Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations

of the

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Loggerhead Turtle

(Caretta caretta)
Cover Photograph Courtesy of Marc A. Webber
RECOVERY PLAN FOR U.S. PACIFIC POPULATIONS OF THE 

LOGGERHEAD TURTLE 

(Caretta caretta) 

Prepared by the 

Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery Team 

for 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Silver Spring, Maryland 

and 

Pacific Region 

US. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Portland, Oregon 

Approved: 

Regional Directo 

Date: /S?--23-7 7 

ist&r%sheries. National Marine Fisheries Service 

Date: i/iL/?a 
Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or

protect the species. Plans are prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams,

contractors, State agencies and others. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended

contingently upon appropriations, priorities and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do

not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals of any individuals or

agencies, other than those of NMFS and the FWS which were involved in the plan formulation. 

They represent the official positions of NMFS and the FWS only after they have been approved

by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries or the Regional Director. Approved recovery plans

are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status and the

completion of recovery tasks.

Literature citations should read as follows:

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for 

U.S. Pacific Populations of the Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta). National Marine

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

Additional copies of this plan may be purchased from:

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service

5430 Grosvenor Lane

Suite 110

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

(301)492-6403 or 
1-800-582-3421

The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Loggerhead)

PREFACE ................................................................ iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................... iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................... v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................... vi

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1

A. Geographic Scope .................................................. 1

B. Historical and Cultural Background ..................................... 4

C. Taxonomy ........................................................ 4

D. Description ........................................................ 4

E. Population Distribution and Size ....................................... 5

Nesting Grounds ................................................ 5

Insular and Pelagic Range ......................................... 7

F. Status ........................................................... 10

G. Biological Characteristics ............................................ 11

Migration and Movements ........................................ 11

Foraging Biology and Diet ........................................ 12

Growth ....................................................... 13

Reproduction .................................................. 14

Offshore Behavior .............................................. 15

Health Status .................................................. 16

H. Threats ......................................................... 16

Pacific Synopsis ............................................... 16

Regional Summaries ............................................ 17

U.S. West Coast ......................................... 17

Hawaii ................................................. 17

American Samoa ......................................... 17

Guam .................................................. 17

Republic of Palau ......................................... 17

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) ........... 18

Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) ......................... 18

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) ......................... 18

Unincorporated Islands .................................... 18

General Threat Information ....................................... 20

Nesting Environment ...................................... 20

1. Directed Take .................................... 20

2. Increased Human Presence ......................... 20

3. Coastal Construction .............................. 20

4. Nest Predation ................................... 20

5. Beach Erosion ................................... 21

6. Artificial Lighting .................................. 21

 7. Beach Mining .................................... 21
ii

 8. Vehicular Driving on Beaches ....................... 21

 9. Exotic Vegetation ................................. 21

10. Beach Cleaning ................................. 22

11. Beach Replenishment ............................ 22

Marine Environment ....................................... 22

12. Directed Take ................................... 22

13. Natural Disasters ................................ 22

14. Disease and Parasites ............................ 22

15. Algae, Seagrass and Reef Degradation .............. 22

16. Environmental Contaminants ....................... 23

17. Debris (Entanglement and Ingestion) ................ 23

18. Fisheries (Incidental Take) ......................... 23

19. Predation ...................................... 23

20. Boat Collisions .................................. 24

21. Marina and Dock Development ..................... 24

22. Dredging ...................................... 24

23. Dynamite “Fishing” ............................... 24

24. Oil Exploration and Development ................... 24

25. Power Plant Entrapment .......................... 24

26. Construction Blasting ............................. 25

I. Conservation Accomplishments ....................................... 26

II. RECOVERY ............................................................ 27

A. Recovery Objectives ................................................ 27

B. Step Down Outline and Narrative for Recovery ........................... 28

III. REFERENCES CITED ................................................... 40

IV. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ........................................... 49
iii

PREFACE

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

share responsibilities at the Federal level for the research, management, and recovery of Pacific

marine turtle populations under U.S. jurisdiction. To accomplish the drafting of this recovery plan,

NMFS appointed a team of professional biologists experienced with marine turtles in the Pacific

region. This document is one of six recovery plans (one for each of the five species plus one for

the regionally important population of the East Pacific green turtle). 

While similar in format to previously drafted sea turtle recovery plans for the Atlantic,

Caribbean, and Hawaii, the unique nature of the wider Pacific region required some modification

of the recovery plan format. The geographic scope of the present plan is much larger than any

previously attempted and considers areas from the western coastal United States extending to

Guam. Furthermore, the amount of jurisdictional overlap between nations, commonwealths,

territories and compact-of-free-association-states and their various turtle populations required a

broader management perspective than has been attempted previously. Finally, sea turtles have

not been studied as comprehensively in the Pacific as in other U.S. areas, and thus there are

many areas in the Pacific where basic biological and ecological information must be obtained for

management purposes. Thus, these plans have more extensive text on the general biology of the

turtles, so that they might act as a resource to managers seeking a handy reference to the

species. The plans are also subdivided into U.S. jurisdictional areas (i.e., the various territories

and the commonwealth), so that local managers can address issues within their respective regions

more easily. 

Because of the previously noted aspects of marine turtle distribution in the Pacific (e.g., wide

geographic range, multiple jurisdictions), the Recovery Team relied on the input and involvement

of a large number of advisers, as can be noted by the lengthy Acknowledgments section. It is

hoped that the resulting document is one that acts as a pragmatic guide to recovering the

threatened and endangered sea turtle populations in the Pacific Ocean.

The members of the Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery Team and the authors of this document are:

Scott A. Eckert, Ph.D. (Team Leader)

Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute

Javier Alvarado, Ph.D.

Universidad de Michoacan, Mexico

George Balazs

National Marine Fisheries Service

Richard Byles, Ph.D.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Peter Craig, Ph.D.

Office of Wildlife and Marine Resources,

Government of American Samoa

Peter Dutton, Ph.D.

Texas A&M University

Karen Eckert, Ph.D.

Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation

Network (WIDECAST)

John Engbring

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

James Maragos, Ph.D.

East-West Center

Robert Pitman

National Marine Fisheries Service

Susan Pultz

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

James I. Richardson. Ph.D.

University of Georgia
iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The team wishes to thank and acknowledge the following technical advisors and contributors to

these recovery plans:

David Aldan, Department of Natural Resources, Saipan, MP 

Pablo Arenas, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

Representative Mariano W. Carlos, Palau 

Chuck Cook, The Nature Conservancy

Donald David, FSM

Gerry Davis, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, Dept. Agriculture, Guam

Oscar DeBrum, former Chief Secretary, RMI

Adrienne Farago, SPREP/RMTCP, Western Samoa

Michael Guilbeaux, Georgia Sea Turtle Cooperative

Vincent Hachiglou, Marine Resources Management Division, Yap State Government

Heidi Hirsh, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam

Paul Holthus, IUCN Biodiversity Program

Luciana Honigman, The Nature Conservancy

Noah Idechong, Division of Marine Resources, Palau

John Iou, Marine Resources Management Division, Yap State Government

Bruce Jensen, Pacific Magazine

Harry Kami, Hilo, Hawaii

Angela Kay Kepler, Athens, Georgia

Steve Kolinski, Marine Resources Management Division, Yap State Government

Colin Limpus, Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, Australia

Becky Madraisau, Micronesian Mariculture Demonstration Center, Republic of Palau

B. Renè Màrquez-M., P.N.I.T.M./INP, Mexico 

Donna McDonald, Ocean Planet Research

Ken McDermond, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu

Jeffery Miller, Queensland Department of Environment & Heritage, Australia

Susan Miller, South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP)

Karen Miller McClune, Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute

Moses Nelson, Marine Resources Division, FSM

Peter Oliver, RMI

Arnold Palacios, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dept. of Natural Resources, CNMI

Peter Pritchard, Florida Audubon Society

Georgita Ruiz, Colonia Irrigacion, Mexico

Laura Sarti, Universidad Naçional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico

Fumihiko Sato, Ogasawara Marine Center, Japan

Katsufumi Sato, Kyoto University, Japan

Asterio Takesy, Secretary of Resources and Development, FSM

Natasha Tuato’o-Bartley, Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, American Samoa

Itaru Uchida, Port of Nagoya Public Aquarium, Japan 

Richard Wass, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Phil Williams, National Marine Fisheries Service
v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CCL curved carapace length

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora

CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

DAWR Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

ENSO El Niño - Southern Oscillation

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act

ETP Eastern Tropical Pacific

FENA females estimated to nest annually 

FSM Federated States of Micronesia

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

HSWRI Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute

IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

INP Instituto Nacional de Pesca

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature

MHI Main Hawaiian Islands

MIMRA Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority

MMDC Micronesian Mariculture Demonstration Center

MRMD Marine Resources Management Division, Yap State government 

mtDNA mitochondrial DNA

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service (Soil Conservation Service) 

NWHI Northwest Hawaiian Islands

PNG Papua New Guinea

RMI Republic of the Marshall Islands

SCL straight carapace length

SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric 

SPREP South Pacific Regional Environment Program

TAMU Texas A & M University

TED Turtle Excluder Device 

UNAM Universidad Naçional Autonoma de Mexico

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USVI U.S. Virgin Islands

WIDECAST Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network
vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current Status: The loggerhead turtle is listed as a Threatened species throughout its range.

In the Pacific, threatened status is consistent with population levels and trends. The stocks found

in U.S. jurisdiction most likely originate from Japanese nesting areas and thus activities in Japan

which impact nesting success or foraging turtles in coastal waters are of concern. The United

States and Mexico (primarily Baja California South) support important developmental habitats for

juvenile loggerheads. A primary threat to the species in the Pacific is from the incidental

mortalities associated with commercial fisheries, particularly longline and net fisheries. This threat

must be minimized for recovery of this species.

Goal: The recovery goal is to delist the species.

Recovery Criteria:

To consider de-listing, all of the following criteria must be met:

1) To the best extent possible, reduce the take in international waters (have and enforce

agreements).

2) All regional stocks that use U.S. waters have been identified to source beaches based on

reasonable geographic parameters.

3) All females estimated to nest annually (FENA) at "source beaches" are either stable or

increasing for over 25 years.

4) Each stock must average 5,000 FENA (or a biologically reasonable estimate based on the

goal of maintaining a stable population in perpetuity) over six years.

5) Existing foraging areas are maintained as healthy environments. 

6) Foraging populations are exhibiting statistically significant increases at several key foraging

grounds within each stock region.

7) All Priority #1 tasks have been implemented.

8) A management plan designed to maintain stable or increasing populations of turtles is in

place.

9) Ensure formal cooperative relationship with a regional sea turtle management program

(SPREP). 

10) International agreements are in place to protect shared stocks (e.g., Mexico and Japan).

Actions needed: Five primary actions are needed to achieve recovery (not in order of priority):
vii

1) Reduce incidental capture of loggerheads by coastal and high seas commercial fishing

operations.

2) Establish bilateral agreements with Japan and Mexico to support their efforts to census and

monitor loggerhead populations and to minimize impacts of coastal development and fisheries

on loggerhead stocks. 

3) Identify stock home ranges using DNA analysis.

4) Determine population size and status (in U.S. jurisdiction) through regular aerial or on-water

surveys.

5) Identify and protect primary foraging areas for the species.
1

RECOVERY PLAN FOR U.S. PACIFIC POPULATIONS 

OF THE LOGGERHEAD TURTLE (Caretta caretta)

Prepared by the 

U.S. Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery Team 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 

A. Geographic Scope 

Defining the geographic range of a population of sea turtles in the Pacific Ocean is difficult.

Sea turtles are highly migratory, and the life histories of all species exhibit complex movements

and migrations through geographically disparate habitats. Because the U.S. Pacific Sea Turtle

Recovery Team is required to focus on sea turtle populations that reside within U.S. jurisdiction,

we must delineate what constitutes a population where individuals reside permanently or

temporarily within U.S. jurisdiction and what actions must be taken to restore that population. This

has proven to be quite challenging because sea turtles do not recognize arbitrary national

boundaries and in most cases we have only limited data on stock ranges and movements of the

various populations. In this recovery plan we have tried to make these judgements with the best

information available, and to suggest means by which the United States can promote population

recovery. 

Geographic scope (from a U.S. jurisdictional perspective) for all six of the U.S. Pacific sea

turtle recovery plans (written for five species and one regionally important population) is defined

as follows: in the eastern Pacific, the west coast of the continental United States (Figure 1a); in

the central Pacific, the state of Hawaii and the unincorporated U.S. territories of Howland, Baker,

Wake, Jarvis, and Midway Islands, Johnston Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, and Kingman Reef; in Oceania,

Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and American Samoa (see

Figure 1b). The U.S.-affiliated but independent nations of the Republic of the Marshall Islands

(RMI), Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), and the Republic of Palau are also included. The

FSM includes the states of Yap, Pohnpei, Chuuk, and Kosrae. While independent, all retain

clearly defined administrative links to the United States in the areas of defense, natural resource

management, and some regulatory issues. Thus, we include them here in an advisory capacity.

Finally, where eastern Pacific sea turtles are held in common with Mexico, discussion of the status

and recovery of these stocks will also include discussion of the resource under Mexican

jurisdiction. In all cases where U.S. sea turtle stocks are held in common with other sovereign

states, we have tried to suggest means by which the United States can support efforts at

management of those stocks by those states. We recognize that other nations may have different

priorities than the United States and we have sincerely attempted to avoid establishing policy for

those nations.

By virtue of the highly migratory behavior of the adult turtles, and the shifting habitat

requirements of post-hatchlings and juveniles, the populations of loggerhead turtles (Caretta

caretta) in the Pacific cross international boundaries. 
Figure 1 a. Western coasts of the United States, Canada and Mexico (as well as Central and 

northern South America) constitute a shared habitat for Pacific sea turtles. 
Figure I b. The western Pacific constitutes a shared habitat for Pacific sea turtles. 

3 
4

The adjacent ocean and island-areas of Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, Indonesia, and the

Philippines, as well as Australia to the south, China and Japan to the north, and Mexico and the

mainland United States to the east, constitute shared habitat for loggerhead sea turtles. This is

acknowledged in the following discussions.

B. Historical and Cultural Background 

In contrast to the rich legacy of cultural tradition and economic value which characterizes some

other species of sea turtles in the U.S. Pacific, there is no evidence of important subsistence or

cultural usage involving the comparatively rare loggerhead sea turtle. There is no documented

nesting by loggerheads on beaches under present or former U.S. Pacific jurisdiction. The species

is encountered at sea only occasionally in the U.S. Pacific, notably off the coast of California.

C. Taxonomy 

The generic name Caretta was introduced by Rafinesque (1814). The specific name caretta

was first used by Linnaeus (1758). The name Caretta is a latinized version of the French word

"caret", meaning turtle, tortoise, or sea turtle (Smith and Smith 1980). Smith and Smith (1980)

suggested that the Indo-Pacific and Atlantic populations were differentiated at the subspecific

level, but this conclusion has been challenged by Hughes (1974) and Pritchard and Trebbau

(1984). In recent synopses of the biological data available on this species, Dodd (1988, 1990)

considered Caretta caretta to be monotypic. For a detailed discussion of taxonomy and

synonymy, see Dodd (1988).

D. Description

The loggerhead turtle is characterized by typically five pairs of non-imbricated lateral scutes,

the first touching the cervical (nuchal) scute, vertebral scutes broader than long, and three

poreless infra-marginal scutes. The posterior marginal rim of the carapace is serrated in juveniles,

but becomes smoother with age. A median vertebral keel also becomes progressively smoother

with age. The bony carapace is reddish brown in color, and the scutes are often bordered with

yellow. The plastron is yellow to cream colored. The head is comparatively large, to 25 cm wide

in adults (Pritchard et al. 1983), and varies from reddish or yellow chestnut to olive brown, often

with yellow-bordered scales. Limbs and tail are dark medially and yellow laterally and below.

