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

Leatherback Turtle

(Dermochelys coriacea)
Cover Photograph Courtesy of Scott A. Eckert, Ph.D.

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 Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). 

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

(Leatherback)

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 ......................................... 8

F. Status .......................................................... 12

G. Biological Characteristics ............................................ 13

Migration and Movements ........................................ 13

Foraging Biology and Diet ........................................ 14

Growth ....................................................... 14

Reproduction .................................................. 15

Offshore Behavior .............................................. 16

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

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

Pacific Synopsis ............................................... 17

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

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

Hawaii ................................................. 18

American Samoa ......................................... 18

Guam .................................................. 18

Republic of Palau ......................................... 18

Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI) ................ 18

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

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) ......................... 19

Unincorporated Islands .................................... 19

General Threat Information ....................................... 21

Nesting Environment ...................................... 21

1. Directed Take .................................... 21

2. Increased Human Presence ......................... 21

3. Coastal Construction .............................. 21

4. Nest Predation ................................... 22

5. Beach Erosion ................................... 22

 6. Artificial Lighting ................................. 22
ii

 7. Beach Mining .................................... 22

 8. Vehicular Driving on Beaches ....................... 22

 9. Exotic Vegetation ................................. 23

10. Beach Cleaning ................................. 23

11. Beach Replenishment ............................ 23

Marine Environment ....................................... 23

12. Directed Take .................................. 23

13. Natural Disasters ................................ 23

14. Disease and Parasites ............................ 24

15. Environmental Contaminants ....................... 24

16. Debris (Entanglement and Ingestion) ................ 24

17. Fisheries (Incidental Take) ......................... 24

18. Predation ...................................... 25

19. Boat Collisions .................................. 25

20. Marina and Dock Development ..................... 25

21. Oil Exploration and Development ................... 25

22. Power Plant Entrapment .......................... 26

I. Conservation Accomplishments ....................................... 27

II. RECOVERY ............................................................ 29

A. Recovery Objectives ................................................ 29

B. Step Down Outline and Narrative for Recovery ........................... 30

III. REFERENCES CITED ................................................... 41

IV. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ............................................ 55
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 Wildife 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 leatherback turtle is listed as Endangered throughout its range. In the

Pacific, leatherback populations are in severe decline and recovery actions must be given the

highest priority. Primary threats to the species are incidental take in coastal and high seas

fisheries, and the killing of nesting females and collecting of eggs at the nesting beaches. The

United States does not have any nesting of leatherbacks in its jurisdiction in the Pacific, but

has important foraging areas on the continental U.S. west coast and near the Hawaiian

Islands. It is likely that stocks in U.S. waters originate in Mexico and Central America, though

some may originate from Southeast Asia as well. While not directly classified as a threat, the

lack of information on the movement patterns and habitat needs of this entirely pelagic species

(leatherbacks are the only species which remains pelagic throughout its life) is severely

hampering recovery efforts and must be addressed as a high priority. 

Goal: The recovery goal is to delist the species.

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

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

on reasonable geographic parameters. 

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

goal of maintaining a stable population in perpetuity) females estimated to nest annually

(FENA) over six years. 

3) Nesting populations at "source beaches" are either stable or increasing over a 25-year

monitoring period.

4) Existing foraging areas are maintained as healthy environments. 

5) Foraging populations are exhibiting statistically significant increases at several key

foraging grounds within each stock region.

6) All Priority #1 tasks have been implemented. 

7) A management plan designed to maintain sustained populations of turtles is in place.

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

1) Eliminate incidental take of leatherbacks in U.S. and international commercial fisheries.

2) Support the efforts of Mexico and the countries of Central America to census and

protect nesting leatherbacks, their eggs, and nesting beaches.

3) Determine movement patterns, habitat needs and primary foraging areas for the

species throughout its range. 

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

surveys.
vii

5) Identify stock home ranges using DNA analysis.
1

RECOVERY PLAN FOR U.S. PACIFIC POPULATIONS OF THE

LEATHERBACK TURTLE (Dermochelys coriacea)

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.

Because of the highly migratory behavior of the adult turtles, and the likelihood of shifting

habitat requirements for post-hatchlings and juveniles, the populations of leatherback turtles

(Dermochelys coriacea) in the Pacific Ocean cross international boundaries. The offshore 


4

waters of Indochina, China, Japan, and the east coast of the former Soviet Union in the

western north Pacific, and the west coasts of Central America, Mexico and the United States in

the eastern north Pacific probably constitute shared habitats for leatherback sea turtles. The

species is also encountered in the international waters of the central north Pacific. The extent

to which east and west Pacific populations mingle is not known. The extended range of

leatherback sea turtles 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 sea turtle species, there is no evidence of important subsistence or cultural usage

in the United States involving the comparatively rare leatherback turtle. There is no nesting by

leatherbacks on beaches under present or former U.S. Pacific jurisdiction. At-sea sightings in

the U.S. Pacific are largely confined to the continental west coast.

C. Taxonomy 

The generic name Dermochelys was introduced by Blainville (1816). The specific name

coriacea was first used by Vandelli (1761) and adopted by Linnaeus (1766) (Rhodin and Smith

1982). The binomial refers to the distinctive leathery, scaleless skin of the adult turtle. This

species is the sole member of the taxonomic family Dermochelyidae. All other extant sea

turtles are in the family Cheloniidae. A degree of relationship between Dermochelys and other

living sea turtles has been deduced from behavioral (Carr and Ogren 1959), morphological

(Nick 1912; Zug 1966) and biochemical (Frair 1979, 1982; Chen et al. 1980; Chen and Mao

1981) and genetic (Bowen et al. 1993; Dutton 1995; Dutton et al. 1996) studies. However,

Dermochelys possesses a skeletal morphology unique among turtles (Rhodin et al. 1981), and

recent karyological studies (Medrano et al. 1987) support taxonomic classifications which

segregate extant sea turtle species into two distinct families (Gaffney 1975, 1984; Bickham

and Carr 1983). For the most recent detailed discussion of taxonomy and synonymy, see

Pritchard and Trebbau (1984).

D. Description

Whereas other sea turtles have a carapace containing bony plates covered by horny

scutes, the slightly flexible carapace of the leatherback is distinguished by a rubber-like

texture. In adults, the carapace (ca. 4 cm thick) is constituted mainly of tough, oil-saturated

connective tissue raised into seven prominent ridges and tapered to a blunt point posteriorly. 

A nearly continuous layer of small dermal bones lies just below the leathery outer skin of the

carapace. The narrow ribs lack pleural flanges and remain widely separated throughout life. 

