|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 179
Appendix B
Interim Report
October 3, 1989
The Honorable Robert A. Mosbacher
Secretary of Commerce
Department of Commerce
14th Street and Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230
Dear Mr. Secretary:
The National Research Council's Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation
(see attached roster), convened at the request of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) pursuant to Section 1008(b) of
the Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1988 (ESAA), is pleased to
provide this interim report on the Kemp's ridley sea turtle. As you know,
Section 1008(b) of the ESAA specified an independent review by the
National Academy of Sciences regarding scientific information on the biol-
ogy and conservation of five species of sea turtles, all of which are classi-
fied as threatened or endangered. The statute stipulated that "in the event
that the independent review cannot be completed by April 1, 1989, then
the panel shall give priority to completing the independent review as it
179
OCR for page 180
180
Decline of the Sea Turtles
applies to the Kemp's ridley sea turtle and submitting same to the Secre-
tary by that date, or as expeditiously as possible, and thereafter shall com-
plete as expeditiously as possible the remaining work of the independent
review."
Inasmuch as the Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation began its delib-
erations at its first meeting on May 4-5, 1989, pursuant to contract No.
50DGNC 9 00080 with NOAA, the review of all five sea turtle species has
just begun. This interim report on the Kemp's ridley sea turtle summa-
rizes the current knowledge on geographic distribution, population
trends, causes of mortality, and protection measures. Although the com-
mittee's evaluation of the causes of mortality is incomplete at this time,
the committee considers it important to issue this interim report now to
communicate the seriousness of the Kemp's ridley's status. Important
new literature on the biology and conservation of the Kemp's ridley, such
as the biological synopsis by Marquez M. (1989, in review), a symposium
proceedings edited by Caillouet and Landry (1989, in press), and a report
on the status of the species by Ross et al. (Sept. 1989) will be available for
interpretation and analysis in time for the committee's final report, which
is scheduled for completion in February 1990. The final report will evalu-
ate the biology, causes of mortality, and conservation of all five species of
sea turtles.
BACKGROUND
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi (German)) was first
listed in the Federal Register as an endangered species on December 2,
1970, and its endangered status was reaffirmed in 1985 by the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the basis of population figures
appearing in many scientific publications (NOAA, 19851. Since 1947,
when the first nesting Kemp's ridley turtles were discovered on a remote
beach near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, many data on the life
history and population status of the species have been collected. So com-
pelling are the data that the status of the species has never been seriously
questioned since it was listed as endangered in 1970. Almost all the
world's adult females of this species nest near Rancho Nuevo, and known
habitats for the developing young Kemp's ridleys include both inshore
and offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico and coastal zones of the south-
eastern United States (especially Florida and Georgia).
OCR for page 181
181
Appends B
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
The distribution (i.e., feeding habitats for juvenile stages and adults) of
the Kemp's ridley is more restricted than that of any other sea turtle
species. Preferred habitats by life stage have been identified by Pritchard
(1969), Brongersma (1972), Pritchard and Marquez M. (1973), and others.
Adult Kemp's ridieys are almost completely confined to the western Gulf
of Mexico and very rarely appear east of Alabama in the northern Gulf.
Adults concentrate to feed near the Louisiana coast in the North and
southeastward off the coast of Campeche (Mexico). Juveniles appear
almost entirely in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico and along the south-
eastern Atlantic coast. However, lesser concentrations appear in various
protected waters, including Chesapeake Bay, as far north as Long Island
Sound (New York and Connecticut) and Vineyard Sound (Massachusetts),
and rare strandings have been reported in western Europe, Malta, and
Morocco (Brongersma, 1972; Brongersma and Carr, 1983; Manzella et al.,
19881.
INDEX OF POPUIA~ON SIZE
As in other sea turtle species, each female Kemp's ridley lays many
eggs, about 105 eggs per nest (R. Marquez M., Instituto Nacional de
Pesca, personal communication, 19891; almost all nesting activity occurs
After an incubation period of 46-54 days, the
overall population receives a short-lived "pulse" of many thousands of
hatchlings from tune through August. Once at sea, the young turtles are
uncountable; in fact, available methods are inadequate for counting indi-
viduals of immature stages, adult males, or nonbreeding adult females.
Sex ratios of adults in the wild are unknown. However, because most
adult females typically nest annually, and since the species concentrates
almost all its reproductive effort on the single beach at Rancho Nuevo,
nesting females are easier to count than those of other sea turtle species.
