Click for next page ( 180


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 179
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 179
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 179
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 179
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 179
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 179
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 179
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 179
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 179
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 179
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 179
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 179
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 179
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