No sharp angle is formed between the carapace and the plastron, resulting in the animal being

somewhat barrel-shaped. The scaleless skin and carapace are black with varying degrees of

pale spotting. The underside is mottled, pinkish-white and black; the proportion of light to dark

pigment is variable. The front flippers are proportionally longer than in other sea turtles and

may span 270 cm in an adult. Hatchlings are likewise predominately black, with mottled

undersides, but differ in being covered with tiny polygonal or bead-like scales. The flippers are

margined in white, and rows of white scales appear as stripes along the length of the back. 

Front and rear flippers lack claws. In both adults and hatchlings, the upper jaw bears two
5

tooth-shaped projections, each flanked by deep cusps, at the premaxillary-maxillary sutures. 

For a detailed discussion of anatomy, including embryonic development, see Deraniyagala

(1932, 1936a), Dunlap (1955), Pritchard (1971), and Pritchard and Trebbau (1984).

Curved carapace length (CCL) in adult females nesting in Michoacán, Mexico, during 1980-

1988 averaged 144.9 cm CCL (range 119-176, n=2591) (Laura Sarti M., Universidad Naçional

Autonoma de Mexico [UNAM], unpubl. data). In contrast, adult females nesting in eastern

Australia average 162.4 cm CCL (Limpus et al. 1984). Despite the size dichotomy between

mature turtles from eastern and western Pacific nesting colonies, conclusions of evolutionary

distinctness may be unwarranted. Genetic differentiation in this species, at least in terms of

maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages, is extremely low relative to other

species of sea turtle (Dutton et al. 1996). A recent survey of five Atlantic rookeries did not

reveal any genetic population structure based on mtDNA, and found similarities between

Pacific and Atlantic haplotypes. These data suggest gene flow between rookeries within

ocean basins and imply that western Atlantic and eastern Pacific leatherbacks shared a

common ancestor in recent evolutionary history (Dutton et al. 1994).

Adults exhibit broad thermal tolerances and are reported in the Pacific as far north as

Alaska and the Bering Sea and as far south as Chile and New Zealand (see Insular and

Pelagic Range). The core body temperature for adults in cold water has been shown to be

several degrees C above ambient (Frair et al. 1972). This may be due to several features,

including the thermal inertia of a large body mass, an insulating layer of subepidermal fat,

countercurrent heat exchangers in the flippers, potentially heat-generating brown adipose

tissue, and a relatively low freezing point for lipids (Mrosovsky and Pritchard 1971; Frair et al.

1972; Greer et al. 1973; Neill and Stevens 1974; Goff and Stenson 1988; Davenport et al.

1990). The skeleton remains highly cartilaginous, even in adult animals, and the species is

unique among turtles in showing an extensive cartilage canal vascular system in the long

bones (Rhodin et al. 1981).

E. Population Distribution and Size 

Nesting Grounds

Some of the largest nesting populations of leatherback turtles in the world border the

Pacific Ocean, but no nesting occurs on beaches under U.S. jurisdiction. Until very recently,

the largest known population, comprising perhaps nearly half the known number of adult

females, nested on the Pacific coast of Mexico, notably in the states of Michoacán, Guerrero

and Oaxaca. Today this population has noticeably declined. Leatherbacks do not generally

nest in the insular Central and South Pacific (exceptions include the Solomon Islands,

Vanuatu, and Fiji). Nesting is widely reported from the western Pacific, including China,

Southeast Asia, Indonesia and Australia.

U.S. West Coast

No known nesting.
6

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.

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 in the unincorporated U.S. island territories of Howland, Baker,

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

Other Areas of the Pacific

Eastern Pacific: 

The Pacific coast of Mexico is generally regarded as the most important leatherback

breeding ground in the world. Based on a single aerial survey in 1980 (31 October - 1

November) of Michoacán, Guerrero, and Oaxaca, as well as on published and anecdotal data,

Pritchard (1982a) estimated that 30,000 females nested annually in these three Mexican

states. Lower density nesting was (and still is) reported further north in Jalisco (Pritchard

1971; Márquez 1976) and in Baja California, where the northernmost eastern Pacific nesting

sites are found (e.g., Fritts et al. 1982). Today the nesting population is vastly reduced (Table

1, Sarti et al. 1996). The reason for the decline is not clear, but contributing factors surely

include the persistent collection of eggs and incidental catch in national and international

waters.
7

Table 1. A decade of declining leatherback nesting activity at Mexiquillo, Michoacán, based on

annual all-night beach patrols throughout the peak November-February nesting season (Cruz

et al. 1987; Sarti et al. 1986; Sarti et al. 1987; Sarti et al. 1988; Sarti et al. 1989a; Lopez et al.

1990; Lopez et al. 1991; Lopez et al. 1992.; Sarti et al. 1993; Diaz 1994; Sarti et al. 1996)

Nesting Season Number of crawls Beach km covered

1984-1985 4681 4.5

1985-1986 3414 4.5

1986-1987 5667 4.5

1987-1988 3747 4.5

1988-1989 2211 4.5

1989-1990 1752 4.5

1990-1991 1634 7

1991-1992 1496 7

1992-1993 1363 7

1993-1994 93 7

1994-1995 - -

1995-1996 709 7

Low density nesting is reported from Pacific Central America and peaks in NovemberDecember (Pritchard 1971; Cornelius 1982, 1986). Playa Langosta-Playa Grande, Costa Rica,

is a particularly important site, with 1,500 females nesting there in 1990 (J. Spotila, Drexel

Univ., pers. comm., 1993). While these areas are not specifically within U.S. jurisdiction, it is

likely that females nesting on these beaches forage in or migrate through U.S. waters.

Northwest Pacific: 

Nesting is reported from China and Thailand, but quantitative data are lacking. In China,

Chu-Chien (1982) reports leatherback turtles in Guangdong (Kwangtung), Guangxi (Kwangsi),

Fujian (Fukien), Zhejiang (Chekiang), Jiangxi (Kiangsi), Shandong (Shantung), and Liaoning,

but does not specify nesting sites, nest density or population sizes. Field surveys were

conducted during June-August 1985 in Fujian and Guangdong Provinces, but no evidence of

nesting was found (Frazier et al. 1988). Mao (1971) reported that "eggs are eaten wherever

available" in Taiwan and the weight of an adult female "photographed at Nanfangao" was 252

kg; nesting sites, if any, were not specified. Nesting apparently does not occur in Korea

(Groombridge 1982) or Japan (Uchida and Nishiwaki 1982; Kamezaki 1989).