Because tagging studies have shown that some females might nest as
many as three times each season (Marquez M. et al., 1981), the number of
nests can exceed the number of nesting females in a given season. Thus,
a reasonable estimate of the number of nesting females is obtained by
dividing the number of nests by a factor that is somewhere between 1
and 3.
The number of nesting females each year is currently the best available
index of population size. One disadvantage of this index is that the effec-
tiveness of any conservation program designed to increase the survival of
eggs and hatchlings might not be measurable for many years, because it
in April, May, and June.
OCR for page 182
182
Decline of the Sea Turtles
is not known how long wild Kemp's ridleys require to attain sexual matu-
rity. In captivity, maturity has been attained in as little as 4 years (Wood
and Wood, 19841; in the wild, it might take as long as 10 to 15 years,
based on results of studies done on other species. Studies of other sea
turtle species in the wild have indicated not only slow growth to maturity,
but also extreme variation in growth rate between individuals (Limpus,
1985; Bjorndal and Bolten, 19881. Thus, in the absence of an effective
Sin program we do not know how to relate changes in the numbers
--~D-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ . ad 1 . . ~ . . 1 . I, · , 1 1
~ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _c'
of ne.~tin~ females to the number of hatchlings that might ultimately ne
recruited to the breeding population. Also, we do not know when such
recruitment will occur.
TONG-TERM POPULATION TRENDS
In 1947, an estimated 40,000 female Kemp's ridleys were observed
nesting during a single day at Rancho Nuevo (Carr, 1963; Hildebrand,
1963), as judged from a motion picture taken by an amateur photogra-
pher. For the 18 years following 1947, data are lacking on the status of
the nesting colony near Rancho Nuevo. By 1966, the nesting assem-
blages, or "arribadas" (aggregations of nesting females at a Riven Place at
about 1,300 females nested on may
. 1 ~ ~
a given time), were much smaller;
31, 1966 (Chavez et al., 19671. Since 1966, the Mexican government,
working with the Estacion de Biologia Pesquera in Tampico and several
O . A, , .
· . ~ · . · 1 ~1 1~ 1_ _ ~ ~ _ _ _1_ _ ~ To
other agencies, nas maintained a presence on one ocacn al Kaneno ~uevo
throughout each nesting season. Personnel have included government
turtle biologists, fisheries inspectors, and armed, uniformed Mexican
marines. From 1967 to 1972, a few arribadas as large as 2,000-2,500 tur-
tles were seen (Pritchard and Marquez M., 19731. Archival photographs,
probably from 1968, show many hundreds of nesting females on the
beach. Overall, from 1947 to 1970, sizes of the largest arribadas on the
Rancho Nuevo beach have dramatically declined (Figure 11.
Since 1978, nests have been counted on the beach by a binational
team of Mexican and U.S. scientists working with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). The number of female turtles observed on that
beach has declined through 1988 to 500-700 for the entire season (USFWS
Annual Reports, Albuquerque office, 1978-19881. From intensive observa-
tions and captures of nesting females, Marquez M. et al. (1981) estimated
that each female nests 1.3 times each year. Dividing by this factor to con-
vert nest counts to total nesting females, we estimate that 711 nested in
1978, 655 in 1988, and, for the period 1978-1988, an average of 626
female ridleys nested each year at Rancho Nuevo. Improved coverage of
the nesting beach by biologists during the 1980s indicates that the 1.3
value is a low estimate and will need to be revised upward to 1.4 or 1.55
OCR for page 183
183
Appendix B
(Marquez M., 1989; NMFS, 19891. (Regardless of the factor used, the form
of the trend in Figure 1 remains the same.) Thus, the 626 estimate is
probably an overestimate, and the actual number of nesting turtles is less.
Nevertheless, even the 626 annual average during the decade represents
only 1.5% of the minimal estimate for the 1947 population (see also Fraz-
er, 1986; NMFS, 19891. For the 1978-1988 period, which included some
annual fluctuations to be expected in sea turtle populations (Richardson,
1982), the estimated number of nesting females declined significantly
(linear regression, P < .05), at a rate of approximately 14 females per year,
or 140 females over a decade (Figure 21.
Efforts have been made by aerial surveys, foot patrols, and interviews
with local residents to determine whether major nesting occurs away from
Rancho Nuevo, but no additional major nesting site has been found. In
most years, one or two individuals have nested on Padre Island, Texas,
and a few dozen near Tecolutla, Veracruz (Marquez M., 19891. The nest-
ing record farthest from Rancho Nuevo is from the vicinity of Isla Aguada,
Campeche (NMFS, 1989), apart from a recent, single nesting near St.
Petersburg, Florida, in 1989 and an attempted nesting in Broward County,
Florida, in 1989.
CAUSES OF MORTAUTY
At different stages of their life cycle, Kemp's ridleys can be adversely
affected by a number of activities and substances. These potentially
include severe changes in weather and associated conditions (including
high tides and waves) at nesting beaches; cold-stunning; human and non-
human depredation of eggs in nests; predation of hatchlings and/or older
turtles by crabs, birds, fish, and mammals; industrial pollutants; diseases;
exploratory oil and gas drilling; dredging; and incidental capture in
shrimp nets and other fishing gear (Coston-Clements and Hoss, 19831.
Several of these factors, including severe weather and industrial pollution,
are unverified causes of mortality, and natural predation by birds, fish, or
mammals is a factor with which the species has coexisted throughout its
evolutionary history. The effects of natural predation (e.g., increased
1 In 1988, Hurricane Gilbert reportedly rearranged the historical nesting beach at Rancho
Nuevo. Some nesting turtles were located in 1989 approximately 25 km north of the Rancho
Nuevo beach survey camp, an area not patrolled from the ground in previous years. Full
details on this observation, as well as complete numbers of nests for 1989, have not yet
been received from the collaborative team of Mexican Fisheries Department and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Jack Woody, USFWS, personal communication, 5 September 1989).
OCR for page 184
184
Decline of the Sea Turtles
Figure 1. Number of nesting females at Rancho Nuevo in largest
arribada.
40,000
35,000
o.
30,000
o25,000
o.
E20,000
15,000
E1 0,000
5,000
O
800
o.
600
o
E
ME
400
200
1.
1947
rem ~
1966 1967 1968 1970
YEARS
Figure 2. Number of nesting females at Rancho Nuevo, estimated
from numbers of nests found. The linear regression line has a slope
of -14.25 and is significant (p< .05).
O .
i
_
., ,
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
YEARS
OCR for page 185
185
Appendix B
mortality rate), however, might become more severe at low population
densities.
One particular source of mortality, the incidental capture of sea turtles
in fishing gear, has been well documented. For example, recently Mur-
phy and Hopkins-Murphy (1989) reviewed 78 papers on the incidental
capture of all Atlantic sea turtle species in which various types of fishing
gear were used. Shrimp-trawling was documented or implicated as a
major source of mortality in 83% of these papers. Specifically regarding
Kemp's ridleys, for many years the primary source of tag returns from
females nesting at Rancho Nuevo (84% of 129 returns) was the accidental
capture of turtles and subsequent reporting of tag numbers by helpful
shrimpers (Pritchard and Marquez M., 1973; Marquez M., 19891. From
January 1980 to March 31, 1989, the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage
Network documented 976 stranded dead Kemp's ridleys on the beaches
of prime shrimp-trawling areas between North Carolina and Texas
(Anonymous, 1987; Schroeder and Warner, 1988; Warner, 1988; Teas,
19891. This indication of continuing high mortality is considered by turtle
population biologists as a distinct threat to the survival of the species.
Although the committee has not yet evaluated the relative impacts of all
potential mortality factors affecting the Kemp's ridley, incidental entrap-
ment in fishing gear is clearly a major cause of mortality. An analysis of
each mortality factor will be provided in the committee's final report.
PROTECTIVE MEASURES
Legal Protection
The Kemp's ridley has been legally protected in Mexico since 1966
and in the United States since 1973. In no other country does the species
occur, except as an occasional waif (straggler), highly unlikely ever to
breed. The species is listed as an Appendix I species by the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and is thus prohib-
ited in international commerce between, from, or to signatory countries.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources also considers the species endangered. Potential benefits of
protective measures will be reviewed in the committee's final report.
Protection at the Nesting Colony
Since 1966, the Mexican government (initially the Subsecretaria de
Industria y Comercio, now the Instituto Nacional de Pesca) has main-
tained a seasonal camp at Rancho Nuevo to protect nesting turtles and
OCR for page 186
186
Decline of the Sea Turtles
their eggs. Eggs are quickly moved to a guarded hatchery to prevent nat-
ural and human predation. From 1966 to 1977, an average of 23,000
hatchlings was released each year at Rancho Nuevo (Marquez M., 19891.
Although many nests were raided during these years, very few adults
were killed. Since 1978, the beach effort has been binational (USFWS
plus the Instituto Nacional de Pesca), and only about 10% of the nests
have been lost each year. The number of eggs moved to a hatchery has
ranged from 98,211 (1979) to 65,357 (19861. Hatching percentage has
averaged 61%, ranging from 53% in 1983 to 75% in 1985 and 1986. An
average of 48,633 hatchlings has been released each year since 1978
(annual project reports from USFWS Albuquerque office). Based on a
comparison with 1966-67, the results of these beach efforts clearly show
that protective measures at the nesting beach have improved recruitment
at the hatchling level in the population.
Turtle Excluder Devices {TEDs}
Over the last 10 years, NMFS has developed and tested a device that
fits into the throat of a bottom (shrimp) trawl to exclude sea turtles. Sev-
eral other devices that work on similar principles have also been devel-
oped by industry and tested by NMFS for turtle exclusion. After extensive
debate, public hearings, and legal challenges, NMFS promulgated a regu-
lation on.June 29, 1987, requiring TED use in U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coast
waters (offshore areas by May 1, 1989; inshore areas by May 1, 1990; Con-
ner, 19871. In 1988, South Carolina established a regulation requiring the
use of TEDs by shrimp trawlers in state waters at all times. In early 1989,
Florida passed a similar regulation (Rule No. 46-31.002, governor and cab-
inet) requiring TED use in state waters along the Atlantic Coast north of
the Brevard-Volusia County line. Regulations now include provisions for
certification of additional TED designs originating in the shrimping
industry. The committee notes that TED regulations have been changing
rapidly.
HEADSTARTING
Headstarting is an experimental program, the actual benefits of which
have yet to be evaluated. In headstarting, hatchling turtles are raised in
captivity for several months before release as a supplement to the beach
protective efforts. Personnel of the NMFS and other agencies have raised
hatchling ridleys from about 2,000 eggs donated by Mexico each year. At
about 10 months of age, the turtles have been released, at first into Flori-
da waters where juvenile Kemp's ridleys are known to appear, but in
OCR for page 187
187
Appends B
recent years mostly off Padre Island, Texas. A total of 12,422 turtles was
released from 1978 to 1986 (Manzella et al., 1988 ).
Conclusions
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle, nesting almost exclusively on a single
Mexican beach near Rancho Nuevo, is restricted largely to the northern
and southern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic seaboard of the United
States. The most reliable index for estimating population size in this
species is the annual number of nesting adult females at Rancho Nuevo.
At that location, the number of nesting females has decreased from an
estimated 40,000 (in a single day) in 1947 to an estimated 655 in the 1988
season, a decline that clearly signals a serious threat to the existence of
the species. Protection of the nesting turtles, nests, and eggs on the Ran-
cho Nuevo beach has resulted in increased numbers of hatchlings in
recent years. Causes of mortality have been identified, but an analysis of
their relative impacts must be deferred to the committee's final report.
We hope that this interim report is useful to you.
Sincerely,
John J. Magnuson
Chairman
Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation
cc: Dr. John A. Knauss, NOAA Administrator
David Cottingham, NOAA, Contract Officers Technical Representative
REFERENCES
Anonymous. 1987. Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement on List-
ing and Protecting the Green Sea Turtle, Loggerhead Sea Turtle, and Pacific Ridley Sea
Turtle Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. St. Petersburg, Fla.: National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Services. 59 pp.
Bjorndal, K. A., and A. B. Bolten. 1988. Growth rates of immature green turtles, Chelonia
mydas, on feeding grounds in the southern Bahamas. Copeia 1988:555-564.
Brongersma, L. D. 1972. European Atlantic Turtles. Uitgogeven door bet Rijksmuseum van
Natourlicke Historic te Leiden 121:1-318.
Brongersma, L. D., and A. F. Carr. 1983. Lepidochelys kempi (German) from Malta. Proceed-
ings Koninklicke Nederlandse Acadamie van Wetenschappen Series C 86(4):445-454.
Caillouet, C. W., Jr., and A. M. Landry, Jr. 1989. Proceedings of the First International Sym-
posium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management. Texas A &
M Sea Grant Program No. 89-105, Galveston, Tex. (In press).
OCR for page 188
188
Decline of the Sea Turtles
Carr, A. F. 1963. Panspecific reproductive convergence in Lepidochelys kempi. Ergebnisse
der Biologie 26:298-303.
Cahvez, H., M. Contreras, and T. P. E. Hernandez. 1967. Apectos biologicos y proteccion
de la Tortuga Lora, Lepidochelys kempi (German), en la Costa de Tamaulipas, Mexico.
Instituto Nacional Investigaciones Biologico-Pesqueras, Mexico 17:1-39.
Conner, D. K. 1987. Turtles, trawlers, and TEDS: what happens when the Endangered
Species Act conflicts with fishermen's interests. Water Log (Coastal and Marine Law
Research Program, University of Mississippi) 7(4): 3-27.
Coston-Clements, L., and D. E. Hoss. 1983. Synopsis of Data on the Impact of Habitat Alter-
ation on Sea Turtles around the Southeastern United States. NOAA Technical Memoran-
dum National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administraton/National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southeast Fisheries Center. 117pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
57 pp.
Frazer, N. B. 1986. Kemp's decline: Special alarm or general concern? Marine Turtle
Newsletter 37:5-7.
Hildebrand, H. H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidacion de la Tortuga Marina "Lore" Lepi-
dochelys kempi (German), en la Costa Occidental del Golfo de Mexico. (Rept., Chel.).
Ciencia ~I (4):105-112.
Limpus, C. J. 1985. A Study of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle, Caretta caretta, in Eastern Aus-
tralia. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia.
Manzella, S. A., C. W. Caillouet, Jr., and C. T. Fontaine. 1988. Kemp's ridley, Lepidochelys
kempi, sea turtle head start tag recoveries: Distribution, habitat and method of recovery.
Mar. Fish. Rev. 50:33-42.
Marquez M., R. 1989. Synopsis of the Biological Data on the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle L~i-
dochelys kempi (German, 1880). Unpublished manuscript, in review.
Marquez M., R., A. Villaneuva O., and M. Sanchez P. 1981. The population of Kemp's ridley
sea turtle in the Gulf of Mexico, Lepidochelys kempi. Pp. 159-164 in Biology and Conser-
vation of Sea Turtles, K. Bjorndal, ed. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Murphy, T. M., and S. R. Hopkins-Murphy. 1989. Sea turtle & Shrimp Fishing Interactions:
A Summary and Critique of Relevant Information.
Washington, D.C.: Center for Marine
Conservation. 52 pp.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1989. Draft Report of the International Commit-
tee for the Recove~y Plan for Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle. David Owens (Texas A & M Uni-
versity), Chairman. St. Petersburg, Fla.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1985. Five-Year Status Reviews
of Sea Turtles Listed Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Prepared by Andreas
Mager, Jr., National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Fla.
Pritchard, P. C. H. 1969. Studies of the Systematics and Reproductive Cycles of the Genus
Lepidochelys. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. 197 pp.
Pritchard, P. C. H., and R. Marquez M. 1973. Kemp's Ridley Turtle or Atlantic Ridley, Lepi-
dochelys kempi. IUCN Monograph No. 2: Marine Turtle Series. Morges, Switzerland:
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 30 pp.
Richardson, J. I. 1982. A population model for adult female loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta
caretta) nesting in Georgia. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.
Ross, J. P., S. Beavers, D. Mundell, and M. Airth-Kindree. 1989. The Status of Kemp's Rid-
ley. September 1989. Washington, D. C.: Center for Marine Conservation. 51 pp.
Schroeder, B. A., and A. A. Warner. 1988. 1987 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding
and Salvage Network: Atlantic and Gulf Coast States of the United States. January-
December 1987. Coastal Resources Division Contract No. CRD-87/88-28. Miami, Fla.:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southeast Fisheries Center. 45 pp.
OCR for page 189
189
Appendix B
Teas, W. 1989. 1989 First Quarter Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network.
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. January-March 1989. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries
Center. Coastal Resources Division (in press).
Warner, A. A. 1988. 1988 Third Quarter Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Net-
work Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. January- September 1988. Coastal
Resources Division Contract No. CRD-88/89-01. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center. 22 pp.
Wood, J. R., and F. E. Wood. 1984. Captive breeding of the Kemp's ridley. Marine Turtle
Newsletter 29:12.
OCR for page 190
190
Decline of the Sea Turtles
COMMITTEE ON SEA TURTLE CONSERVATION
John J. Magnuson, University of Wisconsin (Chairman), Madison,
Wisconsin
Karen Bjorndal, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
William D. DuPaul, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Pt.,
Virginia
Gary L. Graham, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Freeport, Texas
David W. Owens, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas
Charles H. Peterson, University of North Carolina, Morehead City,
North Carolina
Peter C. H. Pritchard, Florida Audubon Society, Maitland, Florida
lames L Richardson, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
Gary E. Saul, Southwest Texas State University, Austin, Texas
Charles W. West, Nor'Eastern Trawl Systems Inc., Bainbridge Is.,
Washington
Staff
David,iohnston, Project Director
Linda B. Kegley, Project Assistant
BOARD ON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND TOXICOLOGY
Gilbert S. Omenn, University of Washington (Chairman), Seattle,
Washington
Frederick R. Anderson, American University, Washington, D.C.
John Bailar, McGill University School of Medicine, Montreal, Quebec
Lawrence W. Barnthouse, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee
David Bates, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
Joanna Burger, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey
Yorman Cohen, University of California, Los Angeles, California
John L. Emmerson, Eli Lilly & Company, Greenfield, Indiana
Robert L. Harness, Monsanto Agricultural Company, St. Louis, Missouri
Paul,,. Lioy, UMDNT-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School,
Piscataway, New Jersey
Jane Lubehenco, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
Donald Mattison, University of Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas
OCR for page 191
191
Appendix B
Duncan T. Patten, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Nathaniel Reed, Hobe Sound, Florida
William H. Rodgers, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
F. Sherwood Rowland, University of California, Irvine, California
Liane B. Russell, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Milton Russell, University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Knoxville, Tennessee
John H. Seinfeld, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
I. Glenn Sipes, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
Staff
James,J. Reisa, Acting Director
Karen Hulebak, Program Director for Exposure Assessment and
Risk Reduction
David Policansky, Program Director for Applied Ecology and
Natural Resources
Richard Thomas, Program Director for Human Toxicology and
Risk Assessment
BOARD ON BIOLOGY
Francisco,,. Ayala (Chairman), University of California, Irvine
Nina V. Fedroff, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Baltimore, Maryland
Timothy H. Goldsmith, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
Ralph W. F. Hardy, BioTechnica/Boyce Thompson Institute, Ithaca,
New York
Ernest G.,iaworski, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri
Simon A. Levin, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Harold A. Mooney, Stanford University, Stanford, California
Harold,}. Morowitz, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia
WillIam E. Paul, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
David D. Sabatini, New York University, New York
Malcolm S. Steinberg, Princeton University, Princton, New Jersey
David B. Wake, University of California, Berkeley
Bruce M. Alberts (ax-officio), University of California, San Francisco
Oskar R. Zaborsky, Director
OCR for page 192
192
Decline of the Sea Turtles
COMMISSION ON LIFE SCIENCES
Bruce M. Alberts (Chairman), University of California, San Francisco
Perry L. Adkisson, Texas A & M University System, College Station
Francisco Ayala, University of California, Irvine
}. Michael Bishop, University of California Medical Center, San Francisco
Freeman,,. Dyson, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New lersey
Nina V. Fedoroff, Carnegie Institution for Advanced Study, Princeton
New Jersey
Ralph W. F. Hardy, BioTechnica/Boyce Thompson Institute, Ithaca, New
York
Richard,}. Havel, University of California, San Francisco
Leroy E. Hood, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Donald F. Hornig, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston,
Massachusetts
Ernest G.,iaworski, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri
Simon A. L~vin, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Harold A. Mooney, Stanford University, Stanford, California
Steven P. Pakes, University of Texas, Dallas
Joseph E. mall, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
Richard D. Remington, University of Iowa, Iowa City
Paul G. Risser, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Richard Sallow, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York
Torsten N. Wiesel, Rockefeller University, New York, New York
John E. Burris, Executive Director
Representative terms from entire chapter:
rancho nuevo
