Sea Otter Survey

A decade into the new millennium, how have California’s sea otters fared? This status update
uses 2009 data to assess the health of the southern sea otter population. It can be difficult to
assess the status of a population—different indicators may give us conflicting information.
Taken as a whole, we can get an idea of population trends that can influence management
decisions though.

The Otter Project considers four factors when evaluating population status. Note that a
positive or negative classification is describing the population impacts of this indicator (for
example the number of dead strandings being low is deemed positive because it means less
otters were found dead). For 2009 the factors indicated the following:

• Spring survey: Negative. 2009 saw a drop in the number of otters counted in the
spring survey. This year was particularly noteworthy in that we saw a drop in the 3 year
average, suggesting a more serious decline.

• Dead strandings: Positive. Through December 2009, the number of dead otters
recovered was down from previous years.

• Mortality by age-class: Negative. Increased mortality in pup and reproductive adult

age classes.

• Pup to independent ratio: Positive. From 2003 through 2007 the pup ratio modestly
improved. In 2008 the pup ratio declined; in 2009 the pup ratio is back up, to a record
high.

That gives us two positive and two negative indicators. Although this is a seemingly neutral
status, the significance of a decline in the 3-year average should not be overlooked. The
southern sea otter population has gone from stagnant growth to decline. Overall The Otter
Project believes that this year’s findings, while ambiguous, are cause for concern.
Management measures need to be taken expediently to address this decline in the 3-year
average.

The Bowhead Whale (Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort

Sea population)
This population of Bowhead Whale was reconfirmed in 2009 as a species of Special
Concern by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC). It is listed under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) and was afforded
protection under SARA as of December 2007. Additional protection is afforded through
the federal Fisheries Act. Under SARA, a management plan must be developed for this
species.

Dynamics of biological processes on the deep-sea floor are traditionally thought to be

controlled by vertical sinking of particles from the euphotic zone at a seasonal scale.
However, little is known about the influence of lateral particle transport from continental
margins to deep-sea ecosystems. To address this question, we report here how the
formation of dense shelf waters and their subsequent downslope cascade, a climate
induced phenomenon, affects the population of the deep-sea shrimp Aristeus antennatus.
We found evidence that strong currents associated with intense cascading events
correlates with the disappearance of this species from its fishing grounds, producing a
temporary fishery collapse. Despite this initial negative effect, landings increase between 3
and 5 years after these major events, preceded by an increase of juveniles. The transport
of particulate organic matter associated with cascading appears to enhance the
recruitment of this deep-sea living resource, apparently mitigating the general trend of
overexploitation. Because cascade of dense water from continental shelves is a global
phenomenon, we anticipate that its influence on deep-sea ecosystems and fisheries
worldwide should be larger than previously thought.

Population of the Sea

If General McCrystal is trying to tell the American people one thing

right now in regards to Afghanistan, it would be the simple phrase
“Its the population stupid.” The reason this is his primary talking
point is because US strategy in Afghanistan consists primarily of
developing partnerships with with the people who are present in the
terrain that is also his battlefield. General McCrystal knows that not
everyone who populates that terrain is a partner, or even a potential
partner. The challenge is to make sure that those who are partners,
or who represent potential partners, remain partners even as he
either kills, or prevents action from those who are the enemy.
This human terrain and the challenges of the population can be
directly applied to the South China Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Gulf of
Guinea, the Yellow Sea, the Sea of Japan, the Black Sea, the Baltic
Sea, the Caribbean Sea, and every Bay, Channel, Isthmus, River,
Gulf, or body of water not specifically named. Lets use the South
China Sea and potential conflict with China as an example.

Every day in the South China Sea there are over 200,000 private
and commercial vessels at sea. The majority of these vessels are
within 50nms of land, which means almost nothing considering
there are over 250 ~1-km² islands, atolls, cays, shoals, reefs, and
sandbars in the South China Sea, most of which have no indigenous
people, many of which are naturally under water at high tide, and
some of which are permanently submerged. The population of just
the people on a boat in the South China Sea is estimated over
1,00,000 daily.

In a world of hybrid warfare, how will naval forces identify friend and
foe in the populated seas? If the intent is to build partnerships,
preferably by avoiding the destruction of the folks we are not
fighting, how will the helicopter or UAV know which fishing boat to
sink and which fishing boat not to sink? Ultimately operations will
require manpower at the point of engagement to identify friend and
foe if partnership, and not killing our allies, is a core strategic
operational objective (which it is).