 
8

Terengganu, Malaysia, once considered a major nesting area, has declined dramatically

from over 2,000 nesting females per year in the 1960's and early 1970's to fewer than 20

females in 1993 (Limpus 1995), largely as a result of intensive egg collection (see Status). 

Nesting does not occur in Sabah (de Silva 1982) or Sarawak (Leh 1985).

Southwest Pacific: 

In Indonesia, at least 13,000 leatherback nests were reported in 1984 on 17.8 km at Irian

Jaya (Bhaskar 1985). More recently, about 2,600 leatherbacks were reported nesting at three

main sites along 18 km of beach in the northern part of Kepala Burung, Sorong, Irian Jaya

(Sutanto Suwelo et al. 1994). In contrast, nesting in eastern Australia is uncommon (1-2 turtles

per year) and is restricted to about 160 km of coast northward from Bundaberg (Limpus 1982)

near Wreck Rock 

(Limpus et al. 1984).

Low density nesting occurs widely along the north coast and on some of the larger islands

of Papua New Guinea. "Regular nesting sites" include Tulu and Timonai villages on Manus

Island, Garu, Kimbe Bay and Ganoi villages in New Britain, along the southeast coast of New

Ireland, on Long Island and parts of the mainland of the Madang Province, on Normanby

Island in Milne Bay Province, along the coast from Boiken to Turubu in the East Sepik

Province, and around Aitape in the West Sepik Province. "Occasional nestings" are reported

from Kiriwina and Simsim Islands in the Trobriands, in the Wooklark Islands, on Lou Islands

and Tingos village in the Manus Province, and at Pilapila Beach near Rabaul (Spring 1982). 

Lockhart (1989) confirmed localized nesting on the north coast and offshore islands, peaking

around Christmas; adults and eggs are eaten and some rookeries have been exterminated

(e.g., Aua and Wuvulu islands). 

In the Solomon Islands, the leatherback nests on "numerous isolated beaches" during

November-January, preferring those situated near river mouths, having a reefless approach,

and being composed of black sand (Pritchard 1982b). According to Pritchard (1982b), the

leatherback is known from the islands of Vanuatu, but no nesting beaches were given. A "very

low level of nesting" takes place on the southeastern coast of Vanua Levu, Fiji, the most

easterly record of nesting by leatherbacks in the insular Pacific (Pritchard 1982b). Nesting is

not reported from the Philippines (Pejabat and Siow 1977), New Caledonia, Tonga, or French

Polynesia (Pritchard 1982b), Micronesia (Pritchard 1977, 1982c; Thomas 1989), the Phoenix

Islands, Western Samoa, Tokelau, Tuvalu, or the Cook Islands (Balazs 1975, 1982b).

Insular and Pelagic Range

The leatherback is typically associated with continental shelf habitats and pelagic

environments. It is uncommon in the insular Pacific, but individuals are sometimes

encountered in deep water near prominent archipelagoes. To a large extent, the oceanic

distribution of leatherbacks may reflect the distribution and abundance of macroplanktonic

prey. Analyses of stomach samples have shown that adults feed primarily on medusae,

siphonophores, and salpae in temperate and boreal latitudes (see Foraging Biology and Diet). 

Reports of foraging in north Pacific waters include that of Eisenberg and Frazier (1983), who

observed an adult feeding on the jellyfish Aurelia off the coast of Washington state. Little
9

information is available on the diet of leatherbacks in northern waters, and on the spatial and

temporal distribution of preferred prey species.

Oceanic temperature and bathymetric contours may also be important. The data suggest

that leatherbacks occur north of central California during the summer and fall when sea

surface temperatures are highest (Dohl et al. 1983; Brueggeman 1991). There is some

evidence that leatherbacks follow the 16EC isotherm into Monterey Bay, although the length of

their stay "seems more dependent on prey availability than on temperature regimes" (Starbird

et al. 1993). Recorded sea surface temperatures at the Oregon and Washington sightings

ranged between 13-18.5EC, with the majority in the 15-16EC range (Brueggeman 1991). 

Some aerial surveys of California, Oregon, and Washington waters suggest that most

leatherbacks occur in continental slope waters, while fewer occur over the continental shelf. 

U.S. West Coast

After analyzing some 363 records of sea turtles sighted along the Pacific coast of North

America (from 29E45'N northward), Stinson (1984) concluded that the leatherback was the

most common sea turtle in U.S. waters north of Mexico. Sightings and incidental capture data

indicate that leatherbacks are found in Alaska as far north as 60.34EN, 145.38EW and as far

west as the Aleutian Islands (Hodge 1979; Stinson 1984). Documented encounters extend

southward through the waters of British Columbia (Logier and Toner 1961; MacAskie and

Forrester 1962), Washington and Oregon (Brueggeman 1991; Washington Dept. Game,

unpubl. data; Craig Webster, Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network, in litt., 29 October

1990), and California (Lowe and Norris 1955; Dohl et al. 1983; Stinson 1984). There were 96

sightings of leatherbacks within 50 km of Monterey Bay, California, from 1986-1991, mostly by

recreational boaters (Starbird et al. 1993). Of 104 records of sea turtle strandings on the U.S.

west coast between 1982 and 1991, 50 were leatherbacks (J. Cordaro, National Marine

Fisheries Service [NMFS], pers. comm., 1994).

Further insight into coastal and pelagic range may be gained from reports of incidental

catch. In the eastern north Pacific these include entanglement in gillnets off the coast of

Washington, Oregon, and California (Stick and Hreha 1989; S. Eckert, Hubbs-Sea World

Research Institute, pers. comm.). Fishermen "regularly" catch leatherbacks in drift/gill nets off

Monterey Bay, central California (C. Starbird, San José State Univ., pers. comm., 1991). A

leatherback was killed in October 1990 in a gillnet set in the Bay area (36E55'N, 122E40'W) (S.

Eckert, pers. comm.). See also Threats, Fisheries (Incidental take).

Hawaii

Leatherbacks encountered in Hawaii, including those caught incidental to fishing

operations, may represent individuals in transit from one part of the Pacific to another (Balazs

1973). Leatherbacks are "regularly sighted" in offshore waters at the southeastern end of the

Hawaiian archipelago. In August 1979 at least ten individuals, including juveniles, were

sighted in pelagic waters northwest of Hawaii (40-42EN, 175-179EW) (Balazs 1982a). 

 
10

American Samoa

The only leatherback turtle record is that of a juvenile (42.7 cm CCL) caught by longline

about 5.6 km south of Swains Island. Water depth at the capture location was about 1,400 m

(Grant 1994). mtDNA analysis suggests that this juvenile probably originated in the western

Pacific (P. Dutton, Texas A&M Univ. [TAMU], pers. comm., 1995).

Guam

During recent aerial surveys of Guam (October 1989-April 1991), 2.6% of the turtles

recorded were leatherbacks (G. Davis, Guam, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources

[DAWR], in litt., 22 August 1991). 

Republic of Palau

Few quantitative data are available concerning the abundance or distribution of

leatherbacks in the insular Central Pacific, although fishermen in some areas, such as Palau,

readily recognize the species (J. Engbring, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS], pers. comm.,

1992). Engbring et al. (1992) reported on the aggressive interactions between a grey reef

shark and a leatherback in the lagoon near Koror.

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)

Leatherbacks are occasionally encountered in the pelagic waters of this archipelago.

Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI)

No documented sightings.

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)

Leatherbacks are infrequently sighted and rarely captured in the FSM states of Truk

(=Chuuk), Yap and Pohnpei (McCoy 1974; Pritchard 1977). A leatherback caught near Woleai

(Yap) in 1971 was eaten (McCoy 1974). An adult (444 kg, 2.17 m total length) was caught off

Parem Reef, Ponape Island (Pritchard 1982c), and a small juvenile (69.4 cm carapace length)

captured near Satawal (Yap) was tagged and released (McCoy 1974). More recent data are

unavailable.

Unincorporated U.S. Island Territories

There are no documented sightings in the unincorporated U.S. island territories, although

the species may be more common in the Central Pacific than the literature suggests. The

territory is vast and poorly surveyed, especially for deep water species.
11

Other areas in the Pacific

Eastern Pacific: 

Adults are seasonally abundant off Mexican breeding grounds at Michoacán, Guerrero,

and Oaxaca (Márquez 1976; Pritchard 1982a; Sarti et al. 1987, 1989b). The species is also

reported from Baja California, Mexico (Smith and Smith 1980; Cliffton et al. 1982). Eleven

leatherbacks were captured in gillnets by a single fishermen from Bahia de la Paz, Baja

California, from 1985-May 1987 (Alvarado and Figueroa 1990). In the Eastern Tropical Pacific

(ETP), juvenile and adult leatherbacks are occasionally caught in tuna purse-seines (S. Eckert,

pers. comm.). A small individual (about 15 cm carapace length) was captured in a purse-seine

in April 1976 about 180 nautical miles west of San José, Guatemala (11E03'N, 92E20'W)

(Robert Pitman, NMFS, pers. comm., 1991). Leatherbacks are found as far south as Chile

(Chiloé Island, ca. 42ES: Philippi 1899 in Pritchard 1980; 89 km west of Isla Mocha, 38E22'S,

176E06'W: Frazier and Brito Montero 1990). They are captured in large numbers incidental to

the Chilean swordfish fishery (Frazier and Brito Montero 1990).

Northwest Pacific: 

In the western Pacific the species is found as far north as the Bering Sea (Mys Navarin,

USSR, ca. 62EN) (Bannikov et al. 1971) and as far south as Tasmania and New Zealand

(Graham 1964; McCann 1969; Eggleston 1971). In China, Zhou (1983) documented 10 adult

and subadult leatherbacks (112- 135 cm carapace length, n=7) caught by the local fisheries

from the coastal waters of Jiangsu Province, 1980-1982. Several were captured in coastal

waters near Lüsi, one near Lianyungang Port (a city near the border with Shandong Province

to the north), and another one near Haimen, a delta city of the Yangtze River. Further to the

south, Frazier et al. (1988) examined nine adult and subadult specimens (mean=131.8 cm

CCL, range 115.5-152.5, n=7) captured in the waters of Fujian and Guangdong Provinces

during May-October; the largest and smallest specimens were both males.

In the waters of Korea, leatherbacks have been found near Mokp'o, Cholla Namdo

Province, South Korea (Doi 1936 in Shannon 1956) and off Pyongwon county, South Pyongan

Province, North Korea (Tong and Yon 1961 in Szyndlar 1991). Mao (1971) quotes fishermen

who say that the species is "frequently captured from October to March, and occasionally in

other months" in Taiwan; during the "prosperous season" two to five individuals (most >150 kg)

could be seen on the wharf in a single day. Multiple sightings have been documented in the

waters of Japan (Pritchard 1980; Uchida and Nishiwaki 1982), including a subadult (120 cm

straight carapace length [SCL]) that died after becoming entangled in a gill net off Hyogo

Prefecture (Balazs 1985). 

Adults are present at least seasonally in the waters of the South China Sea, as nesting

occurs in Malaysia and Indonesia (see Nesting Areas and Habits) and incidental catch in this

region has been documented (Aikanathan and Kavanagh 1988; Chan et al. 1988). Hundreds

of leatherbacks are accidentally caught each year in drift/gill nets set in the South China Sea

and north Pacific (Wetherall et al. 1993). 
12

Southwest Pacific: 

The leatherback is known to occur in Indonesia (very few data are available, see Polunin

and Nuitja 1982), Papua New Guinea (PNG), Australia, and New Zealand. After extensive

interviewing, Lockhart (1989) concluded that the leatherback is found in deep water off PNG,

particularly off the north coast, and was more abundant in the past than it is today. Limpus

and McLachlan (1979) report concentrations of non-nesting leatherbacks in inshore waters off

central eastern Australia, judging by incidental catch records from the shark netting industry;

sightings are infrequent inshore of the Great Barrier Reef and across northern Australia. 

Leatherbacks are also caught in shark nets in southeastern Australia, primarily during the

summer (December peak) (Limpus and McLachlan 1979). A number of immature specimens

have been seen in the Gulf of Carpentaria; "some are being caught in set nets (only a few in

trawls) but the magnitude is not known at this time" (J. Miller, in litt., 27 July 1992). Eggleston

(1971) summarized sightings from New Zealand and concluded that the species "may be a

regular visitor ... it is certainly the most frequently recorded New Zealand turtle."

 

South Central Pacific: 

Few quantitative data are available concerning the abundance or distribution of

leatherbacks in the insular Pacific. The leatherback is not typically associated with insular

habitats, particularly those characterized by coral reefs or other potentially injurious

surroundings, but individuals are occasionally encountered in deep water near prominent

archipelagoes, such as the Philippines (de Celis 1982). The species has been documented in

deep water near the Cook Islands (Brandon 1977 in Balazs 1982b) and two captures are

reported from French Polynesia (Fretey and Lebeau 1985; Fretey 1987).

F. Status 

The leatherback sea turtle is listed as Endangered throughout its entire range under the

U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Similarly, the species is classified

as Endangered in the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources'

(IUCN) Red Data Book, where taxa so classified are considered to be "in danger of extinction

and whose survival is unlikely if the causal factors continue operating" (Groombridge 1982). 

Leatherbacks are included in 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 permit 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 no commercial trade in leatherback sea turtles or their parts

or products at the present time (Milliken and Tokunaga 1987; Mack et al. 1982). Neither

Critical Habitat (under the aegis of the ESA) nor any protected areas have been established

for this species in the U.S. Pacific, largely because nesting is not known to occur and important

foraging areas have not been identified.

Leatherbacks are seriously declining at all major Pacific basin rookeries, including Irian

Jaya (Indonesia), Terengganu (Malaysia), and Michoacán (Mexico). At least 13,000

leatherback nests were reported in 1984 on 17.8 km of coast extending eastward from

Tanjung Jamursba on the Bird's Head Peninsula, Irian Jaya (Bhaskar 1985). In 1991, Betz
13

and Welch (1992) visited the site and reported that nesting levels had declined to a mere 25%

of those reported by Bhaskar; the near total collection of eggs has most certainly contributed to

the population's demise. Similarly, the beach at Rantau Abang, Terengganu, has experienced

a dramatic decline as a result of intensive egg collection. The data show a steady drop in

nesting activity from nearly 11,000 landings in 1956 to 6,721 landings in 1968 to 280 in 1990

(Hendrikson and Alfred 1961; Chua 1988; Mortimer, WWF-Malaysia, in litt., 29 August 1991). 

Almost 2,000 females were tagged at Terengganu in 1970, while fewer than 20 females

nested in 1993 (Limpus, 1995), largely as a result of intensive egg collection (see Status). 

Nesting does not occur in Sabah (de Silva 1982) or Sarawak (Leh 1985). In the case of

Mexiquillo, Michoacán, an estimated 4,796 nests were laid on 4.5 km of beach in 1986-1987

and approximately 1,074 nests were laid in 1989-1990 (L. Sarti M., UNAM, unpubl. data). It is

not yet clear whether the Mexican decline reflects natural fluctuation, but based on aerial

survey data of Sarti et al. 1996 a geographic shift in nesting is unlikely. This decline

represents a warning that the population is in serious jeopardy. Nevertheless, it is the

contention of those close to the situation that the population is in very serious danger of

collapse. Population declines have also been reported in India, Sri Lanka, and Thailand (see

Ross and Barwani 1982).

No attempt has yet been made to assess the status of foraging populations. Despite

occasional reports of leatherbacks sighted at sea, and a growing database documenting their

incidental catch in coastal and pelagic fisheries, there are very few areas where the species is

routinely encountered. Exceptions include Monterey Bay, California (Starbird et al. 1993) and

southern Queensland and central New South Wales, Australia (Limpus and McLachan 1979).

G. Biological Characteristics 

Migration and Movements

A suite of physiological adaptations allow adult leatherback sea turtles the most extensive

range of any extant reptile (71EN to 47ES; Pritchard and Trebbau 1984) (see Species

Description). In the western Atlantic, adults routinely migrate between boreal, temperate and

tropical waters, presumably to optimize both foraging and nesting opportunities (Bleakney

1965; Lazell 1980; Eckert and Eckert 1988). Similarly, the seasonal presence of adult females

at major eastern and western Pacific rookeries suggests that migration between nesting and

non-nesting areas may also be characteristic of Pacific stocks. The timing and routing of

reproductive migrations are unknown; however, eastern Pacific migratory corridors most likely

exist along the western seaboards of the United States and Mexico and, in the western Pacific,

along the eastern seaboards of the former Soviet Union and Asia, as well as the eastern

seaboard of Australia. Bustard (1972) reports "an important migration route ... down the east

coast of Australia judging by personal sightings and reports of capture in shark nets." 

Sightings along the coast of California peak in August, perhaps a reflection of adults moving

southward for winter breeding in Mexico. 

Post-nesting transoceanic travel (South America to Africa, minimum 5,900 km) is

documented by Pritchard (1973). The extent to which leatherbacks undertake transpacific

migrations is not known. Morreale et al. (1994) used satellite telemetry to monitor the

movements of six post-nesting leatherbacks in the Caribbean Sea and in the Pacific Ocean
14

and reported that nesting cohorts appear to share identical post-nesting migrational pathways. 

Similarly, recent studies suggest that females departing nesting beaches in Michoacán,

Mexico, follow specific oceanic corridors into pelagic habitats (S. Eckert, HSWRI and L. Sarti

M., UNAM, unpubl. data). The movements of males have not been studied.

Foraging Biology and Diet

Food habits are known primarily from the stomach samples of slaughtered animals and

consist largely of cnidarians (medusae, siphonophores) and tunicates (salps, pyrosomas)

found in temperate and boreal latitudes (Bleakney 1965; Brongersma 1969; Hartog and Nierop

1984; Davenport and Balazs 1991). Surface jellyfish feeding is reported in waters under U.S.

jurisdiction, especially off the western coast of the continental United States (e.g., Eisenberg

and Frazier 1983). Foraging may also occur at depth. Based on offshore studies of diving by

adult females nesting on St. Croix, Eckert et al. (1989) proposed that the observed internesting

dive behavior reflected nocturnal feeding within the deep scattering layer (strata comprised

primarily of vertically migrating zooplankton, chiefly siphonophore and salp colonies in the

Caribbean; Michel and Foyo 1976). Hartog (1980) speculated that foraging may occur at

depth after finding nematocysts from deep water siphonophores in leatherback stomach

samples.

No systematic study of foraging grounds has been initiated. There are clearly areas under

U.S. jurisdiction that are predictably frequented by leatherback turtles (such as Monterey Bay,

California), but specifically delineated resident feeding areas have not been identified. It has

been suggested that roughly one-half the global population of adult females nests on the west

coast of Mexico (Pritchard 1982a); if so, the waters off the west coast of the United States may

represent some of the most important foraging habitat in the entire world for the leatherback

turtle. It is certainly unfortunate that our present knowledge of foraging geography is based

solely on infrequent and often isolated reports of foraging animals (see Foraging Biology and

Diet). Nothing is known of the relative importance of various foraging habitats or the

distribution (or size) of "foraging populations" of any age class.

Growth

No data on the growth rate of juvenile leatherback turtles in the wild are available. The

distribution of juveniles is unknown, and thus specimens are not available for capturerecapture methodologies designed to measure growth. Research is further complicated by

poor survivability in captivity. With few exceptions, notably Bels et al. (1988), captive

individuals have not survived beyond two years. Captive growth data (e.g., Deraniyagala

1936b; Witham 1977) are widely disparate, but very rapid growth reported by some

investigators, coupled with evidence of chondro-osseous development conducive to rapid

growth, has led to speculations that leatherbacks may reach sexual maturity in two to three

years (Rhodin 1985). Bels et al. (1988) challenge this hypothesis in their report of a healthy

captive leatherback 1,200 days [3.28 yr] of age weighing only 28.5 kg, with a carapace 82 cm

in length. While leatherbacks may well grow to sexual maturity at an earlier age than other sea

turtles, it is clear that additional data, and especially studies of wild specimens, are needed

before growth rates can be estimated and age at maturity can be predicted.
15

Reproduction

Reproduction is seasonal and gravid females are believed to migrate long distances

between foraging and breeding grounds (see Migration and Movements), at intervals of

typically two or three years. In Mexico, the nesting season extends from November to

February, although some females arrive as early as August (Sarti et al. 1989b). In the western

Pacific, nesting peaks in May and June in China (Chu-Chien 1982), June and July in

peninsular Malaysia (Chan and Liew 1989), and December and January in Queensland

(Limpus et al. 1984). In the Caribbean Sea there is some evidence that mating takes place in

temperate latitudes prior to or during the reproductive migration (Eckert and Eckert 1988). 

Nesting is generally nocturnal. Preferred nesting beaches are typically on continental (as

opposed to island) shores and have unobstructed, often deep offshore access (Hirth 1980;

Mrosovsky 1983; Eckert 1987). The egg-laying sequence is composed of a beach landing, an

overland traverse to and selection of a suitable nest site, excavation of a body pit and nest

chamber, oviposition, filling the nest, covering and concealing the nest site, and returning to

the sea (Deraniyagala 1936b; Carr and Ogren 1959; Pritchard 1971). The sequence, from

landing to surf reentry, requires about 80-140 minutes.

In Mexico, females lay 1-11 clutches per season (mean = 5.7) at 9-10 day intervals, and

clutch size averages 64 yolked eggs (Sarti et al. 1987; Laura Sarti M., UNAM, unpubl. data.). 

Clutch size is somewhat larger in the western Pacific. In Terengganu, Malaysia, clutches are

composed, on average, of 85-95 yolked eggs (Chua and Furtado 1988). Similarly, clutch size

averages 83 yolked eggs in Pacific Australia (Limpus et al. 1984). In China, nesting peaks in

May and June, and 90-150 eggs are laid per clutch (Chu-Chien 1982). In addition to yolked

eggs, each clutch contains a complement of yolkless eggs. These sometimes comprise 50%

or more of total clutch size, a phenomenon which is unique among sea turtles. Yolkless eggs,

typically smaller than yolked eggs and in many cases misshapen, are generally deposited last;

their significance is unknown. In Mexico (Mexiquillo, Michoacán) and Australia (south

Queensland) yolked eggs average 5.3 cm in diameter (López and Sarti 1989; Limpus et al.

1984). Incubation lasts 55-75 days, depending on ambient temperature. Nest temperature

during incubation influences the sex of hatchlings. The "pivotal temperature" (ca. 1:1 sex ratio,

Mrosovsky and Yntema 1980) has been estimated to be 29.25E- 29.50EC in Suriname and

French Guiana (Mrosovsky et al. 1984; Dutton et al. 1985; Rimblot-Baly et al. 1986-1987).

Pivotal temperatures have not been defined for Pacific nesting sites. 

Hatchlings tunnel out of the nest in a cooperative activity which takes place over several

days. Emergence is typically at early evening. As with other sea turtle species, sea-finding

orientation is based largely on light, specifically the brightness differential between the open

ocean horizon and the darker vegetation to the landward side (Mrosovsky 1972, 1977). 

Nesting results vary widely, with the proportion of turtles hatching and the proportion of those

successfully emerging from the nest averaging 62.8% and 58.1%, respectively, in Mexiquillo

(Mexico) during the 1988-1989 season (Sarti et al. 1989b). In Mexiquillo, hatchlings measure

5.0-6.3 cm SCL (mean= 5.64 cm, n=2,800) and weigh 32.4-50.0 g (mean=41.2 g, n=2937)

(Laura Sarti M., UNAM, unpubl. data). Similarly, Queensland hatchlings measure 5.1-6.5 cm

SCL (mean=5.88 cm, n=39) and weigh 38.3- 54.2 g (mean= 46.86 g, n=39) (Limpus et al.

1984).

Offshore Behavior
16

Adults are highly migratory and difficult to study. Aside from the predictable arrival of

gravid females at nesting beaches, a few observations of foraging turtles, and a growing

database on incidental catch, offshore behavior in the Pacific remains undefined. Based

largely on evidence from the western Atlantic, we can assume that adults are primarily open

water in their distribution, that they feed on medusae, salps, siphonophores and related prey in

the water column and at the surface, and that at least the adult females engage in

reproductive migrations at two or three (or more) year intervals for the purpose of egg-laying in

tropical latitudes. Recent satellite-tracking studies at nesting beaches in Costa Rica and

Mexico indicate that females journey into pelagic waters after the nesting season ends (see

Migration and Movements). Leatherbacks were regularly captured in mid-Pacific waters by

pelagic driftnet fisheries (Wetherall et al. 1993). Mortality and survival statistics are

unavailable, and age at maturity and longevity have not been determined.

Nothing is known of the dispersal pattern of leatherback hatchlings from Pacific nesting

beaches. Comprehensive discussions of the early pelagic stage of sea turtle development

(the "lost year"), which include sightings of post-hatchling stage loggerhead, green, and

hawksbill turtles associated with Sargassum weed and convergence debris, do not mention

sightings of young Dermochelys (e.g., Carr 1987). Few immature leatherbacks are seen

anywhere in the world. A very young individual (about 15 cm carapace) was accidentally

captured in a tuna purse-seine some 180 nautical miles west of San José, Guatemala, in 1976

(Robert Pitman, pers. comm., 1991). Another juvenile (69.4 cm carapace length) was captured

near Satawal (Yap District, FSM) on 2 September 1972 and tagged and released (McCoy

1974). Larger juvenile size classes are reported from China's coastal waters (Zhou 1983;

Frazier et al. 1988) and Australia's Gulf of Carpentaria (see Insular and Pelagic Range). A

juvenile (42.7 cm CCL) was recently caught on a long-line off Swain's Atoll in American Samoa

(Grant 1994). With the exception of these isolated encounters, there are no data regarding

the abundance or distribution of juvenile leatherbacks in the Pacific. Mortality and survivorship

statistics are lacking, as is basic information on diet, growth rate, behavior, and movement of

juveniles.

Health Status

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

the Pacific Ocean has not been studied. As far as is known, the health status of this species is

good throughout its range.

H. Threats

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

followed by summaries of major threats in each U.S.-affiliated island group. A third section

then presents more detailed information specific to each island group.

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

turtles or impedes the recovery of their populations. Twenty-two kinds of threats have been

identified in this Recovery Plan, 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
17

island group was evaluated separately based on information received from the Recovery Team

and Technical Advisors. Table 2 lists the 11 threats in the marine environment and ranks their

significance. Definitions of the threats are provided in subsequent text.

When viewing Table 2, it should be recognized that there are limitations inherent in this

tabulation. First, generalizations are made. Some island groups, such as the Republic of

Palau, consist of over 500 islands; consequently, the data presented in Table 2 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

'Area-specific Threat Information'. Second, there are data limitations. For most islands,

information about turtle threats is sparse (see 'Pacific Synopsis'). Third, the categorization in

Table 2 of the extent of each threat, represents the seriousness of the threat within that

geopolitical area. Unfortunately it does not necessarily represent the seriousness of the

overall threat to the turtle stock. 

Pacific Synopsis

Lack of knowledge concerning the abundance and distribution of leatherbacks under U.S.

jurisdiction (particularly the northeastern Pacific) constitutes a threat, particularly since

important foraging areas have not been identified. Forage areas most likely exist in nearshore

and oceanic areas throughout the northeastern Pacific; however, these vital areas cannot be

given adequate protection until they have been identified. Despite recent legal protection of

animals at nesting beaches in Mexico, these populations continue to decline. The breeding

population origins and migratory habits of the leatherback turtles frequenting the waters of this

region are unknown. Threats to migrating turtles are therefore also unknown. This information

is important to determining their status and necessary for effective management. 

Regional Summaries

U.S. West Coast

Primary turtle threats: incidental take in fisheries

Incidental catch poses a threat in pelagic foraging and transit areas and the coastal

feeding grounds and migratory corridors that probably exist along the west coast of the United

States and south into Mexico. Entanglement and ingestion of marine debris, including old

abandoned nets, may continue to pose a threat to leatherbacks, which seem to have a talent

for seeking out and getting tangled in floating lines.
18

Hawaii

Primary turtle threats: incidental take in fisheries

The Hawaiian longline fishery poses the most important threat to leatherbacks, particularly

as fishing effort increases. Research must be undertaken to identify ways of reducing hooking

mortality and modifying techniques to avoid capture. 

 

American Samoa

Primary turtle threats: N/A

The reported presence of leatherbacks on American Samoa is very rare. One turtle was

killed by an experimental longline fishing boat (Grant 1994), but probably only represents a

random event.

Guam

Primary turtle threats: N/A

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

Republic of Palau

Primary turtle threats: N/A

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

Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI)

Primary turtle threats: N/A

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

Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI)

Primary turtle threats: N/A

There are no records of nesting by or at-sea sightings of leatherback turtles.
19

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)

Primary turtle threats: N/A

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

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

Primary turtle threats: incidental take in fisheries

There are known problems with incidental take in fisheries, but the extent of the problem is

unknown.
 

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 (#12-22) are included in this table.

 

bWake, Johnston, Kingman, Palmyra, Howland, Baker, and Jarvis islands

20

TABLE 2. Threat checklist for Codes 1 = major problem - = not current problem

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

U.S. 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.b

Marine Environment

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

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

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

15 Environmental

Contaminants

? ? - ? ? ? ? ? ?

16 Debris (entangle/ingest) P P - - - - - - -

17 Fisheries (incidental

take)

-domestic waters 1 1 - - - - - - P

-international 1 1 - - ? - ? ? P

18 Predation ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

19 Boat collisions - - - - - - - - -

20 Marina/dock

development

- - - - - - - - -

21 Oil

exploration/development

? - - - - - - - -

22 Power plant entrapment - - - - - - - - -
21

General Threat Information

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

Table 2. The first 11 threats pertain to the turtle's nesting environment, the latter 11 to the

marine environment.

Nesting Environment

While no leatherbacks nest in U.S. jurisdiction it is important that the United States

participate in restoration efforts of U.S. sea turtle stocks at their nesting beaches. Thus, we

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

managers 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. This category includes only the

harvest of sea turtles (typically nesting females) and their eggs on land. Harvest at sea is

discussed in a later section. (see Recovery - Section 1.1.1)

2. Increased Human Presence

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

expansion is exerting increasing pressure on limited resources. Threats to sea turtles include

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

human activities, beach camping and fires, an increase in litter and other refuse, and the

general harassment of turtles. Increasing human population densities also tend to increase

direct harvest of turtles and their eggs, further exacerbating population declines. Related

threats, such as coastal construction, associated with increasing human populations are

discussed separately. (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. Construction is occurring at a rapid rate and is resulting in a

loss of sea turtle nesting areas. This section discusses construction-related threats to the

region's sea turtle nesting beaches, including 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)
22

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)

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. Many of these problems can be exacerbated

by human development (ie. beach armoring, groins, jetties). (see Recovery - Section 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, 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
23

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)

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 - Section 1.2.5)

11. Beach Replenishment

The nourishment or replacement of beaches diminished by seawalls, storms, 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, and/or obstructing females coming ashore to nest by machinery, pipelines,

etc. (see Recovery - Section 1.2.4)

Marine Environment

12. Directed Take 

The harvest of juvenile and adult sea turtles for food or any other domestic or commercial

use constitutes a widespread threat to these species. In particular, the exploitation of large

juveniles and adults can accelerate the extinction of both local and regional stocks. This

category includes only the harvest of sea turtles at sea. Harvest on the nesting beach was

discussed in a previous section. 

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

past leatherbacks were occasionally killed as "sea monsters" (Stinson 1984). Off the coast of

Chile, Peru and Mexico leatherbacks are occasionally caught and their meat sold in local

markets. A subsistence fishery exists for leatherbacks in Indonesian waters (Starbird and

Suarez, 1994). (see Recovery - Section 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.

 (see Recovery - Sections 2.1.6, 2.1.7, 2.2.1, 2.2.2)
24

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. Stranded individuals have been found along the U.S.

coast, and the cause of death in many cases cannot be determined (Joe Cordaro, NMFS,

pers. comm.). (see Recovery - Section 2.1.6)

15. Environmental Contaminants

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

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

western United States although the impact of these contaminants on leatherbacks is unknown. 

(see Recovery - Section 2.2.3)

16. Debris (Entanglement and Ingestion)

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

survival of leatherback 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. For

instance, in December 1982, a large (682 kg) female became entangled at night two miles

offshore Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, in a "parachute anchor", dragging the boat for several hours

before being killed (Balazs 1985). They may also lose a limb or attract predators with their

struggling. Leatherback turtles will commonly ingest debris such as plastic bags, plastic

sheets, balloons, latex products and other refuse which they mistake for jellyfish, their

preferred food. Necropsies of stranded turtles have revealed mortalities due to ingested

garbage resulting in poisoning or obstruction of the esophagus. (see Recovery - Section

2.1.3)

17. Fisheries (Incidental Take)

It is clear that incidental catch poses a very great threat in pelagic foraging and transit

areas and the coastal feeding grounds and migratory corridors that probably exist along the

west coast of the United States and south into Mexico. Reports of incidental catch in the

eastern north Pacific include entaglement in gillnets off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and

California (Stick and Hreha 1989). Fishermen "regularly" catch leatherbacks in drift/gill nets off

Monterey Bay, central California (C. Starbird, pers. comm., 1991). A leatherback was killed in

October 1990 in a gillnet set in the Monterey Bay area (36E 55'N, 122E 40'W) (S.Eckert, pers.

comm.)

Leatherback turtles are accidentally taken in several commercial fisheries. Longlines and

active and abandoned driftnets (Anonymous 1935, 1958, 1967; Pritchard 1977; Balazs 1982a)

have a long history of ensnaring and killing leatherbacks in the central north Pacific. Data

collected by observers aboard pelagic squid driftnet vessels in 1989 identified nine of 22 turtles

caught as leatherbacks; only three survived their capture (Gjernes et al. 1990). Leatherbacks

are the most common species reported caught in longline fisheries between 1935-1982

(Balazs 1982a). Thirty two percent of the turtles reported captured by the Hawaiian longline

fisheries during the 1990-1994 observer program were leatherbacks (NMFS 1995). Skillman

and Balazs (1992) report that leatherbacks eat the squid baited on swordfish longline gear,
25

and suggest that the light sticks attached to longline gear to attract the fish may also attract

leatherbacks, that probably rely on bioluminescence to locate their prey (Davenport 1988). 

Most reports of leatherback turtle interactions with longline gear involve entanglement, most

likely due to their large flippers (Witzell 1984). Recently a juvenile leatherback was reported to

have been hooked by its front flipper and killed near American Samoa (Grant 1994). In the

southeastern Pacific leatherbacks are commonly caught by the swordfish fishery in Chilean

waters (Frazier and Brito Montero 1990). Leatherbacks tagged on nesting beaches in Mexico

and Costa Rica have also been drowned by purse seine and gillnets as far south as Chile

(Chandler 1991; Montero 1995). The predicted take based on current fishing effort by the

Hawaiian longline fisheries is 271 leatherbacks, of which 41 are expected to die (NMFS 1995). 

While this number seems relatively low, in the context of the dramatic decline in nesting

populations in Mexico and Malaysia, there is cause for serious concern. Hooking mortality for

sea turtles is not well understood (Balazs and Pooley, 1994), and the effects will undoubtedly

be greater as fishing effort increases. In addition, there are indications that an increasing

number of Asian longline tuna vessels are operating in the Pacific. Estimated annual

incidental take of turtles by the Japanese longline fleet in 1978 in the western Pacific and

South China Sea was very high (Nishemura and Nakahigashi, 1990). If these estimates are

accurate and it is assumed that a significant proportion of the turtles caught are leatherbacks,

the cumulative effect of longline fisheries in the Pacific may be devastating to this species. 

(see Recovery - Section 2.1.4)

18. Predation

Large coastal and pelagic sharks and killer whales are common in the northeastern Pacific

and pose an unknown, though potential threat to adults and juvenile turtles. Killer whales are

known to kill adults in Mexican waters (Sarti et al. 1991). Predation on hatchlings is believed to

be relatively high and the species most often implicated are coastal and pelagic sharks. 

19. Boat Collisions

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. (see

Recovery - Sections 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.7)

20. Marina and Dock Development

The development of marina and docking facilities pose direct and indirect threats to sea

turtles. Direct consequences can be seen when foraging grounds and nesting beaches are

dredged or otherwise permanently altered in the process of construction and maintenance. 

Altered current patterns and increased levels of ship traffic, pollution, and general activity

which displace or injure local sea turtles constitute indirect consequences that should also be

considered. (see Recovery - Sections 1.2.1, 2.2)

21. 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 from bilge pumping and disastrous oil

spills. Oil spills resulting from blow-outs, ruptured pipelines, or tanker accidents, can result in
26

death to sea turtles. Indirect consequences include destruction of foraging habitat by drilling,

anchoring, and pollution. While oil exploration is currently limited by regulation in U.S. waters,

recent proposals to allow drilling on the California coast are cause for concern. Any such

exploration should be carefully evaluated for impact to leatherback populations before such

explorations are undertaken. 

22. Power Plant Entrapment 

Entrapment in the water intake mechanisms of power generating facilities can result in

death to sea turtles of all size classes. There are no known incidences of power plant

entrapment of leatherbacks.
27

I. Conservation Accomplishments

The Pacific coast of Mexico is a critical area for the reproduction of the leatherback turtle

(Dermochelys coriacea), which is listed as an endangered species in Mexico's official

government publication (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 1994). The first report of leatherback

nesting in the Mexican Pacific (Marquez 1976) reported that San Juan Chacahua, Oaxaca,

was an important reproductive area for this species. In 1981, the same author reported Tierra

Colorada, Guerrero and Playon de Mexiquillo, Michoacan as major rookeries. Pritchard

(1982a) concluded that the stretch of coast from Maruata, Mich. to the Tehuantepec Isthmus in

Oaxaca, supported the largest leatherback nesting population in the world. Information on the

rest of the Pacific coast of Mexico is scarce, with a few isolated reports of leatherbacks nesting

in Baja California (Marquez et al. 1981; Fritz et al. 1982; Marquez and Carrasco, 1993). Today

four major nesting beaches are recognized in the Mexican Pacific coast: Mexiquillo,

Michoacan; Tierra Colorada, Guerrero; Chacahua and Barra de la Cruz, Oaxaca. The first

three were established as Sea Turtle Reserve Areas in 1986.

Since the early reports, the need for the establishment of conservation programs intended

to protect the leatherback was clearly recognized, as egg poaching was common practice in

the nesting areas. