected in Fiji by 

modification of nesting beaches. Coastal 

erosion in Tonga and Tuvalu is reported 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15320 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

as a major problem for turtle nesting 

(Alefaio and Alefaio, 2006; Bell et al., 

2010). 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

Little is known regarding the status of 

the foraging habitat and threats found in 

French Polynesia (Balazs et al., 1995). 

NMFS and USFWS (1998) noted that 

degradation of coral reef habitats on the 

south side of Tutuila Island, American 

Samoa is occurring due to 

sedimentation from erosion on 

agricultural slopes and natural disasters. 

Ship groundings are also potential 

threats to habitat in American Samoa. 

For example, a ship grounded at Rose 

Atoll in 1993, damaging reef habitat and 

spilling 100,000 gallons of fuel and 

other contaminants (USFWS, 2014). In 

the nearby neighboring country of 

Samoa, coastal and marine areas have 

been negatively impacted by pollution 

(Government of Samoa, 1998). 

Fiji appears to be an important 

foraging area for green turtles of this 

DPS. Sea turtles have been negatively 

affected by alteration and degradation of 

foraging habitat and to some extent 

pollution or degradation of nearshore 

ecosystems (Batibasaga et al., 2006). Jit 

(2007) also suggests that sea turtles in 

Fiji are threatened by degradation of 

reefs and seagrass beds. Given that 

turtles outside of Fiji appear to use this 

foraging habitat, negative effects to this 

foraging area have important 

implications for the entire DPS. Tourism 

development on the eastern coast of Viti 

Levu could negatively impact sea turtle 

foraging sites (Jit, 2007). 

In Tonga, marine habitat is being 

affected by anthropogenic activities. 

Heavy sedimentation and poor water 

quality have killed patch reefs; high 

nutrients and high turbidity are 

negatively impacting seagrasses; and 

human activities are negatively 

impacting mangroves (Prescott et al., 

2004). 

Although Palmyra Atoll is now 

protected, it was altered by U.S. military 

activities during World War II through 

dredging, connection, and expansion of 

islets (Sterling et al., 2013). 

In summary, as to Factor A, we find 

that the Central South Pacific DPS of the 

green turtle is negatively affected by 

ongoing changes in both its terrestrial 

and marine habitats as a result of land 

and water use practices. Pollution 

persists and loss of beach due to coastal 

development is significant threats to 

this DPS. 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Human consumption has had a 

significant impact on green turtles in the 

Central South Pacific DPS. Hirth and 

Rohovit (1992) report that exploitation 

of green turtles for eggs, meat, and parts 

has occurred throughout the South 

Pacific Region, including American 

Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji Islands, 

French Polynesia, and Kiribati. Allen 

(2007) notes that in Remote Oceania 

(which includes this DPS) sea turtles 

were important in traditional societies 

but, despite this, have experienced 

severe declines since human 

colonization approximately 2,800 years 

ago. At western contact, some of the 

islands supported sizable human 

populations resulting in intense 

pressures on local coastal fisheries. 

At Scilly Atoll in French Polynesia 

local residents (approximately 20 to 40 

people) are allowed to take 50 adults per 

year from a nesting population that 

could be as low as 300–400 (M. S. Allen, 

2007; Balazs et al., 1995). Balazs et al. 

(1995) reported that declines in nesting 

green turtles at the important areas of 

Scilly, Motu-one, and Mopelia, among 

the highest density nesting sites in the 

DPS, have occurred due to commercial 

exploitation for markets in Tahiti, as 

well as exploitation due to human 

habitation. Illegal harvest of sea turtles 

has been reported for French Polynesia 

by Te Honu Tea (2007). Brikke (2009) 

conducted a study on Bora Bora and 

Maupiti islands and reported that sea 

turtle meat remains in high demand and 

that fines are rarely imposed. 

Directed take in the marine 

environment has been a significant 

source of mortality in American Samoa, 

and turtle populations have seriously 

declined (Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993; 

NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Although 

take of sea turtle eggs or sea turtles is 

illegal (the ESA applies in this territory), 

turtles from American Samoa migrate to 

other countries (e.g., Fiji, Samoa, French 

Polynesia) where turtle consumption is 

legal or occurs illegally (Craig, 1993; 

Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993). 

Turtles have been traditionally 

harvested for food and shells in the 

country of Samoa, and over-exploitation 

of turtles has negatively affected local 

populations (Government of Samoa, 

1998). Unsustainable harvest (direct 

take for meat) remains a major threat to 

green turtles in Samoa (J. Ward, 

Government of Samoa, pers. comm. 

2013). 

In Fiji, Weaver (1996) identified the 

contemporary harvest and consumption 

of turtles by humans for eggs, meat, and 

shells as a significant threat for sea 

turtles. This includes commercial 

harvest, as well as subsistence and 

ceremonial harvest. In Kiribati (e.g., 

Phoenix Islands), an unknown number 

of turtles are caught as bycatch on 

longlines and eaten (Obura and Stone, 

2002). Poaching has been reported for 

Caroline Atoll, but to what extent it 

currently occurs is unknown (Teeb’aki, 

1992). 

In Tonga, Bell et al. (1994) report that 

collection of eggs for subsistence occurs. 

Prescott et al. (2004) and Havea and 

MacKay (2009) also note that it is still 

a practice on islands where turtles nest. 

Bell et al. (2009) report that in Tonga sea 

turtles are harvested and live turtles are 

often seen transported from outer 

islands to the main island, Tongatapu. 

It is unclear if this harvest is 

sustainable, especially given the 

increased catch rates in Tungua for the 

commercial market (Havea and MacKay, 

2009). 

In Tuvalu, harvest of sea turtles for 

their meat has been cited as a major 

threat (Alefaio and Alefaio, 2006; Ono 

and Addison, 2009). In the Cook 

Islands, turtles are sometimes killed 

during nesting at Palmerston and 

Rakahanga, while nesting and fishing on 

Nassau, and while nesting at Manihiki, 

Tongareva, and probably at other atolls 

(White, 2012). In Tokelau, Balazs (1983) 

reported human take of both sea turtle 

eggs from nests and adult males and 

females while copulating, nesting, or 

swimming (by harpoon). 

In summary, within Factor B current 

legal and illegal collection of eggs and 

harvest of turtles throughout the Central 

South Pacific DPS persist as a threat to 

this DPS. The threat to the stability of 

green turtle populations posed by 

harvesting nesting females is 

particularly significant due to the small 

number of nesting females within this 

DPS. 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

While FP is recorded elsewhere in the 

Pacific, it does not appear to be a threat 

in the Central South Pacific DPS 

(Utzurrum, 2002; A. Tagarino, American 

Samoa DMWR, pers. comm., 2013). The 

best available data suggest that current 

nest and hatchling predation on several 

Central South Pacific DPS nesting 

beaches and in-water habitats is a 

potential threat to this DPS. 

Predation of green turtles (e.g., by 

sharks) occurs in French Polynesia; 

however, the extent of such predation is 

unknown. In American Samoa, 

Polynesian rats (Rattus exultans) were 

an issue at Rose Atoll prior to a 1993 

eradication (USFWS, 2014), but no 

longer appear to be a problem. Crabs are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15321 

reported to eat hatchlings at Rose Atoll 

(Ponwith, 1990; Balazs, 1993; Pendleton 

pers. comm., USFWS, 2013). On Swains 

Island, feral pig activity has been 

documented and may be a threat to 

nests on the island (Tagarino and 

Utzurrum, 2010). Predation of green 

turtles by sharks has been reported at 

Rose Atoll and Palmyra Atoll; however, 

the extent of such predation is unknown 

(Graeffe, 1873; Sachet, 1954; Balazs, 

1999; Sterling et al., 2013). The main 

threat to wildlife on Rose Atoll is 

thought to be the introduction (or 

possible reintroduction) of exotic 

species (K. Van Houtan, NMFS, pers. 

comm., 2013). 

In Samoa, feral animal predation on 

turtle nests and eggs remains a threat 

(SPREP, 2012; J. Ward, Government of 

Samoa, pers. comm., 2013). In other 

areas, predation is likely a contributing 

threat to green turtles. Introduced 

animals, including feral cats, rats, and 

feral pigs, are reported problems for 

wildlife (Teeb’aki, 1992) and may 

threaten green turtles on certain islands 

in Kiribati such as Kiritimati. In 

Tokelau, identified predators that may 

constitute a terrestrial threat to turtles 

include hermit crabs, ghost crabs, 

Polynesian rats, frigate birds (Fregata 

ariel, F. minor), and reef herons (Egretta 

sacra; Balazs, 1983). Feral pigs, rats, 

crabs, possibly some sea birds, and large 

fish are potential predators of sea turtles 

(eggs and hatchlings) in the Cook 

Islands (White, 2012). Pigs are reported 

on Mauke, although their impact on sea 

turtles is unquantified (Bradshaw and 

Bradshaw, 2012). 

Although predation is known to 

occur, quantitative data are not 

sufficient to assess the degree of impact 

of these threats on the persistence of 

this DPS. 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Lack of regulatory mechanisms and/or 

adequate implementation and 

enforcement is a threat to the Central 

South Pacific DPS. The analysis of these 

existing regulatory mechanisms 

assumed that all would remain in place 

at their current levels. Regulatory 

mechanisms that address the direct 

capture of green turtles for most of the 

countries within this DPS specifically 

address the harvest of green turtles, 

while a few regulations are limited in 

that they only apply during certain 

times of the year or allow for traditional 

harvest. 

Numerous countries have reserves 

(French Polynesia, Kiribati, Samoa, and 

the U.S. Pacific Remote Islands Marine 

National Monument), national 

legislation, and/or local regulations 

protecting turtles. These include the 

foreign Cook Islands, Fiji, French 

Polynesia, Kiribati, Pitcairn Islands, 

Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, and the U.S. 

territories of Wake, Baker, Howland and 

Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef and 

Palmyra Atoll. In some places such as 

Tokelau and Wallis and Futuna, 

information on turtle protection was 

either unclear or could not be found. At 

least 17 international treaties and/or 

regulatory mechanisms apply to the 

conservation of green turtles in the 

Central South Pacific DPS. 

Green turtles in American Samoa are 

fully protected under the ESA. Green 

turtles are also protected by the Fishing 

and Hunting Regulations for American 

Samoa (24.0934), which prohibit the 

import, export, sale, possession, 

transport, or trade of sea turtles or their 

parts and take (as defined by the ESA) 

and carry additional penalties for 

violations at the local government level 

(Maison et al., 2010). Additionally, an 

American Samoa Executive Order in 

2003 established the territorial waters of 

American Samoa as a sanctuary for sea 

turtles and marine mammals, in 2003; 

American Samoa declared its 

submerged lands a Whale and Turtle 

Sanctuary. It is not known how effective 

implementation of these protections is 

in American Samoa. The NOAA 

National Marine Sanctuary of American 

Samoa is comprised of six protected 

areas, covering 35,175 km2 of nearshore 

coral reef and offshore open ocean 

waters across the Samoan Archipelago. 

Additionally, Rose Atoll Marine 

National Monument was established in 

2009 and encompasses the Rose Atoll 

National Wildlife Refuge. These 

protected areas should provide some 

level of protection for green turtles and 

their habitat; however the effectiveness 

of these monuments for this species is 

unknown. 

Regulatory mechanisms are 

apparently inadequate to curb a 

continued loss of nesting habitat and 

degradation of foraging habitat due to 

human activities and coastal 

development on populated islands of 

American Samoa, Samoa, Tonga, 

Tuvalu, Fiji, and the Cook Islands. 

Turtles continue to be harvested for 

food and shells, and are used in 

commercial, subsistence, and 

ceremonial capacities. Rudrud (2010) 

suggests that traditional laws in 

Polynesia may have historically limited 

green turtle consumption to certain 

people (chiefs, priests) or special 

ceremonies. However, as the societies of 

this region have been affected by 

Western culture and modernization of 

traditions have been altered; traditional 

laws have lost their effectiveness in 

limiting negative effects of harvest on 

sea turtles. 

There are protected areas, within this 

DPS, that should provide some level of 

protection for green turtles and their 

habitat; however the effectiveness of 

these monuments for this species is 

unknown. The Status Review did not 

reveal regulatory mechanisms in place 

to specifically address coastal 

development, marine pollution, sea 

level rise, and effects of climate change 

that continue to contribute to the 

extinction risk of this DPS. 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting its Continued 

Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

Incidental capture in artisanal and 

commercial fisheries is a significant 

threat to the survival of green sea turtles 

throughout the Central South Pacific 

DPS. The primary gear types involved in 

these interactions include longlines and 

nets. 

Incidental capture in line, trap, or net 

fisheries presents a threat to sea turtles 

in American Samoa (Tagarino, 2011). 

Subsistence gill nets have been known 

to occasionally catch green turtles. 

Additionally, longline fishing is 

considered a threat to Central South 

Pacific green turtles. In 2010, the 

American Samoa longline fishery was 

estimated to have interacted with an 

average of 33 green turtles annually, 

with a 92 percent mortality rate, 

triggering reinitiation of a section 7 

consultation; the current incidental take 

statement allows 45 green sea turtle 

interactions (41 mortalities) every three 

years (http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/Library/ 

PUBDOCs/biological_opinions/622- 

NMFS-ASLL_Am_to_Pelagics_FMP_

Biop_FINAL_9-16-10.pdf). 

In Fiji, green turtles are killed in 

commercial fishing nets; however, the 

exact extent and intensity of this threat 

is unknown (Rupeni et al. 2002). Jit 

(2007) and McCoy (2008) report that 

green turtle bycatch is occurring in 

longline tuna fisheries in Fiji. The exact 

level of interaction with green turtles is 

unclear. 

In the Cook Islands, longline fishery 

regulations require fishers to adopt the 

use of circle hooks and to follow 

‘‘releasing hooked turtles’’ guidelines 

(Goodwin, 2008), although it is unclear 

how effective these regulations are. 

McCoy (2008) suggests that sea turtle 

bycatch is occurring in tuna fisheries in 

the Cook Islands; however, no 

information is provided on possible 

extent of sea turtle take or the species 

that are possibly taken. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15322 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

b. Marine Debris and Pollution 

Direct or indirect disposal of 

anthropogenic waste introduces 

potentially lethal materials into green 

turtle foraging habitats. Green turtles 

will ingest plastic, monofilament fishing 

line, and other marine debris (Bjorndal 

et al., 1994), and the effects may be 

lethal or non-lethal, resulting in varying 

effects that may increase the probability 

of death (Balazs, 1985; Carr, 1987; 

McCauley and Bjorndal, 1999). Marine 

debris presents a threat to green turtles 

in American Samoa (Aeby et al., 2008; 

USFWS, 2014; Tagarino et al., 2008). It 

is potentially hazardous to adults and 

hatchlings and is present at Rose Atoll 

(USFWS, 2014). It is also a threat at 

nearby inhabited islands. 

Pago Pago Harbor in American Samoa 

is seriously polluted, and uncontrolled 

effluent contaminants have impaired 

water quality in some coastal waters 

(Aeby et al., 2008). Effects to coastal 

habitat (e.g., reefs) from sedimentation 

related to development and runoff are 

significant potential threats in American 

Samoa, and human population 

pressures place strains on shoreline 

resources (Aeby et al., 2008). 

Ship groundings (e.g., at Rose Atoll in 

1993) that damage reef habitat and spill 

fuel and other contaminants, 

degradation of coastal waters due to siltladen runoff from land and nutrient 

enrichment from human discharges and 

wastes, and contamination by heavy 

metals and other contaminants are 

threats to green turtles in American 

Samoa (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; 

USFWS, 2014). 

In Fiji, Weaver (1996) identified 

potential threats to sea turtles from 

heavy metals and industrial waste, 

organic loadings in coastal areas, plastic 

bags, and leachate poisoning of seagrass 

foraging areas. In the Cook Islands, 

White (2012) noted possible issues with 

oil, tar, or toxic chemicals and terrestrial 

run-off into lagoons at Rarotonga, and 

Bradshaw and Bradshaw (2012) note 

pollution (e.g., accumulation of plastics 

on the beach) on Mauke (M.White, 

unpubl. data, www.honucookislands 

.com). 

c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disasters 

Climate change has the potential to 

greatly affect green turtles. Potential 

impacts of climate change on green 

turtles include loss of beach habitat 

from rising sea levels, repeated 

inundation of nests, skewed hatchling 

sex ratios from rising incubation 

temperatures, and abrupt disruption of 

ocean currents used for natural 

dispersal (Fish et al., 2005, 2008; 

Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 

2009). Impacts from global climate 

change induced by human activities are 

likely to become more apparent in 

future years (IPCC, 2007). 

A recent study of 27 atoll islands in 

the central Pacific (including Kiribati 

and Tuvalu), demonstrated that 14 

percent of islands decreased in area over 

a 19–60 year time span (Webb and 

Kench, 2010). This occurred in a region 

considered most vulnerable to sea-level 

rise (Nicholls and Cazenave, 2010) 

during a period in which sea-levels rose 

2 mm per year. 

Catastrophic natural environmental 

events, such as cyclones or hurricanes, 

may affect green turtles in the Central 

South Pacific Ocean, and may 

exacerbate issues such as decreased 

available habitat due to sea level rise. 

These types of events may disrupt green 

turtle nesting activity (Van Houtan and 

Bass, 2007), even if just on a temporary 

scale. 

In summary, within Factor E, we find 

that incidental fishery bycatch, 

interactions with recreational and 

commercial vessels, marine pollution as 

well as the increasing threat of climate 

change, and major storm events are 

expected to be an increasing threat to 

the persistence of this DPS. 

C. Conservation Efforts for the Central 

South Pacific DPS 

There are many islands and atolls in 

the range of this DPS spread across an 

expansive area. Conservation efforts, 

such as establishment of protected 

areas, exist that are beneficial to green 

turtles. 

It is unclear how well conservation 

efforts such as protected areas and the 

national legislation relating to green 

turtles are working. It appears that the 

remoteness of some of the areas is 

providing the most conservation 

protection for certain threats. 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the Central South Pacific 

DPS 

The Central South Pacific DPS is 

characterized by geographically 

widespread nesting at very low levels of 

abundance, mostly in remote low-lying 

oceanic atolls. Nesting is reported in 57 

different locations, although some 

abundance numbers are 20 years old or 

older. By far the highest nesting 

abundance estimate is from Scilly Atoll, 

French Polynesia (1,050 nesting 

females), but this estimate is from 1991 

data and abundance of nesting females 

has reportedly significantly declined in 

the past 30 years as a result of 

commercial exploitation. There are also 

no long-term monitoring programs that 

have been active in this DPS for even a 

5-year period. While the dispersed 

location of nesting sites might provide 

a level of habitat diversity and 

population resilience which reduces 

overall extinction risk, this contribution 

is reduced by the low population size of 

these sites (only Scilly Atoll has over 

225 nesting females) and overall 

population size of fewer than 3,000 

nesting females. 

Chronic and persistent illegal harvest 

is a concern in the Central South Pacific 

DPS, and sea level rise is a threat that 

is expected to increase in the future. 

Indeed, climate change may affect this 

DPS more than any other because nearly 

all nesting sites exist on low-lying 

atolls. Sea level rise is expected to 

exacerbate beach erosion, inundations, 

and storm surge on small islands (IPCC, 

2007). The loss of habitat as a result of 

climate change could be accelerated due 

to a combination of other environmental 

and oceanographic changes such as an 

increase in the intensity of storms and/ 

or changes in prevailing currents, both 

of which could lead to increased beach 

loss via erosion (Kennedy et al., 2002; 

Meehl et al., 2007). 

For the above reasons, we propose to 

list the Central South Pacific DPS as 

endangered. Based on its low nesting 

abundance and exposure to increasing 

threats, we find that this DPS is 

presently in danger of extinction 

throughout its range. 

XVI. Central North Pacific DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters 

for the Central North Pacific DPS 

The range of the Central North Pacific 

DPS covers the Hawaiian Archipelago 

and Johnston Atoll. It is bounded by a 

four-sided polygon with open ocean 

extents reaching to 41° N., 169° E. in the 

northwest corner, 41° N., 143° W. in the 

northeast, 9° N., 125° W. in southeast, 

and 9° N., 175° W. in the southwest 

(Figure 2). The Hawaiian Archipelago is 

the most geographically isolated island 

group on the planet. From 1965 to 2013, 

17,536 green turtles were tagged, 

including all post-pelagic size classes 

from juveniles to adults. With only three 

exceptions, the 7,360 recaptures of these 

tagged turtles have been made within 

the Hawaiian Archipelago. The three 

outliers involved a recovery in Japan, 

one in the Marshall Islands and one in 

the Philippines. 

The principal nesting site for green 

turtles in the Central North Pacific DPS 

is FFS, where 96 percent of the 

population (3,710 of 3,846 nesting 

females) currently nests (Balazs, 1980; 

Lipman and Balazs, 1983). However, 

nesting was historically abundant at 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15323 

various sites across the archipelago as 

recently as 1920 (Kittinger et al., 2013), 

and remnant nesting aggregations may 

have existed in the MHIs as recently as 

the 1930s, but were no longer present in 

the 1970s (Balazs, 1976). Current 

nesting by green turtles occurs in low 

numbers (3–36 nesting females at any 

one site) throughout the Northwest 

Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) at Laysan, 

Lisianski, Pearl and Hermes Reef, and 

very uncommonly at Midway. Since 

2000, green turtle nesting on the MHI 

has been identified in low numbers (1– 

24) on seven islands (Frey et al., 2013; 

Kittinger et al., 2013; NMFS Pacific 

Islands Fisheries Science Center, 

unpublished data, 2013). Green turtles 

in the Central North Pacific DPS bask on 

beaches throughout the NWHI and in 

the MHI. 

Since nesting surveys were initiated 

in 1973, there has been a marked 

increase in annual green turtle nesting 

at East Island, FFS, where 

approximately 50 percent of the nesting 

on FFS occurs (Balazs and Chaloupka, 

2004, 2006). During the first 5 years of 

monitoring (1973–1977), the mean 

annual nesting abundance was 83 

females, and during the most recent 5 

years of monitoring (2009–2012), the 

mean annual nesting abundance was 

464 females (Balazs and Chaloupka, 

2006; G. Balazs, NMFS, unpublished 

data). This increase over the last 40 

years corresponds to an annual increase 

of 4.8 percent. 

Information on in-water abundance 

trends is consistent with the increase in 

nesting (Balazs, 2000; Balazs et al., 

2005; Balazs et al., 1996). This linkage 

is to be expected since genetics, satellite 

telemetry, and direct observation show 

that green turtles from the nesting 

beaches in the FFS nesting site remain 

resident to foraging pastures throughout 

the archipelago (Balazs, 1976; Craig and 

Balazs, 1995; Keuper-Bennett and 

Bennet, 2000; P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. 

comm., 2013). The number of immature 

green turtles residing in foraging areas 

of the eight MHI has increased (Balazs 

et al., 1996). In addition, although the 

causes are not totally clear, there has 

been a dramatic increase in the number 

of basking turtles in the Hawaiian 

Islands over the last 2 decades, both in 

the southern foraging areas of the main 

islands (Balazs et al., 1996) as well as 

at northern foraging areas at Midway 

Atoll (Balazs et al., 2005). 

With regard to spatial structure, 

genetic sampling in the Central North 

Pacific DPS has been extensive and 

representative, given that there are few 

nesting populations in this region. 

Results of mtDNA analysis indicate a 

low level of spatial structure with regard 

to minor nesting around the MHI and 

the NWHI, and the same haplotypes 

occur throughout the range of the DPS. 

Within the NWHI, studies show no 

significant differentiation (based on 

mtDNA haplotype frequency) between 

FFS and Laysan Island (P. Dutton, 

NMFS, pers. comm., 2013). An analysis 

by Frey et al. (2013) of the low level of 

scattered nesting on the MHI (Moloka‘i, 

Maui, O‘ahu, Lana‘i and Kaua‘i; mtDNA 

and nDNA) showed that nesting in the 

MHI might be attributed to a relatively 

small number of females that appear to 

be related to each other, and 

demographically isolated from FFS. 

Frey et al. (2013) suggest that the 

nesting population at the MHI may be 

the result of a few recent founders that 

originated from the FFS breeding 

population. Demographic studies of 

green turtles do not reveal any 

structuring of traits within the DPS. 

With regard to diversity and 

resilience, because nesting in the 

Central North Pacific DPS is unusually 

concentrated at one site, there is little 

diversity in nesting areas. Balazs 

(Balazs, 1980) reported that the 

distribution of green turtles in the 

Hawaiian Archipelago has been reduced 

within historical times, and Kittinger et 

al. (2013) suggest that a significant 

constriction in the spatial distribution of 

important reproduction sites presents a 

challenge to the population’s future and 

makes this DPS highly vulnerable. 

Further, the primary nesting site, FFS, is 

a low-lying coral atoll that is susceptible 

to erosion, geomorphological changes 

and sea level rise, and has already lost 

significant nesting area (Baker et al., 

2006). 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Central North Pacific DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

In Hawai‘i, most nesting currently 

occurs in the NWHI, although nesting is 

increasing in the MHI, as is basking of 

green turtles. Coastal development and 

construction, vehicular and pedestrian 

traffic, beach pollution, tourism, and 

other human related activities are 

current threats to nesting and basking 

habitat in the MHI. These threats will 

affect more green turtles in this DPS if 

nesting increases in the MHI. Human 

populations are growing rapidly in 

many areas of the insular Pacific, 

including Hawai‘i, and this expansion is 

exerting increased pressure on limited 

island resources. 

Climatic changes in the NWHI pose 

threats through reduction in area of 

nesting beaches critical to this DPS 

(Baker et al., 2006). Baker et al. (2006) 

examined the potential effects of sea 

level rise in the NWHI and found that 

the primary nesting area for the Central 

North Pacific population will be 

negatively impacted by sea level rise 

through possible loss of nesting habitat. 

For example, Whale-Skate Island at 

French Frigate Shoals was formerly a 

primary green turtle nesting site for this 

DPS, but the island has subsided and is 

no longer available for nesting (Kittinger 

et al., 2013). Trig, Gin, and Little Gin 

could lose large portions of their area, 

concentrating nesting even further at 

East Island (Baker et al., 2006). 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

Impacts to the quality of coastal 

habitats in the MHI are a threat to this 

DPS and are expected to continue and 

possibly increase with an increasing 

human population and annual influx of 

millions of tourists. Loss of foraging 

habitat or reduction in habitat quality in 

the MHI due to nearshore development 

is a threat to this DPS. Marina 

construction, beach development, 

siltation of forage areas, contamination 

of forage areas from anthropogenic 

activities, resort development or 

activities, increased vessel traffic, and 

other activities are all considered threats 

to this population and its habitat 

(Bowen et al., 1992; NMFS and USFWS, 

1998; Friedlander et al., 2006; Wedding 

and Friedlander, 2008; Wedding et al., 

2008; Van Houtan et al., 2010). Seagrass 

and coral reef habitat of Moloka‘i has 

been degraded from upland soil erosion 

and siltation, and coral reefs of Hawai‘i, 

Kaua‘i, Lana‘i, Maui, and O‘ahu have 

been degraded by sedimentation, 

sewage, or coastal construction (NMFS 

and USFWS, 1998). In general, MHI 

coral reefs have suffered from landbased sources of pollution, overfishing, 

recreational overuse, and alien and 

invasive species (Friedlander et al., 

2005). Vessel groundings (mechanical 

damage to habitat and reef-associated 

organisms) and related release of 

contaminants (e.g., fuel, hazardous 

substances, etc.) are a threat to Central 

North Pacific green turtle habitat (Keller 

et al., 2009). It is difficult to predict the 

exact number or severity of vessel 

groundings expected in any future year, 

but key nesting and foraging habitat for 

green sea turtles occurs in the areas of 

the MHI and the NWHI where 

commercial and recreational boating 

occurs (Keller et al., 2009). 

During the last century, habitat on 

Johnston Atoll was affected by military 

activities such as nuclear testing and 

chemical weapons incineration. The 

lingering effects of these activities 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15324 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

include water contamination from 

nutrients, dioxins, plutonium, and a 

subsurface plume of PCB-contaminated 

petroleum product (Balazs, 1985). 

In summary, within Factor A, we find 

that the loss of nesting beach habitat is 

a threat to the DPS in the NWHI. We 

find that coastal development and 

construction, vehicular and pedestrian 

traffic, beach pollution, tourism, and 

other human related activities are 

threats in the MHI. Climate change, 

marina construction, contamination of 

forage areas from anthropogenic 

activities, resort development or 

activities, increased vessel traffic are 

significant, increasing threats posing a 

risk to the persistence of this DPS. 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Harvest of green turtles has been 

illegal since green turtles were listed 

under the ESA in 1978. It is possible 

that human take today is underreported, 

as anecdotal information suggests that 

some degree of illegal take occurs 

throughout the MHI. The extent of such 

take is unknown; however, it is believed 

that current illegal harvest of green 

turtles for human consumption 

continues in a limited way, although 

Federal and State cooperative efforts 

and existing legislation appear to be 

minimizing the threat. 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

The FP disease affects green turtles 

found in the Central North Pacific 

Ocean (Francke et al., 2013). This 

disease results in internal and/or 

external tumors (fibropapillomas) that 

may grow large enough to hamper 

swimming, vision, feeding, and 

potential escape from predators. FP 

appears to have peaked in some areas of 

Hawai‘i, remained the same in some 

regions, and increased in others (Van 

Houtan et al., 2010). Environmental 

factors may be significant in promoting 

FP, and eutrophication (increase in 

nutrients) of coastal marine ecosystems 

may promote this disease (Van Houtan 

et al., 2010). FP remains an important 

concern in some green turtle 

populations. This is particularly true 

given the continued, and possibly future 

increasing, human impacts to, and 

eutrophication of, coastal marine 

ecosystems that may promote this 

disease. However, its effects on 

reproductive effort are uncertain. 

Ghost crabs (Ocypode spp.) prey on 

hatchlings at FFS (Niethammer et al., 

1997) at approximately 5 percent 

(Balazs, 1980). Large grouper 

(Epinephelus tauvina), sea birds, and 

sharks are documented natural 

predators of green turtles in Hawai‘i; 

however, the extent of predation is 

unknown (Balazs, 1995; Balazs and 

Kubis, 2007; Francke, 2013). 

Mongoose, rats, dogs, feral pigs, and 

cats—all introduced species—that exist 

on the MHI are known to prey on eggs 

and hatchlings, although the impact on 

the current low level of nesting is 

unclear (nesting in the MHI is extremely 

low compared to historical levels). If 

nesting in the MHI increases, the 

importance of the threat from these 

potential predators would increase. 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Regulatory mechanisms that protect 

green turtles are in place and include 

State, Federal, and international laws. 

The analysis of these existing regulatory 

mechanisms assumed that all would 

remain in place at their current levels. 

Numerous Federal and State 

governmental and non-governmental 

efforts at public education, protection 

and monitoring of green turtles 

contribute to the conservation of the 

Central North Pacific DPS. At least 16 

international treaties and/or regulatory 

mechanisms apply to the conservation 

of green turtles in the Central North 

Pacific. 

Nesting occurs exclusively within the 

United States. Monitoring and 

protective efforts are ongoing for both 

nesting areas (in the NWHI and where 

nesting is occurring in the MHI) and in 

nearshore waters. Regulatory 

mechanisms in U.S. jurisdiction are in 

place through the ESA, MSA and the 

State of Hawai‘i that currently address 

direct and incidental take of Central 

North Pacific green turtles, and these 

regulatory mechanisms have been an 

important factor in the encouraging 

trend in this DPS. 

The Pacific Remote Islands Marine 

National Monument was established in 

January 2009, and is cooperatively 

managed by the Secretary of Commerce 

(NOAA) and the Secretary of the Interior 

(USFWS), with the exception of Wake 

Island and Johnston Atoll, which are 

currently managed by the Department of 

Defense. The areas extend 92.6 km from 

the mean low water lines around 

emergent islands and atolls and include 

green turtle habitat. Commercial fishing 

is prohibited within the limits of the 

Monument, and recreational fishing 

requires a permit. On September 27, 

2014, President Obama issued 

Presidential Proclamation 9173 to 

expand the Pacific Remote Islands 

Monument to incorporate waters and 

submerged lands at Jarvis Island, Wake 

Island, and Johnston Atoll to the 

seaward limit of the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ). Proclamation 

9173 prohibits commercial fishing in 

expanded areas of the Monument, and 

directs the Secretaries of Interior and 

Commerce to ensure that recreational 

and non-commercial fishing continue to 

be managed as sustainable activities in 

the Monument. The protected areas 

provide some protection to sea turtles 

and their habitat through permitted 

access and its remoteness. 

A commercial ban on turtle harvest 

was put into place by the State of 

Hawai‘i in 1974, 4 years before the green 

turtle was listed under the ESA. Since 

1978, green turtles have been protected 

by the ESA. They are also protected by 

the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter 

195D (Hawai‘i State Legislature, 

accessed Sept. 10, 2010) and Hawai‘i 

Administrative Rules, 13–124 (Hawai‘i 

Administrative Rules, accessed Sept. 10, 

2010), which adopt the same 

definitions, status designations, and 

prohibitions as the ESA and carry 

additional penalties for violations at the 

State government level. These two 

statutes have been, and currently are, 

key tools in efforts to recover and 

protect this DPS, and both have 

provided for comprehensive protection 

and recovery activities that have been 

sufficiently effective to improve the 

status of green turtles in Hawai‘i 

significantly. The ESA and Hawai‘i 

statutes are not, however, redundant. 

For example, the ESA requires Federal 

agencies to consult with the Services on 

their actions that may affect green 

turtles. 

Current monitoring, conservation 

efforts, and legal enforcement have been 

effective and promote the persistence of 

the Central North Pacific DPS, which 

occurs almost exclusively in U.S. 

waters. It is important to note, however, 

that the analysis by the SRT did not 

consider the scenario in which current 

laws or regulatory mechanisms were not 

continued. Under the ESA, regulatory 

measures provide protections that are 

not provided entirely by State 

protections. For instance, if the DPS was 

delisted and the protections of the ESA 

were no longer in place, many on-theground conservation and monitoring 

actions and, importantly, financial 

resources that are afforded by the ESA 

(e.g., section 6) would not continue. In 

addition, the taking of green turtles in 

the United States requires authorization 

under sections 7 or 10 of the ESA and 

their implementing regulations. For 

example, activities that affect green 

turtles and do not involve Federal 

agencies, such as coastal development, 

construction, and research, must 

comply with section 10 of the ESA to 

avoid violating the statute. Section 10 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15325 

permits require avoiding, minimizing, 

and mitigating impacts to green turtles 

to the extent possible. Federal actions 

(i.e., those authorized, funded, or 

carried out by Federal agencies), are 

subject to consultation with the Services 

under section 7 of the ESA; those 

resulting in take of green turtles are 

required to minimize effects. These 

actions include, but are not limited to, 

federally regulated fisheries and 

management and research activities 

within the federally-protected 

Papaha ̄naumokua ̄kea Marine National 

Monument in the NWHI. 

The threat of bycatch in international 

fisheries is not adequately regulated, 

although bycatch in domestic Federal 

fisheries has been addressed to a greater 

extent. In addition, some threats to the 

species, such as climate change, are 

either not able to be regulated under the 

ESA, or not regulated sufficiently to 

control or even slow the threat. 

The Status Review did not reveal 

regulatory mechanisms in place to 

specifically address marine pollution, 

sea level rise, and effects of climate 

change that continue to contribute to the 

extinction risk of this DPS. 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting its Continued 

Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

The SRT identified incidental capture 

in fisheries as a significant threat to 

green turtles of the Central North Pacific 

DPS. The primary gear types involved in 

these interactions include longlines and 

nets. These are employed by both 

artisanal and industrial fleets, and target 

a variety of species. 

i. Longline Fisheries 

Pacific longline fisheries capture 

green turtles as bycatch in longline gear 

(line, hooks), and these interactions can 

result in mortality (NMFS, 2012). U.S. 

longline fisheries are required to comply 

with sea turtle mitigation measures (50 

CFR 665.812), including the use of 

circle hooks, dehookers, line clippers, 

and crewmember training, that have 

reduced green sea turtle interactions to 

negligible levels. However, while exact 

numbers are not available, it is 

estimated that, at a minimum, 100 green 

turtles from the Central North Pacific 

DPS are captured and killed annually by 

foreign longlines (NMFS, 2012). 

ii. Gillnet Fisheries 

Interactions between Central North 

Pacific green turtles and nearshore 

fisheries in the MHI can result in 

entanglement, injury, and mortality. 

Balazs et al. (1987) documented sea 

turtle mortality resulting from bycatch 

in fishing gear over 25 years ago in 

Hawai‘i. While gill nets are regulated by 

the state of Hawai‘i, fishers are only 

required to inspect them completely 

every two hours, so entanglement and 

drowning does occur (NMFS, 2012). 

Each year green sea turtles are 

incidentally entangled in net gear, some 

of these resulting in mortality (e.g., 

Francke, 2013); however the reported 

strandings in the MHI are believed to be 

a smaller subset of the actual level of 

interaction with this gear. 

iii. Other Gear Types 

Hook-and-line fishing from shore or 

boats also hooks and entangles green 

turtles (Francke et al., 2013; NMFS, 

2012). Interactions with nearshore 

recreational fisheries are identified in 

the NMFS stranding database as those 

turtles that strand as a result of 

interactions with fish hooks and fishing 

line. Nearshore fishery interactions have 

increased over time (Francke, 2013; 

Francke et al., 2013; Ikonomopoulou et 

al., 2013). While current public 

outreach efforts by NMFS and its 

partners attempt to reduce the 

magnitude of impact on green turtles 

from hook-and-line fishing, injury or 

mortality from the hooking or from the 

effects of line remaining on turtles that 

are cut free or break the line remains an 

issue (http://pifscblog.wordpress.com/

2013/06/07/marine-turtle-responseachieves-significant-milestone/). 

b. Marine Debris and Pollution 

The ingestion of and entanglement in 

marine debris is another anthropogenic 

threat to Central North Pacific green 

turtles throughout their range. Marine 

debris is common in the MHI and a 

direct threat to sea turtles (Wedding and 

Friedlander, 2008). Stranding 

information for this DPS shows that 

entanglement in lost or discarded 

fishing line is one of the causes of green 

turtle strandings and mortality in the 

MHI. In the NWHI, marine debris is also 

a threat in the terrestrial and marine 

environment. In 1996, it was estimated 

that between 750 and 1,000 tons of 

marine debris were on reefs and beaches 

in the NWHI, and the source of much of 

the debris is fishing nets discarded or 

lost in the northeastern Pacific Ocean 

(Keller et al., 2009). Turtles in the MHI 

encounter pollution as a result of coastal 

development, runoff, and waste water 

(point source and non-point source 

pollution; Friedlander et al., 2008). 

c. Vessel Interactions 

As in other parts of the world, boating 

activities are a threat to turtles within 

this DPS (Francke et al., 2013). 

Chaloupka et al. (2008b) report that 2.5 

percent of green turtle strandings (N = 

3,745) were caused by boat strike in the 

Hawaiian Archipelago from 1982 to 

2003. Additionally, boat traffic has been 

shown to exclude green turtles from 

preferred coastal foraging pastures 

(Seminoff et al., 2002c), which may 

negatively affect their nutritional intake. 

Vessel groundings (mechanical 

damage to habitat and reef-associated 

organisms) and related release of 

contaminants (e.g., fuel, hazardous 

substances, etc.) are a threat not only to 

Central North Pacific green turtle 

habitat, but directly to the turtles 

themselves. Thirteen reported vessel 

groundings have occurred in the NWHI 

in the last 60 years (Keller et al., 2009). 

Vessel traffic and presence can also 

have negative effects through habitat 

damage from anchors, waste discharge, 

light and noise (Keller et al., 2009). 

d. Effects of Climate Change 

As in other areas of the world, climate 

change and sea level rise have the 

potential to negatively affect green 

turtles in the Central North Pacific DPS. 

Climate change influences on water 

temperatures, ocean acidification, sea 

level and related changes in coral reef 

habitat, wave climate and coastal 

shorelines are expected to continue 

(Friedlander et al., 2008). Keller et al. 

(2009) suggest that sea level rise, 

changing storm dynamics, sea surface 

temperatures, and ocean acidification 

are key threats for the NWHI, and that 

evidence of sea level rise has already 

begun to adversely affect terrestrial and 

ocean habitat. Tiwari et al. (2010) 

argued that East Island itself is still not 

yet at carrying capacity, in the sense of 

crude nesting area and current nesting 

densities. Yet entire islands have been 

submerged in recent history (i.e., WhaleSkate in the late 1990s), resulting in the 

loss of a primary nesting site at FFS 

(Baker et al., 2006). It is likely that sea 

level rise will lead to increased erosion 

of nesting beaches and significant loss 

of habitat (Baker et al., 2006; IPCC, 

2007); however, it remains unclear how 

nesting habitat loss and natal homing 

traits will influence future nesting in 

this DPS. 

As temperatures increase, there is 

concern that incubation temperatures 

could reach levels that exceed the 

thermal tolerance for embryonic 

development, thus increasing embryo 

and hatchling mortality (Balazs and 

Kubis, 2007; Fuller et al., 2010). 

Niethammer et al. (Niethammer 1997) 

note that given that the FFS nesting 

colony is on the northern extreme of 

green turtle breeding range, small 

changes in beach conditions (e.g., 

microhabitats of nests) may have severe 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

consequences on nesting. Changes in 

global temperatures could also affect 

juvenile and adult distribution patterns. 

Possible changes to ocean currents and 

dynamics may result in negative effects 

to natural dispersal during a complex 

life cycle (Van Houtan and Halley, 

2011), and possible nest mortality 

linked to erosion may result from 

increased storm frequency (Van Houtan 

and Bass, 2007) and intensity (Keller et 

al., 2009). 

While sea turtles have survived past 

eras that have included significant 

temperature fluctuations, future climate 

change is expected to happen at 

unprecedented rates, and if turtles 

cannot adapt quickly they may face 

local to widespread extirpations 

(Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts from 

global climate change induced by 

human activities are likely to become 

more apparent in future years (IPCC, 

2007). 

e. Effects of Spatial Structure 

While the nesting population 

trajectory in the Central North Pacific 

DPS is positive and encouraging, the 

DPS exhibits moderately low levels of 

abundance (3,846 nesting females), and 

more than 96 percent of nesting occurs 

at one site in the NWHI (FFS). 

Therefore, survival of this DPS is 

currently highly dependent on 

successful nesting at FFS (Niethammer 

et al., 1992). The concentrated nature 

and relatively small size of the nesting 

population make it vulnerable to 

random variation and stochasticities in 

the biological and physical 

environment, including natural 

catastrophes, as well as changes in 

climate and resulting effects such as sea 

level rise. This increases its risk of 

extinction, even though the DPS may 

currently have positive population 

growth (e.g., Meffe et al., 1994; Primack, 

1998; Balazs and Kubis, 2007; Hunter 

and Gibbs, 2007). That said, aside from 

sea level rise, FFS is relatively isolated 

from anthropogenic threats, as it occurs 

within the Papaha ̄naumokua ̄kea Marine 

National Monument, a remote 

Monument that has controlled access for 

activities that occur within it. The 

regional range expansion into nesting 

areas in the MHI provide increased 

spatial diversity and may buffer against 

the loss of nesting sites at FFS; however, 

nesting areas in the MHI are exposed to 

anthropogenic threats. 

Within Factor E, we find that 

incidental bycatch in fishing gear, 

marine pollution, interactions with 

recreational and commercial vessels, 

climate change, beach driving, and 

major storm events all negatively affect 

green turtles in the Central North Pacific 

DPS. The consideration of climate 

change, and the fact that the one 

isolated atoll, where approximately 96 

percent of green turtles within this DPS 

nest, is extremely vulnerable to sea level 

rise, increase the risk of extinction for 

this DPS. 

C. Conservation Efforts for the Central 

North Pacific DPS 

The State of Hawai‘i’s efforts to 

conserve green turtles include: Wildlife 

regulations; coordination of stranding 

response and specimen storage on the 

islands of Maui, Hawai‘i, and Kaua‘i; 

issuance and management of special 

activity permits; statewide outreach and 

education activities; and nest 

monitoring on Maui (Department of 

Land and Natural Resources, 2013). 

Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources 

staff responds to stranded turtle reports 

and issues special use permits to 

researchers and educators. The Division 

of Conservation and Resources 

Enforcement investigates reports of 

illegal poaching, provides support and 

security at some nest sites and 

strandings, and addresses complaints 

from the public regarding turtle 

disturbances. 

With regard to conservation areas, the 

Papaha ̄naumokua ̄kea Marine National 

Monument in the NWHI is a 

conservation area established in 2006 

that encompasses coral reefs, islands 

and shallow water environments. It 

comprises several previously existing 

Federal conservation areas, including 

the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem 

Reserve, Midway Atoll National 

Wildlife Refuge, Hawaiian Islands 

National Wildlife Refuge, NWHI Marine 

Refuge, State Seabird Sanctuary at Kure 

Atoll and the Battle of Midway National 

Memorial. The Monument is 

administered jointly by three cotrustees: NOAA, the USFWS, and the 

State of Hawai‘i. The Monument’s 

mission is to carry out seamless 

integrated management to ensure 

ecological integrity and achieve strong, 

long-term protection and perpetuation 

of NWHI ecosystems, Native Hawaiian 

culture, and heritage resources for 

current and future generations. 

Commercial fishing is prohibited in the 

Monument and all other human 

activities require a permit. 

Overall, conservation efforts have 

been successful in this DPS, as 

exhibited by the increasing trend in the 

green turtle population. 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the Central North Pacific 

DPS 

The Central North Pacific DPS is 

characterized by geographically 

concentrated nesting (96 percent of 

nesting occurs at one location) and 

moderately low levels of abundance 

(3,846 nesting females). Such a low 

number is the result of chronic 

historical exploitation, which extirpated 

80 percent of historically major nesting 

grounds (Kittinger et al., 2013). The DPS 

is geographically and chronologically 

well-sampled, with no sites where 

nesting is unquantified, and very little 

chance there are undocumented nesting 

locations. Time series analysis of 

nesting female abundance over 40 years 

at FFS shows a marked increase in 

nesting since surveys were initiated in 

1973, with an encouraging annual rate 

of increase of 4.8 percent. However, 96 

percent of nesting now occurs at one 

atoll (FFS)—where sea level rise is a 

significant concern—and no more than 

40 females nest at any of the other 11 

sites. Information on in-water 

abundance trends is consistent with the 

increase in nesting. 

The Status Review indicates that the 

DPS shows strength in its population 

trend, but that there are concerns about 

overall abundance, spatial structure, 

and diversity/resilience. Indeed, in spite 

of the positive trends in the last few 

decades, the unprecedented 

concentration of nesting at one site and 

moderately low population size raise 

serious concerns about the resilience of 

this DPS, particularly its ability to adapt 

to future climate scenarios. Ninety-eight 

percent of the population nests are low 

lying atolls (96 percent nesting in a 

single low-lying atoll), making them 

extremely vulnerable to sea level rise— 

some effects of which have already been 

witnessed. Keller et al. (2009) suggest 

that sea level rise, changing storm 

dynamics, sea surface temperatures, and 

ocean acidification are key threats for 

the NWHI. Current and projected maps 

of four islands in the NWHI predicted 

a sea level rise ranging from 9 cm to 88 

cm by 2100, with a projected loss of 

nesting beach at approximately 15 to 26 

percent (IPCC, 2001). Further, sea level 

rise is expected to continue at a rate 

exceeding that observed during 1971– 

2010 as a result of increased ocean 

warming and increased loss of glacier 

and ice sheet mass (IPCC, 2013). Baker 

et al. (2006) examined the potential 

effects of sea level rise in the NWHI and 

found that the primary nesting area for 

the Central North Pacific population is 

threatened by sea level rise through 

possible loss of nesting habitat. They 

note that one formerly significant 

nesting site—Whale-Skate Island—is 

now completely submerged. They 

further note that the islets of Trig, Gin 

and Little Gin could lose large portions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15327 

of their area, concentrating nesting even 

further at East Island. In contrast, Tiwari 

et al. (2010) argued that East Island itself 

is still not yet at carrying capacity, in 

the sense of crude nesting area and 

current nesting densities. It remains 

unclear how catastrophic nesting habitat 

loss and natal homing traits will 

influence future nesting in this DPS. 

Habitat degradation resulting from the 

release of contaminants contained in 

landfills and other areas of the NWHI 

could also occur as the islands erode or 

are flooded from sea level rise (Keller et 

al., 2009). Other effects of climate 

change include increasing temperatures 

at nesting beaches that may affect 

hatchling sex ratios and embryonic 

development (Balazs and Kubis, 2007; 

Fuller et al., 2010b). Making this an 

even greater concern is that climate 

change and the resultant sea level rise 

are difficult to regulate and certainly 

cannot be sufficiently regulated through 

the ESA to slow its effects. 

In summary, despite an upward trend 

in population abundance, the Central 

North Pacific DPS is characterized by 

geographically concentrated nesting and 

low levels of abundance (3,846 nesting 

females). The lack of redundancy in 

nesting sites and the low nesting 

numbers at these sites lead to low 

resilience within this DPS. The 

consideration of climate change, and the 

fact that the one isolated atoll, where 

approximately 96 percent of green 

turtles within this DPS nest, is 

extremely vulnerable to sea level rise, 

increase the risk of extinction. 

For the above reasons, we propose to 

list the Central North Pacific DPS as 

threatened. We do not find the DPS to 

be in danger of extinction presently 

because of the increasing nesting trend; 

however, the continued threats coupled 

with a small and narrowly distributed 

nesting population are likely to 

endanger the DPS within the foreseeable 

future. 

XVII. East Pacific DPS 

A. Discussion of Population Parameters 

for the East Pacific DPS 

The range of the East Pacific DPS 

extends from the California/Oregon 

border (41 °N) southward along the 

Pacific coast of the Americas to central 

Chile (40 °S). Green turtles originating 

from this DPS regularly strand along the 

shoreline of Oregon and Washington. 

The northern and southern boundaries 

of this DPS extend from the 

aforementioned locations in the United 

States and Chile to 142 °W and 96 °W, 

respectively. The offshore boundary of 

this DPS is a straight line between these 

two coordinates. This DPS encompasses 

the Revillagigedos Archipelago, Mexico 

and the Gala ́pagos Archipelago, Ecuador 

(Figure 2). The East Pacific DPS also 

includes the Mexican Pacific coast 

breeding population, which is currently 

listed as endangered (43 FR 32800, July 

28, 1978). 

Green turtle nesting is widely 

dispersed in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. 

We identified 40 total nesting sites for 

which abundance information is 

available, although there are sporadic 

nesting events in other areas with 

undocumented abundance. The largest 

nesting aggregation is found in Colola, 

Michoaca ́n, Mexico, with 11,588 nesting 

females, or nearly 58 percent of the total 

nesting population (Delgado-Trejo and 

Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012). The second 

largest site is in the Gala ́pagos Islands, 

Ecuador, where nesting at the four 

primary nesting sites (Quinta Playa and 

Barahona (Isabela Island), Las Bachas 

(Santa Cruz Island), and Las Salinas 

(Baltras Island)) has been stable to 

slightly increasing since the late 1970s, 

and was last estimated at 3,603 nesting 

females in 2005 (Za`rate et al., 2006; 

Za`rate, unpubl. data). Other nesting 

areas are found in Michoa ́can, including 

Bahia Maruata (1,149; Delgado-Trejo 

and Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012) and 

Motin de Oro (240; Delgado-Trejo and 

Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012); Clarion and 

Socorro Islands in the Revillagigedos 

Archipelago, Mexico (500; Blanco and 

Santidria ́n, 2011); and 26 sites 

throughout the Pacific Coast of Costa 

Rica, including Playa San Jose in the Bat 

Islands (498; L. Fonseca, unpubl. data), 

Playa Colorada (498; L. Fonseca, 

unpubl. data), Nombre Jesus (450; 

Blanco and Santidria ́n, 2011), Playa 

Cabuyal (273; P. Santidria ́n-Tomillo, 

Leatherback Trust, pers. comm., 2013), 

Playa Zapotillal (150; Blanco and 

Santidria ́n, 2011) and Playa Nancite 

(123; Fonseca et al., 2011). Low level 

nesting (fewer than 100 nesting females) 

occurs elsewhere in Mexico, Costa Rica, 

mainland Ecuador, Colombia, 

Guatemala, and Peru, although the last 

two are unquantified (G. TiburciosPintos, Minicipio de Los Cabos, pers. 

comm., 2012; S. Kelez, ecOceanica, 

pers. comm., 2012). 

Nesting at the largest beach in the 

range of this DPS (Colola, Michoaca ́n, 

Mexico) has shown an upward trend 

since 1996. The observed increase at 

Colola may have resulted from the onset 

of nesting beach protection in 1979—as 

is suggested by the similarity in timing 

between the onset of beach conservation 

and the age-to-maturity for green turtles 

in Pacific Mexico. The initial upward 

turn in annual nesting was seen in 1996, 

about 17 years after the initiation of a 

nesting beach protection program 

(Cliffton et al., 1982; Alvarado-Dı ́az et 

al., 2001), and growth data from the Gulf 

of California suggest that green turtles in 

this DPS mature at 15–25 years 

(Seminoff et al., 2002a). Although not a 

clear cause of the increasing nesting 

trend, the consistency in timing is 

nonetheless compelling. The 

presidential decree protecting all sea 

turtles of Mexico (Pesca, 1990) certainly 

helped the situation, but this occurred 

much later than the start of nesting 

beach conservation. It is more likely that 

this national legislation has had its 

greatest positive impact at the foraging 

areas, where green turtle hunting was 

once rampant. 

With regard to spatial structure, 

genetic sampling in the eastern Pacific 

has been extensive and the coverage in 

this region is substantial considering the 

relatively low population sizes of most 

eastern Pacific nesting sites. Within this 

DPS there is significant population 

substructuring. Four regional genetic 

stocks have been identified in the 

eastern Pacific (P. Dutton, NMFS, 

unpubl. data): Revillagigedos 

Archipelago (Mexico), Michoaca ́n 

(Mexico), Costa Rica, and the Gala ́pagos 

Islands (Ecuador). There is a relatively 

high level of spatial structure and the 

presence of rare/unique haplotypes at 

each nesting site stock. Green turtles 

from multiple nesting beach origins 

commonly mix at feeding areas in the 

Gulf of California (Nichols, 2003; P. 

Dutton, NMFS, unpubl. data). A recent 

study using nuclear single nucleotide 

polymorphisms (a DNA sequence 

variation occurring commonly within a 

population) and microsatellite markers 

investigated the genetic stock structure 

among five Pacific green turtle nesting 

populations. They found significant 

structure between their two eastern 

Pacific sample sites (Gala ́pagos and 

Mexico), suggesting that male-mediated 

gene flow between regional nesting 

stocks is limited (Roden et al., 2013). 

Flipper tag recoveries show 94 tag 

returns from foraging areas that were 

applied at two primary nesting sites, 

Michoaca ́n Mexico and the Gala ́pagos 

Islands, Ecuador. Two apparent 

groupings suggest some North/South 

structure. Forty-nine satellite tracks of 

green turtles in the eastern Pacific show 

apparent track clustering in Northwest 

Mexico to Southern United States, and 

in the Southeast Pacific, from the 

Gala ́pagos Islands to the high seas and 

to the Central American mainland. 

There are too few satellite tracks to 

provide solid information on spatial 

structure. Within-region variation in 

demographic features also suggests a 

level of spatial structure for the East 

Pacific DPS. Among all nesting 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15328 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

assemblages in the East Pacific DPS, the 

Revillagigedos Islands stands out as 

uniquely different from the remaining 

areas. 

With regard to diversity and 

resilience, the East Pacific DPS has 

substantial nesting at both insular and 

continental nesting sites. The presence 

of year round nesting at some sites, and 

non-overlapping nesting seasons at 

others, suggest that the nesting 

phenology of green turtles in this DPS 

may help buffer in geologic time against 

climate change, both in terms of 

increased mean incubation temperatures 

on beaches and in terms of impact to 

storms and other seasonal events. The 

nesting season in Michoaca ́n runs from 

October through January (Alvarado-Dı ́az 

and Figueroa, 1990); in the 

Revillagigedos Islands nesting occurs 

from March through November with a 

peak in April/May (Awbrey et al., 1984; 

Brattstrom, 1982) and in the Gala ́pagos, 

nesting occurs year-round with a peak 

from January to March (Za ́rate et al., 

2013). Year-round nesting has also been 

confirmed for some areas in Costa Rica. 

There is a range of beach shade levels 

depending on the nesting beach. At 

some sites such as those in the 

Revillagigedos Islands and beaches in 

Mexico, the beaches have little 

vegetation and nests are commonly laid 

in full-sun areas. On the other hand, the 

beaches in Costa Rica are highly shaded 

and nests are commonly deposited deep 

in the coastal scrub bushes and trees. 

There are also intermediate sites, such 

as those in the Gala ́pagos, which have 

a mix of full sun and shade sites on any 

given beach. While the exposed beaches 

are more likely to suffer from the 

impacts of climate change, those in 

shaded areas may be subjected to less 

heating. 

B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 

East Pacific DPS 

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range 

a. Terrestrial Zone 

The largest threat on nesting beaches 

in the East Pacific DPS is reduced 

availability of habitat due to heavy 

armament and subsequent erosion. In 

addition, while nesting beaches in Costa 

Rica, Revillagigedos Islands, and the 

Gala ́pagos Islands are less affected by 

coastal development than green turtle 

nesting beaches in other regions around 

the Pacific, several of the secondary 

green turtle nesting beaches in Me ́xico 

suffer from coastal development. For 

example, effects of coastal development 

are especially acute at Maruata, a site 

with heavy tourist activity and foot 

traffic during the nesting season 

(Seminoff, 1994). Nest destruction due 

to human presence is also a threat to 

nesting beaches in the Galapa ́gos Islands 

(Za ́rate et al., 2006). However, such 

threats vary by site (Za ́rate, 2012). 

Insular sites have very low levels of 

human interference at nesting beaches, 

although turtles may be affected in 

foraging areas. The low impacts at 

insular nesting sites suggest that these 

areas may serve as nesting refugia if 

management regimes change and/or 

poaching at continental sites increases. 

b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones 

With respect to environmental 

degradation in the marine environment, 

coastal habitats along the continental 

and insular shores of the eastern Pacific 

are relatively pristine, although green 

turtles in San Diego Bay, at the north 

edge of their range, have high levels of 

contaminants (Komoroske et al., 2011; 

2012). However, the nutrient flow and 

structure within seagrass communities 

in many coastal areas are likely 

modified today due to the depletion of 

green turtles which, during times of 

higher abundance, would have been 

keystone consumers in these habitats 

(Bjorndal, 1980; Thayer et al., 1992; 

Seminoff et al., 2012b). Although the 

impacts of ongoing and proposed 

human activities are difficult to 

quantify, recent human population 

increases in many areas underscore the 

need to develop and implement 

management strategies that balance 

development and economic activities 

with the needs of green turtles. 

In summary, within Factor A we find 

that the East Pacific DPS of the green 

turtle is negatively affected by ongoing 

changes in both its terrestrial and 

marine habitats as a result of land and 

water use practices. We also find that 

coastal development, beachfront 

lighting, and heavy foot traffic 

consistently affect hatchlings and 

nesting turtles on a small portion of this 

DPS. 

2. Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

In some countries and localities 

within the range of the East Pacific DPS, 

harvest of green turtle eggs is legal, 

while in others it is illegal but persistent 

due to lack of enforcement. The impact 

of egg harvest is exacerbated by the high 

monetary value of eggs, consistent 

market demand, and severe poverty in 

many of the countries in the Eastern 

Pacific Region where sea turtles are 

found. Egg harvest is a major 

conservation challenge at several sites 

in Costa Rica, including Nombre de 

Jesus and Zapotillal Beaches, where 90 

percent of the eggs were taken by egg 

collectors during one particular study 

(Blanco, 2010). Egg harvest is also 

believed to occur at unprotected nesting 

sites in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, 

and Nicaragua (NMFS and USFWS, 

2007). Indeed, green turtles are hunted 

in many areas of northwest Mexico 

despite legal protection (Nichols et al., 

2002; Seminoff et al., 2003; J. Seminoff, 

NMFS, pers. obs., 2012). Mancini and 

Koch (2009) describe a black market that 

killed tens of thousands of green turtles 

each year in the Eastern Pacific Region. 

Sea turtles were, and continue to be, 

harvested primarily for their meat, 

although other products have served 

important non-food uses. Sea turtle oil 

was for many years used as a cold 

remedy and the meat, eggs and other 

products have been highly-valued for 

their aphrodisiacal qualities, beliefs that 

strongly persist in the countries 

bordering the East Pacific DPS. 

3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 

FP is virtually non-existent in green 

turtles within the East Pacific DPS 

(Koch et al., 2007), and predation occurs 

at low levels. In the Gala ́pagos Islands 

there is depredation on eggs and 

hatchlings by feral pigs (Sus sp.) and 

beetles (order Coleoptera), although 

predation levels are not reported (Za ́rate 

et al., 2003; 2006). There are accounts of 

jaguars (Panthera onca) killing adult 

female green turtles (L. Fonseca, 

National University of Costa Rica, 

unpubl. data, 2009) at beaches in Costa 

Rica, but this is not a major problem for 

the DPS. 

4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The following countries have laws to 

protect green turtles: Chile, Colombia, 

Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, 

Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, 

Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and the 

United States. In addition, at least 10 

international treaties and/or regulatory 

mechanisms apply to the conservation 

of green turtles in the East Pacific DPS. 

Overall, regulatory mechanisms for 

green turtles in the East Pacific DPS are 

inconsistent. While there are numerous 

substantive and/or improving 

conservation efforts, especially on the 

primary nesting beaches, and this may 

be reflected in the recent increases in 

the number of nesting females, many 

concerns remain due to limited 

enforcement of existing laws and marine 

protected areas as well as extensive 

fishery bycatch, especially in coastal 

waters. The analysis of existing 

regulatory mechanisms assumed that all 

would remain in place at their current 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15329 

levels; however, some regulatory 

mechanisms, including laws and 

international treaties, are not realizing 

their full potential because they are not 

enforced adequately in all countries 

occupied by the DPS. 

While most of the major nesting 

beaches are monitored, some of the 

management measures in place are 

inadequate and may be inappropriate. 

On some beaches, hatchling releases are 

coordinated with the tourist industry or 

nests are being trampled on or are 

unprotected. The largest threat on the 

nesting beaches, reduced availability of 

habitat due to heavy armament and 

subsequent erosion, is just beginning to 

be addressed, but without immediate 

attention may ultimately result in the 

demise of the highest density beaches. 

Further, it is suspected that there are 

substantial impacts from illegal, 

unreported, and unregulated fishing, 

which we are unable to mitigate without 

additional fisheries management efforts 

and international collaborations. While 

conservation projects for this population 

have been in place since 1978 for some 

important areas, efforts in other areas 

are still being developed to address 

major threats, including fisheries 

bycatch and long-term nesting habitat 

protection. 

Bycatch has not been thoroughly 

evaluated but it is largely known that 

most fishermen either improperly 

implement TEDs or remove them 

entirely from their trawls. As was the 

case with sea turtle meat and egg 

collection, an almost total lack of 

enforcement of bycatch mitigation 

measures by local authorities only helps 

to confound the problem. Additionally, 

TEDs are not a requirement for artisanal 

shrimping boats which, with today’s 

technology, are becoming more 

‘industrial’ in ability and have been 

reported to catch large numbers of sea 

turtles. It is unlikely that bycatch 

mortality can be sufficiently reduced 

across the range of the DPS in the near 

future because of the diversity and 

magnitude of the fisheries operating in 

the DPS, the lack of comprehensive 

information on fishing distribution and 

effort, limitations on implementing 

demonstrated effective conservation 

measures, geopolitical complexities, 

limitations on enforcement capacity, 

and lack of availability of 

comprehensive bycatch reduction 

technologies. 

The Status Review did not reveal 

regulatory mechanisms in place to 

specifically address impacts to the 

nesting beach, marine pollution, sea 

level rise, and effects of climate change 

that continue to contribute to the 

extinction risk of this DPS. 

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 

Incidental capture in artisanal and 

commercial fisheries is a significant 

threat to the survival of green turtles 

throughout the Eastern Pacific Ocean. 

The primary gear types involved in 

these interactions include longlines, 

drift nets, set nets, and trawl fisheries. 

These are employed by both artisanal 

and industrial fleets, and target a wide 

variety of species including tunas 

(Thunnus sp.), sharks (class 

Chondrichthyes), sardines (Sardinella 

sp.), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), and 

mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus). 

In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, 

particularly areas in the southern 

portion of the range of this DPS, 

significant bycatch has been reported in 

artisanal gill net and longline shark and 

mahi mahi fisheries operating out of 

Peru (Kelez et al., 2003; Alfaro-Shigueto 

et al., 2006) and, to a lesser extent, Chile 

(Donoso and Dutton, 2010). The fishing 

industry in Peru is the second largest 

economic activity in the country and, 

over the past few years, the longline 

fishery has rapidly increased. During an 

observer program in 2003/2004, 588 sets 

were observed during 60 trips, and 154 

sea turtles were taken as bycatch. Green 

turtles were the second most common 

sea turtle species in these interactions. 

In many cases, green turtles are kept on 

board for human consumption; 

therefore, the mortality rate in this 

artisanal longline fishery is likely high 

because sea turtles are retained for 

future consumption or sale. 

Koch et al. (2006) reported green 

turtle bycatch-related dead strandings 

numbering in the hundreds in Bahia 

Magdalena. In Baja California Sur, 

Mexico, from 2006–2009 small-scale 

gill-net fisheries caused massive green 

turtle mortality at Laguna San Ignacio, 

where Mancini et al. (2012) estimated 

that over 1,000 turtles were killed each 

year in nets set for guitarfish. 

Bycatch in coastal areas occurs 

principally in shrimp trawlers, gill nets 

and bottom longlines (e.g., Orrego and 

Arauz, 2004). However, since 1996, all 

countries from Mexico to Ecuador 

declared the use of TEDs as mandatory 

for all industrial fleets to meet the 

requirements to export shrimp to the 

United States under the U.S. MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Helvey and Fahy, 

2012). Since then, bycatch has not been 

thoroughly evaluated but it is widely 

believed that most fishers either 

improperly implement TEDs or remove 

them entirely from their trawls. 

Additionally, TEDs are not required 

for artisanal shrimping boats, which 

with today’s technology, are becoming 

more ‘industrial’ in ability and have 

been reported to catch large numbers of 

sea turtles (A. Zavala, Universidad de 

Sinaloa, pers. comm., 2012). Bottom-set 

longlines and gill nets, both artisanal 

and industrial, also interact frequently 

with sea turtles, and can have 

devastating mortality rates, such as has 

been the case in artisanal fisheries of 

Baja California, Mexico (Peckham et al., 

2007). In purse seine fisheries, which 

typically target tuna and other large 

pelagic fish species, the highest rate of 

turtles are captured with ‘‘log sets’’ 

around natural floating objects or Fish 

Aggregation Devices (Hall, 1998). 

b. Pollution 

Other threats such as debris ingestion 

(Seminoff et al., 2002c) and boat strikes 

(P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2012; 

NMFS stranding records, unpubl.) also 

affect green turtles in the Eastern 

Pacific. Red tide poisoning is also a 

threat to this species (Delgado-Trejo and 

Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012). 

c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 

Disasters 

Effects of climate change include, 

among other things, sea surface 

temperature increases, the alteration of 

thermal sand characteristics of beaches 

(from warming temperatures), which 

could result in the reduction or 

cessation of male hatchling production 

(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 

2009), and a significant rise in sea level, 

which could significantly restrict green 

turtle nesting habitat. While sea turtles 

have survived past eras that have 

included significant temperature 

fluctuations, future climate change is 

expected to happen at unprecedented 

rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly 

they may face local to widespread 

extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). 

Impacts from global climate change 

induced by human activities are likely 

to become more apparent in future years 

(IPCC, 2007). However, at the primary 

nesting beach in Michoaca ́n, Mexico 

(Colola), the beach slope aspect is 

extremely steep and the dune surface at 

which the vast majority of nests are laid 

is well-elevated. This site is likely 

buffered against short-term sea level rise 

as a result of climate change. In 

addition, many nesting sites are along 

protected beach faces, out of tidal surge 

pathways. For example, multiple 

nesting sites in Costa Rica and in the 

Gala ́pagos Islands are on beaches that 

are protected from major swell coming 

in from the ocean. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15330 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Within Factor E, we find that fishery 

bycatch that occurs throughout the 

eastern Pacific Ocean, particularly 

bycatch mortality of green turtles from 

nearshore gill net fisheries, is a 

significant threat to the persistence of 

this DPS. 

C. Conservation Efforts for the East 

Pacific DPS 

There are a multitude of NGOs and 

conservation networks whose efforts are 

raising awareness about sea turtle 

conservation. 

Protection of green turtles is provided 

by local marine reserves throughout the 

region. In addition, sea turtles may 

benefit from the following broader 

regional efforts: (1) The Eastern Tropical 

Pacific (ETP) Marine Corridor (CMAR) 

Initiative supported by the governments 

of Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, and 

Ecuador, which is a voluntary 

agreement to work towards sustainable 

use and conservation of marine 

resources in these countries’ waters; (2) 

the ETP Seascape Program managed by 

Conservation International that supports 

cooperative marine management in the 

ETP, including implementation of the 

CMAR; (3) the IATTC and its bycatch 

reduction efforts that are among the 

world’s finest for regional fisheries 

management organizations; (4) the IAC, 

which is designed to lessen impacts on 

sea turtles from fisheries and other 

human impacts; and (5) the Permanent 

Commission of the South Pacific (Lima 

Convention), which has developed an 

‘‘Action Plan for Sea Turtles in the 

Southeast Pacific.’’ 

There are indications that wildlife 

enforcement branches of local and 

national governments are stepping up 

their efforts to enforce existing laws, 

although successes in stemming sea 

turtle exploitation through legal 

channels are few and far between. 

D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 

Findings for the East Pacific DPS 

The East Pacific DPS is characterized 

by moderate levels of green turtle 

nesting abundance (>20,000 nesting 

females) occurring in three primary 

regions, with Mexico having the largest 

number of nesting females at several 

sites (13,664 nesting females), followed 

by the Gala ́pagos, Ecuador (3,603 

nesting females), and Costa Rica (2,826 

nesting females distributed among 26 

nesting sites). Although trend 

information is lacking for the vast 

majority of sites, 25 years of monitoring 

at Michoaca ́n, Mexico—the largest 

nesting aggregation in this DPS—shows 

an increasing trend since the 

population’s low point in the mid1980s. In addition to Mexico, data from 

the Gala ́pagos Archipelago suggest a 

stable trend, and the largest-ever nesting 

numbers reported in Costa Rica suggest 

this site may be on the increase as well. 

Genetic and demographic data show 

some substructuring among the 

populations, and nesting is welldistributed in the East Pacific DPS, 

occurring from the tip of the Baja 

California Peninsula to northern Peru. 

Such a broad latitudinal range may be 

advantageous to green turtles in this 

DPS in the face of global climate change. 

Likewise, with year round nesting at 

several sites and non-overlapping 

nesting seasons at others, it appears that 

this DPS may benefit from nesting 

season temporal diversity in relation to 

population resilience. Lastly, nesting at 

both continental and insular sites 

provides a degree of diversity as well as 

resilience, with some insular sites 

providing relatively threat-free nesting 

refugia within this DPS’s range. 

Nevertheless, green turtles continue to 

be affected by a variety of threats within 

the range of the East Pacific DPS. These 

include harvest of eggs and turtles for 

food and non-food uses, bycatch in 

coastal and offshore marine fisheries 

gear, coastal development, beachfront 

lighting, and heavy foot traffic. 

Although the situation has improved to 

some extent, the harvest of turtles and 

their eggs continues throughout much of 

the range, although more problematic 

outside of the Gala ́pagos Islands, 

particularly in Central America (egg 

harvest) and Mexico (harvest of foraging 

turtles). Mortality from diseases such as 

FP is not a problem in the Eastern 

Pacific, but depredation by natural 

predators is a very large concern, 

particularly in the Gala ́pagos and, to a 

lesser extent, in Costa Rica. Green turtle 

interactions and mortalities with coastal 

and offshore fisheries in the eastern 

Pacific region are of concern and are 

considered an impediment to green 

turtle recovery in the East Pacific DPS. 

Yet despite these concerns, the largest 

nesting sites appear to be increasing. 

Conservation actions, national laws, 

and international instruments have 

provided the foundation for what 

appears to be an ongoing population 

recovery in the region, particularly in 

Mexico, although work remains to 

ensure continued recovery. Further, our 

analysis did not consider the scenario in 

which current laws or regulatory 

mechanisms were not continued. Given 

the conservation dependence of the 

species, without mechanisms in place to 

continue conservation efforts and 

funding streams in this DPS, some 

threats could increase and population 

trends could be affected. 

For the above reasons, we propose to 

list the East Pacific DPS as threatened. 

We do not find the DPS to be in danger 

of extinction presently because of high 

nesting abundance and increasing 

trends; however, the continued threats 

from coastal and offshore fisheries are 

likely to endanger the DPS within the 

foreseeable future. 

XVIII. Proposed Determinations 

Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires 

that the Services make listing 

determinations based solely on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

after conducting a review of the status 

of the species and taking into account 

those efforts, if any, being made by any 

state or foreign nation, or political 

subdivisions thereof, to protect and 

conserve the species (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(1)). We have reviewed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, including information 

included in the petition, the status 

review report, and other published and 

unpublished information; and we have 

consulted with species experts and 

individuals familiar with green turtles 

and their habitat. 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we 

identify 11 green turtle DPSs: Central 

North Pacific, North Atlantic, 

Mediterranean, South Atlantic, 

Southwest Indian, North Indian, East 

Indian-West Pacific, Central West 

Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central 

South Pacific, and East Pacific. We find 

that the purposes of the Act would be 

furthered by managing this wideranging species as separate units under 

the DPS authority, in order to allow for 

enhanced protections where needed. 

Based on a review of the five factors 

contained in ESA section 4(a)(1), we 

find that the best available science 

supports the listing status of 

‘‘endangered’’ for three of the DPSs and 

therefore conclude that the species as a 

whole no longer meets the definition of 

a ‘‘threatened species’’ throughout its 

range. We propose to remove the current 

species-wide listing and to list 11 DPSs 

as threatened or endangered. We 

propose to list the North Atlantic, South 

Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North 

Indian, East Indian-West Pacific, 

Southwest Pacific, Central North 

Pacific, and East Pacific DPSs as 

threatened, and the Mediterranean, 

Central West Pacific, and Central South 

Pacific DPSs as endangered for the 

reasons described above for each DPS. 

Regarding the February 16, 2012 

petition from the Association of 

Hawaiian Civic Clubs to identify the 

Hawaiian green turtle population as a 

DPS and ‘‘delist’’ the DPS under the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15331 

ESA, as described above we conclude 

that the petitioned entity qualifies as a 

DPS (Central North Pacific DPS), but 

that the DPS should be listed as 

threatened for the reasons discussed 

above. We therefore deny the petition 

seeking its delisting. 

XIX. Significant Portion of the Range 

Under the ESA and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. See the Final Policy on 

Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered 

Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014). 

Under that policy, we only need to 

consider whether listing may be 

appropriate on the basis of the 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ 

language if the rangewide analysis does 

not lead to a determination to list as 

threatened or endangered. Because we 

have determined that each DPS of green 

turtle is either threatened or endangered 

throughout all of its range, no portion of 

its range can be ‘‘significant’’ for 

purposes of the definitions of 

‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ 

XX. Effects of Listing 

Conservation measures provided for 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA include, but 

are not limited to, recovery plans and 

actions (prepared pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 

1536(f)) and the actions recommended 

in them; designation of critical habitat if 

prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 

1533(a)(3)(A)(i)); Federal agency 

requirements to consult with the 

Services and to ensure its actions are 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 

1536(a)(2)); and prohibitions on taking 

(16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the 

species’ plight through listing promotes 

conservation actions by Federal and 

state agencies, foreign entities, private 

groups, and individuals. Should the 

proposed listings be made final, a 

recovery plan or plans may be 

developed, unless we find that such 

plan would not promote the 

conservation of the species. 

A. Identifying Section 7 Conference and 

Consultation Requirements 

Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(4)) 

of the ESA and its implementing 

regulations (50 CFR 402) require Federal 

agencies to confer with the Services on 

actions likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of species proposed 

for listing, or that result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a proposed 

species is ultimately listed, section 

7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to 

consult with the Services on any action 

they authorize, fund, or carry out if 

those actions may affect the listed 

species or its critical habitat; Federal 

agencies must insure that such actions 

are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species or 

result in destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2); 50 CFR 

402). Because green turtles are currently 

listed throughout their range, 

requirements for initiating consultation 

will not change if the current listing is 

reclassified and revised to reflect 

recognition of multiple DPSs. Examples 

of Federal actions that affect green 

turtles include, but are not limited to: 

Dredging and channelization, beach and 

nearshore construction, pile-driving, 

water quality standards, power plants, 

vessel traffic, military activities, and 

fisheries management practices. 

B. Critical Habitat 

Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA defines 

critical habitat as ‘‘(i) the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species, at the time it is listed 

. . . on which are found those physical 

or biological features (I) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (II) 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed . . . upon a determination by 

the Secretary that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)).’’ Section 

3(3) of the ESA also defines the terms 

‘‘conserve,’’ ‘‘conserving,’’ and 

‘‘conservation’’ to mean ‘‘to use and the 

use of all methods and procedures 

which are necessary to bring any 

endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to this 

chapter Act are no longer necessary (16 

U.S.C. 1532(3)).’’ 

Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) of the ESA, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12(a)), require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, the Secretary shall 

designate critical habitat at the time the 

species is determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species. 

Designations of critical habitat must be 

based on the best scientific data 

available and must take into 

consideration the economic, national 

security, and other relevant impacts of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). The 

Services’ regulations (50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation 

of critical habitat is not prudent when 

one or both of the following situations 

exist: (1) The species is threatened by 

taking or other human activity, and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of threat 

to the species, or (2) such designation of 

critical habitat would not be beneficial 

to the species. 

The identification and mapping of 

critical habitat is not expected to 

increase the degree of threat from 

human activity, such as take of turtles 

or eggs. In the absence of finding that 

the designation of critical habitat would 

increase threats to a species, a finding 

that designation may be prudent is 

warranted if there are any benefits to a 

critical habitat designation. Here, the 

potential benefits of designation would 

include (1) Triggering consultation 

under section 7 of the ESA for Federal 

actions in unoccupied designated 

critical habitat; (2) focusing 

conservation activities on the most 

essential features and areas; (3) 

providing educational benefits to State 

or county governments or private 

entities; and (4) preventing people from 

causing inadvertent harm to the species. 

Because we have determined that the 

designation of critical habitat will not 

likely increase the degree of threat to the 

species and may provide some measure 

of benefit, we determine that 

designation of critical habitat may be 

prudent for the green turtle, subject to 

review of information in connection 

with the designation. 

Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) 

state that critical habitat is not 

determinable when one or both of the 

following situations exists: (1) 

Information sufficient to perform 

required analysis of the impacts of the 

designation is lacking; or (2) the 

biological needs of the species are not 

sufficiently well known to permit 

identification of an area as critical 

habitat. At this point, we are still in the 

process of acquiring the information 

needed to assess the critical habitat 

designation. Accordingly, we find 

designation of critical habitat to be not 

determinable at this time. 

A final regulation designating critical 

habitat is generally due concurrently 

with a final regulation listing a species 

as endangered or threatened (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(6)(C)). The statute does not 

mandate that the proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat has to be 

published concurrent with the proposed 

listing rule, and thus a proposed rule 

designating critical habitat may be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15332 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

published following the proposed 

listing rule (but at least 90 days before 

the intended effective date of the rule 

(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5)(A)). Upon a 

finding that designation of critical 

habitat is not determinable, the Services 

have an additional year to finalize a 

proposed critical habitat designation (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). In effect, then, 

the Services have up to one year 

following final listing of the species to 

finalize a critical habitat designation 

where such habitat is initially not 

determinable. To ensure that the 

Services may make a timely proposal 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

invite public input on features and areas 

that may meet the definition of critical 

habitat for the DPSs proposed for listing 

that occur in U.S. waters or its 

territories. These include the North 

Atlantic (southeastern United States and 

Puerto Rico), South Atlantic (U.S. Virgin 

Islands), Central South Pacific 

(American Samoa), Central West Pacific 

(CNMI and Guam), Central North 

Pacific, and East Pacific DPSs 

(California). 

The Services previously designated 

critical habitat for green turtles in 

waters surrounding Culebra Island, 

Puerto Rico from the mean high water 

line seaward to 3 nautical miles (5.6 km; 

63 FR 46693, September 2, 1998). These 

waters include Culebra’s outlying Keys, 

including Cayo Norte, Cayo Ballena, 

Cayos Geniquı ́, Isla Culebrita, Arrecife 

Culebrita, Cayo de Luis Pen ̃ a, Las 

Hermanas, El Mono, Cayo Lobo, Cayo 

Lobito, Cayo Botijuela, Alcarraza, Los 

Gemelos, and Piedra Steven, and are 

within the range of the North Atlantic 

DPS. 

The ESA does not speak directly to 

the status of designated critical habitat 

when the agency later amends a species 

listing by dividing it into constituent 

DPSs. Notably, critical habitat does not 

lose its biological and conservation 

relevance to the relevant listed DPS 

(here, the North Atlantic) simply 

because the species listing is amended. 

Moreover, carrying forward an existing 

critical habitat designation can enhance 

the protection provided to the listed 

DPS because the carried-forward 

designation protects habitat features 

essential to the species’ recovery from 

destruction or adverse modification in 

section 7 consultations. Given that 

Congress has not spoken directly to this 

issue in the statute, we find that the 

benefits of designated critical habitat, 

the ESA’s broad purpose to conserve the 

ecosystems upon which endangered and 

threatened species depend, and taking a 

reasonable precautionary approach, the 

ESA should be construed to provide in 

these circumstances for keeping existing 

critical habitat designation in place as a 

transitional matter until the designation 

is re-promulgated or amended through a 

further rulemaking. Therefore, critical 

habitat remains in effect for the listed 

North Atlantic DPS in order to preserve 

its conservation value, as the designated 

critical habitat continues to support the 

DPS’s important biological functions 

(e.g., foraging habitat, developmental 

habitat, and shelter/refuge from 

predators). The Services have not 

designated critical habitat within the 

range of the other ten green turtle DPSs. 

C. Take Prohibitions 

All of the take prohibitions of section 

9(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

§ 1538(a)(1)) will automatically apply to 

the three DPSs proposed to be listed as 

endangered, the Mediterranean, Central 

West Pacific and Central South Pacific, 

if the proposal to list them as 

endangered is finalized. These include 

prohibitions against importing, 

exporting, engaging in foreign or 

interstate commerce, or ‘‘taking’’ of the 

species. ‘‘Take’’ is defined under the 

ESA as ‘‘to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or attempt to engage in any such 

conduct (16 U.S.C. § 1532(19)).’’ These 

prohibitions apply to any ‘‘person’’ (as 

defined by the ESA) subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States, 

including in the United States, its 

territorial sea, or on the high seas. 

Certain exceptions apply to employees 

of the Services, other Federal land 

management agencies, and State 

conservation agencies. In addition, 50 

CFR part 224.104 would apply to the 

proposed endangered DPSs. Some of the 

current provisions apply only to areas in 

the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Atlantic; 

however, future provisions may apply to 

any endangered DPS, without regard to 

its geographic boundaries. 

In the case of threatened species, ESA 

section 4(d) authorizes the Secretary to 

issue regulations deemed necessary and 

appropriate for the conservation of 

species. The Services already have in 

place take prohibitions and exceptions 

that apply to threatened species of sea 

turtles, set forth at 50 CFR 17.42(b), 

223.205, 223.206, and 223.207. These 

existing take prohibitions and 

exceptions will continue to remain in 

effect and apply to those DPSs listed as 

threatened, which are the North 

Atlantic, South Atlantic, Southwest 

Indian, North Indian, East Indian-West 

Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central 

North Pacific, and East Pacific DPSs. 

Pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, we 

may issue permits to carry out otherwise 

prohibited activities involving 

endangered and threatened wildlife 

under certain circumstances. 

Regulations governing permits are 

codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR 

223.206. With regard to endangered 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, and for 

incidental take in connection with 

otherwise lawful activities. There are 

also certain statutory exemptions from 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the ESA. 

D. Identification of Those Activities 

That Would Constitute a Violation of 

Section 9 of the ESA 

On July 1, 1994, the Services 

published a policy (59 FR 34272) that 

requires us to identify, to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a listing on proposed and 

ongoing activities within a species’ 

range. We will identify, to the extent 

known at the time of the final rule, 

those specific activities that, although 

they may appear to pose impacts to the 

species, will not be considered likely to 

result in violation of section 9, as well 

as activities that will be considered 

likely to result in violation. Based on 

currently available information, we 

conclude that the activities most likely 

to violate the section 9 prohibitions 

against ‘‘take’’ of endangered green 

turtle DPSs include, but are not limited 

to, the following: (1) Importation or 

exportation of any part of a green turtle 

or green turtle eggs; (2) directed take of 

green turtles, including fishing for, 

capturing, handling, or possessing green 

turtles, eggs, or parts; (3) sale of green 

turtles, eggs, or parts; (4) destruction or 

modification of green turtle habitat, 

including nesting beaches, beaches used 

for basking, and developmental, 

foraging habitat, and migratory habitat 

that actually kills or injures green turtles 

(50 CFR 222.102); and (5) indirect take 

of green turtles in the course of 

otherwise lawful activities, such as 

fishing, dredging, coastal construction, 

vessel traffic, and discharge of 

pollutants. We emphasize that whether 

a violation results from a particular 

activity depends upon the facts and 

circumstances of each incident. The 

mere fact that an activity may fall 

within one of these categories does not 

mean that the specific activity will 

cause a violation; due to such factors as 

location and scope, specific actions may 

not result in direct or indirect adverse 

effects on the species. Further, an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15333 

activity not listed may in fact result in 

a violation. We also emphasize that 

because the green turtle is currently 

listed, we do not anticipate changes in 

the activities that would constitute a 

violation of section 9. Possible 

exceptions include those actions 

affecting the breeding populations in 

Florida and the Pacific coast of Mexico, 

which were heretofore listed as 

endangered. Under the final rule, these 

populations would become part of the 

threatened North Atlantic and East 

Pacific DPSs, respectively, and therefore 

will be protected by the existing 

protective regulations. 

XXI. Peer Review 

The intent of the peer review policy 

is to ensure that listings are based on the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available. In December 2004, the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

issued a Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review establishing 

minimum peer review standards, a 

transparent process for public 

disclosure of peer review planning, and 

opportunities for public participation. 

The OMB Bulletin, implemented under 

the Information Quality Act (Public Law 

106–554), is intended to enhance the 

quality and credibility of the Federal 

government’s scientific information, and 

applies to influential or highly 

influential scientific information 

disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. 

To satisfy our requirements under the 

OMB Bulletin, we obtained independent 

peer review of the status review report 

from 15 independent specialists in the 

academic and scientific community. All 

peer reviewer comments were addressed 

prior to dissemination of the final status 

review report and publication of this 

proposed rule. 

XXII. Classification 

A. National Environmental Policy Act 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in 

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing. Based 

on this limitation of criteria for a listing 

decision and the opinion in Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 

829 (6th Cir. 1981), NOAA has 

concluded that ESA listing actions are 

not subject to the environmental 

assessment requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (See NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6). Similarly, 

USFWS has determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 

need not be prepared in connection 

with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) 

of the ESA. USFWS published a notice 

outlining its reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

B. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analysis 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act are not applicable to the 

listing process. In addition, this 

proposed rule is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. This 

proposed rule does not contain a 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132, we 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not have significant Federalism effects 

and that a Federalism assessment is not 

required. In keeping with the intent of 

the Administration and Congress to 

provide continuing and meaningful 

dialogue on issues of mutual state and 

Federal interest, this proposed rule will 

be given to the relevant state agencies in 

each state in which the species is 

believed to occur, and those states will 

be invited to comment on this proposal. 

We have considered, among other 

things, Federal, State, and local 

conservation measures. As we proceed, 

we intend to continue engaging in 

informal and formal contacts with the 

State, and other affected local or 

regional entities, giving careful 

consideration to all written and oral 

comments received. 

List of Subjects 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened wildlife 

and plants. 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Transportation. 

Dated: March 11, 2015. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

Dated: February 25, 2015. 

Stephen Guertin, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR parts 17, 223, and 224 

are proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11(h) revise the entry for 

‘‘Sea turtle, green’’, which is in 

alphabetical order under REPTILES, to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) The ‘‘List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife’’ is provided below: 

Species 

Historic range Vertebrate population where 

endangered or threatened Status When listed Critical habitat Special rules 

Common name Scientific name 

*******

REPTILES

* * * * * * * 

Sea turtle, green 

(Central North 

Pacific DPS).

Chelonia mydas Central North Pacific Ocean.Green sea turtles originating 

from the Central North 

Pacific Ocean, bounded 

by the following coordinates: 41° N., 169° E. in 

the northwest; 41° N., 

143° W. in the northeast; 

9° N., 125° W. in the 

southeast; and 9° N., 

175° W. in the southwest.

T [INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 17.42(b), 223.205, 

223.206, 223.207 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15334 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Species 

Historic range Vertebrate population where 

endangered or threatened Status When listed Critical habitat Special rules 

Common name Scientific name 

Sea turtle, green 

(Central South 

Pacific DPS).

Chelonia mydas Central South Pacific Ocean.Green sea turtles originating 

from the Central South 

Pacific Ocean, bounded 

by the following coordinates: 9° N., 175° W. in 

the northwest; 9° N., 125° 

W. in the northeast; 40° 

S., 96° W. in the southeast; 40° S., 176° E. in 

the southwest; and 13° 

S., 171° E. in the west.

E [INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 224.104 

Sea turtle, green 

(Central West 

Pacific DPS).

Chelonia mydas Central West Pacific Ocean.Green sea turtles originating 

from the Central West Pacific Ocean, bounded by 

the following coordinates: 

41° N., 146° E. in the 

northwest; 41° N., 169° E. 

in the northeast; 9° N., 

175° W. in the east; 13° 

S., 171° E. in the southeast; along the northern 

coast of the island of New 

Guinea; and 4.5° N., 129° 

E. in the west.

E [INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 224.104 

Sea turtle, green 

(East Indian-West 

Pacific DPS).

Chelonia mydas Eastern Indian and 

Western Pacific 

Oceans.

Green sea turtles originating 

from the Eastern Indian 

and Western Pacific 

Oceans, bounded by the 

following lines and coordinates: 41° N. Lat. in the 

north, 41° N., 146° E. in 

the northeast; 4.5° N., 

129° E. in the southeast; 

along the southern coast 

of the island of New Guinea; along the western 

coast of Australia (west of 

142° E. Long.); 40° S. 

Lat. in the south; and 84° 

E. Long. in the east.

T [INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 17.42(b), 223.205, 

223.206, 223.207 

Sea turtle, green 

(East Pacific 

DPS).

Chelonia mydas East Pacific Ocean Green sea turtles originating 

from the East Pacific 

Ocean, bounded by the 

following lines and coordinates: 41° N., 143° W. in 

the northwest; 41° N. Lat. 

in the north; along the 

western coasts of the 

Americas; 40° S. Lat. in 

the south; and 40° S., 96° 

W. in the southwest.

T [INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 17.42(b), 223.205, 

223.206, 223.207 

Sea turtle, green 

(Mediterranean 

DPS).

Chelonia mydas Mediterranean Sea Green sea turtles originating 

from the Mediterranean 

Sea, bounded by 5.5° W. 

Long. in the west.

E [INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 224.104 

Sea turtle, green 

(North Atlantic 

DPS).

Chelonia mydas North Atlantic 

Ocean 

Green sea turtles originating 

from the North Atlantic 

Ocean, bounded by the 

following lines and coordinates: 48° N. Lat. in the 

north, along the western 

coasts of Europe and Africa (west of 5.5° W. 

Long.); north of 19° N. 

Lat. in the east; 19° N., 

63.5° W. in the south; 

10.5° N., 77° W. in the 

west; and along the eastern coasts of the Americas (north of 7.5° N., 77° 

W.).

T [INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

226.208 17.42(b), 223.205, 

223.206, 223.207 

Sea turtle, green 

(North Indian 

DPS).

Chelonia mydas North Indian 

Ocean 

Green sea turtles originating 

from the North Indian 

Ocean, bounded by: Africa and Asia in the west 

and north; 84° E. Long. in 

the east; and the equator 

in the south.

T [INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 17.42(b), 223.205, 

223.206, 223.207 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15335 

Species 

Historic range Vertebrate population where 

endangered or threatened Status When listed Critical habitat Special rules 

Common name Scientific name 

Sea turtle, green 

(South Atlantic 

DPS).

Chelonia mydas South Atlantic 

Ocean 

Green sea turtles originating 

from the South Atlantic 

Ocean, bounded by the 

following lines and coordinates: along the northern 

and eastern coasts of 

South America (east of 

7.5° N., 77° W.); 10.5° N., 

77° W. in the west; 19° 

N., 63.5° W. in the northwest; 19° N. Lat. in the 

northeast; 40° S., 19° E. 

in the southeast; and 40° 

S. Lat. in the south.

T [INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 17.42(b), 223.205, 

223.206, 223.207 

Sea turtle, green 

(Southwest Indian DPS).

Chelonia mydas Southwest Indian 

Ocean 

Green sea turtles originating 

from the Southwest Indian 

Ocean, bounded by the 

following lines: the equator to the north; 84° E. 

Long. to the east; 40° S. 

Lat. to the south; and 19° 

E. Long (and along the 

eastern coast of Africa) in 

the west.

T [INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 17.42(b), 223.205, 

223.206, 223.207 

Sea turtle, green 

(Southwest Pacific DPS).

Chelonia mydas Southwestern Pacific Ocean Green sea turtles originating 

from the Southwestern 

Pacific Ocean, bounded 

by the following lines and 

coordinates: along the 

southern coast of the island of New Guinea and 

the Torres Strait (east of 

142° E Long.); 13° S., 

171° E. in the northeast; 

40° S., 176° E. in the 

southeast; and 40° S., 

142° E. in the southwest.

T [INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 17.42(b), 223.205, 

223.206, 223.207 

*******

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart B, 

§ 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 

§ 223.206(d)(9). 

■ 4. Amend the table in § 223.102(e) by 

revising the entry ‘‘Sea turtle, green’’ 

under Sea Turtles to read as follows: 

§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

(e) The threatened species under the 

jurisdiction of the Secretary of 

Commerce are: 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat ESA Rules 

Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity 

*******

SEA TURTLES 2

Sea turtle, green 

(Central North Pacific DPS).

Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the 

Central North Pacific Ocean, bounded by the following coordinates: 41° 

N., 169° E. in the northwest; 41° N., 

143° W. in the northeast; 9° N., 125° 

W. in the southeast; and 9° N., 175° 

W in the southwest.

[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 17.42(b), 223.205, 

223.206, 

223.207. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

15336 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat ESA Rules 

Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity 

Sea turtle, green 

(East Indian-West 

Pacific DPS).

Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the 

Eastern Indian and Western Pacific 

Oceans, bounded by the following 

lines and coordinates: 41° N. Lat. in 

the north, 41° N., 146° E. in the 

northeast; 4.5° N., 129° E. in the 

southeast; along the southern coast 

of the island of New Guinea; along 

the western coast of Australia (west 

of 142° E. Long.); 40° S. Lat. in the 

south; and 84° E. Long. in the east.

[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 17.42(b), 223.205, 

223.206, 

223.207. 

Sea turtle, green 

(East Pacific DPS).

Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the 

East Pacific Ocean, bounded by the 

following lines and coordinates: 41° 

N., 143° W. in the northwest; 41° N. 

Lat. in the north; along the western 

coasts of the Americas; 40° S. Lat. in 

the south; and 40° S., 96° W. in the 

southwest.

[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 17.42(b), 223.205, 

223.206, 

223.207. 

Sea turtle, green 

(North Atlantic 

DPS).

Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the 

North Atlantic Ocean, bounded by the 

following lines and coordinates: 48° 

N. Lat. in the north, along the western coasts of Europe and Africa (west 

of 5.5° W. Long.); north of 19° N. Lat. 

in the east; 19° N., 63.5° W. in the 

south; 10.5° N., 77° W. in the west; 

and along the eastern coasts of the 

Americas (north of 7.5° N., 77° W.).

[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

226.08 17.42(b), 2223.205, 

223.206, 

223.207. 

Sea turtle, green 

(North Indian 

DPS).

Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the 

North Indian Ocean, bounded by: Africa and Asia in the west and north; 

84° E. Long. in the east; and the 

equator in the south.

[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 17.42(b), 223.205, 

223.206, 

223.207. 

Sea turtle, green 

(South Atlantic 

DPS).

Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the 

South Atlantic Ocean, bounded by 

the following lines and coordinates: 

along the northern and eastern 

coasts of South America (east of 7.5° 

N., 77° W.); 10.5° N., 77° W. in the 

west; 19° N., 63.5° W. in the northwest; 19° N. Lat. in the northeast; 40° 

S., 19° E. in the southeast; and 40° 

S. Lat. in the south.

[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 17.42(b), 223.205, 

223.206, 

223.207. 

Sea turtle, green 

(Southwest Indian 

DPS).

Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the 

Southwest Indian Ocean, bounded by 

the following lines: the equator to the 

north; 84° E. Long. to the east; 40° S. 

Lat. to the south; and 19° E. Long 

(and along the eastern coast of Africa) in the west.

[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 17.42(b), 223.205, 

223.206, 

223.207. 

Sea turtle, green 

(Southwest Pacific 

DPS).

Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the 

Southwestern Pacific Ocean, bounded by the following lines and coordinates: along the southern coast of 

the island of New Guinea and the 

Torres Strait (east of 142° E Long.); 

13° S., 171° E. in the northeast; 40° 

S., 176° E. in the southeast; and 40° 

S., 142° E. in the southwest.

[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE].

NA 17.42(b), 223.205, 

223.206, 

223.207. 

*******

1Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 2Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, is limited to turtles while in the water. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15337 

PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 224 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq. 

■ 6. Amend § 224.101(h) by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Sea turtle, green’’ under Sea 

Turtles to read as follows: 

§ 224.101 Enumeration of endangered 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

(h) The endangered species under the 

jurisdiction of the Secretary of 

Commerce are: 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat ESA rules 

Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity 

*******

SEA TURTLES 2

Sea turtle, green (Central South Pacific 

DPS).

Chelonia mydas ......... Green sea turtles originating from the Central South Pacific Ocean, bounded by the 

following coordinates: 9° N., 175° W. in 

the northwest; 9° N., 125° W. in the northeast; 40° S., 96° W. in the southeast; 40° 

S., 176° E. in the southwest; and 13° S., 

171° E. in the west.

[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 

FINAL RULE].

NA 224.104 

Sea turtle, green (Central West Pacific 

DPS).

Chelonia mydas ......... Green sea turtles originating from the Central West Pacific Ocean, bounded by the 

following coordinates: 41° N., 146° E. in 

the northwest; 41° N., 169° E. in the northeast; 9° N., 175° W. in the east; 13° S., 

171° E. in the southeast; along the northern coast of the island of New Guinea; 

and 4.5° N., 129° E. in the west.

[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 

FINAL RULE].

NA 224.104 

Sea turtle, green (Mediterranean DPS).Chelonia mydas ......... Green sea turtles originating from the Mediterranean Sea, bounded by 5.5° W. Long. 

in the west.

[INSERT FR CITATION WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 

FINAL RULE].

NA 224.104 

*******

1Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 2 Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, is limited to turtles while in the water. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06136 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2