Aim We investigate the geographical genetic structure of two coastal plant species, Cakile maritima
Scop. (Brassicaceae) and Eryngium maritimum L. (Apiaceae), through three sea straits and along one
continuous stretch of coast using amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLPs). The two species
have a similar ecology in that they grow in sandy habitats, but differ in life-form (annual vs.
perennial) and dispersability of seeds by sea water as inferred from floating experiments. The sea
straits differ in their geological history and their modern current systems. The primary goal of our
study was to test the hypothesis that sea straits have an influence on the geographical patterns of
genetic variation at the population level. Location The areas around the Strait of Gibraltar, the
Dardanelles, the Bosporus and the Atlantic coast of western France. Methods For both species we
investigated AFLP variation in several populations from each area. Bayesian clustering and diversity
and differentiation measures were used to analyse the genetic data. Results In most areas the spatial
genetic structure was similar between the two species. They share the presence of distinct genetic
gaps along the coast through the Strait of Gibraltar and the Bosporus, and these genetic gaps coincide
with the straits. Both species show genetic continuity along the coast of western France. A distinct
genetic gap was found through the Dardanelles for C. maritima but not for E. maritimum. Main
conclusions The study shows that sea straits have an influence on the geographical patterns of genetic
variation. Sea currents are inferred to cause the genetic gap through the Strait of Gibraltar. In the
Bosporus and, for C. maritima, through the Dardanelles, the genetic gaps found are explained by the
past closure of these two straits as well as by present-day factors. Simulations indicate that the lower
differentiation of C. maritima through the Dardanelles than through the Bosporus cannot be explained
by the difference in geological history of these two straits. The difference in seed dispersability
between the two species is argued to be responsible for the observation that differentiation among
genetic clusters is higher in E. maritimum than in C. maritima where a direct comparison is possible.

Spermatophyta

Angiospermae

Dicotyledones

Cruciferae

Phylogeography

Biogeography

Population genetics

Amplified fragment length polymorphism marker

Biology
 ;

Gene flow

Sea current

ABSTRACT

(expurgated version)

High, environmentally unsustainable rates of population growth

in the Salton Sea watershed and in those parts of California

hoping to siphon water out of it are the greatest medium- and

long-term threats to a healthy Salton Sea.

These will cause increased nutrient inputs to the Sea, further

aggravating its already hypereutrophic state. They will favor

increased water diversions to coastal California, decreased

Salton Sea inflows, and a shrinking and saltier Sea. They will

increase the cost of the engineering projects needed to counter

these trends.
High immigration rates are the greatest controllable cause of

this population growth and the environmental degradation that

comes with it. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that of the 122

million increase predicted for the U.S. population by 2050,

immigration will account for about 80 million. That figure only

includes post-2000 immigrants and their descendants.

Most of the likely major institutions - Congress, universities,

scientific societies, environmental organizations, the press -

seem unable to deal with these issues openly and rationally. In

too many forums one hears debate suppressed by name-calling

and ad hominem attacks on the part of ideologues. Many major

scientific societies and environmental organizations have

bought into the "Globalist Copout" paradigm, the idea that

American citizens should work on resolving the issue of global

overpopulation, but should turn a blind eye to the issue of U.S.

overpopulation. Affected by acute cognitive dissonance, these

organizations actually are hurting their own agendas on other

national environmental issues.

Thus, we start the new millennium with the most fundamental

national environmental issues being dealt with only by a small

number of thick-skinned, well-centered organizations, such as

CAPS, FAIR, NPG, and PEB. They operate in the best tradition of

"Think Globally, Act Locally." Most U.S. scientific societies and

environmental organizations seem stuck on "Think Globally,

Talk Globally".

Population Growth and

Sustainability
Who is working for sustainability rather than
just going to conferences about it? or hiding
behind the skirts of "it's not in my job
description"?

• Expected Increase in Population in the Salton

Basin by 2020:

ca. 100% - and where will their toilet water flow?

• Expected Increase in Population in Southern

California by 2020:

ca. 50% - and where will they get their water?

• Expected Increase along entire U.S.-Mexico
Border by 2020:

ca. 94% - and what will this do to the border

environment?

"These population trends portend serious problems for border

communities in terms of infrastructure deficits, availability of

water and energy, and negative environmental impacts on water,

air, and natural areas. .... Most border communities are not

prepared to deal with even the best-case scenario" (SCERP,

1999; see info packet).

• Expected increase in U.S. Population by 2050

ca. 31% - i.e. by 122,000,000 - or 12 x Los

Angeles

- 42,000,000 due to current residents

- 80,000,000 due to future immigration

"The saddest aspect of life right now is that

science gathers knowledge faster than society
 gathers wisdom."
- Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)
Solution of the Salton Sea's
problems requires a large dose of
political wisdom and a small dose
of science and engineering.

High Nutrient Inputs

+
Closed Basin Lake
=
Extreme Eutrophication
Eutrophication: the complex sequence of changes in aquatic

ecosystems caused by an increased rate of supply of plant

nutrients to water; in the Salton Sea, characterized by dense,

colorful algal blooms and periodic poor water quality which can

kill fish and other organisms.

 Salton Sea in Relation to Other
Lakes
The trophic state of a lake is primarily determined by nutrient

inputs and mean depth. Unlike other lakes shown, the Salton

Sea is a closed basin lake. Its condition is thus worse than

indicated by the dots representing it.

Going Downhill
Phosphorus inputs are increasing because the human

population in the Salton Sea watershed is increasing at 3-4% per

year. And all municipal wastewaters in the watershed empty into

streams or groundwaters that flow toward the Sea.

Lake depth will decrease in the future if there is reduction in

Salton Sea inflows. This will further exacerbate the lake's

overenrichment with nutrients.

Ways to Slow and then Reverse

Eutrophication

1. P removal from municipal wastewaters in

Imperial Valley

2. Outlaw P-containing detergents in Mexico

3. P removal via harvesting of tilapia for

production of commercial fishmeal, a multi-
decade project

4. Reduce population growth in watershed

Rapid Population Growth +
California 4.4 Plan
=
Extreme Water Shortage
¬
 Fallowing of land, "Reclaiming" of
Salton Sea inflows, Major shrinkage
of Salton Sea

These processes are already underway: Acre-feet/year

SDCWA: proposed water 200,000++
transfers from IID 575,000
MWDSC: has requested rights 100,000
to SS inflows 141,000
CVWD: has requested rights 1,350,000
to SS inflows
Mexico: Planning ways to use
New R. flows
Current Average inflows to
Salton Sea

Who is Fighting High U.S.

Population Growth?

Positions & votes by Congressmen on

legislation affecting immigration and population
growth rates
Position/vote:
✿ = Environment friendly, Salton Sea friendly
• = Environment hostile, Salton Sea hostile
Southern California Congressmen (Districts 40-
52)
Legislative items (key below)
1 2 3 4 5 76 8
Lewis (R-40) •✿ • • ✿ ?• ?
Kim (R-41) •✿ • ✿ • ?• ?
Baca (D-42) -- -- -- -- -- ?-- ?
Brown (D-42) • • ✿ ✿ • ✿ -- --
Calvert (R-43) ✿✿ • ✿✿ • ? ?
Bono, S. (R-44) ✿✿ • ✿ -- -- -- --
Bono, M. (R-44) -- -- -- -- ✿ • ? ?
Rohrabacher (R- ✿✿ ✿ ✿✿✿ ?
✿
45)
Dornan (R-46) ✿ • ✿ • -- -- -- --
Sanchez (D-46) -- -- -- -- • -- ? ?
Cox (R-47) ✿• • • ✿ • ? ✿
Packard (R-48) ✿✿ • ✿ ✿ • ✿✿
Bilbray (R-49) ✿✿ ✿ ✿ ✿ • ? ✿
Filner (D-50) • • ✿ • • ✿ ? ?
Cunningham (R- ✿✿ • ✿ ✿ • ? ✿
51)
Hunter (R-52) ✿✿ ✿ ✿ ✿ ✿ ✿✿
______________________________________________________________
________

California Senators
Boxer (D) (analysis in process)

Feinstein (D) (analysis in process)

______________________________________________________________
________

1. Chrysler et al. amendment to HR2202: killed much needed

legal forms, allowing endless chain migration of extended

families and continued high immigration rates.

2. Gallegly et al. amendment to HR2202: would have established

a mandatory employment verification system in 5 states heavily

impacted by illegal immigration.

3. Pombo/Chambliss amendment to HR2202: would have

granted as many as 250,000 temporary farm worker visas

without adequate mechanisms to assure repatriation.

4. McCollum amendment to HR2202: would have instructed

government to make the Social Security card tamper-proof and

thereby greatly assisted slowing of illegal immigration.

5. Rohrabacher amendment to HR2202: would have prevented

permanent extension of legal loophole that allowed illegal aliens

to obtain legal status.

6. HR3736: raised the number of skilled foreign temporary

workers allowed into U.S. from 65,000 to 115, 000 with no

effective mechanism to assure their repatriation.

7. HR41: imposes temporary limits on most categories of

immigration and restores immigration to lower historical levels.

Pending.

8. HR73: would deny automatic citizenship to children born in

the U.S. to illegal aliens. Pending.

Conclusions
Any voter concerned about the Salton Sea or, indeed, about

environmental degradation in the U.S. in general will appreciate

those votes or positions symbolized by green flowers. This will

be doubly true for anyone who agrees we should be thinking

and planning in terms of our grandchildren’s generation. There

are many factors to weigh in any piece of legislation, but it

should be disappointing to the public that 40 percent of the

votes tallied above favor maintaining or increasing our high

growth rate. This currently is greater than that of any other

industrialized nation. The Salton Sea would have a better chance

of surviving to 2050 if we didn't add many tens of millions of

thirsty people to California's and the nation's population over

the next decades. Concerned citizens will try to steer those

black question marks toward environmentally responsible

outcomes.

Distribution and
Numbers of
Immigrants,1996
"From the founding of the republic to the mid-1920s, U.S.

immigration was largely unrestricted, but shortly thereafter

Congress passed legislation severely limiting entry from all

regions except northwestern Europe. Beginning in 1965 and

continuing thereafter, it passed a series of more liberal laws,

including the Immigration and Reform Act of 1986, under which

2.7 million illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico, were given legal

immigrant status. The new laws not only promoted diversity but

also opened the door to the longest and largest wave of

immigration ever--27 million since 1965, including illegal

entries....
"In 1996, a more or less typical year, there were 916,000 legal

immigrants plus an estimated 275,000 who came illegally....

"The U.S. population will grow enormously, absent a drastic

reduction in immigration. A big drop in immigration does not

seem imminent in view of pressures from many ethnic groups,

which generally support a heterogeneous society, and from

employers who depend on low-wage labor. The U.S. Census

Bureau's latest projection, which assumes a continuation of

recent immigration and emigration levels over the next half a

century, puts the U.S. population at 394 million in 2050. Of the

122 million increase between now and then, 80 million would be

added because of immigration. "

Excerpted from "U.S. Immigration" by R. Doyle, Scientific

American, September 9, 1999

A Crime Whose Name

We Dare Not Speak?
 President Clinton, 1998

Despite massive illegal immigration, there will

be no massive deportations. Most of the illegals
here now will be allowed to stay; most of those
who come later will also be allowed to stay.

Treason

"The betrayal of any trust or confidence; breach

of faith"

- Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1956

Political Candidates, 2000

No opinions on the subject? Perhaps someone

should ask .....
 The Globalist Copout

The Globalist Copout states that since overpopulation is a

global problem, the ways of dealing with it must be primarily

global or international in nature. It is ok for individual nations to

attempt to control their own birth rates. But they should not

control or reduce their immigration rates, even if immigration is

the major cause of their population growth. It would be "unfair"

if one country were able to stabilize its population well ahead of

other countries, especially if it were an industrialized western

country. So goes the "reasoning."

The U.S., for example, should deal with its population problem

by ameliorating the social, political, and economic problems in

the rest of the world that cause so many to attempt to come

here. Then, in some later century or millenium, they will prefer to

stay home.

The Globalist Copout is a device used in the U.S. primarily by

four groups of people:

1) as a mantra by the saintly innocents, who claim the moral

high ground with vague references to "human rights", "social

justice", etc. and who are apparently truly without

understanding of the consequences of the open border or high

immigration policies they advocate;

2) as a smokescreen by those who want high immigration rates

so they will have a good supply of cheap labor:

3) as a smokescreen by those who want high immigration rates,

but usually only for their own "group", however defined, in order

to increase its political power; and

4) as an excuse for inaction by those afflicted by el fenómeno

microcojónico, a condition especially widespread among

university academics, environmental organizations, scientific

societies, other professional organizations, and to a lesser

extent among the general public.

This condition is characterized by acute cognitive dissonance.

That results from full awareness of the problems posed by high

immigration, guilt feelings over their luck in being U.S citizens,

and great fear of being called names in public. The epithets

favored by the attack dogs are "racist", "nativist", and

"xenophobe". The attack dogs come mostly from the three other

groups. But even microcojónicos, after enough coffee and/or

Viagra, have been known to "go postal" on persons who raise

immigration issues.

By far the largest and most influential group, it is the

microcojónicos who are the primary obstacle to stabilization of

the U.S. population and the long-term health of the Salton Sea,

the Colorado River and its delta, and other environments of

California and Baja California, among thousands of other

ecosystems in decline.

Prime Practitioners of
The Globalist Copout

There are so many, choosing is hard! But below we give brief

synopses of the copout stances of one political party, one

scientific society, and one environmental organization.

 The Green Party of California
This paragon of saintly innocence claims to advocate protection

of the environment more strongly than do other political parties.

Their internet website presents a detailed platform on

population and immigration issues. It refers to that majority of

the U.S. population favoring reductions in immigration as being

"xenophobic" and "reactionary." As usual, such shameless

rhetoric is a smokescreen for hiding weak arguments and

forestalling reasoned debates the name-callers would be likely

to lose.

The website says that even "militaristic fortification of the

border" will not stop illegal immigration, that illegal immigrants

do not displace native workers, and that they have a positive

effect on the economy. Therefore the U.S. should provide full

social and educational services to illegal immigrants and should

not penalize persons or companies who employ them. The Party

acknowledges that the population of California is expected to

double in 30 years. It does not even hint that legal and illegal

immigration are primary drivers of this increase.

The Greens are giving the Democrats and Republicans stiff

competition for the Masters of Myopia Prize.

 The Ecological Society of America
Composed of scientists who study deserts, prairies, and forests,

lakes, rivers and oceans, the plants, animals and microbes that

inhabit them, and the influence on them of man's activities, this

is the largest and most diverse group of environmental

scientists in the U.S. There is no group more knowledgeable

about the relation between U.S. population growth and

environmental degradation. But this society has shirked all

responsibility for doing anything about it.

In 1991 it published "The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative: An

Ecological Research Agenda" (Ecology 72:371-412). As a

research agenda and request for more funds for research, it is

fine. But as stated by Ludwig et al. (Ecol. Applications 3:547-

555), "Such a claim that basic research will lead to sustainable

use of resources in the face of a growing human population may

lead to a false complacency: instead of addressing the problems

of population and excessive use of resources, we may avoid

such difficult issues by spending money on basic ecological

research."
The document addresses the global population issue briefly and

says nothing whatsoever about U.S. population growth (despite

coming from a U.S. organization).

A few years later it was suggested that the society prepare

another white paper that dealt specifically with U.S. population

growth, its causes and environmental impacts. The suggestion

was turned down. The nation clearly cannot count on such

academic-dominated societies of microcojónicos to speak or act

in the national interest on difficult topics - except perhaps in

exchange for more research funds. Fortunately, the civic role

they fear to play has been assumed by other organizations.

These include Population-Environment Balance, Negative

Population Growth, Californians for Population Stabilization,

Federation for Immigration Reform, and the Carrying Capacity

Network, to name a few.

The Sierra Club Board of Directors

Until 1996 the Sierra Club, a U.S. environmental organization,

advocated stabilization of the U.S. population via reduction in

both rate of natural increase and immigration rates. In 1996 its

Board of Directors and its so-called "Environmental Justice

Committee" decided that population was a global problem and

that the Club should have no position on U.S. immigration levels

and policies.

Through a petition process, those wishing to have a policy in

favor of reduced immigration levels forced the Board of

Directors to have a membership-wide vote on the issue.

Using tactics that would make Gordon Liddy proud, the Board of

Directors organized a campaign of disinformation and dirty

tricks. These, ad hominem attacks on initiative proponents as

"racists" and "migrant bashers", and membership apathy,

defeated the initiative. Voting took place in April 1998 - 6% were

in favor, 9% were against, and 85% of the members didn't vote.

In his victory press release, Sierra Club President Carl Pope

crowed, "Our members have shown they understand that

restricting immigration into the United States will not solve the

environmental problems caused by global overpopulation" - as

if the global scale is the only or most effective one at which the

problem can be dealt with!

The cognitive dissonance underlying such amazing statements

has been nicely analyzed in an article, "Cry, the Overcrowded

Country" by Diana Hull (The Social Contract, Summer 1999; in

your information packet).

California Population
Growth
The Big Picture In Two Facts
1. Population projections indicate that in about
30 years, California will be as densely populated
as China is now (137 persons per sq km)

2. Foreign immigration contributed 96% of

California's population growth from 1990 to
1997a.

a. See CAPS website (http://www.cap-s.org/media.html) for data and

calculations. Foreign immigration is calculated as new immigrants

plus births to immigrants, both legal and illegal, adjusted for deaths

and out-migration to other states.

Leader in the Globalist
Copout Movement
(in defiance of its motto)

A Sierra Club ballot

issue

Should the Sierra Club advocate

limiting immigration to stabilize the
 U.S. population and protect the
environment?

Attack by politically correct

ostriches

Adam Werbach, National Sierra Club President

"There is no place for the Sierra Club to be

involved in blaming immigrants for
environmental problems..."

Peter Andersen, SDSU Professor, Sierra Club,

SD Chapter
"This type of Draconian measure to close the
door behind us and not let any more people in is
not the solution."

Armando Soto Mayer, Sierra Club, LA Chapter

This ballot is "an issue of racism"

 Carl Pope, National Sierra Club Executive
Director
"If we do not solve our population crisis globally
we will not solve it at all."

Original Abstract
Current proposals for solving the problems of the Salton
Sea all fall short of the mark. They are classic examples
of the idea of a technological fix, the idea that scientists
and engineers can provide the solution to what are
fundamentally social and political problems. When called
to the rescue, the scientists and engineers are happy to
look for these technological fixes on behalf of the
politicians, who usually need to claim "progress made"
before the next election cycle. The scientists and
engineers know the fixes will not help much in the long
run, and may even delay attention to the real problems.
But a "fix search" can provide a job, research funds, per
diem for travel to interesting places and conferences, and
other perks. So we are happy to oblige, to be 'good
soldiers' and not question orders. To avoid offense, to
maintain our positions, and to keep the funds flowing, we
refrain from pointing out to the politicians the lack of
vision and courage that keeps them from dealing with the
important issues. This poster attempts to depart from
these self-serving and myopic traditions.

The long-term health of the Salton Sea requires four

things: removal of salts, continued large inflows of
wastewaters, some additional freshwater inputs for
dilution purposes, and removal of phosphorus from the
Sea at a rate faster than it is coming in. However, the last
three of these will be very difficult if not impossible
given the high rate of population growth, especially in
California, Arizona, and Baja California. Should large
amounts be invested in the proposed technological fixes
for the Sea if the politicians are not willing, at the same
time, to begin dealing with the social and political issue
of population management so that the 'fixes' can bear real
fruit?
In the U.S., population growth is driven primarily by
immigration. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that
under current immigration policies, immigration will
account for about 80 million of the 122 million increase
in the U.S. population predicted for 2050. Increasing
population and increasing environmental degradation go
hand in hand. In a very real sense, immigration is the
greatest controllable cause of environmental problems in
the U.S., including those confronting the Salton Sea. Our
high average standard of living (nice cars, nice homes,
nice industries, nice agriculture, nice daily showers, etc.)
is a bigger cause, of course, but even the 'greenest'
individuals seem disinclined to give up much of this.

The poster presents a collage of information on problems

of eutrophication and water supply at the Salton Sea,
their relation to population growth and immigration, the
failures of the executive and legislative branches of the
U.S. government to deal effectively with immigration
issues, and the smear tactics and cognitive dissonance
with which some organizations attempt to suppress
rational discussion of them.
An information packet with materials from different
organizations on these issues will be available to
symposium registrants. A resolution for forwarding to the
President and Congress of the United States will also be
available for signing by interested persons. This will
present the Salton Sea as just one example of the
collision between high rates of population growth and the
need to reduce environmental degradation, and will ask
for appropriate government action, so that expenditures
on engineering projects at the Salton Sea, among other
places, have a chance of purchasing more than white
elephants. [The idea of a resolution was not
implemented.]
 Click here to see more about this report, including a

paragraph-length summary and key findings, along with a link to the

National Academies Press, where you can read/purchase the report.

All six species of sea turtles found in U.S. waters are listed as
endangered or threatened, but the exact population sizes of these
species are unknown due to a lack of key information regarding birth
and survival rates. The U.S. Endangered Species Act prohibits the
hunting of sea turtles and reduces incidental losses from activities
such as shrimp trawling and development on beaches used for
nesting. However, current monitoring does not provide enough
information on sea turtle populations to evaluate the effectiveness
of these protective measures. This National Research Council report
reviews current methods for assessing sea turtle populations and
finds that although counts of sea turtles are essential, more detailed
information on sea turtle biology such as survival rates and breeding
patterns, is needed to predict and understand changes in
populations in order to develop successful management and
conservation plans.

Sea turtles are vulnerable to the perils of ocean life. With long
lifetimes and wide-ranging migration patterns, sea turtles are
exposed to many sources of danger both in coastal locations and in
the open sea, including environmental accidents like oil spills,
incidental capture in fishing nets, and changes in the ocean
environment. Furthermore, some societies prize sea turtles and their
eggs for food and for their putative therapeutic value, making sea
turtles a target for hunters. Because it takes many years for sea
turtles to mature and reproduce, populations are slow to recover
from these losses.

To protect dwindling sea turtle populations, regulations are in place

to prohibit or limit activities that can harm the animals. Additional
information on sea turtle populations is needed to assess if these
measures are effective—but current monitoring methods rely in
large part on counts of the adult females that return to land to lay
their eggs on nesting beaches, information that doesn’t provide an
accurate picture of the whole sea turtle population. Improved
population assessments are important to develop and adjust
management plans for sea turtle populations.

In response to these concerns, the National Marine Fisheries Service

of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration requested
that the National Research Council form a committee to investigate
methods of improving assessments of sea turtle populations. The
committee reviewed existing methods, identified gaps in
information, and suggested improvements for monitoring and data
collection. The committee’s central finding was that, in addition to
estimates of the numbers of sea turtles, more detailed information
is needed on key stages of the sea turtle lifecycle, such as breeding,
survival, and dispersal of hatchlings from nesting beaches into the
sea. These data would provide insight on the causes of declining sea
turtle populations and could be used to develop management plans
to limit and reverse these declines.

• 39084 nests in 1989

• 50266 nests in 1990
• 52802 nests in 1991
• 47567 nests in 1992
• 41808 nests in 1993
• 51168 nests in 1994
• 57843 nests in 1995
• 52811 nests in 1996
• 34084 nests in 1997
• 59918 nests in 1998
• 56471 nests in 1999
• 56277 nests in 2000
• 45941 nests in 2001
• 38101 nests in 2002
• 40726 nests in 2003
• 29547 nests in 2004
• 34310 nests in 2005
• 31329 nests in 2006

Numbers of loggerhead sea turtle nests on Florida beaches have

declined rapidly in recent years. Hover over a point for specific data
from that year (iPad users, tap once to see the data). SOURCE:
Reprinted from Witherington et al., 2009, with permission from
Ecological Society of America
Gathering Information

To measure the impacts of environmental change or the success of

conservation work, researchers monitor specific sea turtle
populations, defined as groups of individuals of the same species
whose members interbreed and experience similar conditions,
resulting in common birth, mortality, and growth rates. However,
keeping track of sea turtle populations is difficult. Their wide-ranging
migration patterns make sea turtles virtually inaccessible to
researchers for large periods of time. Furthermore, foraging
activities can bring different sea turtle populations into the same
area, where the intermingling of groups can prevent researchers
from collecting data from just one population.

Adult female sea turtles return to the same beach to nest every two
or three years, providing an opportunity to observe and collect data
from a single population. Many U.S. nesting beaches have programs
in place to count sea turtle nests, but the connection between the
number of nests on the beach and the status of the population is
weak. Counts of sea turtles at a single lifecycle stage can be
misleading for diagnosing the status and trends of the whole
population—adult females represent only a subset of the whole
population, and not every female in the population returns to nest
every single year. The report’s authoring committee concluded that
collecting and analyzing demographic information on sea turtle
population biology, such as survival and reproductive rates, provides
a more accurate picture of the whole population and could help
researchers draw robust conclusions from their observations. In
addition, efforts should be made to monitor sea turtles at locations
other than nesting beaches in the hope of collecting data on all
sectors of the population (see illustration).

Data on environmental factors, such as resource availability, ocean

temperature, and ocean currents can help researchers interpret
demographic information. Processes such as breeding or mortality,
are sensitive to environmental conditions; for example, the
availability of food affects the age at which sea turtles can begin to
breed, the frequency with which females lay eggs, and the number
of years between breeding seasons. An understanding of the
relationship between environmental conditions and demographic
information is essential to predict the population changes that could
occur in response to changes in habitat or climate. Models can be
used to help link population counts, demographic rates, and
information on environmental factors to allow managers of sea
turtle populations to identify trends and make decisions to help
prevent population declines.

Box 1: DNA Testing

DNA testing can differentiate sea turtle populations by identifying

the genetic markers unique to particular sea turtle groups. For this
analysis to work, samples must be taken from sea turtles at
breeding and nesting sites to establish the genetic characteristics of
the population. Samples are then taken from sea turtles on foraging
grounds or during migrations and used to distinguish among
different populations in mixed groups or to trace the lineage of sea
turtle populations in order to figure out how new populations are
established.

Improving Data Management, Coordination, and

Education

The report’s authoring committee suggested that the National

Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service develop
management plans for sea turtles based on both counts of sea
turtles and demographic information. Improved data management,
coordination, and education are needed to collect and analyze this
information.

• In general, not enough information on sea turtle populations is

collected, even though hundreds of projects have been
established throughout the United States to monitor sea turtle
populations and research sea turtle biology. All too often, the
data collected by one organization are not accessible to other
researchers because the methods for collecting and analyzing
data are not standardized or because of issues with data
ownership. This lack of coordination is a major impediment to
the management and conservation of sea turtles. Plans should
be developed for the collection and analysis of data to address
data gaps, with the input of sea turtle biologists and other
experts who collect, analyze, and use the data. An online
database should be established to store and allow easy access
to the information.
 • Partnerships between the National Marine Fisheries Service,
which manages sea turtles in the water, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, which is responsible for sea turtles when on
land, and other government agencies, universities, research
institutions are needed to improve coordination between
researchers and encourage data sharing.
• Because sea turtles are endangered, permits are required to
carry out research on the species; however, most sea turtle
researchers agree that the permitting process is a greater
obstacle to research than is necessary to protect sea turtles
and can delay or hamper innovative research projects. The
report’s authoring committee recommended that methods be
developed to expedite the permitting process while meeting
legislative requirements and intent.
• Accurate assessments of sea turtle populations and statistical
analyses of population dynamics require extensive knowledge
of topics such as population statistics, modeling, study design
and data analysis. To provide this information to managers of
sea turtle populations, one strategy would be to recruit
statisticians and modeling specialists from fields outside of
conservation biology. Longer-term solutions include launching
interdisciplinary training of fisheries and conservation
professionals. Training would include population and
ecosystem ecology, statistics, modeling, and also economics,
policy, and decision analysis to provide insight into how the
conservation of natural resources can be achieved.

Committee on the Review of Sea Turtle Population

Assessment Methods: Karen A. Bjorndal, (Chair), University of
Florida; Brian W. Bowen, University of Hawaii; Milani Chaloupka,
Ecological Modelling Services Pty Ltd, St. Lucia, Australia; Larry B.
Crowder, Duke University; Selina S. Heppell, Oregon State
University; Cynthia M. Jones, Old Dominion University; Molly E.
Lutcavage, University of New Hampshire; Andrew R. Solow,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; Blair E. Witherington,
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; Jodi Bostrom
(Associate Program Officer); Susan Park (Senior Program Officer),
until December 31, 2009; David Policansky (Scholar); Jeremy
Justice (Senior Program Assistant), National Research Council.

The National Academies appointed the above committee of experts

to address this specific task. The members volunteered their time
for this activity; their report is peer-reviewed and the final product
signed off by both the committee members and the National
Academies. This report brief was prepared by the National Research
Council based on the committee’s report.

For more information, contact the Ocean Studies Board

at (202) 334-2714 or visit The Ocean Studies Board.
Copies of Sea Turtle Status and Trends: Integrating
Demography and Abundance are available from the National
Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001;
(800) 624-6242. Permission granted to reproduce this brief in its
entirety with no additions or alterations. Permission for
images/figures must be obtained from their original source.

© 2010 The National Academy of Sciences