Mature males have comparatively narrow shells gradually tapering posteriorly, and long, thick tails

extending well beyond the edge of the carapace. Hatchlings are uniformly gray, reddish or olive

brown. There are two claws on each forelimb (description taken from Ernst and Barbour 1989).

Adults normally weigh 100-150 kg, although a large skull (width 28.4 cm) in the Bell collection

at Cambridge University indicates a weight of about 540 kg for that individual (Pritchard 1967).

The worldwide average carapace length of an adult female is 90-95 cm (Dodd 1988). Based on

data collected during 1969-1979 at Gamouda beach, Tokushima Prefecture, females nesting in

Japan average 89.0 cm straight carapace length (SCL) (range 72.0-107.5, n=118) and 96.8 kg

(range 53.0-125.0, n=15) (Uchida and Nishiwaki 1982). Females nesting in Queensland average

95.8 cm curved carapace length (CCL) (range 80.0-113.5, n=2,207) and 100.7 kg (range

70.3-146.1, n=112) (Limpus 1985). Adult males measured at feeding grounds in Queensland

averaged 96.6 cm CCL (range 89.0-104.0, n=43) (Limpus 1985). Hatchlings emerging at the Mon

Repose-Bundaberg rookery in Australia average 43.4 mm in length (range 39-49.6 mm, n=837)
5

and 20.7 g (n=817). Hatchlings from Japan are slightly larger, averaging 45.8 mm (range 43-55

mm, n=60) and 24.2 g (summarized by Márquez 1990). Detailed morphological descriptions are

given in Deraniyagala (1939) and Dodd (1988). Embryology is reviewed by Fujiwara (1966),

Blanck and Sawyer (1981), and Miller (1985).

E. Population Distribution and Size 

Nesting Grounds

Major nesting grounds are generally located in warm temperate and subtropical regions, with

some scattered nesting in the tropics. The largest loggerhead nesting colonies in the world are

found at Masirah Island, Oman, and along the Atlantic coast of Florida, United States

(Groombridge 1982). An estimated 30,000 loggerheads nest on Masirah Island each year (Ross

and Barwani 1982), while an estimated 14,150 nest annually on the beaches of Florida (Murphy

and Hopkins 1984; Ehrhart 1989). Nesting in the Pacific basin is restricted to the western region

(primarily Japan and Australia). With regard to U.S. jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean, there is no

loggerhead nesting on the western seaboard of the United States or in Hawaii, nor is there any

documentation to suggest that nesting occurs in any of the U.S. unincorporated island territories

of the Pacific (Balazs 1982). Similarly, there are no nesting records from Guam, CNMI, Palau, RMI

(Thomas 1989), FSM (Pritchard 1982b), or American Samoa (Tuato’o-Bartley et al. 1993). There

is no indication of nesting in the Solomon Islands or Vanuatu (formerly New Hebrides). Indeed

there are very few records of loggerheads nesting on any of the many islands of the Central

Pacific; the species is considered rare or vagrant in this region. 

 

U.S. West Coast

No known nesting.

Hawaii

No known nesting.

American Samoa

No known nesting.

Guam

No known nesting.

Republic of Palau 

No known nesting.

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) 

No known nesting.
6

Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI)

No known nesting.

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)

No known nesting.

Unincorporated U.S. Island Territories

There is no known nesting on the unincorporated U.S. island territories of Howland, Baker,

Wake, Jarvis, Midway, Johnston, Palmyra, or Kingman Reef. 

Other Areas of the Pacific: 

The following is a brief summary of loggerhead nesting grounds elsewhere in the Pacific basin;

it is from these rookeries that loggerheads occasionally encountered in U.S. waters originate.

Southwest Pacific 

Mating and nesting are reported by villagers on the Trobriand Islands (ca. 151EE, 8.5ES),

Papua New Guinea, especially the outer islands where there have been "several" recoveries of

Australian-tagged loggerheads (Spring 1982). The loggerhead is occasionally reported from

Indonesia, but population size and breeding grounds have not been ascertained (Suwelo et al.

1982). According to Polunin and Nuitja (1982), "apart from sporadic records, almost nothing is

known"; nesting reportedly occurs in West Sumatra and occasionally on the beaches of Java. In

New Caledonia, the loggerhead is reported the most common species nesting on the Isle des

Pins, at the southern terminus of the country. There is no indication of nesting in the Soloman

Islands or Vanuatu (Pritchard 1982a). 

In Queensland, Australia, an estimated 3,000-plus females nest each year at three major

rookery areas: the Capricorn/Bunker group of islands, including Wreck Island (which receives

approximately 1,000 nests per annum) and Tryon Island; the Bundaberg to Round Hill Head

coastline, including the Mon Repose and Wreck Rock beaches; and the Swain Reefs islands of

the southern Great Barrier Reef. In addition, low density nesting occurs widely throughout the

state south from Lizard Island (14E41'S), and "sporadic" nesting occurs as far south as Newcastle

(33ES) in New South Wales (Limpus 1982). 

Loggerheads may occasionally nest on the extreme northern beaches of New Zealand; very

small turtles (8-10 cm long) are sometimes encountered in New Zealand, but these are believed

to be about six months old and are likely to have originated in Australia (Pritchard 1982a).

Northwest Pacific 

Márquez (1990) stated that "in China, [loggerhead] nesting occurs along the coasts of the

South China Sea, principally on Hainan Island." 
7

Nishimura (1967) reviewed the status of Caretta in Japan and noted that references to

Lepidochelys in Japanese waters were probably based on Caretta. Loggerheads also nest on the

Pacific coast of Japan's mainland, most often between 24EN and 36EN (Naito et al. 1990), but

occasionally as far north as Fukushima Prefecture at 37EN (Uchida and Nishiwaki 1982). On the

Japanese islands, loggerheads nest "in abundance" in Shizuoka Prefecture, Kii Peninsula,

Shikoku, and the east coast of Kyushu; nesting on the Ogasawara (=Bonin) Islands is more rare.

A recent survey (1983-1988) revealed 201 loggerhead nests on 45 beaches of 13 islands

belonging to the Amami, Miyako, and Yaeyama Groups in the Ryukyu Archipelago and

established that the loggerhead nests with the highest frequency of any sea turtle along almost

the entire range of this archipelago (Kamezaki 1989), in contrast to earlier reports (Uchida and

Nishiwaki 1982; Uchida 1982) that nesting was relatively rare in the southern islands. 

There is no recent documentation for the coast of Indochina. No nesting is reported from the

Philippines (Gomez 1980).

South Central Pacific 

In the South Pacific, Balazs (1983) reported occasional nesting at Tokelau, a New Zealand

dependency (8E-10ES, 171E-173EW). In his account, an informant, considered an "outstanding

authority on all aspects of Tokelauan life", confided that a "reddish turtle comes from far away to

nest, and when it does a greater number of green turtles can be expected." It is possible that

loggerheads nest (or once nested) in the Cook Islands. An early report (Gill 1876 in Wiens 1962)

noted, "several species of turtle --loggerhead, hawksbill, green turtle, etc. -- are very plentiful on

Rakahanga [10E02'S, 161E05'W] in the breeding season." There are no such records in

neighboring territories, however, at least not for loggerheads. In his review of sea turtles in the

South Pacific, Pritchard (1982a) gave no indication of loggerhead nesting in Fiji, Tonga, or French

Polynesia. Nevertheless, it is possible that some islands in the South Pacific do support low

density nesting. The species is acknowledged to be very rare, and field surveys in this vast region

are inadequate to define the precise level of reproductive activity.

Insular and Pelagic Range

Loggerheads are circumglobal, inhabiting continental shelves, bays, estuaries and lagoons in

the temperate, subtropical, and tropical waters of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans (Dodd

1990). In the eastern Pacific loggerheads are reported as far north as Alaska, where a juvenile

recently stranded at Shuyak Island (58E33.9'N, 152E32.2' W) (Bane 1992), and as far south as

Chile (52E57'S) (Frazier and Salas 1982). Elsewhere in the U.S. Pacific, loggerheads are very

rare. During tuna fishing cruises from Baja California (Mexico) to Ecuador and from the coast to

nearly 150EW, during all times of the year, loggerheads were only seen near Baja California

(Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission [IATTC], unpublished data). There are no sightings

from Guam, CNMI, RMI, FSM, American Samoa, or the unincorporated territories. 

U.S. West Coast

Most of the sightings in northern U.S. waters are of juveniles measured or estimated at 20-60

cm shell length. Of 43 records summarized by Stinson (1984), only a few may have been adults

or near adults. In one case, the shell of a loggerhead sighted by a commercial fisherman near

San Clemente Island (Channel Islands, California) was "approximately one meter in length"; in
8

another case, a "300 pound loggerhead" stranded in Encinitas, California. While most records are

from southern California (Stinson 1984; Guess 1981a,b), there are a few sightings from

Washington (e.g., Grays Harbor 47E00'N, 124E 11'W: Wash. Dept. Game, unpubl. data; Ilwaco

46.18EN, 124.03EW: Hodge 1982) and Alaska (Bane 1992). 

Hawaii

Four records exist for Hawaii: two from the southeastern portion of the archipelago, a third was

recovered from the stomach of a tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier, from Kure Atoll (Balazs 1979),

and a fourth from the coast of Oahu where a loggerhead (75-80 cm shell length) was filmed in

October 1991 offshore of the Sheraton Waikiki hotel and has often been encountered since

(George Balazs, National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS], pers. comm. 1992). All four

specimens were juveniles and most likely drifted or traveled to Hawaii from Mexico to the east or

Japan to the west. 

American Samoa

No sighting records exist.

Guam

No sighting records exist.

Republic of Palau 

An adult loggerhead, reportedly locally captured, has been held for many years at the

Micronesian Mariculture Demonstration Center (MMDC) facility in Koror, Palau (J. Maragos, EastWest Center, pers. comm., 1994)

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)

No sighting records exist.

Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI)

No sighting records exist.

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)

No sighting records exist.

Unincorporated U.S. Island Territories

No sighting records exist.
9

Other Areas of the Pacific:

Eastern Pacific 

The largest known aggregations in the eastern Pacific are of juveniles off the west coast of

Baja California Sur, Mexico, in a band starting about 30 km offshore and extending out at least

another 30 km; maximum abundance is reported at Bahia Magdalena. Bartlett (1989) reported

the range of sizes to be 20-80 cm shell length (mean=60 cm); no hatchlings or mature adults were

present. Concentrations ranged from one to five turtles per km2 at peak sightings in good weather.

Bartlett (1989) speculated that the area provided "unlimited feeding on a high quality food", mostly

the pelagic red crab (Pleuroncodes planipes). The crab's distribution coincides with that of the

young turtles, and analysis of stomach contents and fecal material confirmed that the turtles were

"stuffed with parts of the red crab" (Bartlett 1989). Pitman (1990) reported similar concentrations

of young loggerheads in this area, "usually 30-40 cm" in carapace length.

Northwest Pacific 

The documented at-sea range of the loggerhead in the western North Pacific consists mainly

of records around Japan (Nishimura 1967; Uchida and Nishiwaki 1982; Iwamoto et al. 1985;

Nishemura and Nakahigashi 1990; see also Dodd 1988) and China, with the northernmost record

being Peter-the-Great-Bay, Maritime Province, U.S.S.R. (Terentjev and Chernov 1949 in Dodd

1988). The species is reported from Chinese and Taiwanese waters (e.g., Fang 1934 in

Nishimura 1967; Chu-Chien 1979, 1982), either as Caretta caretta, C. c. olivacea, or C. olivacea

(see Dodd 1988 for review). Frazier et al. (1988) surveyed the southeastern Chinese provinces

of Fujian and Guangdong and concluded that loggerheads were relatively common, at least in the

East China Sea. Records spanned March to October, and from Hainan Island (19E40'N) north to

Pingtan Island (25E30'N). Mean size was 82.0 cm CCL (range 74.5-102.5 cm, n=16) and the

majority were immature. Carapace lengths for four of six loggerheads captured by local fishermen

in the coastal waters of China's Jiangsu Province (ca. 31E-35EN), 1980-1982, were 69.2, 70.0,

73.0, and 82.5 cm (Zhou 1983).

Loggerheads were reported in Korea, the Ryukyu Archipelago (Japan), and Formosa (now

Taiwan) by Takeshima (1958), although Nishimura (1967) suggested that these observations may

have been of olive ridleys as well as loggerheads. Loggerheads are not included in more recent

herpetological reviews of Korea (Shannon 1956; Szyndlar 1991) and Taiwan (Mao 1971). There

are no recent records of loggerheads in Indochina, although both Bourret (1941) and Huong

(1978) listed Caretta olivacea from Vietnam, suggesting that loggerheads or olive ridleys (probably

the latter) might occur or might once have occurred in coastal waters. Loggerheads are reported

from the waters of Thailand (Polunin 1977; Phasuk 1982), but they are "the rarest of the five Thai

sea turtles" (Humphrey and Bain 1990). There are no documented records of loggerheads in

Malaysia or the Philippines (Dodd 1988, 1990). There are very few sightings from the islands of

the central North Pacific (see Balazs 1979 for Hawaii), but incidental catch by the North Pacific

pelagic driftnet fisheries is high and potentially significant to populations involved (see Threats).

Southwest Pacific 

In contrast to the situation throughout Oceania, loggerheads are "widespread and abundant"

in Queensland, Australia. In particular, large populations inhabit the Great Barrier Reef and the
10

large shallow bays and estuaries (Limpus 1982). Juveniles of varying sizes are also found in New

Zealand. Pritchard (1982a) summarized these records: 25 cm live loggerhead found at Uretiti

Beach, July 1973; carapace measuring 50.0 x 44.6 cm, caught at Whenupai, 1956; 33 cm

immature washed ashore at Flat Point, 64 km from Masterton, August 1966; 72 kg specimen

caught three km off the Wairarapa Coast, March 1973, released the next day at Castlepoint

Beach; juvenile netted by a Greymouth fishing boat, January 1975; post-hatchlings (8-10 cm long)

found in vicinity of the northern beaches. Determinations of abundance, seasonality, spatial

distribution, and movement of loggerheads in New Zealand waters are not available.

Spring (1982) states that while Papua New Guinea (PNG) villagers tend to confuse the

loggerhead, green, and olive ridley turtles, the loggerhead is known to occur and is widely

recognized from the Trobriand Islands, the coast of the Western Province, from Hula and

Porebada villages and Fisherman's Island in the Central Province, in the Woodlarks in the Milne

Bay Province, and from several locations in the Manus Province. It is always reported as

"uncommon", however, and, with the exception of the Trobriand Islands (see Nesting Grounds),

there is no known nesting. In southern New Caledonia, specifically Isle des Pins, the loggerhead

(known locally as grosse tête, or "big head") is "the commonest species"; adults have been seen

nesting, and a young specimen about 30 cm in length was once kept in the Noumea aquarium

(Pritchard 1982a). Suwelo et al. (1982) and Polunin and Nuitja (1982) report the loggerhead's

occurrence in Indonesia.

South Central Pacific

Sightings of loggerheads are infrequent among the islands of the South Pacific. The species

is observed only occasionally in the Cook Islands (Brandon 1977), Fiji (Hirth 1971; Pritchard

1982a), and Tonga; there are no reports from Vanuatu or French Polynesia (Pritchard 1982a).

In the Solomon Islands the loggerhead is described as "very rare", but is recognized by villagers

in many areas; a skull and live specimen have both been verified (Pritchard 1982a).

F. Status 

The loggerhead sea turtle is listed as Threatened throughout its entire range under the U.S.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended on July 28, 1978. The species is classified

as Vulnerable in the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources' (IUCN)

Red Data Book, where taxa so classified are considered "likely to move into the Endangered

category in the near future if the causal factors continue operating" (Groombridge 1982).

Loggerheads are included on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), a designation which effectively bans trade in specimens

or products except by special permit. Such permits must show that the trade is not detrimental

to the survival of the species and is not for primarily commercial purposes (Lyster 1985). There

is virtually no commercial trade in loggerhead sea turtles or their parts or products at the present

time (Milliken and Tokunaga 1987; Mack et al. 1982).

Nesting beach fidelity is observed, and population status has been defined on the basis of

trends at nesting beaches. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) research on turtles from Japan (15

samples) and Queensland, Australia (26 samples) has shown that the two populations are

demographically independent - there were no shared genotypes - and there may be additional

substructuring within these populations (Bowen et al. 1994). In general, the loggerheads reported
11

from the insular Pacific, including states and territories under U.S. jurisdiction, probably derive

largely from populations genetically affiliated with nesting beaches in Japan, Indonesia, or eastern

Australia. These stocks are threatened mostly by incidental catch and general habitat

degradation. There are no historical data from which to determine with certainty the past

distribution and abundance of loggerhead sea turtles in the Pacific Ocean, but contemporary field

studies in Australia clearly indicate that populations are declining there (Jeff Miller, Queensland

Dept. Environment and Heritage, in litt., 27 July 1992). 

Since 1974, Heron Island (23E26'S, 155E55'E) in the Capricorn Group at the southern end of

the Great Barrier Reef off Queensland has been the site of an intensive turtle tagging study.

Almost all of the resident immature and adult loggerheads have been tagged (these local residents

migrate elsewhere to breed; Limpus et al. 1984), as well as virtually all nesting migrants (Limpus

and Reed 1985). Although reliable estimates are not available, as many as 2,000-3,000

loggerheads may nest annually on beaches throughout Japan (Balazs and Wetherall 1991).

Estimates of juvenile foraging populations off Baja California, Mexico, range from "thousands, if

not tens of thousands" (Pitman 1990) to "at least 300,000 turtles" (Bartlett 1989). Extrapolating

from 1988 offshore census data, Ramirez-Cruz et al. (1991) estimated approximately 4,000 turtles

in March, with a maximum in July of nearly 10,000 turtles. These aggregations have only recently

been reported; their status with regard to increasing or declining abundance has not been

determined.

G. Biological Characteristics

Migration and Movements

The transition from newborn to young juvenile may occur in the open sea, and perhaps involve

transpacific movement. Juvenile loggerheads abundant off the southwestern coast of Baja

California (Bartlett 1989; Pitman 1990; Ramirez-Cruz et al. 1991) are some 10,000-12,000 km

from the nearest significant nesting beaches in Japan and Australia. The fact that juveniles (large

and small) are captured incidentally in longlines and driftnets in the pelagic Pacific (Gjernes et al.

1990; Balazs and Wetherall 1991) only reinforces the conclusion that the normal range for this

species encompasses both coastal and pelagic waters. This is certainly the case in the North

Atlantic, where hatchlings emerging on Florida beaches are entrained into major currents and

travel across the ocean before returning to coastal U.S. waters a number of years later. In the

Pacific, Pritchard (1982a) remarked that small specimens (8-10 cm) have been found along the

northern areas of New Zealand, typically in late winter, which would correlate with their having

hatched approximately six months before on beaches in Queensland and passively drifting

southeast to New Zealand.

Loggerheads found in the southeastern United States are typically <10 cm or >50 cm SCL;

intermediate size classes are found in the waters of the eastern Atlantic, such as in the Azores

more than 5,000 km to the east (Bolten and Bjorndal 1991). Bolten and Bjorndal (1991)

documented for the first time the pelagic phase of North Atlantic loggerheads, specifying it to

include turtles 8.5-65.0 cm SCL. Most turtles take up coastal residence at roughly 50 cm SCL, but

transatlantic travel is sometimes undertaken by larger individuals. In August 1986, one such

juvenile (73.1 cm SCL) was captured, tagged, and released at Cape Canaveral, Florida. In

February 1988, the same turtle (then 75.0 cm) was captured by a fisherman off Sao Jorge Island,

Azores (Eckert and Martins 1989). In November 1987, a large juvenile (84 cm SCL) tagged in the
12

Canary Islands (28E35'N, 17E41.6'W) five months earlier was recaptured by a fisherman off the

south coast of Isla de la Juventud, Cuba, some 6,900 km from its release site (Bolten et al. 1992).

The life history of Pacific basin loggerheads is probably similar; that is, developmental habitats,

especially for small juveniles and to a lesser extent for large juveniles, may be widely separated

from rookery sites. Most loggerheads do not recruit to the primary feeding grounds in eastern

Australia until they reach 70 cm CCL (Limpus and Reimer 1992). Intermediate sizes are known

to occur in large numbers in the waters of Baja California, Mexico, and occasionally as far south

as Chile; however, no nesting occurs in the eastern Pacific. One explanation is that west Pacific

hatchlings are entrained in the central ocean gyre, and ultimately drift south with the California

Current to Mexico. If so, it seems remarkable that there are relatively few records of this species

in California. (see Insular and Pelagic Range).

Tag returns provide some direct evidence of long distance movement by Pacific loggerheads,

including transpacific movement. Uchida and Teruya (1991) reported the recovery of a tagged

loggerhead found 75 km off San Diego (southern California) that had been released 2.3 years

earlier off Okinawa at a size of 17.5 cm carapace length. Of six juvenile and subadult loggerheads

(69.2-82.5 cm) captured by local fishermen in the coastal waters of China's Jiangsu Province (ca.

31E- 35EN) between 1980 and 1982, one captured on 4 June 1980 had been marked and

released from Miyazaki, Japan, on 24 July 1979, some 900 km to the east (Zhou 1983). As for

the reproductive migrations of adults, tag recoveries indicate that females nesting at the

Capricorn-Bunker Groups and Bundaberg rookeries in Australia come from feeding grounds that

extend widely along the entire Queensland east coast, eastern Gulf of Carpentaria, and PNG

including the Trobriand Islands (Limpus 1982).

Foraging Biology and Diet

Adult loggerheads typically prey on benthic invertebrates in hard bottom habitats, although fish

and plants are occasionally taken. Based on published references, Dodd (1988) concluded that

the diet of loggerheads in Queensland, Australia (the only Pacific location for which data are

available) consists of cnidarians, cephalopods, a wide variety of gastropods and pelycepods,

decapods, echinoderms, and fish. Moody (1979) identified the following gastropod species from

juvenile loggerheads captured in Queensland: Bittium sp., Cerithium echinatum, C. tenuifilosum,

Cymbiolacca pulchra, Cypraea sp., Lophiotoma acuta, Natica gualtieriana, N. onca, Pupa nitidula,

Rhinoclavis apser, R. fasciatum, R. vertagus, Strombus gibberulus, Trochus sp., Turbo bruneus,

T. perspeciosus, Umbanium vestariius; in addition to the following pelycepods: Fragum fragum,

Pinguitellina robusta, Tellina sp., Tridacna maxima. Tridacna chametrachae and T. fossor have

been identified in the stomach contents of adult loggerheads (Limpus 1973; Bustard 1974, 1976).

The feeding grounds are known to include the entire Queensland east coast (including the Great

Barrier Reef and coastal bays and estuaries), the eastern Gulf of Carpentaria, and PNG (Limpus

1982).

The stomachs of three loggerheads that drowned in shrimp trawls in inter-nesting habitat off

Mon Repos rookery (Queensland) contained fish, shrimp, and cuttlefish (Limpus 1973), although

the sample may have been biased by the consumption of trawling bycatch (Balazs 1985).

Loggerheads appear particularly vulnerable to incidental catch, since their omnivorous habits lead

them to scavenge in the bounty of sea life discarded by trawlers and other indiscriminate fishing

industries. Foraging has also been reported at sea, far from coastal hard bottom habitats.
13

Specifically, large aggregations of juvenile loggerheads, presumably originating from nesting

grounds in the western Pacific, have been observed off the southwestern tip of Baja California,

Mexico, foraging on dense concentrations of the pelagic red crab, Pleuroncodes planipes (Bartlett

1989; Pitman 1990). Preliminary data from stomach samples collected from turtles captured in

North Pacific driftnets indicate a diet of gooseneck barnacles (Lepas sp.), pelagic purple snails

(Ianthina sp.), and medusae (Vellela sp.) (G. Balazs, pers. comm.).

Growth

Published studies of growth rates in the wild are largely confined to the western Atlantic, with

the exception of Limpus (1979) who measured rates of 0.63-1.38 cm/yr and 0-0.26 cm/yr for

subadults (76-88 cm initial CCL, n=4) and adults (90.5-100.5 initial CCL, n=4), respectively, in

eastern Australia. Additional study has confirmed that loggerheads in eastern Australia grow, on

average #1.0 cm/yr (Limpus 1985). In contrast, western Atlantic values include 1.8-10.1 cm/yr

(mean= 5.90 cm/yr, ca. 50-80 cm initial SCL, n=13) in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida (Mendonça 1981)

and, for adult females (mean=92.0 cm SCL) measured over successive nesting seasons at

Melbourne Beach, Florida, an average of 0.57 cm/yr (n=67 females; Bjorndal et al. 1983).

Younger age classes grow even faster, as indicated by Bjorndal and Bolten's (1988) studies in the

southern Bahamas (14.8-17.2 cm/yr CCL, 23.8-24.8 cm initial CCL, n=3). Zug et al. (1986)

estimated growth rates in sequential size classes of loggerheads stranded on Cumberland Island,

Georgia, from incremental growth marks in the skeleton. They concluded that mean annual

growth rate varied from 11.7 cm (55-60 cm CCL size class) to 1.8 cm (95-100 cm CCL size class).

The data suggest that loggerheads in the west Pacific grow more slowly than do their conspecifics

in the west Atlantic. In all cases, growth rates decline dramatically as sexual maturity is reached.

Frazer and Ehrhart (1985) fitted growth data for Florida loggerheads to both logistic and van

Bertalanffy curves. They estimated age at sexual maturity to be 12-30 years, based on the size

of the smallest female (74 cm SCL) and the mean size of all nesting females (92 cm SCL), and

predicted that age at maturity is probably closer to the higher estimate. Recent data on

loggerheads growing up in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, indicate that puberty in females

(enlargement of the oviducts to adult size) extends over a period of four years. First breeding may

then occur two to four years later; however, the majority of females will not ovulate the first season

of vitellogenesis (i.e., the first season ova, or eggs, are produced). Most will ovulate two to three

years after their first season of vitellogenesis. Thus, approximately a decade will pass for the

average female from the time her oviducts commence to enlarge until her first ovulation (Limpus

1990). Frazer et al. (1994) applied von Bertalanffy and logistic growth models to growth data from

the loggerhead populations inhabiting the Capricorna section at the southern end of the Great

Barrier Reef (Australia) and determined that maturity occurs between 34.3 and 37.4 years of age.

Reproduction

Upon maturity, females migrate at multiple year intervals (mean = 3.5 yrs in Queensland,

Limpus 1985; 2.6 in a summary by van Buskirk and Crowder 1994) from resident foraging grounds

to suitable nesting beaches. Nesting in the People’s Republic of China occurs between April and

August (Chu-Chien 1982). In the Japanese islands, the breeding season extends from late May

through August, apparently initiated when 20EC isothermal waters approach the coast of Japan

in the spring. Nesting is preceded by courting offshore in 20-30 m of water (Uchida and Nishiwaki

1982). Individuals return faithfully to the same nesting area over many years, probably over their
14

entire reproductive lives. In Queensland, Australia, large numbers of both sexes aggregate in the

waters near the nesting beach for a time of intense courtship (multiple paternity has been

established; Harry and Briscoe 1988) before the males disperse from the region, presumably

returning to their respective foraging grounds. The females move on to re-aggregate in waters

proximal to their respective nesting beaches (Limpus and Reed 1985). The female approaches

the beach at night, selects a nest site, prepares a body pit, excavates a nest cavity, deposits her

eggs, covers and disguises the nest, and returns to the sea (Bustard et al. 1975; Dodd 1988). The

nesting sequence generally lasts 45-90 min (e.g., Hirth 1980; Geldiay et al. 1982; Kaufmann

1973).

In China, females dig nests 33-65 cm deep and lay 60-150 eggs per clutch (Chu-Chien 1982).

Clutch size averages about 110 eggs in the Indian Ocean, 120 eggs in the western Atlantic, and

130 eggs in Queensland, Australia (summarized by Dodd 1988). In Japan, females lay at least

three clutches per season (Naito et al. 1990 in Eckert 1993). As summarized by Nelson (1988),

egg size ranges from 35-49 mm in diameter (mean=42 mm), average egg weight is 38.4 g, egg

size does not change substantially with adult female body size, clutch size or date laid, and

yolkless eggs 28-30 mm in diameter are occasionally deposited.

Inter-nesting intervals at Pacific Australian nesting sites average 13-14 days, and adult

females stay within a single underwater refuge adjacent to the nesting beach throughout the

breeding season. Fidelity to the inter-nesting site is very precise, a trait which leaves females

vulnerable to prawn trawling and other coastal incidental capture (Limpus and Reed 1985).

Remote-sensing studies suggest that loggerheads nesting on the Gamouda beach, Japan, swim

offshore into the Kuroshio current for the first several days of the inter-nesting interval, perhaps

to find warmer water temperatures suitable for clutch development (Naito et al. 1990). A

radio-biotelemetry study of a female nesting at Omaezaki beach, Japan, showed rather erratic

movement offshore to points 20 km or more east and west of the release site (Soma 1985).

Temperature, moisture, and gas diffusion are important to successful embryo development

(e.g., Ackerman 1981a,b; Maloney et al. 1990). Ambient temperatures during incubation influence

hatchling sex. A predominance of females is produced at temperatures >32EC and a

predominance of males at temperatures <28EC (Yntema and Mrosovsky 1982). Hatchling sex

ratios shift with prevailing weather conditions over the course of a breeding season, as

demonstrated in South Carolina and Georgia (United States) where 0%, 80%, and 10% females

were produced from eggs laid in late May, early July, and early August, respectively (Mrosovsky

et al. 1984). Pivotal temperatures have not been determined for Pacific rookeries. Eggs hatch

in about 45-65 days (mean=60 days). An "emergence lag", averaging 5.4 days (range 4-7 days)

and defined as the interval between first pipping and the mass emergence of hatchlings at the

surface, has been observed (Christens 1990). Hatch success in in situ nests ranges from 0-100%,

with a global average of nearly 75% (estimated from Dodd 1988).

Hatchlings rely substantially on an anaerobic metabolism during both nest emergence and

subsequent rapid movement to the surf (Dial 1987). Newly hatched loggerheads are strongly

influenced by certain wavelengths of light (Witherington and Bjorndal 1991), which presumably

aids in their sea-finding ability. In contrast, light stimuli do not appear to be important in offshore

orientation (Salmon and Wyneken 1990), which seems to be accomplished using a "wave

compass", whereby hatchlings continue on offshore headings by swimming into oceanic swells

and wind-generated waves (Salmon and Lohmann 1989). A female lays hundreds or thousands
15

of eggs during her lifetime, a necessary response to high mortality in early life stages. Frazer

(1986) estimated that the proportion of eggs surviving to adulthood in the declining Georgia

population was 0.0009-0.0018, in contrast to an estimated value of 0.0025 for a stable population.

Survivorship has not been calculated for Pacific populations.

Offshore Behavior

The dispersal of loggerhead hatchlings from natal beaches in the Pacific has not been studied,

but it is likely to include passive transport, perhaps over vast distances. This appears to be the

case in the Atlantic, where loggerhead hatchlings from the southeastern United States apparently

enter driftlines composed of Sargassum and other flotsam and are transported by currents to

Europe and the Azores and back before taking up juvenile developmental habitats in coastal

waters of the eastern seaboard (e.g., Brongersma 1972; Carr 1986, 1987). Carr (1987) noted that

during early development, the young turtles are passive migrants in driftlines in the surface water

of the open sea. In a study of the gut contents of two Sargassum-associated hatchlings collected

from the Gulf Stream 93 km east of Florida, Richardson and McGillivary (1991) reported that

macroalgae and marine invertebrates accounted for about half of the items, while a third major

category consisted of terrestrial insects carried by wind currents far out to sea.

Pacific nesting beaches (e.g., Japan, Australia) are widely separated from some known

foraging grounds (e.g., Baja California), suggesting that Pacific populations probably have a

pelagic stage similar to that described in the North Atlantic (see also Migration and Movements).

This conclusion is corroborated by recent data documenting the incidental catch of juvenile

loggerheads (range 12-84 cm, most 40-70 cm carapace length; Balazs and Wetherall 1991) in

large-mesh driftnets operating in the central North Pacific. The carapace lengths of turtles caught

in these driftnets or observed feeding off Baja California, Mexico, suggest that at least some

pelagic-stage individuals are ten years old or older. Whether these larger juveniles have made

repeated transpacific journeys or have simply remained in the open sea for several years is not

known. These juveniles are also observed in U.S. Pacific waters; adults are rarely seen.

With the exception of four records from Hawaii (see Insular and Pelagic Range), U.S. Pacific

sightings are confined to the west coast of the continent. It is not known whether these individuals

are resident or transient. No studies of distribution, abundance, or residency have been

undertaken. Since there is no documented nesting anywhere in the U.S. Pacific, we can conclude

that U.S. waters (principally those off California) are used as foraging grounds and as migratory

corridors. Sightings are typically confined to the summer months in the eastern Pacific, peaking

in July-September off southern California and southwestern Baja California, Mexico (Stinson 1984;

Ramirez-Cruz et al. 1991). The waters of Baja California clearly represent significant foraging

grounds for a wide range of juvenile size-classes, and the seasonal sightings in abundance may

correspond to a larger, regional movement pattern. 

Health Status

The extent to which disease contributes to disability or mortality among wild loggerheads in

the Pacific Ocean is unstudied. Three cases of the tumor disease called fibropapilloma, often

reported in green turtles, have been reported in Florida loggerhead turtles (Harshbarger 1991),

but no reports of this disease in Pacific loggerheads have been published. Loggerheads reared

in captivity are known to be susceptible to a wide variety of diseases and rearing difficulties,
16

including pulmonary mycobacteriosis, constipation, asymptomatic hatchling death, papillar

eruption, emaciation, erosive dermatosis, focal granulosus dermatosis, and white-sutured

carapace (Leong 1979 in Dodd 1988). Chemotherapy has been used to successfully treat some

of these diseases (Witham 1973; Leong et al. 1980). Uchida (1970) reviewed disease problems

of loggerheads raised at the Himeji City Aquarium in Japan.

H. Threats

This section presents a brief overview of threats to loggerhead turtles in the Pacific basin,

followed by summaries of major threats in each U.S.-affiliated area. A third section then presents

more detailed information specific to each area where this species occurs.

"Threats" to sea turtles are broadly defined as any factor that jeopardizes the survival of turtles

or impedes the recovery of their populations. Twenty-six have been identified in this and previous

Recovery Plans, but it is readily apparent that all are not equally important and that threats in one

Pacific area may not be relevant in another area. Consequently, each area was evaluated

separately based on information received from the Recovery Team and Technical Advisors. Table

1 lists 15 threats to loggerhead turtles and ranks their significance. Definitions of the threats are

provided in subsequent text.

When viewing Table 1, it should be recognized that there are limitations inherent in this

tabulation. First, the table presents generalizations. Some island groups, such as the Republic

of Palau, consist of over 500 islands; consequently, the data presented in Table 1 are limited to

a general statement about conditions for the group as a whole. Similarly, most of the island

groups possess both sparsely inhabited remote islands and heavily inhabited main islands. The

distribution of turtles and the kinds of threats they face would obviously differ in these two types

of islands. Specific information about individual islands, if available, is presented in 'General

Threat Information'. Second, there are data limitations. For most islands, information about turtle

threats is sparse (see Pacific Synopsis).

Pacific Synopsis

Lack of knowledge concerning the abundance and distribution of loggerheads in the

northeastern Pacific constitutes a threat, particularly since important foraging grounds have not

been identified. Forage areas most likely exist along the coast of Baja California and southern

California; however, these vital areas cannot be given adequate protection until they have been

specifically identified. The breeding population origins and migratory habits of the loggerhead

turtles frequenting waters off the west coast of the United States are poorly understood though

ongoing genetic research suggests the turtles are from Japanese nesting beaches. This

information is important to determining population status and necessary for effective management.
17

Regional Summaries

U.S. West Coast

Primary turtle threats: natural disasters

fisheries incidental take

There is limited information on mortality of loggerheads on the U.S. west coast. Occasional

cold-strandings occur in Washington and Oregon and incidental take by fisheries probably occurs.

Hawaii

Primary turtle threats: incidental take

Loggerheads were taken in large numbers by the high seas driftnet fleets until such fishing

was banned. Currently, take by longline fishing operations from Hawaii and internationally is the

most significant threat.

American Samoa

Primary turtle threats: N/A

There are no records of nesting by or at-sea sightings of loggerhead turtles.

Guam

Primary turtle threats: N/A

There are no records of nesting by or at-sea sightings of loggerhead turtles.

Republic of Palau

Primary turtle threats: N/A

There are no records of nesting by or at-sea sightings of loggerhead turtles.

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)

Primary turtle threats: N/A

There are no records of nesting by or at-sea sightings of loggerhead turtles.
18

Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI)

Primary turtle threats: N/A

There are no records of nesting by or at-sea sightings of loggerhead turtles.

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)

Primary turtle threats: N/A

There are no records of nesting by or at-sea sightings of loggerhead turtles.

Unincorporated Islands (Wake, Johnston, Kingman, Palmyra, Jarvis, Howland, Baker, Midway)

Primary turtle threats: N/A

There are no records of nesting by or at-sea sightings of loggerhead turtles.
a

 There is no known nesting by this species in the United States or in any territory under U.S.

jurisdiction. Therefore, only threats in the marine environment (#12-26) are included in this table.

19

TABLE 1. Threat checklist for Codes 1 = major problem - = not current problem

loggerhead sea turtles in the 2 = moderate problem ? = unknown

eastern and central Pacific Ocean.a 3 = minor problem P = known problem but extent unknown

 

Threat U.S.

West

Coast

Hawaii Amer.

Samoa

Guam Palau CNMI RMI FSM Uninc.

Marine Environment

12 Directed take - - - - - - - - -

13 Natural disasters 3 - - - - - - - -

14 Disease/parasites - - - - - - - - -

15 Algae/Seagrass/reef

degradation

- - - - - - - - -

16 Environmental contaminants 3 - - - - - - - -

17 Debris (entangle/ingest) 3 - - - - - - - -

18 Fisheries (incidental take)

-domestic waters P 2 - - - - - - -

-international P 2 - - - - - - -

19 Predation ? - - - - - - - -

20 Boat collisions ? - - - - - - - -

21 Marina/dock development - - - - - - - - -

22 Dredging - -- - - - - - - -

23 Dynamite “fishing” - - - - - - - - -

24 Oil exploration/development ? - - - - - - - -

25 Power plant entrapment 3 - - - - - - - -

26 Construction blasting - - - - - - - - -
20

General Threat Information

This section provides the supportive information used to rank the turtle threats listed in Table 1.

The first 11 threats pertain to the turtle's nesting environment, the latter 15 to the marine

environment.

Nesting Environment

While no loggerheads nest in U.S. jurisdiction, it is important that the United States participate

in restoration efforts of U.S. sea turtle stocks at their respective (foreign) nesting beaches. Thus,

we have chosen to add a general description of nesting beach threats, so that U.S. resource

managers and policy makers can make informed decisions on policies to support turtles in other

political jurisdictions.

1. Directed Take

The harvest of sea turtles and/or their eggs for food or any other domestic or commercial use

constitutes a widespread threat to these species. Removing breeding adults from a population

can accelerate the extinction of local stocks, and the persistent collection of eggs guarantees that

future population recruitment will be reduced. (see Recovery - Section 1.1.1)

2. Increased Human Presence

Human populations are growing rapidly in many areas of the Pacific and this expansion is

exerting increasing pressure on limited coastal resources. Threats to sea turtles include increased

recreational and commercial use of nesting beaches, the loss of nesting habitat to human activities

(e.g., pig pens on beaches), beach camping and fires, an increase in litter and other refuse, and

the general harassment of turtles. (see Recovery - Sections 1.1, 1.2)

3. Coastal Construction

The most valuable land is often located along the coastline, particularly when it is associated

with a sandy beach. Coastal construction is occurring at a rapid rate and is resulting in a loss of

sea turtle nesting areas. Construction-related threats to the region's sea turtle nesting beaches

include the construction of buildings (hotels, houses, restaurants), recreational facilities (tennis

courts, swimming pools), or roads on the beach; the construction of sea walls, jetties, or other

armoring activities that can result in the erosion of adjacent sandy beaches; clearing stabilizing

beach vegetation (which accelerates erosion); and the use of heavy construction equipment on

the beach, which can cause sand compaction or beach erosion. (see Recovery - Sections 1.1.2,

1.2)

4. Nest Predation

The loss of eggs to non-human predators is a severe problem in some areas. These predators

include domestic animals, such as cats, dogs and pigs, as well as wild species such as rats,

mongoose, birds, monitor lizards, snakes, and crabs, ants and other invertebrates. (see Recovery

- Section 1.1.3)
21

5. Beach Erosion

Weather events, such as storms, and seasonal changes in current patterns can reduce or

eliminate sandy beaches, degrade turtle nesting habitat, and cause barriers to adult and hatchling

turtle movements on affected beaches. (see Recovery - Sections 1.2.1, 1.1.5.2)

6. Artificial Lighting

Hatchling sea turtles orient to the sea using a sophisticated suite of cues primarily associated

with ambient light levels. Hatchlings become disoriented and misdirected in the presence of

artificial lights behind (landward of) their hatching site. These lights cause the hatchlings to orient

inland, whereupon they fall prey to predators, are crushed by passing cars, or die of exhaustion

or exposure in the morning sun. Nesting adults are also sensitive to light and can become

disoriented after nesting, heading inland and then dying in the heat of the next morning, far from

the sea. Security and street lights, restaurant, hotel and other commercial lights, recreational

lights (e.g., sports arenas), and village lights, especially mercury vapor and other full spectrum

lights, misdirect hatchlings by the thousands throughout the Pacific every year. (see Recovery -

Sections 1.1.2, 1.1.4)

7. Beach Mining

Sand and coral rubble are removed from beaches for construction or landscaping purposes.

The extraction of sand from beaches destabilizes the coastline (e.g., reduces protection from

storms), removes beach vegetation through extraction or flooding and, in severe cases, eliminates

the beach completely. When mining occurs on or behind a nesting beach, the result can be the

degradation or complete loss of the rookery. In addition, females can become confused when

they emerge from the sea only to find themselves heading down slope into a depression formed

by mining activities; too often the outcome is that the female returns to the sea without laying her

eggs. Even when eggs are successfully deposited, reduced hatch success results if nests are

flooded or excavated during mining. (see Recovery - Section 1.2.2)

8. Vehicular Driving on Beaches

Driving on the beach causes sand compaction and rutting, and can accelerate erosion. Driving

on beaches used by turtles for egg-laying can crush incubating eggs, crush hatchlings in the nest,

and trap hatchlings after they emerge from the nest cavity and begin their trek to the sea. In the

latter case, hatchlings are exposed to exhaustion and predators when they fall into and cannot

climb out of tire ruts that are typically oriented parallel to the sea. (see Recovery - Section 1.2.6)

9. Exotic Vegetation

Introduced species can displace native dune and beach vegetation through shading and/or

chemical inhibition. Dense new vegetation shades nests, potentially altering natural hatchling sex

ratios. Thick root masses can also entangle eggs and hatchlings. (see Recovery - Section 1.2.3)
22

10. Beach Cleaning

Removal of accumulated seaweeds and other debris from a nesting beach should be

accomplished by hand-raking only. The use of heavy equipment can crush turtle eggs and

hatchlings and can remove sand vital to incubating eggs. (see Recovery - Sections 1.2.5)

11. Beach Replenishment

The nourishment or replacement of beaches diminished by storms, seawalls or coastal

development can reduce sea turtle hatching success by deeply burying incubating eggs,

depositing substrate (generally from offshore deposits) that is not conducive to the incubation of

sea turtle eggs, obstructing females coming ashore to nest (machinery, pipelines, etc.), and/or

killing turtles during nearshore dredging operations. (see Recovery - Section 1.2.4)

Marine Environment

12. Directed Take

No information exists on the take of this species in U.S. waters, although in the past

loggerheads were occasionally speared and brought ashore out of curiosity (Stinson 1984).

Presumably, given the rarity of this species in coastal waters in the U.S. Pacific, directed take is

virtually nonexistent. (see Recovery - Sections 2.1)

13. Natural Disasters

Natural phenomena, such as cyclones, can contribute to the mortality of turtles at sea,

particularly in shallow waters. Disease epidemics and other debilitating conditions that affect prey

items (sea grass, coral, sponges, reef invertebrates) can also harm sea turtle populations. Storms

can alter current patterns and blow migrating turtles off course into cold water. Unseasonal warm

water incursions from subtropical regions into the northeastern Pacific, known as "El Niño" events,

may cause loggerheads to migrate north where they "cold stun" once they encounter colder water.

El Niño events can also cause reduced food production for some turtle species which can reduce

growth and fecundity. (see Recovery - Sections 2.1.6, 2.1.7, 2.2.1, 2.2.2) 

14. Disease and Parasites

There are few data to assess the extent to which disease or parasitism affects the survivability

of sea turtles in the wild. Contact with cold water currents in the northeastern Pacific may cause

cold-stunning and make turtles more susceptible to disease. Stranded individuals have been found

along the U.S. coast in an emaciated condition (Joe Cordaro, NMFS, pers. comm.)

15. Algae, Seagrass and Reef Degradation

Most sea turtle species depend upon algal beds, seagrass and/or reef habitats for food and

refuge. The destruction or degradation of these habitats is a widespread and serious threat to the

recovery of depleted sea turtle stocks. The general degradation of these habitats can be affected
23

by eutrophication, sedimentation, chemical poisoning, collecting/gleaning, trampling (fisherman,

skin and SCUBA divers) and anchoring. (see Recovery - Section 2.2)

16. Environmental Contaminants

Chemical contamination of the marine environment due to sewage, agricultural runoff,

pesticides, solvents, petroleum and industrial discharges is widespread along the coastal waters

of the western United States, particularly near the populated coastal areas of southern California

where loggerheads are likely to be found. (see Recovery - Section 2.2.4)

17. Debris (Entanglement and Ingestion)

The entanglement in and ingestion of persistent marine debris threatens the survival of

loggerhead turtles in the eastern Pacific. Turtles become entangled in abandoned fishing gear

(lines, ropes and nets) and cannot submerge to feed or surface to breathe; they may lose a limb

or attract predators with their struggling. A juvenile loggerhead was found in June 1991 off Dana

Point in southern California, entangled in the hose attached to a five-gallon boat gasoline tank

floating in the water (Mike Couffer, pers. comm.). Loggerhead turtles will also ingest debris such

as plastic bags, plastic sheets, plastic six-pack rings, tar balls, styrofoam, and other refuse.

Necropsies of stranded turtles have revealed mortalities due to ingested garbage resulting in

poisoning or obstruction of the esophagus. (see Recovery - Sections 2.1.3)

18. Fisheries (Incidental Take) 

Loggerhead turtles are accidentally taken in several commercial and recreational fisheries.

These include bottom trawls commonly used by shrimp vessels in the Gulf of California, gillnets,

traps, pound nets haul seines and beach seines commonly used in inshore and coastal waters of

Baja California. Forty-one loggerheads were captured incidentally by a single fisherman during

1985-1987 near Bahia de la Paz, Baja California (Alvarado and Figueroa 1990). In addition,

trawls, purse seines, hook and line, driftnets, bottom and surface longlines may kill an as yet

unknown number of turtles in different areas of the eastern Pacific. Loggerheads comprised 36%

of the annual observed take of all species of turtles by the Hawaiian-based longline fishery

between 1990-1994 (NMFS 1995). The predicted annual take of loggerheads by this fishery is

305 turtles. Although most of these are released alive, the post-release mortality has not been

determined. Loggerheads are one of the most commonly caught sea turtles in the pelagic squid

driftnet fishery, although they are not specifically identified in the bycatch statistics (Gjernes et al.

1990). (see Recovery - Section 2.1.4)

19. Predation

 Few predators, with the notable exception of orcas (killer whales), large sharks, and marine

crocodiles, can consume a full-size sea turtle. Predation on hatchlings is believed to be relatively

high and, again, the species most often implicated are coastal and pelagic sharks.

20. Boat Collisions
24

Sea turtles can be injured or killed when struck by a boat, especially if struck by an engaged

propeller. Recreational equipment, such as jet skis, also pose a danger due to collisions and

harassment. (see Recovery - Section 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.7)

21. Marina and Dock Development

The development of marinas and private or commercial docks in inshore waters can negatively

impact turtles through destruction or degradation of foraging habitat. This type of development

also leads to increased boat traffic resulting in collision-related injury and mortality of turtles.

Fueling facilities at marinas can result in discharge of oil and gas into sensitive estuarine habitats.

There is increasing demand to install marinas and docks and develop inland coastal areas where

turtles are known or are likely to exist in Baja California and southern California. (see Recovery -

Sections 1.2.1, 2.2)

22. Dredging

Active dredging machinery (especially hopper dredges) may injure or kill sea turtles, and

channelization may alter natural current patterns and sediment transportation. Coral reef and sea

grass ecosystems may be excavated and lost, and suspended materials may smother adjacent

coral and seagrass communities. (see Recovery - Section 2.2.5)

23. Dynamite “Fishing”

The use of explosives to stun or kill fish destroys coral can degrade or eliminate foraging

habitat and refugia for sea turtles. This is not a problem for loggerheads in the Pacific. (see

Recovery - Section 2.2.7)

24. Oil Exploration and Development

Oil exploration and development pose direct and indirect threats to sea turtles. A rise in

transport traffic increases the amount of oil in the water, such as from bilge pumping, as well as

the likelihood of a major oil spill. Oil spills resulting from blow-outs, ruptured pipelines, or tanker

accidents, can result in death to sea turtles. Indirect consequences include destruction of foraging

habitat by drilling, anchoring, and pollution. (see Recovery - Section 2.2.8)

25. Power Plant Entrapment

The entrainment and entrapment of juvenile and sub-adult loggerhead turtles in the saltwater

cooling intake systems of coastal power plants have been documented in southern California at

San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) plant at Carlsbad, as well as the Southern California Edison

Nuclear Generating Station at San Onofre (Kent Miles, SDG&E, pers. comm.; Joe Cordaro, NMFS,

pers. comm.). Some of these turtles are released unharmed. 

26. Construction Blasting

Blasting can injure or kill sea turtles in the immediate area. The use of dynamite to construct

or maintain harbors, break up rock formations or improve nearshore access can decimate sea
25

turtle habitat. Anchoring and related activities employed in support of the blasting can also

degrade reefs and other benthic communities that support sea turtles. Some types of dynamiting

have minimal impact to marine life, such as placing explosive in pre-drilled holes (drilling and

shooting) prior to 

detonation and is the standard practice to secure armor rock. (see Recovery - Section 2.2.7)
26

I. Conservation Accomplishments 

The loggerhead is listed as a threatened species and is protected under the ESA. The ESA

affords full coverage of the loggerhead in the U.S. states and territories including Hawaii, Guam,

American Samoa, Northern Marianas and the unincorporated U.S. islands (Midway, Johnston,

Palmyra, Kingman, Wake, Howland, Jarvis and Baker). Federally funded or permitted activities

must avoid jeopardy to listed threatened and endangered species and avoid destruction of critical

habitat. The ESA also authorizes the designation of critical habitat for the loggerhead and

provides funds for research, education and public outreach. The ESA also prohibits the export

or import of listed turtles or their remains across the U.S. border. Turtle excluder devices (TEDs)

are required for some fishing vessels and at power plant water intake systems.

The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) in Apia, Western Samoa funds

a regional sea turtle conservation program including support for research, public education,

brochures, and activities which benefit all species of sea turtle in the insular Pacific. 
27

II. RECOVERY 

A. Recovery Objectives

Goal: The recovery goal is to delist the species.

Recovery Criteria:

To consider de-listing, all of the following criteria must be met:

1) To the best extent possible, reduce the take in international waters (have and enforce

agreements).

2) All regional stocks that use U.S. waters have been identified to source beaches based on

reasonable geographic parameters.

3) All females estimated to nest annually (FENA) at "source beaches" are either stable or

increasing for over 25 years.

4) Each stock must average 5,000 FENA (or a biologically reasonable estimate based on the

goal of maintaining a stable population in perpetuity) over six years.

5) Existing foraging areas are maintained as healthy environments. 

6) Foraging populations are exhibiting statistically significant increases at several key foraging

grounds within each stock region.

7) All Priority #1 tasks have been implemented.

8) A management plan designed to maintain stable or increasing populations of turtles is in

place.

9) Ensure formal cooperative relationship with regional sea turtle management programs

(SPREP). 

10) International agreements are in place to protect shared stocks (e.g., Mexico and Japan).

Rationale: Determining quantifiable values that can be used to determine when a sea turtle stock

is recovered is quite difficult. The recovery team has tried to make such recommendations as

listed above based on best available information with the following conceptual guidelines:

1) The minimum nesting stock must equal a size that could not easily be eliminated by a

single catastrophic event ("natural" or "man induced").

2) Nesting population trends should be long enough to minimize the effects of natural

fluctuations in numbers that are characteristic of sea turtle populations. Generally this time

period is equal to the estimated one generation time for each species.
28

3) Habitats are adequate to support population growth once threats have been reduced or

eliminated.

4) If a species is to be considered for delisting, a plan must already be in force for maintaining

the population in stable or increasing condition. The team was concerned that if a species was

delisted, and no management plan was already in force, that the species may be driven back

toward extinction too rapidly for resource management agencies to implement such plans.

B. Step Down Outline and Narrative for Recovery

1 NESTING ENVIRONMENT

While it is recognized that there is no nesting by this species in U.S. jurisdiction, we felt that a

description of recovery actions should be provided so that U.S. agencies could take them into

account when providing support to those nations in which U.S. stocks may nest.

1.1 Protect and manage turtles on nesting beaches.

It is prudent to preserve the capacity of a population to recover from a depleted state by

protecting nesting females, their nests and hatchlings and to preserve the quality of the

nesting area. The killing of gravid females, poaching of nests, predation (native and feral),

destruction of the habitat through mining, destruction of vegetation, artificial lighting,

development, and increased human use all degrade the ability of depleted populations to

recover. Although there are no known nesting grounds for loggerheads in the U.S. Pacific, we

support the efforts of Japan and other Pacific nations to preserve loggerhead nesting

populations within their borders. The following tasks may be used as guidelines to enhance

the reproductive ability of loggerhead populations at the nesting grounds. 

1.1.1 Eliminate directed take of turtles and their eggs.

Direct take of nesting turtles and their eggs has been identified as a primary threat to

Pacific sea turtle populations. Eliminating this threat is required if populations are to

recover.

1.1.1.1 Reduce directed take of turtles through public education and information.

While increased law enforcement will be effective in the short term, without support

of the local populace, regulations will become ineffective. Education of the public

as to the value of conserving sea turtles, is a very effective way of sustaining

recovery efforts and providing support for enforcement of management regulations.

1.1.1.2 Increase enforcement of laws protecting turtles by law-enforcement and the courts.

Lack of adequate support for law-enforcement activities which protect sea turtle

populations is common, yet it must be understood that enforcement is as important

as any other resource management activities. Enforcement, judicial and

prosecutorial personnel must receive adequate resources as well as instruction
29

about sea turtles and the importance of protecting turtle populations.

1.1.2 Ensure that coastal construction activities avoid disruption of nesting and hatching

activities.

Coastal construction must be monitored to minimize impact on turtle beaches, both during

construction, particularly during the nesting and hatching season and in the long-term.

Construction equipment must not be allowed to operate on the beach, remove sand from

the beach, or in any way degrade nesting habitat. Nighttime lighting of construction areas

should be prohibited during nesting and hatching seasons. In the long-term, structures

should not block the turtle’s access to the beach, change beach dynamics, or encourage

human activities that might interfere with the nesting process.

1.1.3 Reduce nest predation by domestic and feral animals.

Feral animals, dogs and mongooses pose a severe threat to turtle nests and hatchlings.

It is important that feral predators be controlled or eliminated from nesting areas. Domestic

animals such as pigs or dogs can also threaten turtle nests and hatchlings, and should be

controlled near nesting areas. In particular, domestic dogs should not be allowed to roam

turtle nesting beaches unsupervised.

1.1.4 Reduce effects of artificial lighting on hatchlings and nesting females.

Because sea turtles (especially hatchlings) are strongly attracted to artificial lighting,

lighting near nesting beaches should be placed in such a manner that light does not shine

on the beach. If not, turtles may become disoriented and stray from their course.

1.1.4.1 Quantify effects of artificial lighting on hatchlings and nesting females.

It is important to quantify the impact of existing lighting in terms of nesting success

and hatchling survival so that pragmatic mitigation can be applied. Also such study

can be used to guide the development of effective lighting ordinances. 

1.1.4.2 Implement, enforce, evaluate lighting regulations or other lighting control measures

where appropriate.

Shielding of the light source, screening with vegetation, placing lights at lowered

elevations and in some cases the use of limited spectrum low wavelength lighting

(e.g., low pressure sodium vapor lights) are possible solutions to beach lighting

problems. Such measures should be required by law and enforced.

1.1.5 Collect biological information on nesting turtle populations.

The collection of basic biological information on nesting is critical for making intelligent

management decisions. Monitoring nesting success can help to identify problems at the

nesting beach or elucidate important areas for protection. Analyzing population

recruitment can help in understanding population status.
30

1.1.5.1 Monitor nesting activity to identify important nesting beaches, determine number

of nesting females, and determine population trends.

Important nesting beaches (based on actual number of nests) must be identified

for special protection. Nesting beaches need to be identified by standardized

surveys during the nesting season. Informational surveys with local residents and

officials should be conducted to determine current or historical nesting beaches.

One of the most crucial techniques for determining the status of sea turtle

populations and for evaluating the success of management or restoration programs

is long-term monitoring of annual nesting on key beaches. The surveys must be

done in a standardized and consistent manner with experienced personnel. Since

female turtles show fidelity to nesting beaches, long term beach censusing

provides a ready means for assessing these maternally isolated populations.

However, because of long maturity times for turtles, quantifying trends in

population sizes and effectiveness of any restoration program may take a

generation time (20+ years) to be reflected in the annual numbers of nesters.

Monitoring should thus be recognized as a long-term undertaking.

1.1.5.2 Evaluate nest success and implement appropriate nest-protection measures on

important nesting beaches.

One of the simplest means to enhance populations is by increasing hatchling

production at the nesting beach. The first step to such an enhancement program

is to determine the nesting / hatching success and to characterize factors which

may limit that success. Once those limiting factors are determined, protection or

mitigation measures can be implemented. If nests must be moved to prevent loss

from erosion or other threats, natural rather than artificial incubation should be

employed.

1.1.5.3 Define stock boundaries for Pacific sea turtles.

Because sea turtles exhibit a unique genetic signature for each major nesting

assemblage, and because nesting assemblages provide an easily censused

means of monitoring population status, it is useful to use genetic analysis methods

to determine stock boundaries for sea turtle populations. It also enables managers

to determine which stocks are being impacted by activities far removed from the

nesting beaches, and thus prioritize mitigation efforts.

1.1.5.3.1 Identify genetic stock type for major nesting beach areas.

A “genetic survey” to establish the genetic signature of each nesting

population must be established, before stock ranges can be determined.

Such surveys are relatively simple as they require only a small blood

sample from a statistically viable number of females within each nesting

population.

1.1.5.3.2 Determine nesting beach origins for juvenile and subadult populations.
31

Because nesting populations can form the basis for stock management, it

is important to be able to pair juvenile and subadult turtles with their stock

units by genetic identification. DNA analyses have begun to provide

scientists and managers with this sort of data. 

1.1.5.3.3 Determine the genetic relationship among Pacific loggerhead populations.

The need for such study is critical to successful management of a sea turtle

population as it enables resource managers to identify the entire (and often

overlapping) range of each population. This type of population study can

also detail the genetic diversity and viability of the populations. Genetic

studies to identify stocks (Japanese, Australian, etc.) and then determine

the populations from which loggerheads in the U.S. Pacific are derived from

would assist in their recovery. Genetic analyses also have a forensic

application that can 1) support law enforcement efforts to identify the

source of illegal sea turtle products (eggs and meat) (see Section 2.1.1)

and 2) identify originating stock of confiscated or stranded live animals for

rehabilitation purposes (see Section 3.3).

1.2 Protect and manage nesting habitat.

The nesting habitat must be protected to ensure future generations of the species. Increased

human presence and coastal construction can damage nesting habitat resulting in reduced

nest success or reduced hatchling survival.

Once key nesting beaches are identified, they may be secured on a long-term basis in an

assortment of ways. These may include conservation easements or agreements, lease of

beaches, and in some cases, fee acquisition. Certain beaches may be designated as natural

preserves. In some cases education of local residents may serve to adequately secure

nesting beaches.

1.2.1 Prevent the degradation of nesting habitats caused by sea walls, revetments, sand bags,

other erosion-control measures, jetties and breakwaters. 

Beach armoring techniques that beach residents use to protect their beachfront properties

from wave action may actually degrade nesting habitats by eroding beaches and

preventing nesting by preventing access to nesting sites or preventing digging of the nest

on the site. Guidelines on the proper placement of stonewalls must be proposed. Jetties

and breakwaters impede the natural movement of sand and add to erosion problems in

neighboring beaches. Regulations regarding beach construction and beach armoring

should be reviewed to ensure that such measures are restricted or prohibited if adverse

impacts to nesting are anticipated.

1.2.2 Eliminate sand and coral rubble removal and mining practices on nesting beaches.

Beach mining severely affects a nesting beach by reducing protection from storms,

destroying native vegetation directly or indirectly and may completely destroy a nesting
32

beach. Protective legislation and public education must be used to protect the substrate

of the beaches.

1.2.3 Develop beach-landscaping guidelines which recommend planting of only native

vegetation,

not clearing stabilizing beach vegetation and evaluating the effects as appropriate.

Non-native vegetation may prevent access to nesting sites, prevent adequate nest digging,

exacerbate erosion or affect hatchling sex ratios by altering incubation temperatures.

Native vegetation, however, plays an important role in stabilizing the beach and creating

the proper microclimate for nests. Guidelines for residents concerning the most appropriate

plant species and the importance of a native plant base should be encouraged.

1.2.4 Ensure that beach replenishment projects are compatible with maintaining good quality

nesting habitat.

Sand on sea turtle beaches has particular properties which affect hatching success (ie.

compaction, gas diffusion, temperature). Any addition or replacement of sand may change

these properties and make it more difficult for females to nest or reduce hatchling success.

As such, beach replenishment projects should be carefully considered, use materials

similar to the native sands and be carried out outside the nesting season. 

1.2.5 Implement non-mechanical beach cleaning alternatives.

Hand raking of beach debris, rather than using heavy machinery, should be encouraged

on nesting beaches where cleaning is done for aesthetic reasons. The use of heavy

machinery can adversely affect hatchlings directly and their nesting habitat.

1.2.6 Prevent vehicular driving on nesting beaches.

Driving on active nesting beaches should be forbidden. Vehicles cause destabilization of

beaches, threaten incubating nests and leave tire ruts that hatchlings have difficulty

crossing.

2 MARINE ENVIRONMENT

2.1 Protect and manage loggerhead populations in the marine habitat.

Protection of turtles in the marine environment is a priority that is often overlooked as

enforcement is difficult and quantification of the problem problematic. However, 99% of a

turtle’s life is spent at sea; thus, recovery must include significant efforts to protect turtles at

that time.

2.1.1 Eliminate directed take of turtles.

Not described as a problem for the loggerhead.

2.1.2 Determine distribution, abundance, and status in the marine environment.
33

In its review of information on sea turtle populations in the Pacific, the Recovery Team

found that lack of accurate information on distribution and abundance was one of the

greatest threats to sea turtle populations. Most existing information is anecdotal or

obsolete and where new information is available, it uniformly indicates that loggerhead

populations are vastly smaller than commonly believed. We consider that gathering of

basic information on distribution and abundance should take a very high priority in the

recovery of Pacific loggerhead populations.

2.1.2.1 Determine the distribution and abundance of post-hatchlings, juveniles and adults.

While little is known about the distribution of nesting beaches for the loggerhead,

even less is understood about distribution of foraging adult and juvenile

populations. Quantitative surveys of foraging areas to determine loggerhead

abundance, and to identify essential habitat is of significant importance for

restoration of loggerhead populations.

2.1.2.2 Determine adult migration routes and internesting movements.

Like all species of sea turtle (with the possible exception of the Flatback turtle,

Natator depressus), loggerheads migrate from foraging grounds to nesting

beaches. These migrations often mean that the turtles move through a variety of

political jurisdictions where regulations regarding the stewardship of the species

may vary. To preclude the problem of contradictory management strategies by

these various jurisdictions, it is important to determine the migration routes

loggerheads follow between nesting and foraging areas. Satellite telemetry studies

of both males and females are needed.

2.1.2.3 Determine growth rates and survivorship of hatchlings, juveniles, and adults, and

age at sexual maturity.

Understanding the rates of growth and survivorship of turtle populations is crucial

to the development of appropriate population models. Such models are important

in understanding population status and how best to efficiently apply management

efforts, in restoring depleted populations. For example, the application of stagebased modeling (Crouse et al. 1987) indicated that not enough effort was being

expended on protecting juvenile sized loggerhead sea turtles in the southeastern

United States and that without such protection, extensive nesting beach protection

was having less positive benefit. A similar approach to understanding loggerhead

populations should be undertaken, and used to guide restoration policy.

2.1.2.4 Identify current or potential threats to adults and juveniles on foraging grounds.

Little is known about threats to foraging populations of loggerheads. Studies on

such threats should be undertaken immediately.

2.1.3 Reduce the effects of entanglement and ingestion of marine debris.
34

Entanglement due to abandoned or unmonitored fishing gear, as well as the ingestion of

man-made debris is a significant problem in the marine environment. 

2.1.3.1 Evaluate the extent to which sea turtles ingest persistent debris and become

entangled.

Quantification of the extent to which sea turtles are impacted by marine debris

should be undertaken as a first step to mitigating or preventing such impacts. The

benefits of such work are that it allows the prioritization of recovery activities and

it allows the activities to be efficiently targeted at the problem. 

2.1.3.2 Evaluate the effects of entanglement and ingestion of persistent debris on health

and viability of sea turtles.

Because of the remote nature of turtle/debris interactions, the acute and chronic

effects of such interaction are not often understood. Turtles may not die

immediately after ingesting certain materials, but may become debilitated. Studies

to further understand the impacts of such interactions, and what age classes are

affected most severely, should be undertaken immediately. As with quantifying the

extent to which sea turtles ingest debris, such a program allows recovery efforts to

be more efficient.

2.1.3.3 Formulate and implement measures to reduce or eliminate persistent debris and

sources of entanglement in the marine environment.

Once the problem of marine debris has been identified and quantified, it is

important to implement (and enforce) a program to reduce the amount of debris in

the marine environment, ie. removing the problem entirely, as contrasted to

mitigating the problem.

2.1.4 Monitor and reduce incidental mortality in the commercial and recreational fisheries.

2.1.4.1 Monitor incidental mortality in the commercial and recreational fisheries.

Incidental take in fisheries has been identified as a threat. These mortalities are

often associated with international fleets operating on the high seas (driftnet and

longline, but it is probably also significant in nearshore waters. Monitoring of turtle

take by fisheries is extremely important for two reasons. First, it allows resource

managers a means to quantify the extent of the problem, and by the very act of

monitoring, tends to cause commercial fishermen to be more aware of the concern

over incidental take, and thereby encourage reduced take. The choice method for

monitoring take is through the use of an unbiased observer program. Voluntary

logbooks have not proven a reliable technique for quantifying incidental catch in

commercial fisheries. 

2.1.4.2 Reduce incidental mortality in the commercial and recreational fisheries.

Efforts to reduce mortality induced by fisheries include gear modifications or
35

enhancement, and area and seasonal closures. Often a better understanding of

the interaction between turtles and fishing gear, and between turtles and their

preferred environments can be useful in developing methods to reduce mortality.

For example, understanding the influence of bait type or attractors to turtles can

help develop gear that is less attractive to turtles. Technological improvements to

fishing gear, such as the development of TED’s is also very important. Finally,

closing areas or seasons when fisheries and turtle interactions are highest can limit

impacts to turtle populations.

2.1.5 Eliminate the harassment of turtles at sea through education and enforcement.

Activities such as “petting” turtles and chasing them while snorkeling and scuba diving,

water skiing, jet skis, vessel traffic, and vessel anchoring may disturb or displace turtles.

These factors should be regulated or controlled to eliminate negative impacts, especially

in sensitive and high density foraging and resting areas.

2.1.6 Study the impact of diseases on turtles.

Little is known about diseases in sea turtles, but there has been recent evidence that it

may be a limiting factor in certain populations. Disease origin and transmission may not

be limited to the marine environment.

2.1.6.1 Investigate parasites and other infectious agents.

A variety of other diseases and parasites may be affecting sea turtles. The

prevalence of such infections, their impact on sea turtles, and modes of

transmissions need to be studied. Parasites include internal parasites such as

blood flukes, external parasites such as leeches (Ozobranchus) and burrowing

barnacles (Stephanolepas), and certain bacterial infections such as Vibrios.

2.1.7 Develop and maintain carcass stranding network.

Stranding networks are operated generally by volunteers who monitor beaches for

stranded animals. Such networks can be useful for alerting managers to incidents causing

high mortality, such as an increased fishery take or disease problems, as well as providing

some basic biological data. 

2.1.8 Centralize administration and coordination of tagging programs.

In general, government resource management agencies can provide the continuity

required to coordinate tagging programs. The responsibility of any such agency is that

they act as a central distribution point for tags, tagging training and database

management. It is critically important that the coordinating agency: 1) provides adequate

staff to keep the program organized and respond to tag returns immediately, and 2) remain

in existence for many years (20+). Without such a commitment, tagging programs have

very limited usefulness, and before initiation of such a program it should be considered

carefully on its scientific merits. It must be remembered that sea turtles are long-lived

animals, and the most valuable information yielded by any tagging program comes from
36

turtles which have carried identification tags for many years. Short-term tagging projects

are at best very limited in the information they yield and at worst are nothing more than a

form of undue harassment to the turtles. 

Centralization of tag records is useful as it makes the most efficient use of limited

personnel resources, allows standardization of techniques, and can act as a screening

mechanism to ensure that tagging is done for valid scientific reasons.

2.2 Protect and manage marine habitat, including foraging habitats.

Loggerheads inhabit a variety of marine habitats, although we are most familiar with their

coastal habitat. Increased human presence in this and other sea turtle habitats have

contributed to reef degradation, primarily by coastal construction, increased recreational and

fisheries use, and increased industrialization. Habitat loss and degradation must be prevented

or slowed.

2.2.1 Identify important marine habitats.

These areas may include hatchling (pelagic algal mats), juvenile (benthic reefs) and adult

foraging areas and migratory range for all age classes. (Many of these areas will first need

to be identified through actions in Section 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2.)

2.2.2 Ensure the long-term protection of marine habitat.

Once marine habitats are identified, sea turtle range, refugia and foraging habitats

(Sargassum beds, coral reefs and sponge habitats) need to be protected to ensure longterm survival for the species. Habitats identified as important or critical should be

designated as marine sanctuaries or preserves, while others may require close monitoring.

The public needs to be educated on the importance of preserving these habitats.

2.2.3 Assess and prevent the degradation or destruction of reefs caused by boat groundings,

anchoring, and trampling by fishermen and divers. 

Physical harm done by boat hulls, anchors and persons on reefs can be a serious threat

to such habitats, particularly in heavily-used bays. Given that reefs recover slowly from

physical damage, appropriate actions such as providing boat moorings and removal of

grounded vessels should be undertaken. 

2.2.4 Prevent the degradation of reef habitat caused by environmental contaminants such as

sewage and other pollutants.

Protect reef habitats by reducing offshore dumping of industrial waste and offshore

sewage outfalls. High water quality standards must be established and maintained for

inland water treatment plants.

2.2.5 Prevent the degradation or destruction of marine habitats caused by dredging or disposal

activities.
37

Dredging causes mechanical destruction of reefs, adds suspended sediments that may

damage corals and seagrasses and disposal of dredged materials smothers existing flora

and fauna.

2.2.6 Prevent the degradation or destruction of important habitats caused by upland and coastal

erosion and siltation. 

These processes, often made worse by coastal construction, adversely affect coral reefs

by disrupting vital trophic processes, reducing productivity and reducing species diversity.

Minimum water standards upstream must be maintained. Land-use decisions must take

this into account and associated projects where erosion and siltation occur must be

monitored.

2.2.7 Prevent the degradation or destruction of reefs by dynamite fishing and construction

blasting.

Blasting of any nature physically damages reefs and may kill turtles. It must be monitored

and/or restricted.

2.2.8 Prevent the degradation of habitat caused by oil transshipment activities.

Oil spills from tankers are a possible threat both to coastal and pelagic habitats. Also,

groundings or collisions of tankers and other petroleum industry vessels may physically

damage reefs, perhaps more so than other vessels because of their sheer size (see

Section 2.2.3). The oil and gas industry should take necessary preventive measures (e.g.,

double hulled tankers). Oil spill response teams should be identified for all likely areas.

2.2.9 Identify other threats to marine habitat and take appropriate actions.

Such threats to sea turtle habitat that do not fit in the previous sections or new threats

must be considered and addressed. Such threats may include commercial and

recreational illegal takes of coral and “live rock” for aquaria, as well as take of tropical fish

for aquaria. Chemicals used to capture the fish may indirectly affect reefs.

3 ENSURE PROPER CARE IN CAPTIVITY.

Captive care should be carefully regulated to minimize problems such as excess take from the

wild, or from the potential introduction of exotic diseases or unfit genetic stocks to the wild

population. All release programs should rigorously monitor the status of released turtles to ensure

their proper integration into the wild. It should be noted that to be deemed successful, captivereared turtles that have been released to the wild should be shown not only to survive in the wild

but should also successfully reproduce. If released turtles do not reproduce, such populations will

never be self sustaining. 

3.1 Develop standards for the care and maintenance of sea turtles, including diet, water quality,

tank size, and treatment of injury and disease.
38

Standards should be developed by NMFS or other appropriate agencies. Once developed,

these criteria should be published and set as requirements for any sea turtle holding facility.

Facilities that comply with the criteria will receive permits to hold turtles and be inspected for

compliance. A manual for diagnosis and treatment of sea turtle diseases should be compiled,

published and distributed to holding facilities. 

3.2 Establish a catalog of all captive sea turtles to enhance use for research and education.

The FWS and NMFS should establish a catalog of turtles at all known facilities and include

basic biological data and genetic origin.

3.3 Designate rehabilitation facilities.

FWS, NMFS and other appropriate agencies should designate these facilities based on the

above criteria. Designation should be based on availability of appropriate veterinary

personnel, compliance with standards of care and annual inspections. Recommendations

should be made on when and where hatchlings or adults should be released.

4 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

4.1 Support existing international agreements and conventions to ensure that turtles in all lifestages are protected in foreign waters.

Considering that loggerheads migrate outside of U.S. territorial waters during at least part of

their life cycle, an effective recovery plan must include supporting existing cooperative

agreements with other nations to protect the species. Existing agreements include CITES (see

next section, adopted 1973), the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation

in the Western Hemisphere (adopted 1940), the ASEAN Agreement on the Convention of

Nature and Natural Resources (adopted 1985), the Convention for the Protection of the

Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region (SPREP convention, adopted

1986), as well as a number of conventions concerning marine pollution (Eckert 1993). Out of

the SPREP convention, the South Pacific Regional Marine Turtle Conservation Programme

was created to specifically implement a regional approach to the species protection.

Agreements and conventions that are effective must continue to be supported. 

4.2 Encourage ratification of CITES for all non-member Pacific countries, compliance with CITES

requirements, and removal of sea turtle trade reservations held by member nations.

CITES is a comprehensive wildlife treaty signed by many countries that regulates and prohibits

commercial import and export of wild plant and animal species that are threatened by trade.

In the north Pacific signatories include 18 countries (Eckert 1993). It is one of the most

powerful international agreements concerning threatened species. The U.S. State

Department, Department of Commerce and Department of Interior should work with Pacific

nations to encourage non-member countries to become signatories and demand compliance

with CITES requirements on sea turtles from all signatories.

4.3 Develop new international agreements to ensure that turtles in all life-stages are protected
39

in foreign waters.

New agreements must be outlined by the FWS and NMFS, and pursued by the State

Department and Department of the Interior. Eastern Pacific nations should be encouraged to

ratify the Regional Agreement for Investigation and Management of Marine Turtles of the

American Pacific which was not put into place after being drafted in 1986.

4.4 Develop or continue to support informational displays in airports and other ports of call which

provide connecting legs for travelers to the area.

Airports are particularly good avenues for information about illegal trade in tortoise and

tortoiseshell paraphernalia, as well as general information on sea turtle conservation. If

travelers don’t purchase the items, the market for them may decrease. Agencies such as

NMFS, FWS and the U.S. Customs Service should collaborate on display content and

placement.
40

III. REFERENCES CITED

Ackerman, R.A. 1981a. Growth and gas exchange of embryonic sea turtles (Chelonia, Caretta).

Copeia 1981:757-765.

Ackerman, R.A. 1981b. Oxygen consumption by sea turtle (Chelonia, Caretta) eggs during

development. Physiol. Zool. 54(3):316-324.

Alvarado, J., and A. Figueroa. 1990. The ecological recovery of sea turtles of Michoacan, Mexico.

Special attention: the black turtle, Chelonia aggassizi. Final report 1989-1990 to U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service and WWF-USA. 97 pp.

Balazs, G.H. 1979. Loggerhead turtle recovered from a tiger shark at Kure Atoll. 'Elepaio

39(12):45-47.

Balazs, G.H. 1982. Status of sea turtles in the central Pacific Ocean. Pages 243-252 in K.A.

Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press,

Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Balazs, G.H. 1983. Sea turtles and their traditional usage in Tokelau. Atoll Res. Bull. No.

279:1-29. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Balazs, G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. Pages

387-429 in R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida (eds.), Proc. Workshop on the Fate and

Impact of Marine Debris. U.S. Dep. of Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFC-54.

Balazs, G.H., and J.A. Wetherall. 1991. Assessing impacts of North Pacific high-seas driftnet

fisheries on marine turtles: Progress and problems. Prepared for the North Pacific Driftnet

Scientific Review Meeting, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, 11-14 June 1991. Unpubl.

15 pp.

Bane, G. 1992. First report of a loggerhead sea turtle from Alaska. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 58:1-2.

Bartlett, G. 1989. Loggerheads invade Baja Sur. Noticias Caguamas 2:2-10.

Bjorndal, K.A., and A.B. Bolten. 1988. Growth rates of juvenile loggerheads, Caretta caretta, in

the Southern Bahamas. J. Herpetol. 22(4):480-482.

Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Meylan, and B.J. Turner. 1983. Sea turtles nesting at Melbourne Beach,

Florida, I. Size, growth and reproductive biology. Biol. Cons. 26:65-77.

Blanck, C.E., and R.H Sawyer. 1981. Hatchery practices in relation to early embryology of the

loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta (Linné). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 49:163-177.

Bolten, A.B., and K.A. Bjorndal. 1991. Effect of marine debris on juvenile, pelagic sea turtles.

Interim Project Report, NOAA/NMFS Marine Entanglement Research Program. U.S. Dep.

Commer. 39 pp.+ append.
41

Bolten, A.B., J.C. Santana, and K.A. Bjorndal. 1992. Transatlantic crossing by a loggerhead

turtle. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 59:7-8.

Bourret, R. 1941. Les tortues de l'Indochine. Institut Océanographique de l'Indochine. Station

Maritime de Cauda (Nhatrang). Publ. 38:1-235.

Bowen, B.W., N. Kamezaki, C.J. Limpus, G.R. Hughes, A.B. Meylan, and J.C. Avise. 1994.

Global phylogeography of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) as indicated by

mitochondrial DNA haplotypes. Evolution 48(6):1820-1828.

Brandon, D.J. 1977. Turtle farming: progress report on the South Pacific Commission turtle

farming project in the Cook Islands. Proc. SPC Ninth Technical Meeting on Fisheries,

Working Paper 21:1-12.

Brongersma, L.D. 1972. European Atlantic turtles. Zool. Verh. (121):1-318. Leiden.

Bustard, H.R. 1974. Barrier reef sea turtle populations. Pages 227-234 in A.M. Cameron et al.

(eds.), Proc. Second International Symp. on Coral Reefs, Vol. 1. Great Barrier Reef

Committee, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Bustard, H.R. 1976. Turtles of coral reefs and coral islands. Pages 343-368 in O.A. Jones and

R. Endean (eds.), Biology and Geology of Coral Reefs, Vol. III (Biology 2). Academic

Press, New York. 435 pp.

Bustard, H.R., P. Greenham, and C. Limpus. 1975. Nesting behavior of loggerhead and flatback

turtles in Queensland, Australia. Proc. Koninkl. Nederl. Akad. van Wetenschappen, Ser.

C, Biol. Med. Sci. 78(2):111-122.

Carr, A.F. 1986. Rips, FADs, and little loggerheads. BioScience 36:92-100.

Carr, A.F. 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. Cons. Biol.

1(2):103-121.

Christens, E. 1990. Nest emergence lag in loggerhead sea turtles. J. Herpetol. 24(4):400-402.

Chu-Chien, H. 1979. Oceanic reptiles and amphibians. Ocean Sci. Mag. No. 4:32-35.

Chu-Chien, H. 1982. Distribution of sea turtles in China Seas. Pages 321-322 in K.A. Bjorndal

(ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C.

583 pp.

Crouse, O.T., Crowder, L.B. and Caswell, H. 1987. A stage based population model for

loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecology 68(5):1412-1423.

Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1939. The tetrapod reptiles of Ceylon, Vol. 1. Testudinates and

crocodilians. Ceylon J. Sci., Colombo Mus. Nat. Hist. Series. Dulau and Co., Ltd., London.

Dial, B.E. 1987. Energetics and performance during nest emergence and the hatchling frenzy
42

in loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Herpetologica 43(3):307-315.

Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta

caretta (Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol. Rept. 88(14). 110 pp.

Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1990. Reptilia: Testudines: Cheloniidae: Caretta caretta. Pages 483.1-483.7 in

C.H. Ernst (ed.), Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. Soc. Study Amphibians

and Reptiles Publication.

Eckert, K.L. 1993. The biology and population status of marine turtles in the north Pacific Ocean.

NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-186. 156 pp.

Eckert, S.A., and H.R. Martins. 1989. Trans-Atlantic travel by juvenile loggerhead turtle. Mar.

Turtle Newsl. 45:15.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1989. A status review of the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, in the Western

Atlantic. Pages 122-139 in L. Ogren (ed.-in-chief), Proc. Second Western Atlantic Turtle

Symposium. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-226.

Ernst, C.H., and R.W. Barbour. 1989. Turtles of the World. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington,

D.C. 313 pp.

Fang, P.W. 1934. Notes on some chelonians of China. Sinensia (Nanking) 4(7):145-199.

Frazer, N.B. 1986. Survival from egg to adulthood in a declining population of loggerhead turtles,

Caretta caretta. Herpetologica 42(1):47-55.

Frazer, N.B., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1985. Preliminary growth models for green, Chelonia mydas, and

loggerhead, Caretta caretta, turtles in the wild. Copeia 1985:73-79.

Frazer, N.B., C.J. Limpus, J.L. Greene. 1994. Growth and estimated age at maturity of

Queensland loggerhead. Pages 42-45 in K.N. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, P.J.

Eliazer (compilers), Proc. Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and

Conservation. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-351.

Frazier, J., and S. Salas. 1982. Tortugas marinas en Chile. Bol. Mus. Nac. Hist. Natur. Chile

39:63-73.

Frazier, S.S., J.G. Frazier, D. Hanbo, H. Zhujian, Z. Ji, and L. King. 1988. Sea turtles in Fujian

and Guangdong Provinces. Acta Herpetol. Sinica 1988(3):16-46.

Fujiwara, M. 1966. The early development of the marine turtle with special reference to the

formation of germ layers in Amniota. Bull. Tokyo Gakugai Univ. 18(Ser. IV):45-60.

Geldiay, R., T. Koray, and S. Balik. 1982. Status of sea turtle populations (Caretta c. caretta and

Chelonia m. mydas) in northern Mediterranean Sea, Turkey. Pages 425-434 in K.A.

Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press,

Washington, D.C. 583 pp.
43

Gill, W. 1876. Life in the Southern Isles. Religious Tract Society, London.

Gjernes, T., S. McKinnell, A. Yatsu, S. Hayase, J. Ito, K. Nagao, H. Hatanaka, H. Ogi, M.

Dahlberg, L. Jones, J. Wetherall, and P. Gould. 1990. Final Report of Squid and Bycatch

Observations in the Japanese Driftnet Fishery for Neon Flying Squid (Ommastrephes

bartrami), June-December 1989 Observer Program. Fish. Agency Japan, Canadian Dept.

Fish. Oceans, U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. 17 pp. + tables.

Gomez, E.D. 1980. A review of the literature on marine turtles in the Philippines. Kalikasan,

Philipp. J. Biol. 9:95-99.

Groombridge, B. (compiler). 1982. Red Data Book, Amphibia-Reptilia, Part I: Testudines,

Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. Intl. Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural

Resources (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland. 426 pp.

Guess, R.C. 1981a. A Pacific loggerhead captured off California's northern Channel Islands.

Herp. Rev. 12(1):15.

Guess, R.C. 1981b. Occurrence of a Pacific loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta gigas

Deraniyagala, in the waters off Santa Cruz, California. Calif. Fish Game Notes 68:122-123.

Harry, J.L., and D.A. Briscoe. 1988. Multiple paternity in the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta).

J. Heredity 79:96-99.

Harshbarger, J.C. 1991. Sea turtle fibropapilloma cases in the Registry of Tumors in Lower

Animals. Pages 63-70 in Research plan for marine turtle fibropapilloma. U.S. Dep.

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-156.

Hirth, H.F. 1971. South Pacific islands -- marine turtle resources. Report to Fisheries

Development Agency Project, FAO. 33 pp.

Hirth, H.F. 1980. Some aspects of the nesting behavior and reproductive biology of sea turtles.

Am. Zool. 20(3):507-523.

Hodge, R.P. 1982. Caretta caretta gigas (Pacific loggerhead) USA: Washington. Herp. Rev.

13(1):24.

Hughes, G.R. 1974. The sea turtles of south-east Africa. I. Status, morphology and distribution.

Oceanogr. Res. Inst. Invest. Rept. No. 35. Durban, South Africa. 144 pp.

Humphrey, S.R., and J.R. Bain. 1990. Endangered animals of Thailand. Sandhill Crane Press,

Inc. Gainesville, Florida.

Huong, N.K. 1978. Mo so loai rua o vung bien mien nam Viet-Nam. Tuyen Tap Nghien Cuu Bien

1(1):275-287.

Iwamoto, T., M. Ishii, Y. Nakashima, H. Takeshita, and A. Itoh. 1985. Nesting cycles and

migrations of the loggerhead sea turtle in Miyazaki, Japan. Jap. J. Ecology 35:505-511.
44

Kamezaki, N. 1989. . Matsui, T.H. Kida, and R.C. Goris (eds.) Current Herpetology in East Asia

Herpetol. Soc. Japan, Kyoto.

Kaufmann, R. 1973. Biologia de las tortugas marinas Caretta caretta y Dermochelys coriacea,

de la costa Atlantica Colombiana. Acad. Colombiana Cienc. Exactas, Fisicas y Nat.

14(54):67-80.

Leong, J.K. 1979. Hatchling diseases in Atlantic ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) and

loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in Galveston Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries

Service. Amer. Zool. 19:982 (abstract).

Leong, J.K., R.S. Wheeler, and L.M. Lansford. 1980. Tolerance and responses of normal and

diseased loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta ) to some chemo-therapeutics. Pages

291-302 in J. W. Avault, Jr. (ed.), Proc. Eleventh Annual Meeting of the World Mariculture

Society Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Limpus, C.J. 1973. Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in Australia: food sources while nesting.

Herpetologica 29:42-45.

Limpus, C.J. 1979. Notes on growth rates of wild turtles. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 10:3-5.

Limpus, C.J. 1982. The status of Australian sea turtle populations. Pages 297-303 in K.A.

Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press,

Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Limpus, C.J. 1985. A study of the loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta, in eastern Australia.

Ph.D. dissert ation, Univ. Queensland, Australia. 481 pp.

Limpus, C.J. 1990. Puberty and first breeding in Caretta caretta. Pages 81-83 in T.H.

Richardson, J.I. Richardson, and M . Donnelly (compilers), Proc. Tenth Annual Workshop

on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS-SEFC-278.

Limpus, C.J., and P.C. Reed. 1985. The loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, in Queensland:

observations on inter-nesting behaviour. Aust. Wildl. Res. 12:535-540.

Limpus, C.J., and D. Reimer. 1992. Observations on first breeding by a loggerhead turtle. Mar.

Turtle Newsl. 56: 1-2.

Limpus, C.J., A. Fleay, and M. Guinea. 1984. Sea turtles of the Capricorn Section, Great Barrier

Reef Marine Park. Pages 61-78 in W.T. Ward and P. Saenger (eds.), The Capricornia

Section of the Great Barrier Reef: past, present and future. Royal Society of Queensland

and Australian Coral Reef Society, Brisbane.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera,

species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synomymis, locis. Ed. 10, Tomus 1. L. Salvii,

srockholm, Sweden, 823 pp.
45

Lyster, S. 1985. Inter national wildlife law: an analysis of international treaties concerned with the

conservation of wildlife. The Research Centre for International Law, Univ. Cambridge.

Grotius Publ. Ltd., Cambridge. 470 pp.

Mack, D., N. Duplaix, and S. Wells. 1982. Sea turtles, animals of divisible parts: international

trade in sea turtle products. Pages 545-563 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and

Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Maloney, J.E., C. Darian-Smith, Y. Takahashi, and C.J . Limpus. 1990. The environment for

development of the embryonic loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in Queensland. Copeia

1990:378-387.

Mao, S.H. 1971. Turtles of Taiwan: a natural history of the turtles. The Commercial Press, Ltd.

Taipei, Taiwan. 128 pp.

Márquez M., R. 1990. Sea turtles of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of sea

turtle species known to date. FAO Species Catalog, FAO Fisheries Synopsis 11(125):81

pp.

Mendonça, M.T. 1981. Comparative growth rates of wild immature Chelonia mydas and Caretta

caretta in Florida. J. Herpetol. 15:447-451.

Miller, J.D. 1985. Embryology of marine turtles. Pages 269-328 in C. Gans, F. Billett, and P.F.A.

Maderson (eds.), Biology of the Reptilia, Vol. 14 (Development A). Academic Press, New

York.

Milliken, T., and H. Tokunaga. 1987. The Japanese sea turtle trade 1970-1986. A Special Report

prepared by TRAFFIC (Japan) for the Center for Environmental Education, Washington,

D.C. 171 pp.

Moody, E.G. 1979. Aspects of the feeding biology of the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta.

Honour's thesis. James Cook Univ., Townsville, Queensland, Australia.

Mrosovsky, N., S.R. Hopkins-Murphy, and J.I. Richardson. 1984. Sex ratio of sea turtles:

seasonal changes. Science 225:739-741.

Murphy, T.M., and S.R. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting

beaches in the southeast region, U.S. Final Report to NOAA/NMFS/SEFC, U.S. Dep.

Commer.. 73 pp.

Naito, Y., W. Sakamoto, I. Uchida, K. Kureha, and T. Ebisawa. 1990. Estimation of migration

route of the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, around the nesting ground. Nippon Suisan

Gakkaishi 56(2):255-262.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Annual report on the biological opinion of June 25,

1994 concerning the take of sea turtles in the Hawaii longline fishery. Unpublished report.

11 pp.
46

Nelson, D.A. 1988. Life History and Environmental Requirements of Loggerhead Turtles. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Biol. Rept. 88(23). 34 pp.

Nishemura, W., and S. Nakahigashi. 1990. Incidental capture of sea turtles by Japanese

research and training vessels: results of a questionnaire. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 51:1-4.

Nishimura, S. 1967. The loggerhead turtles in Japan and neighboring waters (Testudinata:

Cheloniidae). Publ. Seto Mar. Biol. Lab. 15(1):19-35.

Phasuk, B. 1982. Sea turtle conservation in Thailand. Thai Fish. Gaz. 35(2):171-177.

Pitman, R.L. 1990. Pelagic distribution and biology and sea turtles in the eastern tropical Pacific.

Pages 143-148 in T.H. Richardson, J.I. Richardson, and M. Donnelly (compilers), Proc.

Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dep. Commer.,

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-278. 286 pp.

Polunin, N.V.C. 1977. Conservation of sea turtles at Ko Khram. Conservation News, September

1977. Association Conservation Wildlife, Bangkok. 5 pp.

Polunin, N.V.C., and N.S. Nuitja. 1982. Sea turtle populations of Indonesia and Thailand. Pages

353-362 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst.

Press, Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1967. Living Turtles of the World. T.F.H. Publ., Inc., Jersey City, New Jersey.

288 pp.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982a. Marine turtles of the South Pacific. Pages 253-262 in K.A. Bjorndal

(ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C.

583 pp.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982b. Sea turtles of Micronesia. Pages 263-274 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology

and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Pritchard, P.C.H., and P. Trebbau. 1984. The turtles of Venezuela. Society for the Study of

Amphibians and Reptiles, Contrib. Herpetol. No. 2.

Pritchard, P.C.H., P.R.. Bacon, F.H. Berry, A.F. Carr, J. Fletemeyer, R.M. Gallagher, S.R.

Hopkins, R.R. Lankford, R. Márquez M., L.H. Ogren, W.G. Pringle, Jr., H.A. Reichart, and

R. Witham. 1983. Manual of sea turtle research and conservation techniques (Second

Edition.) K.A. Bjorndal and G.H. Balazs (eds.). Center for Environmental Education,

Washington D.C. 126 pp.

Rafinesque, C. S. 1814. Prodrono di Erpetologia Siciliana. Specchio delle Scienze o giornale

enciclopedico di Sicilia 2(9): 65-67.

Ramirez-Cruz, J.C., I. Peña-Ramirez, and D. Villanueva-Flores. 1991. Distribucion y abundancia

de la tortuga perica, Caretta caretta Linnaeus (1758), en la costa occidental de Baja

California Sur, Mexico. Archelon 1(2):1-4.
47

Richardson, J.I., and P. McGillivary. 1991. Post-hatchling loggerhead turtles eat insects in

Sargassum community. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 55:2-5.

Ross, J. P., and M.A. Barwani. 1982. Review of sea turtles in the Arabian area. Pages 373-383

in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press,

Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Salmon, M., and K.J. Lohmann. 1989. Orientation cues used by hatchling loggerhead sea turtles

(Caretta caretta L.) during their offshore migration. Ethology 83:215-228.

Salmon, M., and J. Wyneken. 1990. Do swimming loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta L.) use

light cues for offshore orientation? Mar. Behav. Physiol. 17:233-246.

Shannon, F.A. 1956. The reptiles and amphibians of Korea. Herpetologica 12 (Part 1):22-49.

Smith, H.M., and R.B. Smith. 1980. Synopsis of the herpetofauna of Mexico. Vol. 6. Guide to

Mexican turtles. Bibliographic addendum III. John Johnson, North Bennington, Vermont.

1044 pp.

Soma, M. 1985. Radio biotelemetry system applied to migratory study of turtle. J. Fac. Mar. Sci.

Technol., Tokai Univ. 21:47-56.

Spring, C.S. 1982. Status of marine turtle populations in Papua New Guinea. Pages 281-289 in

K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press,

Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Stinson, M.L. 1984. Biology of sea turtles in San Diego Bay, California, and in the northeastern

Pacific Ocean. Master of Science thesis, San Diego State Univ., California. 578 pp.

Suwelo, I.S., N.S. Nuitja, and I. Soetrisno. 1982. Marine turtles in Indonesia. Pages 349-351 in

K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press,

Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Szyndlar, Z. 1991. Distributional records for turtles and lizards from North Korea. Herp. Rev.

22(1):27.

Takeshima, H. 1958. A synopsis of the reptiles of Japan. Misc. Rep. Yamashina's Inst. Ornith.

Zool. 12:486-493.

Terentjev, P.V., and A.S. Chernov. 1949. Key to the reptiles and amphibians. Moscow. [In

Russian]

Thomas, P.E.J. (compiler). 1989. Report of the Northern Marshall Islands Natural Diversity and

Protected Areas Survey, 7-24 September 1988. South Pacific Regional Environment

Programme, Noumea, New Caledonia and East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. 133 pp.

Tuato'o-Bartley, N., T.E. Morrell, and P. Craig. 1993. Status of sea turtles in American Samoa in

1991. Pacific Science 47(3):215-221. 
48

Uchida, I. 1970. Illnesses of loggerhead turtle. Himeji City Aquarium 2(3):1-8.

Uchida, I. 1982. Present status of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in waters adjacent to

Japan. Doubutsu to Shizen (The Nature and Animals) 12(3):2-6.

Uchida, I., and M. Nishiwaki. 1982. Sea turtles in the waters adjacent to Japan. Pages 317-319

in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press,

Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Uchida, S., and H. Teruya. 1991. Transpacific migration of a tagged loggerhead, Caretta caretta,

and tag-return results of loggerheads released from Okinawa Island, Japan. Pages

171-182 in: I. Uchida (editorial adviser), Intl. Symposium on Sea Turtles 1988 in Japan.

Himeji City Aquarium and Hiwasa Chelonian Museum, Japan.

van Buskirk, J.Z. and and L.B. Crowder. 1994. Life-history variation in marine turtles. Copeia

1994:66-81.

Wiens, H.J. 1962. Atoll Environment and Ecology. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven.

Witham, R. 1973. A bacterial disease of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles. Florida Sci.

36:226-228.

Witherington, B.E., and K.A. Bjorndal. 1991. Influences of artificial lighting on the seaward

orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta). Biol. Cons. 55(2):139-150.

Yntema, C.L., and N. Mrosovsky. 1982. Critical periods and pivotal temperatures for sexual

differentiation in loggerhead sea turtles. Can. J. Zool. 60:1012-1016.

Zhou, K. 1983. Caretta, Lepidochelys and Dermochelys from the coastal waters of Jiangsu

Province. Acta Herpetol. Sinica 2(3):57-63. [in Chinese; translated by Zhang Yuanlin, Univ.

Georgia, 1991].

Zug, G.R., A.H. Wynn, and C. Ruckdeschel. 1986. Age determination of loggerhead sea turtles,

Caretta caretta, by incremental growth marks in the skeleton. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool.

No. 427. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 34 pp.
49

IV. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

The Implementation Schedule outlines management and research actions and estimated costs

for the U.S. Pacific loggerhead turtle recovery program, as set forth in this recovery plan. It is a

guide for meeting the objectives discussed in Part II of this plan. This schedule indicates wherever

possible, task priority, task numbers, task descriptions, duration of tasks, the agencies responsible

for committing funds, and lastly, estimated costs. The agencies responsible for committing funds

are not, necessarily, the entities that will actually carry out the tasks. The actions identified in the

implementation schedule, when accomplished, should protect habitat for the species, stabilize the

existing populations, and increase the population sizes and numbers. Monetary needs for all

parties involved are identified to reach this point, whenever feasible. 

Priorities in column 3 of the following Implementation Schedule are assigned as follows:

Priority 1 -

An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from declining

irreversibly in the foreseeable future.

Priority 2 -

An action that must be taken to prevent significant decline in species population/habitat

quality or some other significant negative impact short of extinction.

Priority 3 -

All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species.

KEY to Implementation Table Abbreviations:

CNMI = Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

COE = U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

DOC = U.S. Department of Commerce

DOI = U.S. Department of Interior

DOS = U.S. Department of State (primarily as a conduit for negotiations and

support for tasks in other political jurisdictions)

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FSM = Federated States of Micronesia

FWS = U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

NA = Not applicable

NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service

NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service (Soil Conservation Service)

RMI = Republic of the Marshall Islands

USN = U.S. Navy
A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B 50 The lead agency is listed first.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

1.1 Protect & manage

turtles on nesting

beaches

1.1.1 Eliminate

directed take of

turtles and their eggs

1.1.1.1 Reduce

directed take through

public education &

information

(3) Continuing FWS, NMFS,

DOS

(No documented

nests under U.S.

jurisdiction)

Provide support

for international

information

exchange forum

1.1.1.2 Law

enforcement-prevent

illegal exploitation &

harassment

(3) Continuing FWS, US

Customs, DOS,

NMFS

U.S. should

encourage

Japan to support

these tasks

1.1 Protect & manage

turtles on nesting

beaches (cont.)

1.1.2 Ensure coastal

construction

activities do not

disrupt nesting &

hatching activities

(3) Continuing FWS, NMFS,

DOS

U.S. should

encourage

Japan to support

these tasks

1.1.3 Reduce nest

predation by

domestic & feral

animals

(3) Continuing FWS, DOS U.S. should

encourage

Japan to support

these tasks
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B 51 The lead agency is listed first.

1.1 Protect & manage

turtles on nesting

beaches (cont.)

1.1.4 Reduce effects

of artificial lighting

on hatchlings &

nesting females

1.1.4.1 Quantify

effects of artificial

lighting

(2) Continuing FWS, DOS U.S. should

encourage

Japan to support

these tasks

1.1.4.2 Implement,

enforce, evaluate

lighting regulations

or other lighting

control measures

(2) Continuing FWS, DOS U.S. should

encourage

Japan to support

these tasks

1.1 Protect & manage

turtles on nesting

beaches (cont.)

1.1.5 Collect

biological information

on nesting

populations

1.1.5.1 Monitor

nesting activity,

identify important

nesting beaches,

determine population

trends

(1) Continuing FWS, NMFS,

DOS

U.S. should

encourage

Japan to support

these tasks

1.1.5.2 Evaluate nest

success, implement

nest-protection

measures

(1) Continuing U.S. should

encourage

Japan to support

these tasks
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B 52 The lead agency is listed first.

1.1 Protect & manage

turtles on nesting

beaches (cont.)

1.1.5 Collect

biological information

on nesting

populations (cont.)

1.1.5.3 Define stock

boundaries 

1 4 years NMFS, FWS 50 50 50 50 Includes tasks

1.1.5.3.1 -

1.1.5.3.2

1.1.5.3.1 Identify

stock type for major

nesting beach areas

(1) 4 years NMFS, FWS,

DOS

1.1.5.3.2 Determine

nesting beach

origins-juvenile &

subadult populations

1 4 years FWS, NMFS,

DOS

1.1.5.3.3 Determine

genetic relationship

among populations

1 4 years FWS, NMFS

1.2 Protect & manage

nesting habitat

1.2.1. Prevent

degradation due to

erosion-control

measures, jetties &

breakwaters

(2) Continuing FWS, DOS,

NMFS

U.S. should

encourage

Japan to support

these tasks

1.2.2 Eliminate

sand, coral rubble

removal & mining

practices

(3) Continuing U.S. should

encourage

Japan to support

these tasks
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B 53 The lead agency is listed first.

1.2 Protect & manage

nesting habitat (cont.)

1.2.3 Develop,

evaluate natural

beach-landscaping

guidelines

(3) Continuing FWS, DOS U.S. should

encourage

Japan to support

these tasks

1.2.4 Ensure

replenishment

projects maintain

quality habitat

(3) Continuing U.S. should

encourage

Japan to support

these tasks

1.2.5 Implement nonmechanical beach

cleaning alternatives

NA NA

1.2.6 Prevent

vehicular driving on

nesting beaches 

(3) Continuing U.S. should

encourage

Japan to support

these tasks

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in marine

habitat 

2.1.1 Eliminate

directed take of

turtles

2.1.1.1 Reduce

directed take through

education,

information

NA NA NMFS, U.S.

West Coast ,

Hawaii, American

Samoa, Guam,

Palau, CNMI,

RMI, FSM,

Unincorp.

Territories, DOS
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B 54 The lead agency is listed first.

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in marine

habitat (cont.)

2.1.1 Eliminate

directed take of

turtles (cont.)

2.1.1.2 Increase

enforcement reduce

exploitation

NA NA NMFS, USCG,

DOS

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in marine

habitat (cont.)

2.1.2 Determine

distribution,

abundance, status

2.1.2.1 Determine

distribution,

abundance

posthatchlings,

juveniles, adults

1 10 years NMFS, FWS 100 100 100 100 100

2.1.2.2 Determine

adult migration

routes, internesting

habitats

1 5 years U.S. should

encourage

Japan to support

these tasks

2.1.2.3 Determine

growth rates,

survivorship, age

sexual maturity

1 10 years 75 75 75 75 75

2.1.2.4 Identify

current threats

adults, juveniles on

foraging grounds

1 10 years 50 50 50 50 50
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B 55 The lead agency is listed first.

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in marine

habitat (cont.)

2.1.3 Reduce effects

of entanglement &

ingestion marine

debris

2.1.3.1 Evaluate

extent ingestion of

persistent debris &

entanglement

2 5 years NMFS, EPA 30 30 30 30 30

2.1.3.2 Evaluate

effects ingestion

persistent debris &

entanglement

2 3 years 100 100 100

2.1.3.3 Reduce,

eliminate persistent

debris &

entanglement

2 Continuing NMFS, EPA,

USCG

No additional

costs. Part of

agency program

activities

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in marine

habitat (cont.)

2.1.4.1 Monitor &

reduce incidental

mortality in

commercial,

recreational fisheries

2.1.4.1 Monitor

incidental mortality

in commercial,

recreational fisheries

1 Continuing NMFS, U.S. West

Coast , Hawaii,

American Samoa,

Guam, Palau,

CNMI, RMI,

FSM, Unincorp.

Territories

200 500 500 500 500 Duplicative of

Tasks 2.1.4.1 in

leatherback

plan.

2.1.4.2 Reduce

incidental mortality

in commercial,

recreational fisheries

1 Continuing 250 250 250 250 250 Duplicative of

Tasks 2.1.4.1 in

leatherback

plan.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B 56 The lead agency is listed first.

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in marine

habitat (cont.)

2.1.5 Eliminate

harassment of turtles

at sea

2 Continuing NMFS, U.S. West

Coast , Hawaii,

American Samoa,

Guam, Palau,

CNMI, RMI,

FSM, Unincorp.

Territories

No additional

costs - part of

ongoing agency

program

activities

2.1.6 Study the

impact of diseases on

turtles

3 1 year NMFS, U.S. West

Coast , Hawaii,

American Samoa,

Guam, Palau,

CNMI, RMI,

FSM, Unincorp.

Territories, FWS

(as appropriate to

beach habitat)

20 * Literature

review/survey

of researchers

2.1.6.1 Investigate

parasites and other

infectious agents

3 Continuing 40

2.1.7 Maintain

carcass stranding

network

2 Continuing NMFS, FWS 5 5 5 5 5 Includes all

species

2.1.8 Centralize

tagging program and

tag-series records

3 Continuing 60 60 60 60 Total funds for 

all species
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B 57 The lead agency is listed first.

2.2 Protect & manage

marine habitat

2.2.1 Identify

important habitat

1 10 years NMFS, U.S. West

Coast , Hawaii,

American Samoa,

Guam, Palau,

CNMI, RMI,

FSM, Unincorp.

Territories

Should be

coordinated

with Tasks

2.1.2.1 &

2.1.2.2 - funds

included in

these tasks

2.2.2 Ensure longterm protection

1 Continuing Part of ongoing

agency program

activities

2.2.3 Assess &

prevent degradation

or destruction of

reefs by boating,

diving activities

(2) Continuing NMFS, FWS,

DOS

Encourage

Japan to support

these tasks

2.2.4 Prevent

degradation reefs by

pollution

(2) Continuing NMFS, EPA,

USCG, DOS

Encourage

Japan to support

these tasks

2.2.5 Prevent

degradation or

destruction of reefs

by dredge or disposal

3 Continuing COE, NMFS,

DOS

Encourage

Japan to support

these tasks
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B 58 The lead agency is listed first.

2.2 Protect & manage

marine habitat (cont.)

2.2.6 Prevent

degradation or

destruction by

coastal erosion,

siltation

(2) Continuing FWS, EPA,

NRCS, DOS,

NMFS

Encourage

Japan to support

these tasks

2.2.7 Prevent

degradation or

destruction of reefs

by blasting

(3) Continuing NMFS, COE,

USN, DOS

Encourage

Japan to support

these tasks

2.2.8 Prevent

degradation of

habitat by oil

transshipment

2 Continuing USCG, NMFS,

EPA

2.2.9 Identify other

threats, take action

2 Continuing NMFS, EPA,

USCG

Part of ongoing

program

activities

3 Ensure proper care

in captivity

3.1 Develop captive

standards

3 2 year NMFS, FWS 35 15

3.2 Catalog captive

turtles for research,

education

3 2 year 10 10 Includes all sea

turtle species
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

General Task

Categories

Plan Task PriorityA Task

Duration

Agencies

ResponsibleB

Current

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $K

 

 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

Comments/

Notes

A

 ( ) parentheses denote that this task does not necessarily apply to U.S. jurisdiction, but that the task must be addressed if the U.S. populations are to be

restored. Such tasks may require U.S. resource agencies to support recovery tasks in other political jurisdictions.

B 59 The lead agency is listed first.

3.3 Designate rehab

facilities

3 1 year 50 Includes all sea

turtle species

4 International

cooperation

4.1 Support 

agreements, conventions, protect in

foreign water

1 Continuing FWS, NMFS,

DOS, DOI, DOC 

100 100 100 100 100 Includes Tasks

5.2 & 5.3

4.2 CITES

membership,

compliance

1 Continuing

4.3 Develop new

agreements to protect

in foreign waters

1 Continuing NMFS, DOS,

DOI, DOC

4.4 Display

information at

airports

2 5 years FWS, NMFS,

U.S. West Coast,

Hawaii, American

Samoa, Guam,

Palau, CNMI,

RMI, FSM,

Unincorp.

Territories

15 15 15 15 15 Includes all sea

turtle species