Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of

LOGGERHEAD TURTLE Caretta caretta

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service

U.S. DEJ’ARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

RECOVERY PLAN FOR U.S. POPULATION OF LOGGERHEAD TURTLE

(Careua caretta)

Preparedby

The Loggerhead/GreenTurtle RecoveryTeam

for

SoutheastRegion

U.S. Fish andWildlife Service

Atlanta, Georgia

and

National MarineFisheriesService

Washington,D.C.

June1993

gional Fish

October 31, 1991

Approved:

Date:

Approved:FisheriesService

Date: December 26, 1991

Recoveryplansdelineatereasonableactionswhich are believedto be requiredto recoverand/orprotect the species. Plans arepreparedby the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceand NationalMarine FisheriesService,and sometimeswith the assistanceof recovery teams,contractors,Stateagencies,andothers. Objectiveswill only be attainedandfundsexpendedcontingentuponappropriations,priorities, and otherbudgetaryconstraints. Recoveryplansdo not necessarilyrepresenttheviews nor the official positionsor approvalsof any individualsoragencies,otherthan theU.S. Fishand Wildlife ServiceandNational MarineFisheriesServiceinvolved in theplanformulation. Theyrepresenttheofficial positionoftheU.S. FishandWildlife ServiceandNationalMarineFisheriesServiceonly aftertheyhavebeensignedby theRegionalDirectorandAssistantAdministrator for Fisheries,as approved. Approved recoveryplansare subjecttomodification as dictatedby new findings, changesin speciesstatus, and the completion ofrecoverytasks.

Literaturecitationsshould read asfollows:

National Marine FisheriesServiceand U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. 1991. RecoveryPlanfor U.S. Populationof LoggerheadTurtle. NationalMarineFisheriesService,Washington,D.C.

Additional copiesof this plan may be purchasedfrom:

U.S. Fish andWildlife ReferenceService5430 GrosvenorLaneSuite 110Bethesda,Maryland 20814(301)492-6403or1-800-582-3421

Thefee for the plan variesdependingon the numberof pagesof theplan.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. INTRODUCTIONTaxonomyDescriptionPopulationDistribution andSizeStatusBiological CharacteristicsThreats- NestingEnvironment ...

Threats- Marine Environment ....

1

U

111

.1

.1

ConservationAccomplishments- NestingEnvironmentConservationAccomplishments- Marine Environment

101417

fi. RECOVERY

A. Objectives 21

B. StepdownOutline andNarrativefor Recovery 21

C. LiteratureCited 44

m. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 55

PREFACE

Theoriginal RecoveryPlanfor MarineTurtleswasapprovedby theAssistantAdministratorfor Fisheries,National Marine FisheriesService, September19, 1984. The plan included the loggerhead(Carettacareua),greenturtle (Chelonia mydas),hawksbill (Eretmochelysimbricata), leatherback(Dermochelyscoriacea),and Kemp’sridley (Lepidochelyskempi).

The U.S. Fishand Wildlife Serviceand National MarineFisheriesServicesharethe responsibilityforseaturtle recoveryundertheauthorityof theEndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973, asamended. In aneffortto bettercoordinatea recoveryprogramfor seaturtles, both Servicesrecognizedtheneedto reassesspresentconservationefforts and considerthe newbiological informationavailablesinceapprovalof theoriginal recoveryplan. To accomplishthis, theServicescreateda Loggerhead/GreenTurtle RecoveryTeam, LeatherbackfHawksbillRecoveryTeamand a Kemp’s Ridley RecoveryTeam. The RecoveryTeamshavedevelopedseparatespeciesplansto providegreaterfocus and emphasizetheuniquenessofindividual species. This revision was undertakenby the Loggerhead/GreenTurtle RecoveryTeamconsistingof thefollowing teammembers:

Dr. Llewellyn M. Ehrhart,TeamLeaderUniversityof Central Florida

Dr. KarenA. BjorndalArchie Carr Centerfor SeaTurtle Research,Universityof Florida

Dr. Terry A. HenwoodNationalMarineFisheriesService

Ms. BarbaraA. SchroederFloridaDepartmentof NaturalResources

Ms. Sally R. MurphySouthCarolinaDepartmentof Wildlife andMarine Resources

Mr. Earl E. PossardtU.S. FishandWildlife Service

This revisedplan incorporatesthe newformatthathasbecomestandardin recoveryplans in recentyears.It is intendedto serveasa guidethat delineatesandschedulesthoseactionsbelievednecessaryto restorethe Atlantic greenturtleas a viable self-sustainingelementof its ecosystem. it is recognizedthat someof the tasksdescribedin the plan arewell underway. The inclusionof theseongoingtasksrepresentsanawarenessof their importance,and offers supportfor their continuation.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AlabamaDepartmentof NaturalResourcesConventionon InternationalTradein EndangeredSpeciesof Flora and FaunaCapeCanaveralAir ForceStationU.S. Army Corpsof EngineersCanaveralPort AuthorityOffice of CoastalZoneManagementDepartmentof DefenseU.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyFloridaIY~partmentof NaturalResourcesFloridaPowerand Light CompanyU.S. Fish andWildlife ServiceGeorgiaDepartmentof NaturalResourcesInternationalUnion for theConservationof NatureKennedySpaceCenterLouisianaDepartmentof Wildlife and FisheriesInternationalConventionfor the Preventionof Pollution from ShipsMississippiDepartmentof Wildlife, FisheriesandParksMinerals ManagementServiceNorth CarolinaDepartmentof Environment,Health, and NaturalResourcesNational Marine FisheriesServiceNational ParkServiceSouth CarolinaCoastalCouncilSouth CarolinaWildlife and Marine ResourcesTexasParksandWildlife DepartmentUnited StatesAir ForceUnited StatesCoastGuardUnited StatesMarine CorpsUnited StatesNavyVirginia MarineResourcesCommission

Department

ADNRCITESCCAFSCOECPACZMDODEPAFDNRFPLEWSGDNRIUCNKSCLDWFMARPOLMDWMMSNCDNRNMFSNPSSCCCSCWMRDTPWUSAFUSCGUSMCUSNVMRC

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Currentstatus: The loggerheadis federally listed as threatenedworldwide. Nesting in theUnited Statesoccursprimarily alongNorth Carolina(1.0percent),SouthCarolina(6.5percent),Georgia(1.5 percent),andFlorida (91 percent)beachesand accountsfor approximatelyone-third of the world population. Nesting trends are declining in Georgiaand South Carolina,unknownin North Carolinaandappearstablein florida. Coastaldevelopmentthreatensnestinghabitatandpopulationswhile commercialfisheriesandpollution posesignificantthreatsin themarineenvironment.

Goal: Therecoverygoal is to delist the speciesin theUnited Statesoncerecoverycriteria aremet.

Recoverycriteria: The southeasternUnited Statespopulationof the loggerheadcan beconsideredfor delisting if, over a periodof 25 years, thefollowing conditionsaremet:

1. Theadult femalepopulationin Florida is increasingand in North Carolina,South Carolinaand Georgia,it has returnedto pre-listir.~ nestinglevels (NC = 800 nests/season;SC =

10,000nests/season;GA - 2,000 nests/season).

2. At least 25 percent (560 kin) of all available nestingbeaches(2240 kin) is in publicownership, is distributed over the entire nesting rangeand encompassesgreaterthan 50percentof the nestingactivity.

3. All priority one tasks havebeensuccessfullyimplemented.

Actions needed: Six major actionsare neededto achieverecovery.

I. Provide long-termprotection to importantnestingbeaches.2. Ensureat least 60 percenthatchsuccesson majornestingbeaches.3. Implementeffectivelighting ordinancesor lighting planson all major nestingbeaches

within eachState.4. Determinedistribution and seasonalmovementsfor all life stagesin marineenvironment.5. Minimize mortality from commercialfisheries.6. Reducethreat from marinepollution.

Dateof recovery: If fundsare availableto accomplishrecoverytasksandnewinformationdoesnot indicateother limiting factors, theanticipateddateof recoveryis 2015.

Total cost of recovery: *

Land acquisition: $90,000,000Actions on nestingbeaches $12,200,000Actions in marineenvironment $49,500,000

$145,700,000of thesecostsare sharedwith actionsidentifiedin theGreenTurtle RecoveryPlan.

iii

PART I. INTRODUCTION

Taxonomy: The loggerheadwas describedby Linnaeus(1758) and namedTesrudocarerta.Overthenext two centuriesmorethan 35 names were applied to the species (Dodd, 1988), butthereis now generalagreementon Carerra carerta as the valid name. While Deraniyagaladescribedan Indo-Pacific form as C. gigas in 1933, he revisedthat view in 1939 to hold thatgigas was only a subspeciesof C. caretra and the genushas generally been regardedasmonotypic sincethat time. The subspecificdesignationof gigashaslikewisebeenchallengedpersuasively(Brongersma,1961; Pritchard,1979; amongothers). Dodd (1988)has declaredflatly that “the diagnosticcharactersusedto distinguishC. c. gigas from C. c. carettaarenotvalid.” Thoroughsynonymiesand taxonomicreviewsof this form are given most recentlybyPritchard and Trebbau (1984) and Dodd (1988).

Description: Thecarapaceof adult andsubadultloggerheadsis reddish-brown.Thedorsalandlateralheadscalesandthedorsal scalesof theextremitiesarealsoreddish-brown,but with lightyellow marginsthatvaryenoughin extentto provideconsiderabledisparity in appearanceamongindividuals. The unscaledareaof the integument(neck, shoulders,limb bases)aredull brownaboveand mediumyellow laterally and ventrally. Theplastron is also mediumyellow. Thethick, bony carapace is covered by non-imbricated horny scutes. There are 5 pairs of costals(pleurals), 11 or 12 pairs of marginals, 5 vertebralsand a nuchal(precentral)that is in contactwith the first costal. Ventrally there are usually threepairs of porelessinframarginals,pairedgulars, humerals,pectorals,abdominals,femorals and anals. An interanalis variable andinconstant. Mean straight carapace length (sCL) of adult southeastern United States loggerheadsis about 92 cm; corresponding mean body mass is about 113 kg. Elsewhere adult loggerheadsare somewhat smaller, on average, the most notable being those in Colombia (Kaufmann, 1975),Greece (Margaritoulis, 1982) and Tongaland (Hughes, 1975). Loggerheads rarely exceed 122cm sCL and 227 kg mass in the modern day.

Hatchlings lack the reddish tinge and vary from light to dark brown dorsally. Both pairsof appendages are dark brown above and have distinct white margins. The plastron and otherventral surfaces may be described as dull yellowish tan and there is usually some brownpigmentationin thephalangealportion of the web ventrally. At hatching meanbody mass isabout20 g and meansCL is about45 mm. Hatchlingshavethreedorsalkeelsandtwo plastralones.

PopulationDistributionandSize: Thegeographicdistributionof Carerra careria includesthetemperateand tropicalwatersof both hemispheres.Thespeciesinhabitsthecontinentalshelvesand estuarmneenvironmentsalongthemarginsof theAtlantic, Pacific andIndianOceans. In theWesternHemisphereit rangesas far north asNewfoundland(Squires,1954)andas far southasArgentina(Frazier,1984)andChile (FrazierandSalas,1982). Thenestingrangeis confinedto lower latitudes, but loggerhead nesting is clearly concentratedin the north and southtemperate zones and subtropics. Pritchard(1979) usedthe term “antitropical” to describe theaversion exhibited by loggerheads to beaches in Central America, northern South America andthroughout the Old World Tropics. Notable exceptions to this rule would include the largestknown nesting aggregation, on M~sirah and the Kuria Muria Islands of Oman (Ross andBarwani, 1982) andperhaps,the recently reportednestingassemblageon theCaribbeancoast

of QuintanaRoo (R. Gil, pers.comm.). Worldwide, about 88 percentof loggerheadnestingoccurs in the southeastern United States, Oman, and Australia. In the western Atlantic the greatbulk of the nestingoccurs along the southeasternUnited Statescoast, with approximately80percent occurring in Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach and BrowardCountiesin Florida. Therearealso significantnestingassemblagesin Georgia,South Carolina,North Carolinaand along theGulf Coastof southwestFlorida.

It is not possible,atpresent,to estimatethesizeof theloggerheadpopulationin United Statesterritorial watersif oneincludessubadults.Thereis, however,generalagreementwith Meylan(1982) that enumerationof nesting females providesa useful index to population size andstability. The estimateof 14,150femalesnestingper year in the southeasternUnited Statesgiven by Murphy andHopkins(1984)and basedon aerialsurveydatafrom 1983, wasacceptedby Mager (1985)andmorerecentlyby Ehrhart(1989)asthecurrentbestapproximation.GivenMurphyandHopkins’ (1984)stochasticallyderivedmeannumberof nestsper female(4.1), thisfigure providesan estimateof approximately58,000nestsdepositedper yearin the Southeast.Basedon more extensiveground and aerial surveysthroughoutthe Southeastin recentyears(1987 to 1990), it is estimatedthat approximately50,000-70,000nestsare depositedannually(FDNR, unpubl. data;GDNR,unpubl. data;SCWMRD, unpubl.data; NCDNR, unpubl.data).Thesetotalsconstituteabout35 to 40 percentof the loggerheadnestingknown worldwideandclearly rank thesoutheasternUnited Statesaggregationasthe secondlargestin theworld, withthe somewhat larger Oman assemblagebeing the only other truly large group remaininganywhere(Ross, 1982).

Status: The loggerheadwas listed on July 28, 1978, as a threatenedspeciesunder theEndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973. Internationallyit is considered“Vulnerable” by the IUCN(Groombridge,1982) and is listed in Appendix I of the Conventionon InternationalTradeinEndangeredSpeciesof Flora and Fauna (CITES). In a recent review, Ehrhart (1989),consideredconsequencesof life tablesandpopulationmodels(RichardsonandRichardson,1982;Frazer, 1983; Crouseetal., 1987),mortality ratesin theSoutheast;populationdeclinesin SouthCarolina and Georgia; and Murphy and Hopkins’ (1984) estimateof annual mean clutchproductionper female. Ehrhartconcludedthat the stockof loggerheadsrepresentedby femalesthat nest in theSoutheastis continuing to decline.

Biological Characteristics:Therecentliteraturedealingwith loggerheadbiology is extensiveand only a brief treatmentis warrantedhere. However, a numberof thoroughsynopsesofloggerheadbiology arecurrentlyavailable. The mostrecentandextensiveis thework of Dodd(1988) but those of Pritchard and Trebbau(1984) and Groombridge(1982) are also verycomprehensiveand useful.

Habitat: As a generality,adult femaleloggerheadsselect high energybeacheson barrierstrandsadjacentto continental land massesfor nesting. There is someevidencethat steeplyslopedbeacheswith graduallyslopedoffshoreapproachesare favored(ProvanchaandEhrhart,1987). After leaving the beach,hatchlingsapparentlyswim directly offshore and eventuallybecomeassociatedwith Sargassumand/ordebris in pelagicdrift linesthat result from current

2

convergences(Carr, 1986a; 1986b; 1987). Theevidencesuggeststhat whenpost-hatchlingsbecomea partof the Sargassumraft community they remain thereasjuveniles, riding currentgyresfor severalyearsandgrowingto 40 to 50 cm sCL. At that pointthey abandonthepelagichabitat, migrate to the near-shore and estuarmne waters along continental margins and utilizethoseareasasthedevelopmentalhabitatfor thesubadultstage. In mostnearshorewatersin theSoutheast,adultsand subadultsappearto usethesamehabitat. In someof the inshorewaterssuchas the Indian River Lagoonof eastFlorida the subadultsare virtually isolated from theadults, whose foraging areas outside of the nesting season are apparently in the Bahamas, theAntilles or theGulf of Mexico. Habitatselectionis not well understoodbut it seemsclearthatadultscanutilize a varietyof habitats. Remoterecoveriesof femalestaggedin Florida indicatethat many migrateto theGulfof Mexico, often to theturbid,detritus-laden,muddy-bottombaysand bayous of the northern Gulf Coast. Still others apparently occupy the clear waters of theBahamasand Antilles, with sandybottoms,reefs and shoalsthat constitutea totally differenttypeof habitat. Nothing is known of therelativeperiodsof time that loggerheadsmay spendin these disparate habitats or of their propensity to move from one to another.

Diet: While thelist of food items eatenby loggerheadsis lengthyandincludesinvertebratesfrom eight phyla (Dodd, 1988), it is clear that subadultand adult loggerheadsare, first andforemost, predatorsof benthic invertebratessuch as gastropodand pelecypodmolluscsanddecapod crustaceans. Coelenterates and cephalopod molluscs are also taken by larger turtles buttheseinvertebratesare especiallyfavored by loggerheadsin the pelagic stage. Most of theevidencefor the latter statementcomes from the island groupsof the easternAtlantic (vanNierop and den Hartog, 1984). Post-hatchlingloggerheadsevidently ingest macroplanktonassociatedwith “weed lines.” In one of the few studiesof post-hatchlingfood habits in thesoutheasternUnited States,Carr and Meylan (1980) found two speciesof small gastropodscharacteristicof the Sargassumraft communityas well as fragmentsof crustaceansand theSargassumplant itself. Although Brongersma(1972)listed Syngnathidfishesamongloggerheadfood items, this speciesis notafish eaterin anyprimary sense. Loggerheadsmay scavengefishor fish partsor ingestfish incidentallyin somecircumstances.

Growth: While a numberof workers have reportedgrowth ratesof post-hatchlingandjuvenile loggerheads in captivity (e.g., Witham and Futch, 1977), such information is totallylacking for thesestagesin the wild. In captivity youngloggerheadscan grow to about63 cmCL and 37 kg in mass in 4.5 years (Parker, 1926). In wild subadults,Limpus (1979) hasreportedlinear growth ratesof 1.5 cm/yr in Australia and Mendonca(1981) has reportedaveragelinear growth ratesof 5.9 cm/yr in Florida. It seemsclear now that growth ratesofsubadultsdecreasewith increasingcarapacelength (i.e. growth is not linear). Although theylacked datafor loggerheadssmaller than 53 cm sCL, Frazerand Ehrhart(1985) fitted growthdata for Florida subadultsto both logistic and van Bertalanffy curvesand estimatedage atmaturityas 12 to 30 years.

Reproduction: It hasbeenassumedfor sometime that, malesmigratewith femalesfromdistant foragingareasto thewatersoff nestingbeachesandthat courtshipand mating take placethere. The few reportsconcerningthe seasonalityof mating clearly place it in the late March-

3

early Juneperiod (Caldwell, 1959; Caldwell et al., 1959a;Fritts et al., 1983). While a fewadult malesmay remainoff theFlorida coastthroughout the year (Henwood, 1987), most ofthemapparentlydepartby aboutmid-June,leavingthefemalesto ascendthenestingbeachesanddepositclutchesthroughoutthesummer. Nevertheless,courtshipandmatingarenot well studiedin loggerheads(or other seaturtles), and thereis no doubt that this and virtually everyotheraspectof thebiology of maleloggerheadneedsfurther researchandclarification.

In the southeasternUnited Statesadult femalesbegin to nestas early as late April (someyears)and they continueto do sountil early September.Nestingactivity is greatest,however,in JuneandJuly. In Georgia, SouthCarolinaand North Carolinatheseasongenerallybeginsin mid-May andendsby mid-August. Loggerheadsareknown to nestfrom oneto seventimeswithin a nestingseason(Talbert et al., 1980;Richardsonand Richardson,1982;Lenarzaal.,1981; among others); the mean is approximately 4.1 (Murphy and Hopkins, 1984). Theinternestingintervalvariesarounda meanof about14 days. Thereis generalagreementwithCaidwell a al. (1959b)that femalesmateprior to the nestingseason(and possibly only once)and then lay multiple clutchesof fertile eggsthroughoutsomeportion of the nestingseason.Mean clutch size variesfrom about 100 to 126 along thesoutheasternUnited Statescoast.

Loggerheadsare nocturnal nesters,but exceptionsto therule do occur infrequently(Frittsand Hoffman, 1982; Witherington, 1986; amongothers). Although a definitive ethogramofloggerheadnestingbehaviorhasyet to be published,gooddescriptiveaccountshavebeengivenby Can(1952);Litwin (1978)and Caldwell a al., (1959a). Multi-annualremigrationintervalsof two andthreeyearsare most commonin loggerheads,but thenumbercan vary from onetosix years(Richardsona al., 1978;Bjorndal a al., 1983). Naturalincubationperiodsfor UnitedStatesloggerheadsaveragefrom 53-55daysin Florida(DavisandWhiting, 1977;Witheringion,1986) to 63 and 68 daysin Georgia(Kraemer, 1979) and North Carolina (Crouse, 1985),respectively. The length of the incubationperiod is inversely related to nest temperature(McGehee, 1979). Sex determination in loggerheadhatchlings is temperaturedependent(Yntema, 1982; Yntema and Mrosovsky, 1980) and the species apparently lacks sexchromosomes(StandoraandSpotila, 1985). Naturalhatchingsuccessratesof 73.4 percentand55.7 percenthavebeenreportedin SouthCarolina(Caldwell, 1959)and Florida(Witherington,1986),respectively.

U

Movements: Loggerheadhatchlingsengagein a swimmingfrenzy” for about20 hoursafterthey enterthe seaand that frenzy takesthem about 22 to 28 kilometersoffshore(SalmonandWyneken,1987). At somepoint thereaftertheybecomeassociatedwith Sargasswnraftsandlordebrisatcurrentgyres(Can,1986b).Uponreachingabout45 cm sCL, theyabandonthepelagicexistenceandmigrate to near-shoreandestuarinewatersof theeasternUnited States,theGulfof Mexico and the Bahamasand begin the subadultstage. Little is known of their seasonalmovementsthere, but Henwood (1987) has reporteda tendency for subadultsof the PortCanaveral(Florida)aggregationto dispersemorewidely in thespringand earlysummer. Also,ChesapeakeBay subadultsare known to exhibit a variety of movementsbetweenwatersofdiffering temperaturesand salinities(Killingly and Lutcavage,1983). As adults, loggerheadsbecomemigratory for thepurposeof breeding. Recoveriesof femalestaggedwhile nestingon

4

theflorida eastcoastsuggestwidely dispersedforagingareasin theGulfof Mexico, Cubaandelsewherein the GreaterAntilles, and the Bahamas(Meylan et al., 1983). While conclusiveevidenceis lacking asyet, it is assumedthat thesefemalesremigratehundredsor thousandsofkilometersat multi-annualintervals (seeabove)to neston thegood,high energynestingbeachesof eastFlorida. Bell and Richardson(1978)reported tag recoveriessuggestinga migratorypath” from Georgiato CapeHatteras,North Carolinaanda singlerecoveryof a Georgiataggedfemaleon theFlorida Gulf Coast(TampaBay). Little elseis known of the scheduledtravelsof Georgia,SouthCarolina,and North Carolinanestersoutsideof thenesting season.

Threats - NestingEnvironment

BeachErosion: Erosionof nestingbeachescan result in partial or total lossof suitablenestinghabitat. Erosion ratesare influencedby dynamiccoastalprocesses,including sea level rise.Man’s interferencewith thesenaturalprocessesthrough coastaldevelopmentand associatedactivitieshasresultedin acceleratederosionratesandinterruptionofnaturalshorelinemigration.

BeachArmoring: Wherebeachfrontdevelopmentoccurs, the site is often fortified to protecttheproperty from erosion. Virtually all shorelineengineeringis carried out to savestructures,not dry sandybeaches,and ultimately resultsin environmentaldamage.Onetype of shorelineengineering,collectively referred to asbeacharmoring, includesseawalls, rock revetments,nprap,sandbaginstallations,groins andjetties. Beach armoringcan resultin permanentlossof a dry nesting beach through acceleratederosion and prevention of natural beach/duneaccretionand can preventor hampernesting females from accessingsuitablenesting sites.Clutchesdepositedseawardof thesestructuresmay be inundatedat high tide or washedoutentirelyby increasedwaveaction nearthebaseof thesestructures. As thesestructuresfail andbreakapartthey spreaddebrison thebeachwhich may further impedeaccessto suitablenestingsites (resulting in higher incidencesof false crawls) and trap hatchlingsand nesting turtles.Sandbagsareparticularlysusceptibleto rapid failure and result in extensivedebrison nestingbeaches. Rock revetments,riprap and sandbagscan causenestingturtlesto abandonnestingattemptsor to constructimproperly sized and shapedegg cavitieswheninadequateamountsofsandcover thesestructures. Approximately 21 percent (234 kin) of Florida’s, 10 percent(18 1cm) of Georgia’sand 10 percent(30 kin) of SouthCarolina’sbeachesarearmored(FDNR,unpubl. data; S. Murphy, pers.comm.; J. Richardson,pers.comm.).

Groinsandjettiesaredesignedto trap sandduringtransportin longshorecurrentsor to keepsandfrom flowing into channelsin the caseof thelatter. Thesestructurespreventnormalsandtransportand accretebeacheson one sideof the structurewhile starvingneighboringbeacheson the other side thereby resulting in severe beach erosion (Pilkey et a!., 1984) andcorrespondingdegradationof suitablenestinghabitat.

Drift fences,alsocommonlycalled sandfences,areerectedto build and stabilizedunesbytrapping sandmovingalong thebeachand preventingexcessivesandloss. Additionally, thesefencescan serveto protectdunesystemsby deterringpublic access. Constructedof narrowly

5

spacedwooden or plastic slats or plastic fabric, improperly placeddrift fencescan impedenestingattemptsand/ortrap emergenthatchlingsand nesting females.

BeachNourishment: Beachnourishmentconsistsof pumping,truckingor scrapingsandontothe beachto rebuild what has been lost to erosion. Beachnourishmentcan impact turtlesthrough direct burial of nests and by disturbanceto nesting turtles if conductedduring thenestingseason.Sandsourcesmaybe dissimilar from nativebeachsedimentsandcanaffectnestsite selection,digging behavior,incubationtemperature(and hencesex ratios), gas exchangeparameterswithin incubating nests, hydric environmentof the nest, hatching successandhatchling emergence success (Mann, 1977; Ackerman, 1980; Mortimer, 1982; Raymond,1984a). Beach nourishment can result in severe compactionor concretion of the beach.Trucking of sandonto projectbeachesmay increasethelevel of compaction.

Significant reductionsin nesting successhave been documentedon severelycompactednourishedbeaches(Raymond,1984a). NelsonandDickerson(1988)evaluatedcompactionlevelsat ten renourishedeastcoastFloridabeachesand concludedthat50 percentwere hard enoughto inhibit nestdigging, 30 percentwerequestionableasto whethertheir hardnessaffectednestdigging and 20 percentwere probably not hard enoughto affect nestdigging. They furtherconcludedthat,in general,beachesnourishedfrom offshoreborrowsitesareharderthannaturalbeaches,and, while somemay soften over time through erosionand accretionof sand,othersmay remain hard for 10 yearsor more. Nourishedbeachesoften resultin severeescarpmentsalongthe mid-beachand can hamperor preventaccessto nestingsites. Nourishmentprojectsresult in heavy machinery,pipelines, increasedhuman activity and artificial lighting on theprojectbeach. Theseactivitiesarenormally conductedon a 24-hour basisand can adverselyaffect nesting and hatchingactivities. Pipelinesand heavy machinerycan createbarriers to

nesting femalesemergingfrom the surf and crawling up the beach,causinga higherincidenceof falsecrawls (non-nestingemergences).Increasedhumanactivity on theprojectbeachat nightmay causefurtherdisturbanceto nestingfemales. Artificial lights along theprojectbeachandin the nearshoreareaof the borrow site may deternesting femalesand disorientor misorientemergenthatchlingsfrom adjacentnon-projectbeaches.

Beach nourishmentprojects require continual maintenance(subsequentnourishment)asbeacheserodeandhencetheir negativeimpactsto turtlesarerepeatedon aregularbasis. Beachnourishmentprojectsconductedduring thenesting seasoncan result in the loss of somenestswhich may be inadvertently missed or misidentified as false crawls during daily patrolsconductedto identify and relocatenestsdepositedon theprojectbeach(Lund, 1973; R. Wolf,pers.comm.). Nourishmentof highly erodedbeaches(especiallythosewith a completeabsenceof dry beach)can be beneficial to nestingturtles if conductedproperly. Careful considerationandadvanceplanningandcoordinationmustbe carriedout to ensuretiming, methodologyandsandsourcesarecompatiblewith nestingand hatchingrequirements.

Artificial Lighting: Extensive researchhasdemonstratedthat theprincipal componentof thesea finding behaviorof emergenthatchlingsis a visual responseto light (Daniel and Smith,1947; Hendrickson, 1958; Carr and Ogren, 1960; Ehrenfeld and Carr, 1967; Dickersonand

6

Ne]son, 1989; Witherington andBjorndal, 1991). Artificial beachfrontlighting from buildings,streetlights,dunecrossovers,vehiclesandothertypesofbeachfront lightshavebeendocumentedin the disorientation(loss of bearings)and misorientation(incorrectorientation)of hatchlingturtles (McFarlane,1963; Philibosian,1976; Mann, 1977; Ehrhart, 1983).

The resultsof disorientationor misonentationareoften fatal. As hatchlingsheadtowardlights or meanderalong the beachtheir exposureto predatorsand likelihood of desiccationisgreatly increased. Misorientedhatchlingscan becomeentrappedin vegetationor debris, andmanyhatchlingsare found deadon nearbyroadwaysand in parking lots afterbeing struckbyvehicles. Hatchlingsthat successfullyfind thewatermay be misorientedafterenteringthe surfzoneorwhile in nearshorewaters. Intenseartificial lighting canevendrawhatchlingsbackoutof the surf (DanielandSmith, 1947;CanandOgren, 1960). During theperiod 1989 to 1990,37,159misorientedhatchlingswere reportedto the FloridaDepartmentof NaturalResources.Undoubtedlya largebutunquantifiablenumberofadditionalmisorientationeventsoccurredbutwere not documenteddue to obliterationof observablesign, depredation,entrapmentin thickvegetation,loss in storm drainsor obliterationof carcassesby vehicletires.

Theproblemof artificial beachfrontlighting is not restrictedto hatchlings. Raymond(1984a)indicated that adult loggerhead emergence patterns were correlated with variations in beachfrontlighting in south Brevard County, Florida, and that nesting females avoided areaswherebeachfrontlights were the most intense. Witherington (1986) notedthat loggerheadsabortednestingattemptsat a greaterfrequencyin lighted areas. Problemlights may not be restrictedto those placeddirectly on or in close proximity to nesting beaches. The backgroundglowassociatedwith intensiveinland lighting, suchas that emanatingfrom nearbylargemetropolitanareas,may deternestingfemalesand disorientor misorienthatchlingsnavigatingthenearshorewaters. Cumulatively,along the heavily developedbeachesof the southeasternUnited States,the negativeeffectsof artificial lights areprofound.

BeachCleaning: Beach cleaningrefersto the removal of both abiotic and~biotic debrisfromdevelopedbeaches. There are several methodsemployedincluding mechanicalraking, handraking and picking up debris by hand. Mechanicalraking can result in heavy machineryrepeatedlytraversingnestsand potentiallycompactingsandabovenestsandalsoresultsin tireruts alongthebeachwhich may hinderor trap emergenthatchlings.Mann (1977)suggestedthatmortality within nests may increase when externally applied pressurefrom beachcleaningmachineryis commonon soft beacheswith large grain sand. Mechanicallypulled rakesandhand rakescan penetratethe surfaceand disturb the sealednest or may actually uncoverpre-emergenthatchlings near the surfaceof the nest. In some areascollecteddebris is burieddirectlyon thebeach,andthis can leadto excavationanddestructionof incubatingeggclutches.Disposalof debrisneartheduneline or on thehigh beachcancover incubatingeggclutchesandsubsequentlyhinderand entrapemergenthatchlingsand may alter natural nesttemperatures.In someareas,mechanicalbeachcleaningis the solereasonfor extensivenestrelocation.

IncreasedHumanPresence:Residentialandtourist useof developed(anddeveloping)nestingbeachescanresult in negativeimpactsto nestingturtles, incubatingeggclutchesandhatchlings.

7

Themostseriousthreatcausedby increasedhumanpresenceon thebeachis thedisturbancetonestingfemales. Night-timehumanactivity can causenestingfemalesto abort nestingattemptsat all stagesof the behavioralprocess. Murphy (1985) reportedthat disturbancecan causeturtles to shift their nestingbeaches,delay egg laying, and select poor nestingsites. Heavyutilization of nestingbeachesby humans(pedestriantraffic) may result in lowered hatchlingemergencesuccessratesdue to compactionof sandabove nests(Mann, 1977),and pedestriantracks can interfere with the ability of hatchlingsto reach the ocean(Hosier et a!., 1981).Campfiresand the use of flashlights on nestingbeachesmisorient hatchlings and can deternestingfemales(Mortimer, 1979).

Recreational BeachEquipment: The placementof physicalobstacles(e.g., loungechairs,cabanas,umbrellas, hobiecats, canoes,small boatsand beachcycles)on nestingbeachescanhamperordeternestingattemptsandinterferewith incubatingeggclutchesandtheseaapproachof hatchlings. The documentationof false crawls at theseobstaclesis becomingincreasinglycommon as more recreationalbeachequipmentis left in place nightly on nestingbeaches.Additionally, thereare documentedreportsof nestingfemalesbecomingentrappedunderheavywoodenloungechairs and cabanason south Floridanestingbeaches(J. Hoover, pers.comm.;S. Bass, pers. comm.). The placementof recreationalbeach equipmentdirectly aboveincubatingegg clutchesmayhamperhatchlingsduring emergenceand candestroyeggsthroughdirect invasionof the nest(C. LeBuff, pers.comm.).

BeachVehicularDriving: Theoperationof motorvehicleson nestingbeachesfor recreationalpurposesis permittedin northeastFlorida (portionsof Nassau,St. John’s, Flaglerand VolusiaCounties),northwestFlorida (Walton and Gulf Counties),and North Carolina(Emerald Isle,CapeLookoutNationalSeashore,CapeHatterasNationalSeashoreandCurrituckBanks). Whilesome areasrestrict night driving, others permit it. Driving on beachesat night during thenestingseasoncan disrupt the nestingprocessand result in abortednestingattempts. Thenegativeimpact on nesting females in the surf zone may be particularly severe. Vehicleheadlightscan disorient or misorient emergenthatchlings, and vehicles can strike and killhatchlingsattemptingto reachtheocean. Thetracksor ruts left by vehiclestraversingthebeachinterfere with the ability of hatchlings to reach the ocean. The extendedperiod of travelrequiredto negotiatetire tracksand ruts may increasethe susceptibilityof hatchlingsto stressand depredationduring transit to the ocean(Hosieret a!., 1981; M. Evans, pers. comm.).Driving directly aboveincubatingegg clutchescan causesandcompactionwhich may decreasenest successand directly kill pre-emergenthatchlings(Mann, 1977). In many areas,beachvehiculardriving is the solecausefor nest relocation. Additionally, vehicle traffic on nestingbeachescontributesto erosion,especiallyduring high tidesor on narrowbeacheswheredrivingis concentratedon thehigh beachand foredune.

ExoticDuneandBeachVegetation:Non-nativevegetationhasinvadedmanycoastalareasandoftenoutcompetesnative speciessuchasseaoats, railroad vine, seagrape,dunepanicgrassandpenny’wort. The invasion of less stabilizing vegetationcan lead to increasederosion anddegradationof suitablenestinghabitat. Exotic vegetationmayalsoform impenetrableroot matswhich can preventpropernestcavity excavation,invadeanddesiccateeggsor trap hatchlings.

8

The Australian pine (Ca.suarinaequiset~folia)is particularly detrimental. Densestandsof thisspecieshave taken over many coastal strand areasthroughoutcentral and south Florida.Australianpinescauseexcessiveshadingof thebeachwhich would not otherwiseoccur. Studiesin Floridasuggestthat nestslaid in shadedareasaresubjectedto lower incubationtemperatureswhich mayalter thenaturalhatchlingsex ratio(MarcusandMaley, 1987;SchmelzandMezich,1988). Fallen Australianpineslimit accessto suitablenestsitesandcan entrapnestingfemales.Davis andWhiting (1977) reportedthat nestingactivity declinedin EvergladesNational Parkwhere densestands of Australian pine took over native beachberm vegetationon a remotenesting beach. Conversely,along highly developedbeaches,nesting may be concentratedinareaswhere densestandsof Australianpinescreatea barrier to intensebeachfrontand beachvicinity lighting (S. Bass,pers. comm.).

Nesting Depredation: A variety of naturaland introducedpredatorssuchas raccoons,feralhogs, foxes, ghost crabs and ants prey on incubatingeggs and hatchling sea turtles. Theprincipalpredatoris the raccoon(Procyonlotor). Raccoonsareparticularlydestructiveandmaytakeup to 96 percentof all nestsdepositedon a beach(DavisandWhiting, 1977; HopkinsandMurphy, 1980; Stancyket at., 1980; Talbert et a!., 1980; Schroeder,1981; Labisky a a!.,1986). Prior to hog controlefforts, up to 45 percentof all nestsdepositedat theCanaveralAirForceStation,Florida, weredepredatedby feral hogs(FDNR, unpubl. data). In Georgia,onOssabawand St. Catherine’sIsland, an estimated90 percentof all nestswere lost to feral hogsprior to the implementationof predatorcontrolprograms(GDNR, unpubl. data).In addition tothedestructionof eggs,certainpredatorsmaytakeconsiderablenumbersof hatchlingsjustpriorto or uponemergencefrom the sand.

Nest Loss to Abiotic Factors: Nestloss due to erosionor inundationand accretionof sandaboveincubatingnests appearto be the principal abiotic factors which may negativelyaffectincubating egg clutches. While these factors are often widely perceived as contributingsignificantly to nestmortality or loweredhatching success,few quantitativestudieshavebeenconducted(Mortimer, 1989). Studieson a relativelyundisturbednestingbeachby Witherington(1986)indicatedthatexceptinga late seasonseverestorm event,erosionandinundationplayeda relatively minor role in destructionof incubatingnests. Inundationof nests andaccretionofsandaboveincubatingnestsasaresultof thelate seasonstormplayeda majorrole in destroyingnests from which hatchlingshad not yet emerged. Severestorm events(e.g., tropical stormsand hurricanes)mayresultin significantnestloss,but theseeventsaretypically aperiodicratherthan annualoccurrences. In the southeasternUnited States,severestorm eventsaregenerallyexperiencedafterthepeakof thehatchingseasonandhencewould not be expectedto affect themajority of incubatingnests. Erosionand inundationof nestsare exacerbatedthroughcoastaldevelopmentand shorelineengineering. These threats are discussedabove under beacharmoring.

Poaching: In theUnitedStates,killing of nestingfemaleloggerheadsis infrequent. However,in a number of areas, egg poachingand clandestinemarketsfor eggsare not uncommon.During theperiod 1983 to 1989 theFloridaMarinePatrolmade29 arrestsfor illegal possessionof turtle eggs(figure not apportionedby species).

9

Threats- MarineEnvironment

Oil andGasExploration, DevelopmentandTransportation:Experimentaland field resultsreportedby Vargo et at. (1986)indicate that marine turtleswould be at substantialrisk if theyencounteredan oil spill or largeamountsof tar in theenvironment. Physiologicalexperimentsindicate that the respiration,skin, someaspectsof blood chemistryand composition,and saltgland function of marineturtles are significantly affected(Vargo et a)., 1986). Spills in thevicinity of nestingbeachesareof specialconcernand couldplacenestingadults,incubatingeggclutches(Fritts and McGehee,1989) and hatchlingsat significant risk. Explorationand oildevelopmenton live bottomareasmaydisruptforaginggroundsby smotheringbenthicorganismswith sedimentsand drilling muds (Coston-Clementsand Hoss, 1983). Oil and tar are alsoreleasedinto the marineenvironmentduring pumpingof bilges on largevessels. In a reviewof available information on debris ingestion, Balazs (1985) reportedthat tar balls were thesecondmostprevalenttypeof abiotic debris ingestedby marineturtles.

Dredging: Theeffectsof dredgingare evidencedthroughdirect destructionordegradationofhabitatand incidental takeof marineturtles. Channelizationof inshoreand nearshorehabitatand the disposalof dredgedmaterial in the marineenvironmentcandestroyor disruptrestingor foraging grounds(including grassbedsand coral reefs)and may affect nestingdistributionthrough the alterationof physicalfeaturesin the marineenvironment(Hopkins and Murphy,1980). Hopperdredgesareresponsiblefor incidentaltakeandmortality of marineturtlesduringdredgingoperations. During a three month period in 1980 in the Port Canaveral,Florida,channel,dredging operationswere responsiblefor the mortality of at least 71 sea turtles(Magnusonet al., 1990). These high levels of incidental take have not generally beendocumentedduring dredgingoperationsin subsequentyears. Maintenancedredgingof theKingsBay, Georgia,channelduring 1987 to 1988 resultedin the mortality of at least 18 seaturtlesduring a 1 yearperiod (Magnusonet al., 1990). During thedredgingof Brunswickharborandthe entrancechannelin 1991 at least20 seaturtles were killed during a threemonth period(T. Henwood, pers. comm.). Other types of dredges (clamshell and pipeline) have not beenimplicated in incidental take.

MarinaandDock Development:Thedevelopmentof marinasandprivateorcommercialdocksin inshore waterscan negativelyimpact turtles throughdestructionor degradationof foraginghabitat. Additionally, this typeof developmentleadsto increasedboat andvesseltraffic whichmay result in higherpropellerand collision relatedmortality. Fuelingfacilities at marinascanresult in the discharge of oil and gas into sensitiveestuarinehabitat.

Pollution: The effectsofpollutantsresulting from industrial,agriculturalor residentialsourcesare difficult to evaluate. Pesticides,heavy metals and PCB’s have been detectedin turtles(including eggs),but levelswhich result in adverseeffectshave not beenquantified (Nelson,1988).

10

Trawl Fisheries: Of all commercial and recreational fisheries conducted in the United States,shrimptrawling is themostdamagingto the recoveryof marine turtles. Theestimatednumberof loggerheads killed annuallyby theoffshoreshrimpingfleet in thesoutheasternUnited StatesAtlantic and Gulf of Mexico is 5,000 to 50,000 (Magnuson et al., 1990). Incidental capture anddrowning in shrimp trawls is believed to be the largest single source of mortality on juvenilethroughadult stagemarine turtles in the southeasternUnited States. Most of theseturtles arejuvenilesand subadults,the ageand size classesmost critical to the stability and recoveryofmarineturtle populations(Crouseet at., 1987). Quantitativeestimatesof turtle take by shrimptrawlers in inshorewatershavenot beendeveloped,but the level of trawling effort expendedin inshorewatersalong with increasingdocumentationof the utilization of inshorehabitatbyloggerhead turtles suggest that capture and mortality may be significant. Trawlers targetingspeciesotherthan shrimptend to uselargernetsthanshrimptrawlersandprobablyalsotakeseaturtles, although capture levels have not been developed. These fisheries include, but are notlimited to bluefish, croaker, flounder, calico scallops,blue crab and whelk. Of these, thebluefish,croakerand floundertrawl fisherieslikely posethe most seriousthreats(T. Henwood,pers. comm.). The harvest of Sargasswnby trawlerscan result in incidental capture of post-hatchlings and habitat destruction (Schwartz, 1988).

PurseSeineFisheries: Several purse seine fisheries operate in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic,including those targeting menhaden and sardines. Turtles may be taken in these fisheries, butthe level of take and percent mortality is currently unquantified.

Hook andLine Fisheries: Severalthousandcommercialvesselsareengagedin hook and linefisherieswhich targetvariousspeciesincluding coastalspecies,reef fish and pelagic species.In addition to commercial take, the recreational fishery is extensive. Turtle captureson hookand line gear are not uncommon, but the level of take and percent mortality are unknown. Itis assumed that most turtles are released alive, although ingested hooks and entanglement inassociated monofilamentlsteel line have been documented as the probable cause of death in somestrandedturtles.

Gill Net Fisheries: Gill nets are utilized both in inshore and offshore areas for various speciesand may be stationary or drifting. Mesh size is dependent on the size of the fish which aretargeted but the gear is considered non-selective in the species impacted (T. Henwood,pers.comm.). Trammel nets are modified gill nets set in panels of webbing of variable mesh size.Marine turtles are vulnerable to entanglement and drowning in gill and trammel nets, especiallywhen this gear is left unattended. Turtle mortality resulting from the use of gill nets set forsturgeon in South Carolina and North Carolinahavebeendocumented(Ulrich, 1978; Crouse,1982). In response to a reduced sturgeon population, the State of South Carolina has prohibited

gill netting for sturgeon since 1986. Of particular concern are the gill net and trammel netfisheries off the Florida east-central coast. These fisheries, primarily targeting king mackerel,pompanoand sharkhave undergonerecentexpansionin the numberof vesselsand level offishing effort (Schaefer er a!., 1987). Strandingpatternsof turtles in this area indicate thatsignificant numbers of turtles may be killed incidental to these fisheries.

11

PoundNet Fisheries: Poundnets are fished extensivelyin the inshorebaysand soundsofNorth Carolina, Virginia, New York and Rhode Island. In Virginia, pound netshavebeenidentifiedasa leadingcauseof marineturtle mortality (LutcavageandMusick, 1985). Mortalitywasprincipally causedby entanglementand drowningin the leaderportionof thegearand wasdependenton meshsize, net locationandenvironmentalparameters.In North Carolina, mostpound nets have leads constructedof small mesh (13 to 20 cm). Results of preliminaryinvestigationsindicatethat mortality in thesenetsmay be infrequent(Epperly and Veishlow,1989). Similarly, in New York, most turtles are released alive from pound nets andentanglementin leaders appears infrequent (V. Burke, pers.comm.).

LonglineFisheries: Longline fisherieshaveincreaseddramaticallyover thepastseveralyears.Speciestargeted in these fisheriesinclude tuna,sharkand swordfish. Witzell (1987)estimatedthat 330 turtles were incidentallycapturedin the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic by theJapanesetuna longline fleet during 1978 to 1981. Due to increasedeffort and expansionof longlinefisheriesin recentyears, it is believedthat longline fisheriesmay be exertinga majornegativeimpacton marineturtle recovery(T. Henwood,pers.comm.).

TrapFisheries: Traps are commonly used in thecaptureof crabs,lobsterandreeffish. Trapsvary in size and configuration but all are attached to a surface float by means of a line leadingto the trap. Turtles can become entangled in trap lines below the surfaceof the water andsubsequentlydrown. In otherinstances,strandedturtles havebeenrecoveredentangledin traplines with the trap in tow. Loggerheadturtles maybe particularlyvulnerableto entanglementin trap lines because of their attraction to, or attempts to feedon, speciescaughtin thetrapsandepibionts growing on traps, trap lines and floats. The impact of this gear on loggerheadpopulationshas not beenquantified.

Boat Collisions: Propellerand collision injuries to marine turtlesfrom boatsand shipsarenotuncommon.In 1986, 1987and 1988respectively,5.8 percent(111), 7.3 percent(175), and9.0percent(179) ofall strandedturtlesreportedalong theUnitedStatesGulfof Mexico andAtlanticwere documentedashaving sustainedsometypeof propelleror collision injuries, althoughit isunknown what percentageof theseinjuries were post-mortemversusante-mortem(Schroederand Warner, 1988; Teas and Martinez, 1989). Thesetypes of injuries arerecordedat higherfrequenciesin areaswhere recreationalboating and vessel traffic is intense, such as southFlorida and the Florida Keys.

Power Plant Entrapment: The entrainmentand entrapmentof turtles in saltwatercoolingintake systems of coastal power plants has beendocumentedin New Jersey,North Carolina,Florida and Texas (Roithmayrand Henwood, 1982; Ernest et a!., 1989; 5. Manzella, pers.comm.; T. Henson, pers. comm.; R. Schoellcopf,pers.comm.). Averageannual incidentalcaptureratesfor mostcoastalplants from which captureshavebeenreportedamountto severalturtles per plantper year. One notableexceptionis theSt. Lucie nuclearpowerplant locatedon HutchinsonIsland, Florida. During a 15-yearperiod of operation(May 1976 to December1990), 2,193seaturtles(all species)havebeenremovedfrom theintakecanal. While mostoftheseturtlesare releasedalive, themortality rateis approximately7.0percent(AppliedBiology,

12

Inc., unpubl. data). Most captures have beenloggerheads,though green turtles are notuncommon.

UnderwaterExplosions: The use of underwaterexplosivesfor theremoval of abandooedoilplatforms, military activities and oil explorationcan injure or kill turtles and may d~roy ordegradehabitat. Duringa3-yearperiod(1986to 1988)observersreportedoneinjuredor deadturtle during the removalof 103 offshoreoil structuresin theGulf of Mexico. Of eight turtlesdeliberatelyexposedto underwaterexplosionsat distancesvarying between229 m and915 mfrom the detonationsite, five were renderedunconscious(Klima et a!., 1988).

OffshoreArtificial Ligbting: The effectsof offshorelighted structureson the orientationofhatchlingturtlesis notcompletelyunderstood. Theselights mayattracthatchlingsandinterferewith properoffshoreorientation,and may makethem more susceptibleto predation(deSilva,1982).

Entanglement: Turtles are affected to an unknown but potentially significant degreebyentanglementin persistentmarinedebris, includingdiscardedor lost fishing gear(Balazs,1985).Loggerheadturtles havebeenfound entangledin awide variety of materialsincluding steelandmonofilamentline, syntheticandnatural rope, plasticonion sacksand discardedplasticnettingmaterials (Balazs, 1985; Plotkin and Amos, 1988). Monofilament line appearsto be theprincipal sourceof entanglementfor loggerheadsin United Stateswaters. Recordsfrom Floridaindicate that some entanglementresults from netting and monofilament line which hasaccumulatedon both artificial andnatural reefs. Theseareasareoftenheavily fished, resultingin snaggingof hooksand discardingof lines. Turtles foragingand/orresting in theseareascanbecomeentangledanddrown (FDNR, unpubl. data). The alignmentof persistentmarinedebrisalongconvergences,rips anddriftlines, and theconcentrationof young seaturtles along thesefronts increasesthe likelihood of entanglementat this life history stage(Carr, 1987).

IngestionofMarine Debris: Marine turtleshavebeenfound to ingestawide variety ofabioticdebris items suchasplasticbags,raw plasticpellets,plasticand styrofoampieces,tar balls andballoons. Effectsof debris ingestion can include direct obstructionof the gut, absorjxionoftoxic byproductsandreducedabsorptionof nutrientsacrossthegut wall (Balazs, 1985). Studiesconductedby Lutz (in press)revealedthat both loggerheadandgreen turtles actively ingestedsmall piecesof latex and plasticsheeting. Physiologicaldata indicateda possibleinterferencein energy metabolismor gut function, even at low levels of ingestion. Persistenceof thematerial in the gut lastedfrom a few daysto 4 months(Lutz, in press). Of particularconcernis the co-occurrenceof persistentmarinedebris and the early life history pelagic stagesofloggerheadturtles along convergences.Young turtles are dependentupon thesedriftlines fortheir food supply, and hencethe likelihood of debrisingestionis increased(Carr, 1987). Whilequantitativedataon populationeffects are undetermined,the impactsof debris ingestionareconsideredserious.

Poaching: fllegal directedharvestingof juvenileand adult loggerheadturtles in the watersofthecontinentalUnited StatesandUnitedStatesCaribbeanis uncommon,but no estimatesof the

13

level of take exist. During the period 1983 to 1989, the Florida Marine Patrol madethreearrestsfor illegal possessionof whole turtlesand 25 arrestsfor illegal possessionof turtle partswithin Florida (figuresarenot apportionedby species).

Predation: Predationof hatchling and very young turtles is assumedto be significantandpredationof subadultthroughadult stageturtles is assumedlesscommon,butvalid estimatesofmortality dueto predationatvarious life history stagesare extremelydifficult, if not impossibleto obtain,and havenot beendetermined. Hatchlingsenteringthe surf zoneand pelagicstagehatchlingsmay be preyedupon by a wide variety of fish speciesandto a lesserextent, marinebirds. Stancyk(1982)in an extensiveliteraturereview reportedpredatorsofjuvenileand adultturtles to include at least six speciesof sharks,killer whales,bassand grouper. Tiger sharksappearto be the principal predatorof subadultand adult turtles. While strandedturtles mayexhibit sharkinflicted injuries, cautionmustbe exercisedin attributingacauseof deathasthesewoundscan be inflicted post-mortem.

DiseasesandParasites:Thereis little informationavailableto assessthecomprehensiveeffectsof diseaseand/orparasiteson wild populationsof marineturtles. Thevastmajority of diseasesandconditionswhich havebeenidentifiedor diagnosedin seaturtles aredescribedfrom captivestock, eitherturtles in experimentalheadstartprogramsor mariculturefacilities (Wolke, 1989).Onenotableexceptionis theidentificationof thediseasespirorchidiasis,resultingfrom infectionwith intravasculartrematodes(Wolke et al., 1982). The observableexternalcharacteristicsofthis disease,however,arenot exhibitedin themajorityof loggerheadcarcassesthatstrandalongtheAtlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts.

ConservationAccomplishments- Nesting Environment

Managementto mitigate the effects of naturally occurring events such as erosion andvegetation,and a variety of man-inducedfactors mentionedin the previous section, usuallyconsistsof relocatingnests to higher sites on thedune, or into a hatchery. This was once acommonpracticethroughoutthesoutheastregion. More recently theemphasisof managementis to be far less manipulativewith the nestsand hatchlings. Table 1 containsa listing of mostof the majorFederal,Stateand private nestsurveyand protectionprojectsalong the southeastcoast.

Acquisition of high densitynestingbeachesbetweenMelbourneBeachand WabassoBeach,Florida, is underwayto establishthe Archie Carr NationalWildlife Refuge. Approximately25 percentof the loggerheadnesting in the United Statesoccurs along this 33 km stretchofbeach. The Stateof Florida purchasedthefirst parcelspecifically for therefugein July 1990.Federalacquisitionbeganin 1991. When completedthe refugewill protectup to 16 km ofnestingbeach. As of September1991 the 860-acrerefugeis approximately25 percentcompleteduein largepart to previousCountyand Statepurchasesunderthe Stateof Florida’s SaveOurCoastProgram.

14

Table 1. Major loggerheadnest survey/protectionprojects in the southeasternUnited States, 1985 to 1990. Includesconsistentlymonitoredsurveyareasreportinggreaterthan 100 nestsannually. Not all beachesweresurveyedduring theentire6-yearperiod.

Beachlength (kin) Numberof nests Conservationmeasure(s~

BaidheadIsland, NC

SandlSouthIslands,SCCapeRomainNWR, SCKiawah Island,SCEdistoIsland, SCOtter Island,SCHuntingIsland,SCFripp Island, SCPritchard’sIsland,SCBay Point, SCHilton Head,SC

BlackbeardIslandNWR, GAOssabawIsland, GACuinberlandIsland NS, GA

Flagler CountyBeaches,FLNew SmyrnaBeach,FLCanaveralNational Seashore,FLMerritt IslandNWR, FLCapeCanaveralAFS, FLPatrick AFB, FLMelbourneBeach,FLSebastianInlet SRA, FLWabassoBeach,FLVero Beach,FLHutchinsonIsland,FLSt. Lucie Inlet SP, FLHobe SoundNWR, FLTown of Jupiter,FLJunoBeach,FLJ.D. MacArthur SP, FLDeiray Beach,FLCity of Boca Raton,FLBrowardCountyBeaches,FLMiami Area Beaches,FLManasotaKey, FLCaseyKey, FLSanibel Island,FLWiggins PassArea Beaches,FLKeewaydinIsland,FL

• S=SurveyNS=NestScreening

NR=Nest RelocationPR=PredatorRemoval

** 1989-1990dataonly

Project

19.3 95-281

8.08.0

15.018.34.37.06.04.05.0

29.0

111-373796-136184-268111-55370-196105-17551-17657-176131-195115-160

11.215.228.0

110-23456-114158-172

S/MR

SINXINSIPRS/NRIPRSINR/NSSINRINS/PRSINk/NS/PRSINRS/NRINSSINRINSSINR/NS/PRS/MR

S/NR/NSIPRSINS/PRS

SS/MRS/NSS/PRS/PRSS/PRS/PRSS/NRSS/PRS/PRSSS/PRS/NRS/NRINSS/NRINSS/NRS/MRS/MRSS/NSS/NRINS

29.016.137.49.6

21.07.0

21.04.88.07.0

36.54.35.3

12.18.12.93.58.0

38.616.918.98.2

18.56.47.2

75-326166-2061670-3925993-17911284-2115923-14598864-14328513-9211197-1256199-3494637-6711289-4321202-17322640-6431279O~4664**496-1062138-288874-11001244-228364-182312-884107-459110-137106-21596- 137

15

Perhapsthe most frustratinghabitatprotectioneffort is trying to minimizeor eliminatetheconstructionof seawalls,rip-rap, groins, sandbagsand improperlyplaceddrift or sandfences.StateandFederallawsdesignedto protect the beachand dune habitat include: CoastalBarrierResourcesAct of 1982 (Federal),Coastal Areas ManagementAct of 1974 (North Carolina),BeachfrontManagementAct of 1990 (South Carolina),ShoreAssistanceAct of 1979 (Georgia)andCoastalZoneProtectionAct of 1985 (Florida). Thesehavehadvaryingdegreesof successat maintainingsuitablenestingsites for loggerheads.The GovernorandCabinetof theStateofFlorida approveda Beach Armoring Policy on December18, 1990. This policy prohibitsarmoringalong a 32 km stretchof high density nestingbeachbetweenMelbourneBeachandWabassoBeachand restrictsarmoringelsewhereto structuresthreatenedby a 5-year returninterval storm event.

Beach nourishmentis a better alternativefor sea turtles than seawallsandjetties. Whenbeachnourishmentwasdonemostly in the summer,all nests had to be movedfrom thebeachprior to nourishment. Now EWSand Statenaturalresourceagenciesreviewbeachnourishmentprojects to ensureappropriatetiming of nourishmentduring the nestingand hatchingseason.Beacheswherecompactionafter nourishmentis a problem areplowed to a depthof 92 cm to

softenthe sandso that it is useablefor nestingturtles(Nelsonand Dickerson,1987). Progressis being madetoward bettertiming of projectsand sandquality.

Progressis also beingmadeby manystates,countiesandtownsto preventdisorientationandmisorientationof hatchlings(Ernestet al., 1987; Shoupand Wolf, 1987). In Florida, lightingordinanceshavebeenpassedby the following counties: Nassau,Flagler, Volusia, Brevard,Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach,Broward,Corner, Charlotte,Sarasotaand Lee.Over 20 towns or cities have also passedordinanceson Florida’s eastcoast. GeorgetownCounty passedthe first lighting ordinancein South Carolina. Under the new South CarolinaBeachfrontManagementAct of 1990, guidelineswere approvedwhich will requireall coastalcommunitiesto havelighting ordinances.TheUSAF hasdevelopedandis implementinglightingplansfor launchcomplexesandotherfacilities at CapeCanaveralAir ForceStationin Florida.

The most longstandingbeachmanagementprogramhasbeento reducedestructionof nestsby natural predators,suchas raccoonsand feral predators,suchas hogs. Between 6 and 8percentof loggerheadnestingoccurson NationalWildlife Refugesalongthesoutheasterncoast.Severalrefugeshaveongoingpredatorcontrol programs(SeeTable 1).

Becauseof moreattentionto the statusof seaturtles, humantakeis not theproblemit oncewas on United Statesbeaches,althoughthis is still a major problem in othercountries. Theisolatedcasesof nestpoachingreceiveimmediateattentionfrom FWSlaw enforcementandStateconservationofficers. Loss of eggsto humanpoachingdoesnot representthe high mortalityfactor it oncedid.

In addition to implementing managementon nestingbeaches,there has been extensiveresearchinto theeffectsof this managementon seaturtle populations. Specifically, the mostimportant aspectin recent years is the effect of incubation temperatureon the sex ratio of

16

hatchlingsrearedin styrofoamboxes(Yntemaand Mrosovsky, 1980; Morrealeet a!., 1982;Standoraand Spotila, 1985). Useof theseboxeshasbeendiscontinuedasa standardpractice.Studieshavebeencompletedto comparethe sex ratiosand pivotal temperaturesof loggerheadson naturalbeachesthroughouttheir rangein theUnited States(Mrosovsky,1988).

Long-term tagging studies have determined many population attributes for nestingloggerheads(Richardson,1982). Researchon hatchling orientationand nestingbehaviorandhow various wavelengthsof light affect them is providing neededinformation to managers(WitheringtonandBjorndal, 1991; Witherington, in press).

The statusof loggerheadsis beingdeterminedby monitoring the various life stageson thebeachto evaluatecurrentand pastmanagementpractices. This is beingdoneby countinghowmany nestsare laid, how many of thesesuccessfullyhatch and the productionof hatchlingsreachingthe ocean.

The numberof nestingfemalesis determinedby knowing therangewidenestingeffort anddividing by theaveragenumberof nests a femalelays eachseason(Hopkinsand Richardson,1984). Nestscanbe countedby both aerial and groundsurveys. Estimatesof nestingfemaleswere madefrom rangewideaerial surveysmadein 1980 (Powers, 1981), 1982 (Thompson,1983)and1983 (MurphyandHopkins, 1984). Standardizedaerialsurveysof theSouthCarolinacoasthave beenconductedsince 1980 (Hopkins-Murphyand Murphy, 1988). Standardizedground surveyson index beachesare underwaythroughoutthe Southeastby the FWS, Stateagenciesandby privategroupsanduniversities. Index beachesinclude80 percentof thenestingin Florida, 75 percentin Georgiaand ~) percentin North Carolina. Becauseof slow growthratesand subsequentdelayedsexualmaturity, all monitoring will needto be conductedover along periodof time to establishpopulation trendsfor loggerheads.

Conservation Accomplishments- Marine Environment

Managingseaturtles in the water lagsbehindefforts on thebeachdueto limited accesstoturtles, lack of informationon habitatusageby differentageclassesandcost. Therefore,mostefforts to preservemarineand estuarinehabitatsare regulatoryin nature.

TheU.S. CoastGuardhascontingencyplansfor thecontainment,recoveryand minimizationof damagefrom spillages of oil and hazardoussubstances,as well as major disasters (J.Schmidtman,pers.comm.). But trying to preventbilge pumping, industrial discharges,andchemicaland oil spills in themarineenvironmentis a very difficult problem.

In 1978, NMFS implementeda gear developmentprogram which would prevent thedrowningofturtles in shrimptrawls. Thefirst devicewaslargemeshwebbingacrossthemouthof thenet which provedto be ineffective. Subsequently,acage-likedesigninstalledwithin thetrawl, calleda turtle excluderdevice(TED) wasdeveloped. Concurrentwith thegovernment’saction, new designs were built by individual shrimpers. Seven types of TEDs have beencertified for useby NMFS. Lack of widespreaduse of thesedeviceson a voluntarybasis

17

resultedin regulationsrequiring their use. The final regulationswerepublishedin June1987.After legal, congressionaland administrativedelays, the regulations went into effect inSeptember1989. South CarolinapromulgatedemergencyStateregulationsrequiringTEDsinStatewatersin June1988 andimplementedpermanentregulationsin 1989. FloridaimplementedemergencyStateregulationsin February 1989, afterunprecedentednumbersof strandingsthepreviousfall. FloridaimplementedpermanentStatewideyear-roundregulationsin June1990.The Stateof GeorgiadevelopedTED regulationswhich went into effect in November1990.

Incidentalcatchmortality from theAtlantic sturgeonfishery wasreducedin SouthCarolinaby an earlier ending of the sturgeonfishing season. Later, becauseof reduced stocksofsturgeon,the seasonwasclosedentirely. This all but eliminatedearly spring strandingsof seaturtles in SouthCarolina(S. Murphy, unpubl. data).

The numberof seaturtle carcassesreportedin theChesapeakeBay is declining,notbecauseof changesin gear, but due to economics. In the 1930’s,poundnetsnumberedabout3,000inthebay. Thedeepwaternetsare moreexpensivenow, andthenumberof netshavedecreasedby an orderof magnitude(J. Musick, pers.comm.).

In consultationwith the COE, FDNR and theNMFS, modificationsof dragheadsarebeingtestedto minimize turtle mortality from dredges. Eachdredgingprojectundergoesa Section7consultationasrequiredundertheauthorityof theEndangeredSpeciesAct. As aresult of theseSection7 consultations,dredgingcontractorsareoftenrequiredto haveobserversonboardandthe timing of the projects is usuallydesignedto avoid as many turtle encountersaspossible.

Researchinto methodsof preventingturtles from enteringtheintake pipesat power plantsprovedunsuccessful.Turtlesthat areentrappedat the St. Lucie plant arecaptured,taggedandreleased.

On December31, 1987, the United Statesratified Optional Annex V of the InternationalConventionfor thePreventionof Pollution from Ships,also known astheMARPOL Protocol.AnnexV prohibits thedumpingof all plasticwastes,includingplasticpackagingmaterialsandfishing gear,from all shipsat sea. Not only doesthis markthefirst effort in United Stateslawto addresstheproblemof plastic debris in the oceans,but theratification of Annex V enablesthe law to comeinto forceinternationally. According to United Stateslaw, it is now illegal forany shipof anysizeto dumpplastic trashin theoceans,bays, riversandothernavigablewatersof theUnited States(O’Hara et al., 1988)

Directed researchhas beendone to documenthabitat use and behaviorof sea turtles innearshorewaters; a few examplesfollow. Hopkinsand Murphy (1980) usedsonic and radiotransmittersto studyhabitatuseandinternestingbehaviorof 39 adult femaleloggerheadturtles.In 1985, 1986 and 1989, Murphy and Hopkins-Murphy (1990) radio-instrumented31 adultfemale loggerheadsprior to nesting and relocatedthem 64 km from their nestingbeachtodetermineif they would acceptan alternatebeachor home to their previous nestingarea.Juvenileand subadultloggerheadswere also radio tracked in ChesapeakeBay to document

18

habitat use,surfacetime and daily movements(Byles, 1988). Netting studies in the IndianRiver, Florida, are providing information on habitatuseby juvenile loggerheads(L. Ehrhart,pers.comm.). Distribution, size and speciescompositionare being determinedin the inshorewatersof North Carolinaby meansof aerial survey,sightingsfrom ferry boatsandthepublic,and cooperatingpound net fishermen(Epperlyand Veishlow, 1989).

Becauseof turbid waters near shore, assessingturtle stocks by pelagic aerial survey isprobablynot feasible. Information on the distribution of seaturtles over the continentalshelfhasuntil recentlybeenfrom casualobservationsand most were anecdotal. Since 1978, fourpelagicaerial surveysin the southeastregionhavebeencompletedduring which seaturtleswerecounted(Fritts et a!., 1983; ThompsonandShoop,1984;Lohoefenere a!., 1988; SCWMRD,unpubl. rept.). The most recentaerial surveyconductedin the northernGulf of Mexico wasfundedby MMS to assessturtle/platformassociations(Lohoefeneret al., 1988). Theseflightshaveprovidedinformationon thegeographicand seasonaldistribution of sea turtles.

Informationfrom vesselsis largely opportunistic. It wasthroughincidentalcapturethat thewinter hibernaculumfor seaturtles in the Canaveralship channelwas discovered(Ogren andMcVea, 1982). The NMFS is also conductinginterviews and netting surveysin the Gulf ofMexico (L. Ogren,pers.comm.). Catchper unit effort (CPUE) and ratesof mortality providea reasonableestimateof the numberof capturesand mortality when usedwith fishing effortstatistics. Thesedataprovide information on seasonalabundanceand distribution over widegeographicareas(HenwoodandStuntz, 1987).

A regionaldatacollection effort was begun in 1980 to monitor mortality. This voluntarystrandingnetwork from Maine to Texasis coordinatedby the NMFS and servesto documentthegeographicand seasonaldistributionof seaturtle mortality (Schroeder,1987). Since1987,four index zoneshavebeen systematicallysurveyed. It is clear that strandingsrepresentanabsoluteminimum mortality. However, they can be usedas an annual index to mortality andare an indicationof thesizedistributionof turtlesbeing killed. Theycanalsoprovidevaluablebiological information on food habits, reproductiveconditionand sex ratios.

Accomplishments - Information and Education

Public supportfor seaturtle conservation effort is essentialfor the long-term successofconservationprograms. This is particularly true whenconservationmeasuresarecontroversialor expensive. To heightenpublic awarenessand understandingof seaturtle conservationissuesa numberof educationalactivitiesandefforts areunderway. Forexample,personnelconductingturtle projectsoften advisetourists on what they cando to minimize disturbanceto nestingturtles,protectnestsandrescuemisorientedhatchlings. Likewise,Stateand Federalparkswhichconductpublic awarenessseaturtle interpretivewalksprovide informationto visitors. FloridaDNR hasdevelopedguidelinesfor organizedseaturtle interpretivewalksin order to minimizeany disturbanceto nestingturtles while still allowing them to be viewed by thepublic. Manybeacheshavebeen postedwith signs informing peopleof the laws protectingsea turtles andprovidingeither a local or a hotline numberto reportviolations.

19

PrivateconservationorganizationssuchastheCenterfor MarineConservation,Greenpeaceand National AudubonSocietyand Federaland Stateagencieshaveproducedand distributedavariety ofaudio-visualaidsandprintedmaterialsaboutseaturtles. Theseinclude: thebrochure“Attention BeachUsers”,a booklet (Raymond,1984b)on thevarioustypesof light fixturesandwaysof screeninglights to lessentheir effectson hatchllngs,“Lights Out” bumperstickersanddecals,a coloringbook,videotapes,slide/tapeprograms,full coloridentificationpostersof theeight speciesof seaturtles, and ahawksbillposter. FloridaPowerand Light Companyalsohasproduceda booklet (VanMeter, 1990)with generalinformationon seaturtles.

Recentreviewsof seaturtle conservationeffortsin the southeasternUnited StatesappearinHopkins-Murphy(1988) and Possardt(1991).

20

PART II. RECOVERY

A. RecoveryObjectives

The southeasternUnitedStatespopulationof theloggerheadcan be consideredfor delisting if,over aperiod of 25 years, the following conditionsaremet:

1. The adult female population in Florida is increasingand in North Carolina, SouthCarolina, and Georgia, it has returned to pre-listing nesting levels (NC = 800nests/season;SC = 10,000 nests/season;GA = 2,000 nests/season). The aboveconditions mustbe met with datafrom standardizedsurveyswhich will continuefor atleast5 yearsafter delisting.

2. At least25 percent(560 km) of all availablenestingbeaches(2240km) is in publicownership,distributedover theentirenestingrangeandencompassingat least50 percentof the nestingactivity within eachState.

3. All priority onetaskshavebeensuccessfullyimplemented.

B. StepdownOutline andNarrative

1. Protectandmanagehabitats.

11. Protectandmanagenestinghabitat.

Coastaldevelopmenthasalreadydestroyedor degradedmanymiles of nestinghabitat inthe Southeast.Although nestingoccurson over 2,250km of beaches,development

- pressuresare so great, cumulative impacts will result in increaseddegradationordestructionof nestinghabitatandeventuallyleadto asignificantpopulationdeclineif noteffectively combated.

111. Ensurebeachnourishmentprojectsare compatiblewith maintaininggoodquality nestinghabitat. (alsosee216)

Beachnourishmentcan improve nestinghabitat in areasof severeerosionandisa preferredalternativeto beacharmoring. The quality of material shouldbesimilar to that on local natural beaches.

1111. Implement and evaluatetilling as a meansof softeningcompactedbeaches.

Poor quality material deposited on nesting beaches can result incompactionof sandon nestingbeaches.This can causeincreasednumbers

21

of false crawls and aberrantnests, increaseddigging times for nestingfemalesand, in some cases,broken eggsfrom clutchesdepositedin tooshallow an egg chamber. Wherebeachcompactionexceedslocal naturalconditions tilling to a depth of 77 to 92 cm should be used to softenbeaches. The effectivenessof titling in softeningbeachesshould alsobefully evaluatedby the COE to determine the persistenceof beachsoftening, frequencyof tilling required,and the bestmechanicalmethodfor beachsoftening.

1112. Evaluatetherelationshipof sandcharacteristics(includingaragonite)and hatch success,hatchling fitness and sex ratios, and nestingbehavior.

Gasdiffusion couldbe affectedby sandgrainshape,size andcompactionand alter hatch success. Sandcolor and moistureinfluencetemperatureandcan affect hatchling sex determination. The effect of importing non-native materials such as aragoniteto United Statesbeachesfor beachnourishmentaddsadditional unknowns which could conceivablyaffecthatchlingsand shouldbediscourageduntil fully evaluated.

1113. Reestablishdunes and native vegetation.

Dunerestorationandrevegetationwith nativeplantsshouldbea requiredcomponent of all renourishmentprojects. This will enhancebeachstability and nesting habitat and require less frequent renourishmentactivities.

1114. Evaluate sand transfer systemsas alternative to beach nourishment.

Sand transfer systemscan diminish the necessity for frequent beachrenourishmentand thereby reducedisruption of nestingactivities andeliminate sand compaction. The constructionand operation of thesesystemsmust be carefully evaluatedby the COE to ensure importantnearshorehabitatsarenot degradedor seaturtlesinjuredor destroyed.

112. Preventdegradationof nestinghabitatfrom seawalls,revetments,sandbags,sandfencesor othererosioncontrol measures.

Seawalls,revetments,and sandbagshavealready destroyedor degradedmanymiles of nesting habitat on the southeastAtlantic coast. Beacharmoring stilloccurs,however,eitherillegally or throughdevicessuchas sandbagswhich arestill allowed. The filling and burial of long plastic bags to protect coastalpropertyis acommonpracticein Floridaandhasoccurredin otherStates. These

22

buriedbagsarehardandexacerbateerosionwhenuncoveredby stormeventsand

preventnestingwhen uncoveredor buried too closeto the sandsurface.

1121. Evaluatecurrent laws on beacharmoring and strengthen if necessary.

State regulations prohibiting or discouraging some forms of beacharmoring now exist in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and NorthCarolina. FDNR, GDNR, SCCC, and NCDNR should review currentState regulations related to beach construction and ensure seawalls,revetments,sandbagsand other armoring measurescontributing to thedegradationof nestinghabitatareprohibited.

1122. Ensure laws regulating coastalconstruction and beach armoring areenforced.

illegal beacharmoringoccurs,and all too frequently no effective actionis takenby enforcementagenciesto ensurethe perpetratorremovesthematerialand restoresthehabitat.Illegalbeacharmoringcancumulativelycausesignificantdegradationof nestinghabitat. FDNR, GDNR, SCCC,and NCDNR must frequently monitor beaches and maintain strictenforcementwhen violationsareobserved.

1123. Ensurefailed erosioncontrol structures are removed.

Failed erosioncontrol structuressuchasuncoveredplasticbagsor tubesandfragmentedconcreteor woodenstructuresdegradenestinghabitatanddeter nesting activities. FDNR, GDNR, SCCC and NCDNR shouldensurefailed structuresare removedfrom nestingbeaches.

1124. Developstandard requirements for sand fenceconstruction.

Sand fences can effectively build dune systemsand improve nestinghabitat,howeverimproperlydesignedsandfencescantrapnestingfemalesor hatchlings and prevent accessto suitable nestinghabitat. FDNR,GDNR, SCWMRD, SCCC, NCDNR and EWS should develop andevaluatesandfencingdesignsandestablishstandardrequirementsfor sandfenceconstruction.

23

113. Evaluateand implement measuresto enhanceimportant nestinghabitatwhereerosionor tidal inundationdestroyover40 percentofnestsin atypicalyear (without relocation).

Someimportantnestingbeachesnow suffersevereerosionasa result of previousriver diversions,inlet maintenanceor jetty construction. Limited safelocationsfor beach hatcheriesin some situationsplace constraints on nest relocationprograms. Nestrelocationprogramsat bestshouldbe consideredasa short-termmeasureto protectnestsin thesesituationswith primary effortsdirectedtowardshabitatrestoration.

1131. Evaluatedune restorationor other measuresto mitigate erosiononCapeIsland, S.C.

Diversion of the natural drainageof the SanteeRiver in the 1940’s hascauseda severeerosionproblemat CapeIsland. About 25 percentof allnesting in SouthCarolinaoccurson CapeIsland. Fifty to 80 percentofthe nests would be lost to tidal inundation or erosion without nestrelocation. The EWS relocates300-600nestseach year to hatcheries.Suitablesites for self-releasebeachhatcheriesaremore scarceeachyear.Consequentlydune restorationand other measuresto enhancenestinghabitat shouldbe evaluatedand implementedby FWS and COE.

1132. Identify otherimportantnestingbeachesexperiencinggreater than40 percentnestloss from erosionandimplementappropriatehabitatrestorationmeasures.

FDNR, GDNR, SCWMRD, NCDNR, and EWS should review allimportantnestingbeachesandidentify thosewith 40 percentor morenestloss due to erosionor tidal inundation. Habitat restorationplans shouldbe developedand implementedfor identified nestingbeaches.

114. Acquire or otherwiseensurethe long-term protectionof important nestingbeaches.

1141. Acquirein feetitle all undevelopedbeachesbetweenMelbourneBeachandWabassoBeach,Florida.

Approximately25 percentof all loggerheadnestingin the United Statesoccursalong this 33 km mile stretchof nestingbeach. Developmentandpublic use threatensthe habitat and nestingactivities. The FWS andFDNR should acquirea buffer strip in feetitle that at leastextendsfrommeanhigh waterwestto highway AlA to ensurethe long-termprotectionof this nestinghabitat. An oceanto river bufferalong thenarrowbarrier

24

island would be preferable. Conservationeasementsshouldbe acquiredon developedpropertieswherefee title acquisitionis not possible.

1142. Evaluatethestatusof thehigh densitynestingbeacheson HutchinsonIsland,Florida,anddevelopaplanto ensureits long-termprotection.

Approximately 10 percentof loggerheadnesting in United Statesoccursalong this 32 km beach. Developmentis degradingnestinghabitatandpublic useis causingsignificantdisturbanceto nestingactivities. FDNRand FWS should evaluatethe threatsand take appropriatemeasuresincluding acquisition to ensurelong-termprotection.

1143. Evaluatestatusof otherundevelopedbeacheswhichprovideimportanthabitat for maintainingthe historic nestingdistributionanddevelopa plan for long-termprotection.

FDNR, GDNR, SCWMRD, NCDNR and FWS should evaluateothernesting beachesin the Southeastwhich contribute significantly to thehistoric nestingdistribution to ensurepermanentprotection.

115. Removeexoticvegetationandpreventspreadto nestingbeaches.

Australian pine trees shadenests and can alter natural hatchling sex ratios.Australian pines also aggressivelyreplacenative dune and beach vegetationthroughshadingand chemicalinhibition andconsequentlyexacerbateerosionandloss of nestinghabitat. Erosioncan topple treesand leaveexposedroots whichcan entrap nesting females.

Removalof exoticssuchasis ongoingat St. Lucie Inlet StatePark, Florida, andHobe SoundNWR, Florida should continue. FDNR, FWS, and NPS shouldidentify other important nestingbeacheswhere exotic vegetationis degradingnestinghabitatand work with responsiblepartiesto restorenaturalvegetation.

12. Protectmarinehabitat.

Available seaturtlehabitathasbeensignificantly reducedover thepastcentury. Amongthe factors contributing to this loss of habitat are coastal development andindustrialization, increased commercial and recreationalvessel activities, river andestuarinepollution, channelization,offshoreoil and gas developmentand commercialfishing activities. If presenttrendscontinue,thecumulativelossof suitablehabitatcouldreducethelikelihood of recoveryof the species.

25

121. Identify importanthabitat.

Loggerheadsareopportunisticforagersoccurringthroughoutthewarm watersofthe continentalshelf. Theyfrequentlyfeedaroundcoralreefs,rocky places,andold boat wrecks,and oftenenterbays, lagoonsand estuaries.Little informationon habitatpreferenceof specificage/size/sexclassesis available. To effectivelyprotect thespecies,NMFS shouldconsiderhabitatresearchto be of high priority.

122. Preventdegradationandimprove waterquality of importantturtle habitat.

Coastaldevelopmentandassociatedchangesin land utilization haveled to severedegradationof habitat through contaminationand/or loss of food sourcesinestuarineandmarine waters. Declinesin waterquality resultingfrom industrialpollution, channeldredgingand maintenance,harboractivities, farm runoff andsewagedisposal,have renderedlargewaterbodiesmarginally habitable. TheEPA and Stateenvironmentalregulatoryagenciesmust ensurethat establishedminimum water quality standardsare enforced. Land utilization decisionsandassociated construction projects should be carefully considered by localgovernments,states,CZM, NMFS, FWS, EPA, COE, and otherregulatoryandpermitting agencies.

123. Preventdestructionof habitatfrom fishing gearsandvesselanchoring.

Bottom tending fishing gearscan be destructiveto a wide variety of habitats.Coral reefsareparticularlyvulnerableto destructionfrom roller rig trawlinggearbecausecorals may be crushedby the weight of rollers and trawls. Seagrass,spongeand other live bottom habitatscan also be scouredby trawling gear.Anchoring vesselsin sensitivehabitatsmay alsobe destructive. NMFS shouldevaluatethe potential lossof habitat from theseactivities and takeappropriateactionsto ensurelong-termprotectionof reefsandother importanthabitats.

124. Preventdestructionof marinehabitatfrom oil andgasactivities.

Oil and gasactivities maynegativelyimpactseaturtle habitatduring exploration,development,production and abandonmentphases. Of particular concernareimpactsof oil spills, drilling mud disposal, disposalof other toxic materials,pipelinenetworksassociatedwith oil andgasfields, onshoreproductionfacilities,increasedvessel traffic, domesticgarbagedisposal and explosiveremoval ofobsoleteplatforms. MMS, COE, and the oil and gas industry should takeappropriateactions to ensurethat known sourcesof pollution and toxic wastedisposalareeliminated. Additional precautionsare neededto preventoil spills.A responseteam to dealwith spills shouldbe established.

26

125. Preventdestructionof habitatfrom dredgingactivities.

Channeldredgingprojectsmayhavegreaterimpactson habitatthan the obviousmechanicaldestructionof thechannelbottom. Channelizationcan alter naturalcurrent patterns, disrupt sediment transport, and suspendedmaterials fromdredgingmay severely damageadjacentcorals and seagrasses.Additionally,disposalof dredgedmaterialsin offshoredisposalsitesusually smothersexistingflora and fauna. The COE and EPA shouldcontinueto carefully considertheenvironmentalconsequencesbeforepermittinganynewchanneldredgingprojectsor designatingnew offshoredisposalsites.

2. Protectandmanagepopulation.

21. Protectandmanagepopulationson nestingbeaches.

Predators,poaching,tidal inundation,artificial lighting and humanactivitieson nestingbeachesdiminish reproductivesuccess.Monitoring of nestingactivities is necessarytoimplementandevaluateappropriatenestprotectionmeasuresanddeterminetrendsin thenestingpopulation.

211. Monitor trendsin nestingactivity by meansof standardizedsurveys.

Nestingsurveysareundertakenon themajority of nestingbeaches.However,inthe past, beach coveragefrom year to year varied, as did the frequencyofsurveys,experienceand trainingof surveyorsanddatareporting. Consequently,no regionwidedeterminationof nestingpopulationtrendshasbeenpossiblewithany degreeof certainty.

FWS, FDNR, GDNR, SCWMRD, and NCDNR should continue to refinestandardizednestsurveycriteria, identify additionalindex surveybeachesto bemonitored,continueto conducttraining workshopsfor surveyors,andimplementor continueappropriateaerial or groundsurveys. This is essentialto gatheralong-termdatabaseon nestingactivities from North Carolinato Florida whichcan be used as an index of nesting population trends throughout the nesting rangeof the species.

212. Evaluatenestsuccessandimplementappropriatenestprotectionmeasures.

Nestingandhatchingsuccesson beachesoccurringon Stateor Federallandsandall other important local or regional nesting beachesshould be evaluated.Appropriatenest protectionmeasuresshould be implementedby FWS, FDNR,GDNR, SCWMRD, NCDNR or appropriatelocal governmentsororganizationsto ensuregreaterthan60 percenthatch rate. Until recoveryisensured,however,projects on all Federal and State lands and key nesting beaches such as

27

HutchinsonIsland, Jupiter Island, JunoBeach, andMelbourneBeach,Florida,should strive for a higher rate of hatching success. In all casesthe leastmanipulativemethod should be employed to avoid interfering with known orunknownnatural biological processes.Artificial incubationshouldbe avoided.Wherebeachhatcheriesarenecessary,theyshouldbe locatedandconstructedtoallow self releaseand hatch ratesapproaching90 percentshould be attained.Nestprotectionmeasuresshouldalwaysenablehatchingreleasethesamenightof hatching.

213. Determineinfluence of factorssuchas tidal inundationandfoot traffic onhatchingsuccess.

Tidal inundationcan diminishhatchsuccessdependingon frequency,durationanddevelopmentalstageof embryos. Many nestsarerelocateddueto theperceivedthreat from tides. Theextent to which eggscan toleratetidal inundationneedsto be quantifiedto enabledevelopmentof guidelinesfor nestrelocationrelativeto tidal threats. The effect of foot traffic on hatching successis unknownalthoughmanybeacheswith significantnestingalsohavehigh public use. EWSshouldsupportresearchandin conjunctionwith FDNR, GDNR, SCWMRD andNCDNR developrecommendationsfor nestprotection from tidal threatand foottraffic, if appropriate.

214. Reduceeffectsof artificial lighting on hatchlingsandnestingfemales.

Hatchlingsorient primarily to theblue-greenwavelengthsto find theoceanandconsequentlymany artificial lights disorient or misorient.hatchlings, indirectlyleading to high hatchling mortality. Recent studies have demonstratedthatartificial lights alsosignificantly deternestingactivities.

2141. Determine hatchling orientation mechanisms in the marineenvironmentandassessdispersalpatternsfrom natural(dark)beachesandbeacheswith high levels of artificial lighting.

While phototropicorientation is the hatchling sea finding mechanism,orientation mechanisms in the marine environment need furtherclarification. If light is the primary determinant,lighting from coastaldevelopmentcouldbe alteringhatchlingdispersalpatternson somenestingbeachesand lowering survivorship. This could be significant in areassuchasCapeCanaveralwherelighting from theKennedySpaceCenter,Canaveral Air Force, Port Canaveral and Cocoa Beach, Florida,contributeto a significantbackgroundglow. The USAF, KSC and PortCanaveral should support studiesto evaluatetheimpact of lighting onCape Canaveralhatchling dispersaland survivorship. Other important

28

nestingbeacheswhich may be influencedby coastal lighting should beevaluatedby appropriateStateresourceagenciesandcoastalcommunities.

2142. Implementandenforcelighting ordinances.

Where lighting ordinanceshave been adopted and enforced such asBrevardCounty,Florida,hatchlingdisorientationand misorientationhavebeen drastically reduced. All coastal countiesand communities withnestingbeachesshould adopt ordinancesMay through October. Manyincorporatedcommunities within Broward and Palm Beach Counties,Florida, areparticularly problematicbecauseof the high densitynestingbeachesand the lack of effectivelighting regulations.

2143. Evaluateextentof hatchlingdisorientationandmisorientationon allimportantregionalnestingbeaches.

EWS, appropriateState resourceagencies,and countiesshould evaluatehatchling disorientation and misorientation problems on all importantregionalnestingbeaches. Many lighting ordinancerequirementsdo notbecomeeffective until 11 p.m., whereasover 30 percentof hatchlingemergenceoccursprior to this time (Witheringtonet al., 1990). FWS,State resourceagencies,and county governmentsshould also supportresearchto gatheradditional quantitativedataon hatchling emergencetimesandnestingtimeson representativebeachesthroughouttheSoutheastto support the mosteffectivetime requirementsfor lighting ordinances.

2144. Evaluateneedfor Federallighting regulations.

Where local lighting ordinanceshave not been implementedor areineffective,Federalregulationsshouldbe promulgatedunderauthorityoftheEndangeredSpeciesAct for importantnestingbeaches.

2145. Develop lighting plans at Port Canaveral,Kennedy SpaceCenter,Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Patrick Air Force Base,Horida.

CapeCanaveralis oneof the four most importantnestingbeachesin theUnited Stateswith over 10 percentof all nestingactivity. Launchandsupportfacilities at Canaveralandlighting atPatrickAFB are responsiblefor hatchlingdisorientationandmisorientationon Merritt Island NationalWildlife Refugeand Air Forcebeaches. Lights from the KSC, USAFfacilities and Port Canaveralmay be alteringnatural hatchlingdispersalfrom CapeCanaveral. The KSC, USAF and the Port should develop

29

lighting plans to reduce and eliminate hatchling disorientation andmisorientation.

2146. Prosecute individuals or entities responsible for hatchlingdisorientationandmisorientationunderthe EndangeredSpeciesActor appropriateStatelaws.

Hatchlingdisorientationand misorientationfrom artificial lights cancausehigh mortality and be the major sourceof hatchllng mortality on somenestingbeachesif not controlled. Law enforcementefforts should befocusedwherelighting ordinancesare not beingimplementedor enforcedon major nestingbeachesand where flagrantand repeatedviolations arenot corrected.

215. Control vehiculartraffic duringnestingandhatchingseason.

Vehicular traffic can clearly destroy nests, kill hatchlings and disturb nestingturtles. Nest relocation is not an acceptablepermanentsolution to vehiculartraffic. Driving existson someFloridaand NorthCarolinabeaches,includingnationaland Stateparks. NPS, FDNR and NCDNR should evaluatethe effectof vehiculartraffic on nestingactivities includingthe needto relocatenestsanddevelopa planto phaseout beachdriving on importantlocal or regionalnestingbeaches(exceptemergencyorpermittedresearchvehicles).

216. Ensurebeachnourishmentandcoastalconstructionactivitiesareplannedtoavoid disruptionof nestingandhatchingactivities.

Theseactivities can causesignificant disruptionof nestingactivitiesduring thenestingseasonwhenviewedcumulativelyover thenestingrange. Nestrelocationcan involve manipulationof largenumbersof nestswhich can result in loweredhatchsuccessand alteredhatchling sexratios andthereforeis not an acceptablealternativeto altering thetiming of projects. TheCOE, FWS and appropriateState agenciesshould ensurebeachnourishmentand other beachconstructionactivities are not permitted during the nesting seasonon local or regionallyimportantnestingbeaches.

217. Ensurelaw enforcementactivitieseliminatepoachingandharassment.

Poaching,while not a significantcauseof nest loss regionally, is occasionallyalocal problem. Intentional and unintentional disturbanceand harassmentofnestingturtles is, however,an increasingproblemon manybeaches.FWSshouldwork closelywith FDNR, GDNR, SCWMiRD andNCDNR to identify problemareasandfocusintensivelaw enforcementefforts to eliminatepoachingand deterharassment of nesting turtles.

30

218. Determinenaturalhatchllngsex ratios.

It is well documentedthat incubationtemperaturedetermineshatchlingsex. Sexratios of hatchlingson natural beachesthroughout the nestingrangeshouldbedeterminedover severalyearsin orderto evaluate nestrelocationprogramswhichcould be altering natural sex ratios. EWS, FDNR, GDNR, SCWMRD andNCDNR should support necessaryresearchand evaluateall nest relocationprojectsto ensurenatural sex ratios are not altered. Researchshould includeestablishmentof temperaturetransectson representativebeachesthroughouttheSoutheast. A standardized protocol for temperaturemonitoring should bedevelopedby FWS andStateresourceagenciesto accomplishthis.

219. Define geographicalboundariesof breedingaggregations.

It is not known whetherloggerheadnestingpopulationsalong the southeasternUnited StatescoastandGulf of Mexico representseparatebreedingaggregationsor areone largebreedingpopulation. This hasdirect managementimplications.If nestingpopulationsaresegregatedevenlooselyinto demes,smallerpopulationsin GA, SC, and NC and west coastFlorida would be even more vulnerabletoextirpation. FWS shouldsupportresearchto definebreedingpopulationswithinand outsidetheUnited States. As a managementapproachand until otherwisedetermined,it should be assumedthat nestingpopulationsare segregated.

22. Protectandmanagepopulationsin themarineenvironment.

Managementand protection of seaturtles in themarineenvironmentis a difficult task.Theforemostproblemin managementand conservationof seaturtles is the lackof basicbiological information. To adequatelyprotectand enhancesurvival of seaturtles, wemust know where they occur, in what numbers, at what times; and what factorscontribute to mortality. As sourcesof mortality are identified, steps can be taken toreduce or eliminate their impacts on populations.

221. Determineloggerheaddistribution, abundanceand status in the marineenvironment.

In efforts to recoverthreatenedor endangeredspecies,it is necessaryto ensurethe survival of all life stages. In the caseof sea turtles which exhibit greatlongevity, it is importantto protectall ageclassessothat a sufficient numberofindividuals surviveto reach sexual maturity. To effectively enhancesurvival,themost critical information neededis when, whereand in what abundance,turtlesmayoccur over thevariousstagesof their life cycles.

31

2211. Determineseasonaldistribution,abundance,populationcharacteristicsandstatusin bays, soundsandotherimportantnearshorehabitats.

Loggerheadsoccur throughout the warm waters of the United Statescontinentalshelf, but little is knownaboutspecific habitatrequirementsorhabitat fidelity, seasonaldistribution and abundance,movementsorgrowth. Researchis neededto identify areas and times of turtleabundance,and to answerbasic biological questionsabout the species.Someimportantareasthat shouldbe studiedinclude,amongothers:CedarKey, FloridaBay,andIndian/BananaRiverin Florida; ChandeleurIslandsin Louisiana; ChesapeakeBay in Virginia and Maryland; and inshorewatersof Georgia,SouthCarolina, andNorth Carolina. Knowledgeofwhenand whereturtlesmay occurwill allow NMFS to takeappropriatestepsto protectvarious life stages. NMFS, FWS, COE, MMS andotherFederalandStateagenciesshouldassistin providingneededinformation.

2212. Determinenavigationmechanisms,migratory pathways,distributionandmovementsbetweennestingseasons.

Nestingmigrationsandsubsequentdispersalof post-nestingfemaleshavebeenstudiedprincipally throughtaggingon nestingbeaches.Movementsand distribution of adult malesand juveniles, which may or may notmigratewith the females,havebeenvirtually unstudied.

Femaleturtlesareknown to return to nestin thesamegeneralareasat 2-,3- and 4-year intervals throughout their reproductive lives. Mechanismswhich allow turtles to navigateover greatdistancesandto exhibitnestingbeachfidelity arepoorly understood. Researchis neededto determinehow turtles navigate,(olfactory, magnetic,visual)and what factorscouldnegativelyinfluencethis ability. NMFS, COE, MMS, FWS and otherinterestedStateand Federalagenciesshould fund appropriateresearch.

2213. Determinepresentor potentialthreatsto loggerheadsalongmigratoryroutesandon foraginggrounds.

Loggerhead foraging habitat appearsto be highly correlatedwith theoccurrenceof crabs and mollusks. Unfortunately,thesefood items aremost abundantin nearshorewaterswhere commercial and recreationalfishing, dredging,oil and gasactivitiesand vesseltraffic occur. Threatsto migrating turtles are virtually unknown, becausewe have littleinformation on pathwaysor mechanismsof migration. Beforeaction canbe taken to eliminatethreatsto seaturtles, we must know what factorsmay impinge on the survival of turtle stocks. Researchis neededtodeterminewhenandwhereturtles may occur,and what activitiesin these

32

areasmay negativelyimpactrecoveryof thespecies.NMFS, EWS,COE,MMS and otherStateand Federalagenciesshould fund neededresearch.

2214. Determine breeding population origins for United Statesjuvenile/subadultpopulations.

To effectively managesea turtle stocksand to determinetheefficacy ofnestprotectionactivities, it would be advantageousto havea meansofdeterminingtheorigin of juvenile and subadultturtles. Such knowledgecould be of major importanceif progeny from specific nestingbeachesexhibit different behavior, movementsor foraging ranges, than turtlesfrom other beaches. Such differencescould result in high mortality insomenesting populations,and low mortality rates in other populations.AppropriateFederaland Stateagenciesshouldfund this research.

2215. Determine growth rates, sex ratios, age at sexual maturity andsurvivorshipratesof hatchllngs,juvenilesandadults.

Knowledgeof the ageat sexual maturity is necessaryif managersaretoknow when nestprotectionprogramscan be expectedto show results ifsuccessful. Extrapolation of growth ratedata using growth equationscurrently providesthebestalthoughan indirectmethodto estimateageatsexual maturity. Growth data can also be used to assessand comparehabitatquality. Directagingmethodsusingannuli in bonesor otherbodyparts may ultimately provide a better alternative and needs furtherresearch. Dataon survivorshiprates will be difficult to obtain for mostlife stages. To theextentthat this informationcan be collectedhowever,it will enablemanagersto more fully evaluatemanagementstrategiesutilizing moreaccuratepredictivepopulationmodels.

222. Monitor andreducemortality from commercialandrecreationalfisheries.

Seaturtlesareincidentallytaken in severalcommercialandrecreationalfisheries.For example, an estimated5,000 to 50,000 loggerheadswere killed annuallyduring commercialshrimp fishing activities prior to TED requirements. Otherfisheries known or suspected to incidentally capture turtles include thoseemployingbottomtrawls,off-bottomtrawls,purseseines,bottomlonglines,hookand line, gill nets, traps, haul seines,pound nets, beachseines and surfacelonglines.

33

2221. ImplementandenforceTED regulationsin all UnitedStateswatersatall times.

Regulationsrequiring shrimptrawlersgreaterthan25 feet in length to useTEDs in offshore watersduring certain months of the year went intoeffecton May 1, 1989. Boatsless than 25 feet musteither use TEDs orrestrict tow times to 90 minutes. On May 1, 1990, inshoreregulationswent into effect. While theseregulationsareexpectedto haveapositiveimpacton survivalof thespecies,certainareasandtimesof theyearhaveno TED requirement.To providethe maximumprotectionto seaturtles,NMFS shouldamendtheregulationsto requireTEDs in all watersat alltimes, and ensurethat all regulationsare enforced. Appropriate StateresourceagenciesshouldimplementStateyear-roundTED regulationsforall Statewatersfrom North Carolinato Texas.

2222. Providetechnologytransferfor installationanduseof TEDs.

Someshrimpfishermenrefuseto useTEDs and havemadeno attempttolearnaboutthem. If improperlyinstalledor adjusted,turtle mortality andshrimplossescanbe expecteduntil netsareproperly tuned. NMFS, SeaGrantand Stateagenciesshouldassisttheindustry in technologytransferfor installation and use of TEDs. This service by Federaland Stateagenciesshouldaid in thesmoothtransitionto useof this newequipment,and will ensureadequateprotectionof turtles.

2223. Maintainthe SeaTurtle StrandingandSalvageNetwork.

Most accessibleUnited Statesbeachesin theAtlanticandGulfof Mexicoare surveyedfor strandedseaturtles by volunteeror contractpersonnel.ThroughtheSeaTurtle StrandingandSalvageNetwork,strandingdataarearchivedand summarizedby the NMFS Miami Laboratory. Thesedataprovide an index of sea turtle mortality, and are thoughtto be a costeffective meansof evaluatingthe effectivenessof the TED regulations.Thesedataalsoprovidebasicbiological informationon sea turtlesandareuseful in determiningother sourcesof mortality. NMFS andFWS shouldcontinue systematicstranding surveysof index areasand support andaugmentthe network. Periodicreview of efficacy of surveysshouldbeconducted.

2224. Continue nesting population study at Little Cumberland andCumberlandIsland, Georgia.

A nestingpopulation study hasbeen underwayon theseislands since1964. Because of the long-term nature of the study, and the

34

comprehensivetaggingand surveyprotocol which hasbeenemployed,itis the only nesting beach in the United States with adult femalesurvivorshipdata. This populationis declining largelyasa result of theheavy mortality from nearshoreshrimp activities throughoutthe nestingseason. Becausethis is the only population with known adult femalesurvivorship data, these data precede the TED requirements, andshrimping mortality affectsthenestingpopulationdirectly, it is a uniqueopportunity to assesstheeffectivenessof TED usesdirectly on a nestingpopulationwith a minimum time lag. FWSand/orNMFS shouldcontinuefunding of this project.

2225. Evaluateimpactsof Sargassumharveston hatchlingsandimplementappropriatemeasuresto avoid incidental take of hatchlingsanddestructionof pelagichabitat.

Sargasswn harvest by surface trawling vesselsoperating off NorthCarolina is known to result in the incidental capture of loggerheadhatchlings. Thepotential significanceof this activity maybe greatsincehatchlings from nesting beachesall along the east coast are likelytransportedin Sargassumby the Gulf Stream,pastNorth Carolina andacrosstheAtlantic to developmentalhabitat in theeasternAtlantic. Theextentof the harvestand impactsto hatchlingsand theirpelagichabitatneed to be fully investigatedby NMFS and NCDNR. Appropriateprotectivemeasuresshould be developedand implementedwithin 1 yearof thecompletionof the investigation.

2226. Identify and monitor other fisheriesthat may be causingsignificantmortality.

In addition to shrimp trawls, other types of fishing equipment have beenimplicated in the deaths of sea turtles. Of particular concern are bottomtrawlinggear,gill nets,driftnetsandlonglines. NMFS recentlyconductedan internal ESA Section 7 consultationon the potential impacts to seaturtles of all types of fishing equipment in the Southeast, andrecommendedthat observercoveragebe initiated to document take inseveral fisheries. This observer coverage should be implementedimmediatelyby NMFS or appropriateStateresourceagencies.

2227. Promulgate regulationsto reducefishery relatedmortality.

If any fisheries are found to result in significant take of sea turtles,regulations to protect turtles should be published by NMFS andappropriateStateresourceagencies.

35

223. Monitor andreducemortality from dredgingactivities.

The COE is congressionallymandatedto maintain United Statesnavigationalchannels. To ensurethat authorizedchannel depths are sustained,periodicdredging is required. Sometypes of dredges,particularly the hopper dredge,have beenshown to take sea turtles, and on a cumulativebasis, this take isbelieved to be significant.

2231. Monitor turtle mortality on dredges.

Turtle mortality canbe documentedby screeningthe inflows/outflowsona hopper dredge, by observationaboard a clamshell dredge, or byobservingthe dischargeof a pipeline dredge. Presently,NMFS believesthatfew, if any, turtlesareimpactedby clamshellorpipelinedredges,butthat the hopper dredge is a major problem. NMFS should requireobserver coverage and appropriate screening on all hopper dredgeoperationsto documenttakeandassociatedmortality.

2232. Evaluatemodificationsof dredgedragheadsor devicesto reduceturtlecaptures,andincorporateeffectivemodificationsor devicesintofuturedredgingoperations.

RecentCOE andNMFS experimentsandphotographyof operatinghopperdredgesindicate that suction is greatestdirectly beneaththe draghead.This suggeststhat turtles takenby hopperdredgesmust be restingon thebottom in thepath of thedredge,and that mortality could be eliminatedif turtles could be moved 60 to 90 cm up or to either side. COE andNMFS gearspecialistsareattemptingto designa “turtle deflectordevice”which will push turtles out of the dredgepath. This researchshould becontinueduntil an effectivedevice is perfected.

2233. Determine seasonalityand abundanceof sea turtles at dredginglocalities, andensurethat dredgingis restrictedto time periodswiththeleastpotentialfor turtle mortality.

Channels requiring maintenancedredging and in which turtles aresuspectedto reside should be surveyedby the COE or Navy prior todredgingto determinewhen,whereandhow manyturtlesarepresent.Tominimize the impacts to sea turtles, all dredging activities should beconductedduring times of lowest turtle densities.

36

224. Monitor andpreventadverseimpactsfrom oil andgasactivities.

Oil can alter respiration,severelydamageskin, interferewith or stop saltglandfunctionandultimately lead to thedeathof turtles. Tar ballsposea particularlyseriousthreat to post-hatchlingsand smalljuvenilessincetar ballsarefrequentlyeatenand accumulatein thesamedriftilnes which theselife stagesinhabit.

2241. Determinetheeffectsof oil andoil dispersantson all life stages.

Oil spills resulting from blowouts,rupturedpipelines, tankeraccidents,orotheraccidentscould havea major impact on the recoveryof listed seaturtles. As evidencedby therecentExxon catastrophein Alaska, Federaland industry ability to respond to a major spill is woefully lacking.Therefore,it is essentialthat we haveknowledgeof theeffectsof oil andoil dispersantson all seaturtle life stagesto allow adequateassessmentofrisks and implementationof contingencyplansshould a major oil spilloccur. MMS, FWS, NMFS and the oil and gas industry should fundappropriateresearch.

2242. Ensurethat impacts to seaturtlesareadequatelyaddressedduringplanningof oil andgasdevelopment.

In assessingthepotentialimpactsof oil and gas activities, it is necessaryto look beyondtheexploration,development,productionandabandonmentof single wells, and consider the industry as a whole. In the Gulf ofMexico alone, thereare4,500existingoffshorestructuresand thousandsmore projectedover the next 20 years. Thesestructuresare linked bymiles of underwaterpipelines,andaresupportedby fleets of vesselsandaircraft. Productionandstoragefacilities onshoresupplyrefinedproductsfor tanker transport and land transport throughoutthe country. Thechancesof isolatedaccidents,whenconsideringtheexistinginfrastructure,arevery high. Additionally, thecumulativeimpactsof chronicdischargesfrom thousandsof independentstructurescould be significant. Explosiveremovalof structuresduringtheabandonmentphaseof theseactivitieshasalso been identified as a potential source of mortality to sea turtles.NMFS, MMS, FWS, and the oil and gas industry should takewhateveractionsare necessaryto ensurethat adequateprecautionsare taken toavoid impactsto seaturtles.

37

2243. Determineseaturtle distributionandseasonaluseof marinehabitatsassociatedwith oil andgasdevelopmentareas.

Oil and gasactivities occurover vast areasof the Gulf of Mexico andsouthern North Atlantic. Recent technologicaladvanceshavemade itpossible to conduct explorationand developmentactivities in deeperwaters. Despitethecontinuingoffshoremovementof the industry, littleeffort has been expendedin determining distribution, abundanceandseasonalityof variouslife stagesof seaturtles in offshorewaters. MMSand NMFS shouldfund neededresearchto evaluatethe effectsof oil andgasactivitieson therecoveryof seaturtles in offshorewaters.

225. Reduceimpactsfrom entanglementandingestionof persistentmarinedebris.

Ingestionof marine debris and entanglementof marine organismsin discardednets,monofilamentlinesand ropeshas receivedconsiderableattentionin recentyears. Young, pelagic-stageturtles are particularly vulnerableto ingestionofpersistentmaterials.Additionally, entanglementin nets,ropes,andmonofilamentlines maybea sourceof mortality to all life history stages.

2251. Evaluatetheextentof entanglementandingestionof persistentmarinedebris.

Limited information on the frequencyof entanglementand ingestionofmarine debrisby seaturtles is available. Strandingdataand necropsieshave provided evidence that some turtle mortality has resulted fromingestionof debris. Additionally, strandedturtleshavebeenentangledinlost ordiscardednetting,monofilamentlinesand ropes. NMFS,FWSandEPA should expand efforts to document cases of entanglementandingestion, theextentof marinedebris in United Stateswaters, sourcesofthese contaminants,and the impacts of these materials to various lifestagesof seaturtlepopulations.

2252. Evaluatetheeffectsof ingestionof persistentmarinedebrisonhealthandviability of seaturtles.

In additionto mortality resultingfrom ingestionofplastics,hydrocarbons,or other toxic substances,debilitating non-lethal impacts are possible.Researchis neededto evaluatethe long termeffectsof ingestionof marinedebris, particularly with regard to hatchlings during early life stages.These turtlesarebelieved to congregatein areasof debrisconcentrationsuchas driftlines. NMFS, and EPA should fund this research.

38

2253. Determineandimplementappropriatemeasuresto reduceoreliminatepersistentmarinedebris in the marineenvironment.

Marine debrismay originatefrom landor sea,primarily throughcarelessdisposal of non-biodegradablerefuse. Suspected sources of thesematerials are large transport vesselspumping bilges and discardinggarbage,commercialand recreationalfishermen,oil and gasplatforms,beachgoersand cruiseliners. To eliminatetheproblem,the public mustbe educatedon the long-term consequencesof using the oceansas agarbagedump. Point sourcesof pollution must be identified andeliminated by EPA, Coast Guard, State and Federal agencies.Appropriateagenciesshouldvigorously enforceMARPOL regulations.NMFS shouldpromulgateregulationsgoverningabandonmentof fishinggear,and imposeseverepenaltiesfor discardingthesematerials.

226. Evaluatemortality from recreationalandcommercialmotor vessels.

TheNationalAcademyof Sciencesestimates50 to 500loggerheadsmay be killedannuallyby boatstrikes(Magnusonet a!., 1990). Between1987and 1989, 6 to9 percentof strandedsea turtles along the United States Gulf of Mexico andAtlantic hadevidenceof injuries sustainedby boat strikes. While someinjuriesmay occur post mortem, the prevalenceof sea turtles with injuries suggestsasignificant problem in some locations. Coastal State resourceagenciesandNMFS shouldevaluateavailabledataand developbetterassessmentmethodstodetermineif measuressuchas speedregulationsareneededin specific localities.

227. Maintainlaw enforcementeffortsto reducepoachingin United Stateswaters.

Illegal directedfishing for seaturtles in United Stateswatersis not believedtobe a major problem. However, incidental takeand subsequentconsumptionofturtles may be a larger problem than suspectedamong certain groups offishermen. NMFS, EWS, and State resource agenciesshould increaselawenforcementefforts to arrest and prosecutefishermenpossessingsea turtlesillegally.

228. Centralizeadministrationandcoordinationof taggingprograms.

Seaturtle researcherscommonly tag turtles encounteredduring their researchprojects, and usually maintain independenttagging data bases. The lack ofcentralizationfor administeringthesetaggingdatabasesoftenresultsin confusionwhen taggedturtles are recaptured,and delaysin reporting of recapturesto thepersonoriginally tagging the turtle. NMFS and FWS should investigatethepossibilitiesof establishinga centralizedtagging database.

39

2281. Centralize tag seriesrecords.

A centralized tag series data base is neededto ensurethat recapturedtaggedturtlescanbepromptly reportedto personswho initially taggedtheanimal. The tag seriesdatabasewould includelistingsof all tag seriesthat havebeenplacedon seaturtles in thewild including the nameandaddressof the researcherplacing these tags on turtles. This wouldeliminateproblemsin determiningwhich researcheris using which tagseries or types of tags, and would preclude unnecessarydelays inreporting of tag returns. NMFS and/or FWS should establish andmaintainthis database.

2282. Centralizeturtle taggingrecords.

In additionto theneedfor a centralizationof tag seriesrecords,thereareadvantagesin developinga centralizedturtle taggingdata base. Suchadatabasewould allow all turtle researchersto traceunfamiliar tag seriesor types to their source,and also to haveimmediateaccessto importantbiological informationcollectedat thetimeof original capture. The majordisadvantageis that this data base would require frequentediting andupdating,andwould becostly andsomewhattime consumingto maintain.It wouldalsomakeit possiblefor unethicalresearcherstoexploit theworkof others,while providing no guaranteesthat suchcontributionswould beacknowledged. NMFS and EWS should determinewhethersuch a databasecan be establishedandis feasibleto maintain.

229. Ensurepropercare of sea turtles in captivity.

Loggerheadsaremaintainedin captivity for rehabilitation,researchor educationaldisplay. Propercarewill ensurethemaximumnumberofrehabilitatedturtlescanbe returned to the wild and a minimum number removedfrom the wild forresearchor educationpurposes.

2291. Develop standards for care and maintenance including diet, waterquality and tank size.

Noneof theserequirementshasbeenscientificallyevaluatedto determinethe best possiblecaptive conditions for loggerheads. The FWS andNMFS should support the necessaryresearchto develop these criteriaparticularly relating to diet. Thesecriteria should be published andrequiredfor any permitto hold seaturtles in captivity. EWS,NMFS andappropriateStateresourceagenciesshould inspectpermittedfacilities atleastannually for compliancewith permit requirements.

40

2292. Develop manual for treatment of diseaseand injuries.

FWS and NMFS should determine diseaseproblems associatedwithcaptiveseaturtlesandpublisha manualon thediagnosisandtreatmentofsuchdiseases. This manualshould also include treatmentfor commoninjuries. This will improve rehabilitativesuccessand captive care ofresearchand display specimens.

2293. Establishcatalogfor all captiveseaturtles to enhanceutilization forresearchandeducation.

Currently captive seaturtles arebeing held at over 50 facilities. TheFWSand NNff S shouldestablisha catalogandact asaclearinghousetoensurecaptivespecimensareutilized efficiently to diminish the needforremovingadditional specimensfrom thewild.

2294. Designaterehabilitation facilities.

EWS and NMFS in coordinationwith the appropriateState agenciesshoulddesignaterehabilitationfacilities for Atlantic andGulfCoaststates.Designationshould be basedon availability of veterinarypersonnelwithexpertiseor experiencein reptilian care and the institution’s ability tocomply with care and maintenancestandardsdevelopedin step 2291above. Eachfacility should be inspectedby a team including a NMFS,EWS, and appropriateState representativeprior to its designationas arehabilitationfacility. Inspectionsshouldbe conductedat leastannuallythereafter.

3. Information and education.

Seaturtle conservationrequireslong-termpublic supportover a largegcographicarea.The public must be factually informed of the issues particularly when conservationmeasuresconflictwith humanactivitiessuchascommercialfisheries,beachdevelopmentandpublic useof nestingbeaches.Publiceducationis thefoundationuponwhich along-term conservationprogram will succeedor fail.

31. Provide slide programs and information leaflets on seaturtle conservationforgeneral public.

TheFWShasdevelopedabi-lingual slide tapeprogramon seaturtleconservationand shouldkeeptheprogramcurrentandavailablefor all public institutions. TheFWS andStateresourceagenciesshouldcontinuallyupdateandsupply thepublicwith informationalbrochureson seaturtle ecologyand conservationneeds.

41

32. Developbrochureon recommendedlighting modificationsor measurestoreducehatchlingdisorientationandmisorientation.

Most lighting ordinancesrequirelights be shut off or modified to preventdirectlighting on the nesting beach. However, it is not always clear what typesoflight, screeningor shadingwork best and the appropriateuseof low pressuresodiumlights needsto be clearlyexplained.TheEWS, NMFS andStateresourceagencies should jointly develop and publish a brochure or booklet withrecommendedlighting fixtures, lights, shading modifications and operationalconstraints.

33. Develop public service announcements (PSA) regarding the sea turtleartificial lighting conflict, and disturbance of nesting activities by publicnighttime beach activities.

A professionallyproducedpublic serviceannouncementfor radioand TV wouldprovide tremendoussupport and reinforcementof the many coastal lightingordinances.It would generategreatersupportthroughunderstanding.TheFWS,andStateresourceagenciesshoulddevelopa high quality PSAwhich could beusedthroughoutthe Southeastduring the nestingseason.

34. Ensure facilities permitted to hold and display captive sea turtles haveappropriate informational displays.

Over50 facilities arepermittedto hold seaturtlesfor rehabilitation,researchandpublic education.Many areon public displayand afford opportunitiesfor publiceducation.Displayof accurateinformationon thebasicbiologyandconservationproblemsshould be a requirementof all permittees. All facilities should bevisited by EWS, NMFS and the Statepermitting agenciesto ensurecaptiveseaturtlesarebeing displayedin a way to meetthesecriteria.

35. Develop standard criteria and recommendations for sea turtle nestinginterpretive walks.

Seaturtle walks arepopularwith thepublic andafford tremendousopportunitiesfor public educationor, if poorly conducted,misinformation. StatepermittingagenciesandtheEWS shoulddevelopstandardsfor permitteesconductingwalks.Theseobjectivecriteria shouldbe usedto evaluateseaturtle walks to ensuretheyare professional, provide accurate biological information, convey an accurateconservationmessage,and area positive experience. Justas importantly theyshouldnot causeunnecessaryor significantdisturbanceto nesting turtles.

42

36. Post informationsignsat public accesspointson importantnestingbeaches.

Publicaccesspointsto importantnestingbeachesprovideexcellentopportunitiesto inform the public of necessaryprecautionsfor compatiblepublic useon thenestingbeachandto developpublic supportthroughinformationalandeducationalsigns. NCDNR, SCWMRD, GDNR, FDNR,FWS, NPS andother appropriateorganizationsshouldpostsuch educationaland informationalsignson importantnestingbeachesasappropriate.

4. Internationalcooperation.

41. Develop internationalagreementsto ensureprotectionof life stageswhich occurinforeign waters.

There is compelling evidencethat post-hatchlingloggerheadsfrom United Statesnestingbeachesspendseveralyearsasjuvenilesin a transatlanticdevelopmentalstage. In theeasternAtlantic (Madeira, Azoresand Canary Islands) small juveniles ((40 cm) areexploited for curios and food. Larger juvenilesare commonthroughoutthe Bahamaswhereexploitation for food alsois common. Populationsin coastalwatersof CubaandHispaniola likely originate from United States populations. Protecting loggerheads onUnitedStatesnestingbeachesandin UnitedStateswatersthereforeis not sufficientaloneto ensure thecontinuedexistenceof loggerheads.The NMFS andEWS shoulddevelopcooperativeinternationalagreementsandprogramswith thegovernmentsof theBahamas,Portugal,Cuba,Haiti, DominicanRepublic,Spainandothercountrieswhereloggerheadsoriginating from United Statesnestingpopulationsoccur.

43

LITERATURE CITED

Ackerman, RA. 1980. Physiologicaland ecologicalaspectsof gasexchangeby seaturtleeggs.Amer. Zool. 20:575-583.

Balazs,G.H. 1985. Impactof oceandebrison marine turtles: entanglementand ingestion,p.387-429. In R.S. Shomuraand H.O. Yoshida(eds.),Proceedingsof theWorkshopon theFateandImpactof MarineDebris,26-29November1984,Honolulu,Hawaii. NOAA Tech.Memo. NMFS/SWFC-54.

Bell, R., andJ. I. Richardson. 1978. An analysisof tag recoveriesfrom loggerheadseaturtles(Carenacarella) nesting on Little CumberlandIsland, Georgia. Florida Mar. Res.PubI.33:20-24.

Bjorndal,K.A., AB. Meylan,andB.J. Turner. 1983. SeaturtlesnestingatMelbourneBeach,florida, I. Size, growth andreproductivebiology. Biol. Conserv.26:65-77.

Brongersma,L.D. 1961. Notesupon someseaturtles. Zool. Verh. (Leiden)No. 52:1-45.

Brongersma,L.D. 1972. EuropeanAtlantic turtles. Zool. Verh. (Leiden) No. 121.

Byles, R.A. 1988. The behaviorand ecologyof seaturtles Carena carenaandLepidochelyskempi,in ChesapeakeBay. PhDDissertation. CollegeofWilliam andMary, Williamsburg.

Caldwell, D.K. 1959. The loggerheadturtlesof CapeRoman,SouthCarolina. (abridgedandannotatedmanuscriptof W.P. Baldwin, Jr. andJ.P.Loftin, Jr.). Bull. Fla. StateMus. Biol.Sci. 4:319-348.

Caidwell, D.K., F.H. Berry, A. Can,andR.A. Ragotzkie. 1959a. Multiple andgroupnestingby the Atlantic loggerheadturtle. Bull. Fla. StateMus. Biol. Sci. 4:309-318.

Caldwell, D.K., A. Can, and L.H. Ogren. 1959b. Nesting and migration of the Atlanticloggerhead turtle. Bull. Fla. State Mus. Biol. Sci. 4:295-308.

Can, A.F., Jr., 1952. Handbook of Turtles. The turtles of the United States, Canada and BajaCalifornia. Cornell UniversityPress. Ithaca,NY.

Can, A.F., Jr., 1986a. Rips, FADS and little loggerheads.Bioscience36:92-100.

Can, A.F., Jr., 1986b. New perspectiveson the pelagic stage of sea turtle development.

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-190,36p.Carr, A.F., Jr., 1987. Impact of nondegradablemarine debrison the ecology and survival

outlookof seaturtles. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18(6B):352-356.

44

Carr, A.F., Jr., and L.H. Ogren. 1960. The ecologyand migrationsof sea turtles, 4. Thegreen turtle in the CaribbeanSea. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 121:1-48.

Carr, A.F., Jr., and A.B. Meylan. 1980. Evidenceof passive migration of green turtlehatchlingsin sargassum.Copeia1980:366-368.

Coston-Clements,L., and D.E. Hoss. 1983. Synopsisof data on the impact of habitatalterationon seaturtlesaroundthesoutheasternUnitedStates. NOAA Tech.Memo. NMFS-SEFC-117,Y7p.

Crouse,D.T. 1982. Incidentalcaptureof seaturtles by United Statescommercialfisheries.Unpubl. report to Centerfor EnvironmentalEducation,Washington,DC, l9p.

Crouse,D.T. 1985. Biology andconservationof seaturtlesin North Carolina. Unpubl. Ph.D.Dissertation.Univ. Wisconsin,Madison.

Crouse,D.T., L.B. Crowder,and H. Caswell. 1987. A stage-basedpopulation model forloggerheadseaturtles and implicationsfor conservation. Ecology 68:1412-1423.

Daniel,R.S., and K.U. Smith. 1947. The sea-approachbehaviorof theneonateloggerheadturtle. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 40:413-420.

Davis, G.E., and M.C. Whiting. 1977. Loggerhead sea turtle nesting in Everglades NationalPark,Florida, USA. Herpetologica33:18-28.

Deraniyagala,P.E.P. 1933. Theloggerheadturtles (Carettidae)of Ceylon. CeylonJ. Sci. (B)18:61-72.

Deraniyagala,P.E.P. 1939. The Tetrapodreptilesof Ceylon. Vol. 1. Testudinatesandcrocodilians. ColomboMus. Nat. Hist. Ser.,Colombo,Ceylon, 4l2p.

desilva,G.S. 1982. Thestatusof seaturtle populationsin eastMalaysiaand thesouth ChinaSea, p. 327-337. In K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles.SmithsonianInstitution Press,Washington,D.C.

Dickerson,D.D., and D.A. Nelson. 1989. Recentresultson hatchlingorientationresponsesto light wavelengthsand intensities, p.41. In S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H.Richardson(comp.),Proceedingsof theNinth AnnualWorkshopon SeaTurtleConservationand Biology. NOAATech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-232.

Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1988. Synopsisof thebiological dataon the loggerheadseaturtle Caretta(Linnaeus1758).United StatesFishWildl. Serv.Biol. Rep.88(14), hOp.

45

Ehrenfeld, D.W., and A. Carr. 1967. The role of vision in the sea-finding orientation of thegreen turtle Cheloniamydas. Anim. Behav. 15:25-36.

Ehrhart,L.M. 1983. A surveyof nestingby thegreenturtle, Cheloniamydas,and loggerheadturtle, Caren’a carena, in south Brevard County, Florida. Unpubl. Report to World Wildl.Fund - U.S., Washington,DC, 49p.

Ehrhart,L.M. 1989. A statusreviewof the loggerheadturtle, Carenacaretta, in the WesternAtlantic. p. 122-139. In L. Ogren,F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina,H. Reichart, and R. Witham (eds.), Proceedingsof the Second WesternAtlantic TurtleSymposium. NOAA Tech.Memo. NMFS-SEFC-226.

Epperly,S.P.,and A. Veishlow. 1989. Seaturtle speciescompositionand distributionin theinshorewatersof North Carolina. Unpubl. Reportto United States Fish and Wildl. Serv. andNat. Mar. Fish. Serv.,NOAA, NMIFS, BeaufortLaboratory,Beaufort,NC, 49p.

Ernest,R.G., R. Erick, and C.J. Bove. 1987. Developmentof a comprehensivesea turtleprotectionordinancefor St. Lucie County, Florida. (Abstract). SeventhAnnual Workshopon Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. February 1987, Wekiva Springs State Park,Florida.

Ernest,R.G.,R.E. Martin, N. William-Walls, andJ.R. Wilcox. 1989. Populationdynamicsof sea turtles utilizing shallow coastal waters off HutchinsonIsland, Florida, p. 57-59. InS.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson(comp.),Proceedingsof theNinth AnnualWorkshopon SeaTurtleConservationandBiology. NOAA Tech.Memo. NMFS-SEFC-232.

Frazer, N.B. 1983. Survivorship of adult female loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta,nestingon Little CumberlandIsland, Georgia,USA. Herpetologica39:436-447.

Frazer,N.B., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1985. Preliminarygrowthmodelsfor green,Cheloniamydas,and loggerhead,Caretta caretra, turtles in the wild. Copeia1985:73-79.

Frazier, J. 1984. Las tortugas marinasen el OceanoAtlantico Sur Occidental. Assoc.Herpetol. Argentina 2:2-21.

Frazier,J., and S. Salas. 1982. Tortugasmarinasen Chile. Bol. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Chile39:63-73.

Fritts, T.H., and W. Hoffman. 1982. Diurnal nestingof marine turtles in southernBrevardCounty, Florida. J. Herpetol. 16:84-86.

Fritts, T.H., AB. Irvine, R.D. Jennings, L.A. Collum, W. Hoffman, and M.A. McGehee.1983. Turtles,birds andmammalsin thenorthernGulf ofMexico and nearbywaters.UnitedStates Fish Wildl. Serv., FWS/OBS82/65, 455p.

46

Fntts, T.H., and M.A. McGehee. 1989. Effectsof petroleumon thedevelopmentandsurvivalof marine turtle embryos,p.321-322. In L. Ogren,F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R.Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart,and R. Witham (eds.),Proceedingsof theSecondWesternAtlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-226.

Groombridge,B. 1982. The IUCN Amphibia-Reptiliared databook. Part 1. Testudines,Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland,426p.

Hendrickson,J.R. 1958. Thegreenseaturtle, Cheloniamydas(Linn.) in MalayaandSarawak.Proc. Zool. Soc. London 130:455-535.

Henwood,T.A. 1987. Movementsand seasonalchangesin loggerheadturtle Caretta carettaaggregationsin thevicinity of CapeCanaveral,Florida(1978-1984). Biol. Consery.40:191-202.

Henwood,T., and W.E. Stuntz. 1987. Analysis of seaturtle capturesand mortalitiesduringcommercial shrimp trawling. Fish. Bull. 85:813-817.

Hopkins-Murphy, S.R. 1988. Sea turtle recovery efforts in the southeastern United States, p.63-71. In proceedingsof the Third SoutheasternNon-gameand EndangeredWildlifeSymposium, August 1987, Athens, Georgia.

Hopkins, S.R., and T.M. Murphy. 1980. Reproductive ecology of Carena carena in SouthCarolina. S.C.Wildl. Mar. Res.Dept. CompletionRep. 97p.

Hopkins, S.R., and J.I. Richardson, eds. 1984. Recovery plan for marine turtles. NationalMarineFisheriesService. Washington,D.C. 355 p.

Hopkins-Murphy,S.R.,andT.M. Murphy, Jr. 1988. Statusof the loggerheadturtle in SouthCarolina,p.35-37. In B.A. Schroeder(comp.),Proceedingsof theEight Annual Workshopon SeaTurtle Conservationand Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-214.

Hosier,P.E.,M. Kochhar,andV. mayer. 1981. Off-roadvehicleandpedestriantrackeffects

on the sea-approach of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Environ. Conserv. 8:158-161.

Hughes,G.R. 1975. The marineturtlesof Tongaland,VIII. Lammergeyer22:9-18.

Kaufmann,R. 1975. Studieson theloggerheadseaturtle, Carena carettacaretta (Linne) inColombia, SouthAmerica. Herpetologica31:323-326.

Killingly, J.S.,and M. Lutcavage. 1983. Loggerheadturtle movementsreconstructedfrom180 and 13C profiles from commensalbarnacleshells. EstuarineCoastalShelfSci. 16:345-349.

47

Klima, E.F., G.R. Gitschlag,and M.L. Renaud. 1988. Impactsof theexplosiveremovalofoffshorepetroleumplatformson seaturtlesanddolphins. Mar. Fish. Rev. 50(3):33-42.

Kraemer,J.E. 1979. Variation in incubationlength of loggerheadseaturtle, Careaa.careaa,clutches on the Georgia coast. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis. University of Georgia,Athens.

Labisky, R.F., M.A. Mercadante, and W.L. Finger. 1986. Factors affecting reproductivesuccessof seaturtleson CapeCanaveralAir ForceStation,Florida, 1985. Final Reporttothe United StatesAir Force,United StatesFish and Wildl. Serv. Coop., Fish and Wildl.ResearchUnit, AgreementNo. 14-16-0009-1544,Work OrderNo. 25, l8p.

Lenarz,M. S., N.E. Frazer,M.S. Ralston,andR.B. Mast. 1981. Sevennestsrecordedforloggerheadturtle Carettacaretta in one season. Herpetol.Rev. 12:9.

Limpus, C.J. 1979. Noteson growthratesof wild turtles. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 10:3-5.

Linnaeus,C. 1758. Systemanaturaeper regnatria naturae,secundumclasses,ordines,genera,species,cum characteribus,differentiis, synonymis, locis. Ed. 10, Tomus 1. L. Salvii,Stockholm,Sweden,823p.

Litwin, S.C. 1978. Loggerheadseaturtlesof Jekyll Island, Georgia;a reporton conservation.HE.RPBull. N.Y. Herpetol. Soc. 14:18-21.

Lohoefener, R.R., W. Hoggard, C.L. Roden, K.D. Muffin, and C.M. Rogers. 1988.Distribution and relativeabundanceof surfaced sea turtles in the North-CentralGulf ofMexico; spring and fall 1987, p. 47-50. in B.A. Schroeder(comp.), Proceedingsof theEighth Annual Workshopon Sea Turtle Conservationand Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo.NMFS-SEFC-214.

Lund, F. 1973. Marine turtle program,JupiterIsland, Florida, 1973. Unpubl. Report.

Lutcavage,M., and J.A. Musick. 1985. Aspectsof the biology of seaturtles in Virginia.Copeia1985:449-456.

Lutz, P.L. in press. Studieson the ingestion of plastic and latex by sea turtles. Proc. Int.Conf. Mar. Debris,April 1989, Honolulu, HI.

Mager, A., Jr. 1985. Five-yearstatusreviewsof seaturtleslistedundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973. NationalMarineFisheriesService,Washington,D.C.

Magnuson,J.J.,K.A. Bjorndal, W.D. DuPaul,G.L. Graham,D.W. Owens,C.H. Peterson,P.C.H. Pritchard,J.I. Richardson,G.E. Saul, and C.W. West. 1990. Decline of the seaturtles: causesand prevention. National AcademyPress,Washington,D.C. 259p.

48

Mann, T.M. 1977. Impact of developedcoastlineon nesting and hatchling sea turtles insoutheasternFlorida. Unpubl. MS. Thesis. Florida Atlantic University, BocaRaton.

Marcus, S.J., and C.G. Maley. 1987. Comparison of sand temperatures between a shaded andunshadedturtle nestingbeachin southflorida. (abstract) SeventhAnnual Workshopon SeaTurtle Biology and Conservation,February1987, Wekiva SpringsStatePark,Florida.

Margaritoulis,D. 1982. Observationson loggerheadseaturtle Carettacarettaactivity duringthreenestingseasons(1977-1979)in Zakynthos,Greece.Biol. Conserv.24:193-204.

McFarlane, R.W. 1963. Disorientationof loggerheadhatchlingsby artificial road lighting.Copeia1963:153.

McGehee,M.A. 1979. Factorsaffecting the hatchingsuccessof loggerheadseaturtle eggsCarettacaretta caretla. Unpubi. M.S. Thesis. University of CentralFlorida, Orlando.

Mendonca,M.T. 1981. Comparativegrowth ratesof wild immatureChelonzamydasandCarettacaretia in Florida. J. Herpetol. 15:447-451.

Meylan, A.B. 1982. Seaturtle migration--evidencefrom tagreturns. p. 91-100. InK. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington,D.C.

Meylan, A.B., K.A. Bjorndal, andB.J. Turner. 1983. Seaturtlesnestingat MelbourneBeach,Florida, II. Post-nestingmovementsof Caretiacaretta. Biol. Conserv.26:79-90.

Morreale,S.J.,G.J.Ruiz,J.R. Spotila,andE.A. Standora. 1982. Temperature-dependentsexdetermination: currentpracticesthreatenconservationof seaturtles. Science 216:1245-1247.

Mortimer, J.A. 1979. AscensionIsland: British jeopardize45 yearsof conservation. Mar.Turtle Newsl. 10:7-8.

Mortimer, J.A. 1982. Factorsinfluencingbeachselectionby nestingseaturtles,p. 45-51. InK.A. Bjorndal (ed.),Biology andconservationof seaturtles.SmithsonianInstitution Press,Washington, D.C.

Mortimer, J.A. 1989. Researchneededfor managementof thebeachhabitat,p. 236-246. InL. Ogren, F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R.Witham (eds.),Proceedingsof the SecondWesternAtlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAATech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-226.

Mrosovsky,N. 1988. Pivotal temperatureofloggerheadturtles Caretta carerta from northernand southern nesting beaches. Can. J. Zool. 66:661-669.

49

Murphy, T.M. 1985. Telemetric monitoring of nestingloggerheadsea turtles subjectedtodisturbanceon the beach. PaperpresentedatFifth Annual Workshopon SeaTurtle Biologyand Conservation,13-16March 1985, Waverly, Georgia.

Murphy, T.M., andSR. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial andground surveysof marineturtle nestingbeachesin thesoutheastregion, United StatesFinal report to NMFS-SEFC, 723p.

Murphy, T.M., and S. Hopkins-Murphy. 1990. Homing of translocated gravid loggerheadturtles. p. 123-124. In T.H. Richardson,J.I. Richardson,and M. Donnelly (comp.),Proceedingsof theTenthAnnual Workshopon SeaTurtle BiologyandConservation,NOAATechMemo. NMFS-SEFC-278.

Nelson,D.A. 1988. Life historyand environmentalrequirementsof loggerheadturtles.UnitedStatesFishWildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 88(23).United StatesArmy Corpsof EngineersTR EL-86-2(Rev.).34p.

Nelson,D.A., and D.D. Dickerson. 1987. Correlation of loggerheadturtle nestingdiggingwith beachsandconsistency. (abstract). SeventhAnnual Workshop on SeaTurtle Biologyand Conservation,February1987, Wekiva SpringsStatePark, florida.

Nelson,D.A., and D.D. Dickerson. 1988. Hardnessof nourishedandnaturalseaturtlenestingbeacheson the east coast of Florida. Unpubi. Report. United States Army EngineerWaterwaysExperimentStation,Vicksburg, Mississippi.

OgrenL., and C. McVea, Jr. 1982. Apparenthibernationby seaturtles in North Americanwaters, p. 127-132. In K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservationof sea turtles.SmithsonianInstitution Press,Washington,D.C.

O’Hara, K., S. Indicello, and R. Bierce. 1988. A citizen’s guide to plastics in the ocean:morethana little problem. Centerfor Marine Conservation,Washington,D.C.

Parker, G.H. 1926. The growth of turtles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 12:422-424.

Philibosian,R. 1976. Disorientationof hawksbill turtle hatchlings,Eremzochelysimbricaza,by stadiumlights. Copeia1976:824.

Pilkey, O.H., Jr., D.C. Sharma, H.R. Wanless,L.J. Doyle, O.H. Pilkey, Sr., W.J. Neal, andB.L. Gruver. 1984. Living with theeastFlorida shore. DukeUniversityPress,Durham,NC. 259p.

Plotldn,P., and A.F. Amos. 1988. Entanglementin and ingestionof marinedebrisby seaturtles strandedalong the south Texas coast, p. 79-82. In B.A. Schroeder (comp.),Proceedingsof theEighthAnnual Workshopon SeaTurtle Biology andConservation,NOAATech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-214.

50

Possardt,E.E. 1991. A conservationprogramfor seaturtles in the southeasterncontinentalUnited States. J. Ala. Acad. Sci. 62: 35-48.

Powers,J.E. 1981. An estimateof nesting femaleloggerheadturtleson thesouthAtlantic coastof theUnited Statesin 1980. NMFS, Miami, FL 17 p.

Pritchard,P.C.H. 1979. Encyclopediaof turtles. T.F.H. Publ., Neptune,N.J. 895p.

Pritchard,P.C.H.,andP.Trebbau. 1984. Theturtlesof Venezuela.SSAR Contrib. Herpetol.

No.2.Provancha,J.A., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1987. SeaturtlenestingtrendsatJohnF. KennedySpace

Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, and relationships with factorsinfluencingnestsiteselection,p. 33-4.4. In W.N. Witzell (ed.), Ecology of eastFloridaseaturtles. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS No. 53.

Raymond,P.W. 1984a. The effectsof beachrestorationon marine turtles nestingin southBrevardCounty, Florida. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis. University of CentralFlorida, Orlando.

Raymond,P.W. 1984b. Seaturtle hatchlingdisorientationand artificial beachfrontlighting.Centerfor EnvironmentalEducation,Washington,D.C. 72p.

Richardson,J.I. 1982. A population model for adult female loggerheadseaturtles Carettacaretta nesting in Georgia. Unpubi. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. Georgia,Athens.

Richardson,J.I., and T.H. Richardson. 1982. An experimentalpopulation model for theloggerheadsea turtle Caretta caretta. p. 165-176. In K. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology andconservationof seaturtles. SmithsonianInstitution Press,Washington,D.C.

Richardson,T.H., J.I. Richardson,C. Ruckdeschel,and M.W. Dix. 1978. Remigrationpatterns of loggerheadsea turtles Caretta caretta nesting on Little Cumberland andCumberland Islands, Georgia. Mar. Res. Publ. 33:39-44.

Roithmayr,C., andT. Henwood. 1982. Incidentalcatch and mortality report. Unpubl. NMFSReport, 20p.

Ross,J.P. 1982. Historical declineof loggerhead,ridley, and leatherbackseaturtles, p. 189-195. ln K. Bjorndal (ed.),Biology andconservationof seaturtles. SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.

Ross,J.P.,andM.A. Barwani. 1982. Review of seaturtles in the Arabianarea,p. 373-383.In K. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservationof seaturtles. SmithsonianInstitution Press,Washington,D.C.

51

Salmon, M., and J. Wyneken. 1987. Orientation and swimming behavior of hatchlingloggerhead sea turtles Carettacarettaduring theiroff-shoremigration. J. Exp. Mar. Biol.Ecol. 109:137-153.

Schaefer,C., L. Barger,and H. Kumpf. 1987. Reporton the drift gillnet fishery in theFortPierce-PortSalernoareaoff theeastcoastof Florida. Unpubl. NMFS Report,24p.

Schmelz,G.W., and R.R. Mezich. 1988. A preliminaryinvestigationof thepotential impactof Australian pineson the nesting activities of the loggerheadturtle, p. 63-66. In B.A.Schroeder(comp.),Proceedingsof theEighthAnnualConferenceon SeaTurtle ConservationandBiology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-214.

Schroeder,BA. 1981. Predationandnestsuccessin two speciesof marineturtles (Carettacarettaand Cheloniamydas)at Merritt Island, Florida. Ha. Sci. 44(l):35.

Schroeder,BA. 1987. Strandingsof marine turtlesalong theUnited StatesAtlantic andGulfof Mexico coasts(1986). (abstract). SeventhAnnual Workshopon SeaTurtle Biology andConservation,February1987, WekivaSpringsStatePark, Florida.

Schroeder,B.A., and A.A. Warner. 1988. 1987Annual reportof theseaturtle strandingandsalvagenetwork, Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. NMFS/SEFC, MiamiLaboratory,CoastalResourcesDivision Contrib. No. CRD-87/88-28,‘tSp.

Schwartz, F.J. 1988. Aggregationof young hatchling sea turtles in Sargasswnoff NorthCarolina. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 42: 9-10.

Shoup,L.P., and R.E. Wolf. 1987. Boca Raton beachareaoutdoorlighting restrictionsfortheprotectionof seaturtles. (abstract). SeventhAnnual Workshopon SeaTurtle Biologyand Conservation,February1987, Wekiva SpringsStatePark,Florida.

Squires,H.J. 1954. Recordsof marine turtles in the Newfoundlandarea. Copeia1954:68.

Stancyk,S.E. 1982. Non-humanpredatorsof seaturtlesand their control,p.139-152. lii K.A.Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservationof sea turtles. SmithsonianInstitution Press,Washington,D.C.

Stancyk,S.E.,O.R. Talbert,andJ.M. Dean. 1980. Nestingactivity of the loggerheadturtleCaretia caretta in South Carolina, II: protection of nests from raccoon predation bytransplantation. Biol. Conserv.18:289-298.

Standora,E.A., and J.R. Spotila. 198S. Temperaturedependentsex determinationin seaturtles. Copeia1985:711-722.

52

Talbert,O.R.,Jr., S.E. Stancyk,J.M. Dean, and J.M. Will. 1980. Nestingactivity of theloggerheadturtle Caretta caretia in South Carolina I: a rookery in transition. Copeia1980:709-718.

Teas, W.G., and A. Martinez. 1989. 1988 Annual report of the sea turtle strandingandsalvagenetwork, Atlantic and Gulf coastsof the United States. NMFS/SEFC, MiamiLaboratory, CoastalResourcesDivision Contrib. No. CRD-88/89-19,‘$7p.

Thompson,N.B. 1983. Abundanceof femaleCarettacaretta(loggerheadturtles)nestingalongthesoutheastUnited Statescoast1982 nestingseason. NMFS Miami, FL., 24p.

Thompson,T.J., andC.R. Shoop. 1984. Southeastturtle survey: Final report to theNationalMarineFisheriesServicepelagicsurveys. SEFC[NMFS ContractNA 82-GA-Goool2.71p.

Ulrich, G.F. 1978. Incidental catchof loggerheadturtles by South Carolina commercialfisheries. Unpubl. Reportto Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv.,ContractNos. 03-7-042-35151and03-7-042-35121, 36p.

VanMeter, V.B. 1990. Florida’sseaturtles. FloridaPowerandLight Co., Miami, FL. 63p.

van Nierop, M.M., and J.C. den Hartog. 1984. A studyof thegut contentsof five juvenileloggerheadturtles,Carena caretta (Linnaeus)(Reptiuia, Cheloniidae),from thesoutheasternpartof thenorth Atlantic Ocean,with emphasison coelenterateidentification. Zool. Meded.(Leiden)59(4):35-54.

Vargo, S., P. Lutz, D. Odell, E. VanVleet, and G. Bossart. 1986. Studyof theeffectsof oilon marineturtles. Final report to MineralsMgmt. ServiceMMS ContractNo. 14-12-0001-30063. l8lp.

Witham, R., and C.R. Futch. 1977. Early growth and oceanic survival of pen-reared seaturtles. Herpetologica33:404-409.

Witherington, B.E. 1986. Human and natural causesof marine turtle clutch and hatchlingmortality andtheirrelationshipto hatchlingproductionon an importantFloridanestingbeach.Unpubl. MS. Thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Witherington,B.E. in press. Behavioralresponsesof nesting seaturtles to artificial lighting.Herpetologica.

Witherington,B.E., andK.A. Bjorndal. 1991. Influencesof artificial lighting on theseawardorientationof hatchlingloggerheadturtles Caretta caretia. Biol. Conserv.55: 139-149.

Witherington,B.E., K.A. Bjorndal, and C.M. McCabe. 1990. Temporalpatternof nocturnalemergenceof loggerheadturtle hatchlingsfrom natural nests. Copeia1990: 1165-1168.

53

Witzell, W.N. 1987. Theincidentalcaptureof seaturtles in the Atlantic United Statesfisheryconservationzoneby theJapanesetunalongline fleet, 1978-81. Mar. Fish. Rev.46(3):56-58.

Wolke, R.E. 1989. Pathologyand seaturtle conservation. Unpubl. Report, 25p.

Wolke, R.E., D.R. Brooks,and A. George. 1982. Spirorchidiasisin loggerheadseaturtles

Caretta carena: pathology. J. Wildl. Dis. 18:175-185.

Yntema, C.I. 1982. Critical periods and pivotal temperaturesfor sexual differentiationin

loggerheadseaturtles. Can.J. Zool. 60:1012-1016.

Yntema, C.I., and N. Mrosovsky. 1980. Sexualdifferentiation in hatchling loggerheadsCaretta caretia incubatedat differentcontrolledtemperatures.Herpetologica36:33-36.

54

LII. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Priorities in Column 4 of thefollowing ImplementationScheduleareassignedasfollows:

Priority 1 - An action that mustbe taken to preventextinction or to preventthespeciesfromdecliningirreversibly in the foreseeablefuture.

Priority 2- An action that mustbe takento preventa significantdecline in speciespopulationlhabitatquality or someother significantnegativeimpact shortofextinction.

Priority 3 - All otheractionsnecessaryto providefor full recoveryof the species.

55

GENERAL CATEGORIESFOR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES

InformationGathering- I or R (research)

1. Populationstatus2. Habitat status3. Habitat requirements4. Managementtechniques5. Taxonomicstudies6. Demographicstudies7. Propagation8. Migration9. Predation

10. Competition11. Disease12. Environmentalcontaminant13. Reintroduction14. Otherinformation

Management- M

1. Propagation2. Reintroduction3. Habitat maintenanceand manipulation4. Predator and competitor control5. Depredationcontrol6. Diseasecontrol7. Other management

Acquisition - A

1. Lease2. Easement3. Managementagreement4. Exchange5. Withdrawal6. Feetitle7. Other

Other-O

1. Information and education2. Law enforcement3. Regulations4. Administration

56

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Loggerhead Turtle (Recovery Priority #7C)

tOsneral I Task I Task Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000 lCommsntaljCatego4y Plan Task lNurnbar jPriouity Duration Agency Icurrent I Fy 2 I Fy 3 I Fy 4 I Fy 5 Notes

M-3 Implement and evaluate I 1111beach tilling I

R-3 lEvaluate sand character- j ¶ 112listics relative to hatch II success and nesting I

I Ibehavior II I II M-3 IRe-establish dunes and 11113

Inative vegetation on jI Ibeach nourishment I

Iprojects II I I

M-3, R-3 Evaluate sand transfer I 1114I IsystamsI I I II 0-3, M-3 lEvalusts current laws on I 1121 II beach armorIng I II I II 0-3, M-3 lEnforos laws regulatIng 11122 II I coastal construction I I

I I II M-3 Ensure failed aroelon 1123 I

Icontrol measures areI Iremoved II I I II M-3 Develop standard reqwre- 11124 I

Iments for sand fence I II construction I II I I II M-3 lEvaluste and mItIgate I 1131 II Isrosion on Cape Island. I

Isc II I II I I

3

2

2

3

continuing COE

4 years COE

I II II continuing I COEI I I

I II I

I continuing I COE

I II continuing FDNR. GDNR, II I SCCC, NCDNRI II contInuing I FDNR, GDNR, II I SCCC, NCDNR II II continuing I FONA, ODNR, I

I SCCC. NCDNR II I

I 1 year I FDNR, GDNR, II SCCC. NCDNR IIFWSI I

13-Sysars I

I I I

I I I

2

3

2

35 35

•i.

35

I II I

35

I No estimate; costs tobe borne by speaficnourishment projects

I No estimate; costs tolbs borne by apeolficInowishment projects

I I

IRoutinaI II II RoutineI II II iRoutine

I IRoutine

Routine; by 1-93

No estimate for mitigationcosts which —e dependent

ton results of evaluationI recommendations

57

Loggerhead Turtle (Recovery Priorityl7C)IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

I General I I Task I I Task I Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Costa $000 I Comments/Category Plan Task INumber IPriority Duration Agency Current I Fy 2 I Fy 3 I Fy 4 I Fy 5 I Notes

I M-3, A-2I A-3, A-C

I M-3

M-3 I Identify other importantI nesting beaches withI severe erosion

M-3, A-2 IAcluire nesting beachesA-3, A-S between Melbourne end

I Wabsaso Beach, FL

lEvaluate status ofIHutchineon Island, FLland develop long-termI protection plan

I Evaluate status of otherI Important nestIngIbeaches

M-3 IRemove exotic vegetationlet Hobe Sound NWR, FL,1St. Lucia State Park, FLland other importantI nesting beaches

R-2, R-3 Ildentify ImportantI marine foraging habltat

I Prevent degradation andlimprove water quality ofI important marina habltat

IPrevent habitat degrade-tion from fisheries gear

I M-3, 0-3

I M-3, 0-3

1132

1141

11142

I 1143

I 115

I 121

I 122

I 123

3

1

2

continuing

5 years

FDNR, GDNR,SCC. NCDNR,FWS

FWSFDNR

2 yws FDNRFWS

IFWSI FDNRI NPS

10-15 years I NMFS, FDNR.NCDNR, GDNR,TPW, ADNR,LDWF, VMRCSCWMRD, MDW

2 I lysar

3 I continuing

2 I

3 I continuing

3 I continuing

FONKODNASCWMRD

2M10 M

55

NMFS, EPA,COE, FWS, CZM,coastal resourceagencies

I NMFS, cosatelI resourceI agencies

I II II II I

15 M10 M

510

lOM I10 M

510

lOM IlOM I

510

I Routine; mitigation costs to beIdetamlined after evaluation of enyI identified beaches

10 M Total estimated costs

5 M of acquisition - SOM

510

Costs will be associatedIwith acquIsition If IdentifIedlin protection plen;I recommendations by 1-91

I RoutIne

Funds are IdentifiedIwider 2211 because ofresearch ovmlap withpopulation studies

I Routine

I I

I II IRoutine

I I

58

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULELoggerhead Turtle (Recovery Priorityff7C

jGeneral I Task I Task Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Costa $000 I Comments/jCategory Plan Task Number IPriodtY Duration Agency Icurrent I FY 2 I FY 3 I FY 4 I Fy 5 I Notes

Prevent habitat destruc-tion from oil end gas

I activities

Prevent habitat deatruc-Ition from dradging

I Monitor trends innesting activity

I-i, M-4 Evaluate neat successland implement nestprotection measures

R-14, M-7loetermine influence ofI tidal inundation and footI traffic on hatch success

I R-14,

I M-7, 0-3

M- ii Determine hatchlingI orientation mechanismsand dispersal patterns

I Implement and enforceI lighting ordinances

T 124

I 125

I 211

I 212

I 213

I 2141

I 2142

3 I continuing I MMS, COE, FWSI II II I

3 I continuing I COE, EPA,I IFWSI I1I continuing I FWSI IFDNRI IGDNRI I SCWMRDI I NCDNRI IUSAFI IUSMCI INPSI IFPI.I I DadeCo.,FLI I Jupiter IsI., FLI I Boos Raton, FLI I Juno, FLI I1I continuing I same as 211I II II I

2 I 4years I FWSI IFDNRI II I

2 I 2 years I USAFI IKSCI CPAI INMFSI IFWSI II I NC. SC, GA,I I and FL coastalI I counties andI I citiesI I

2 continuing

1150I 50I 10I 10I 10I 50

60 I50 I

110

I II II II I

I II I1200 12001100 1100I 20 I 20I 20 I 20I 20 I 20I 50 I 50

60 6050 50

I II II I

20

7525

2001002020

I 20I 50

6050

2020

2001002020

I 2050

Routine

Routine

Costs IndudeactivIties In212 and 2144

I No estimate60 I50 I

I No estimateI No estimateINo estimateI No estimate

Costs Included In 211

20

I No estimate

I I I

I M-3

I M-3

I I-i

59

Loggerhead Turtle (Recovery Priorityl7C)IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

IGeneral I Teak I Task Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Veer Costs $000 I CommentslCategory Plan Task INumber IPriority Duration IAgency ICurrent I FY 2 I FY 3 I FY 4 I Fy 5 I Notes

11-14, M-7 Evaluate extant of hatch- I 2143I 11mg disorientation onI I important ragional nesting I

I 0-3

I M-7

I 0-2

0-2

beaches

I Evaluate need for FederalIlighting regulations

I Develop lighting plansI for Cape CanaveralI region and PatrickIAFB. FL

I Prosecute partiesIresponsible for hatchlingI disorientation

M-7, 0-3 IControl vehicularItraffic during nestingland hatching season

I Ensure coastal con-I structlon activitiesavoid disruption of

I nesting/hetchlingI activities

0-2 I Ensure law enforce-I ment activities eliminateI poaching and harassment

R- 14 Determine naturalI hatchling sex ratios

I 2144

I 2145

I 2146

I 215

I 216

217

216

2 I Syasre

3 I

2 I 4years

3 I continuing

3 I5yaars

3 I continuing

3 I continuing

3 I 10 years

I FWS, FDNR; II SCWMRD, II GDNR, NCDNR, II NC, SC, GA, II and FL coastal II counties and II cities I

IFWS

I DODI KSCI CPA

I~SINMFS I

IFDNR II NPSI NCDNR I

I COEIFDNR IIGDNR II SCWMRD II NCDNR IIFWS

I FWSI FDNRIGDNR I

FWSFDNRGDNRSCWMRDNCDNR

30 i 30 30 30

I II II II II II II II II I

i 30 I

Routine

I No estimate; complete by FY 92I No estimate; complete by FY 93

I I No estimate; complete by FY 93I II II RoutineI II II II RoutineI II II I

I Routine

Routine

ICosta IncludedI in 211

60

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULELoggerhead Turtle (Recovery Priority#7C)

General I Task I Task Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000 I Commenta/Category IPlan Task INumber Priority Duration Agency ICurrent I FY 2 I FY 3 I FY 4 I Fy 5 I Notes

I R-1, M-7 Define breeding I 219 I 3I aggregations I II I I II R-1 IDetermine seasonal I 2211 II distribution, abundence, I II Ipop. characteristics, and I II I status in inshore and I II Inearshore waters I II I I II I I II R-3, R-8, Determine navigation I 2212 I 2I R-14. M-7lmechsnisms, migratory I II pathways, distribution I II land movements I II I I II R-1, M-7 IDetormine threats along I 2213 I 2I Imigratory routes and on I II I foraging grounds I II I I II I I II R-14, M-7loetermine breeding pop- I 2214 I 3I lulation origins for U.S. I II liuvenile/subedult I II populations I I

I IR-1, R-6 IDetermine growth rates, I 2215 I 2

I age at sexual maturity, II survivorship rates I

0-2, 0-3 ~lmplement and enforce 2221M-7 ITED regulations

0-3 IProvide technology

I transfer for Instal-lation and use of TEDS

2222 3

ISysars IFWSI II II 15-20 years I NMFS, MMS, II ICOE,FWS, II I FDNR, TPW, II IGDNR, II I SCWMRD, II INCDNR II II S yasra I NMFS I

IFWS II IMMS I

ICOE II II continuing I NMFS I

IFWS IICOE I

I IMMS II II Syeara I NMFS I

IFWS II I State resource II agencies II II 10-20 years INMFS, FWS, StatelI resource II agencies II II continuing I NMFS II I State resource II agencies II II continuing I NMFS II I State se, grant II agencies II I

150 jiSO 1150 1150

I I I II I I I

2M I 2M I 2M I 2M ITotalcoetforI I I all agenciesI I I II I I II I I II I I II I I I

250 I 250 I 250 I 250 Total cost forI I I lallagenciesI I I II I I II I I II I I No estimateI I I I

I I I I II I I I II I I I II I I I Costa IncludedI I I I 1in219I I I I II I I I II I I I II 200 I 200 I 200 I 200 AdditIonal costs In-I I Icludedln22ll

Routine

Routine

61

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULELoggerhead Turtle (Recovery Priority#7C)

I General I I Task I I Task I Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Coats $000 I Comments/Category Plan Task Number Priority Duration Agency Current I FY 2 I FY 3 I FY 4 I Fy 5 I Notes

Il-i, 1-14 Maintain sea turtle I 2223 I 2I I stranding network I II I I II I I II I I IIl-i, 1-14 Nesting pop. study I 2224 I 3I M-7 Icumberlend Island, GA I II (TED evaluation) I II I II 1-14, 0-3 Evaluate impacts of I 2225 j 2I Sargeasum harvest on I II Ihatchlings and implement I II appropriate measures I II I I IIl-i, 1-14 Monitor other fisheries I 2226 I 2I M-7 causing mortality I II I I II I I II I I II 0-3, M-7 Promulgate regulations to I 2227 I 2I Ireduce fishery related I II Imortality I II I I II I I II 1-14, M-7 Monitor turtle mortality I 2231 I 2I londredges I II I I I11-14, M-7 Evaluate modifications of I 2232 I 2

dredge dregheads or I II devices to reduce turtle I II captures I II I I IIl-i, M-7 Determine sessonality I 2233 I 2I land abundance of turtles I II at dredging localities I II I I II I I II R-14 loatermins effects of oil I 2241 I 2I land disparsants on all I II life stages I II I I I

continuing

continuing

2-3 years

4-5 years

continuing

continuing

NMFS. FWScoastal Stateresourceagencies

NPSFWS

NMFSNCDNR

NMFSState resourceagencies

NMFSState rasourcaagencies

COENMFS

I continuing I COEINMFS

I II II II continuing I COEI IUSNI INMFSI I

I continuing I MMSI INMFSI IFWSI I industry

10

I I I I II I I I II I I I II I I II 12 I 12 I 12 I 12 II I I I II I I I II I I II 10 I 10 I 10 II I I

120 120 120 120

I II II II II II II II II II II II II II II I

I II II II II II II II I

I II II II II II II II I

Routine

INc estimate; COEIresponsIble for costaland NMFS for oversight

INo estimate; COEI responsible for costs

INc estimate; COEresponsible for costs;

I costs induded inestimates in 2211

I No estimate, MMS andI Industry reaponslbleIfor costs

62

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULELoggerhead Turtle (Recovery Priority#7C)

IGeneral ICategory Plan Task

Task II Number I Priority

Task Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Costa $000 I Commenta/IDuration IAgency Icurrent I FY 2 I FY 3 I FY 4 I Fy 5 I Notes

Evaluate effects ofI ingestion of persistentImarine debris on healthland viability

I Implement measures toI reduce or eliminateIpersistent marine debris

I 0-4, M-7 Ensure impacts areI addressed during plan-I ining of oil and gasI developmentI II R-1, M-7 Determine sea turtleI distribution andI seasonal use of marineI habitats associated withI oil and gas developmentI II R-1, R-12 Evaluate extent ofI I entanglement/ingestion ofI persistent marine debrisI II R-12

I M-7,I 0-3

I I

11-14, 0-3

I 0-2

11-14, 0-4

11-14, 0-4 ICentralize turtleItagging records

I 2242

I 2243

I 2251

I 2252

I 2253

Evaluate mortality from I 226I recreational and Icommercial boats I

Maintain law enforcement I 227I efforts to reduce poach- II ing in United States waters

Centralize tag I 2281I series records I

I 2282

3

3

2

continuing

3-5 years

10 years

2 I Bysera

2 I continuing

2

3

3

3

3 years

continuIng

1 year

continuing

I MMSI NMFSI industry

I MMSI NMFS

I NMFSI EPA

I NMFSI EPA

I EPAI USCG

USNState environ-mental agencies

NMFSState resourceagencies

NMFS

I NMFSIFWS

I NMFSIFWS

30 100

I 50 II II II II II II II II I

50

I II II II II II II II II II I

100 1100 1100

I II I

50 50 50

50 50

I RoutIne

I Costa included inestimates in 2211

INo estimate

Routine

IRoutine

50

63

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULELoggerhead Turtle (Recovery Priority#7C)

General I Task I ITeak Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Coats 6000 I CommentalCategory Plan Task INumber Ipriority Duration Agency Current I FY 2 I FY 3 I FY 4 I Fy S I Notes

R-11, M-6lDevelop manual forI treatment of diseaseI II M-7 Establish catalog for allI captive sea turtlesI I

I M-7 I Designate rehabilitationI IfacilItles

0-1 I Provide slide programs/rinformation leaflets

R-14, M-7IDevelop standards for I 2291 I 30-3 care and maintenance I I

lof captive sea turtles I II I12292 I 3I II I12293 I 3I II II I

2294 I 3I II II 31 I 3I II II II II 32 I 30-I, M-7 Develop brochure on

I recommended lightingI modifications

0-1, M-7 Develop PSA on artificialIlighting problem

I II 0-1 I Ensure permitted facilitiesI display turtles withI I educational displaysI II II 0-1, M-7 IDevelop criteria for seaI Iturtie interpretative walksI II 0-1, M- 7 I Post aducational/informa-I Itional signs on importantI Inesting beachesI II II M-7. 0-8 Develop internationalI I agreements

33

34

35

36

41

I 5 years I NMFSI IFWSI II IIlysar INMFSI IFWSI II continuing I NMFSI IFWSI II II continuing I NMFSI IFWSI II continuing I FWSI INMFSI I State resotxceI agenciesI IIlysar IFWSI INMFSI II IIlysar IFDNRI IFWSI II II continuing I FWSI INMFSI Stats resowcs

agencies

1 year FWSFONA

3

3

3

3 continuing NCDNRSCWMRDGDNRFDNR

2 I continuing I FWSI INMFS

I 1201201201I I I I II I I I II I I I II 130 I I II I I I II I I I II I I I II I I I RoutineI I I I II I I I II I I I RoutIneI I I I II I I I II I I I RoutineI I I I II I I I II I I I II I I I II I I I Routine

I II II 10 II 10 II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II I

I~ne

I Routine

Routine

I Routine

64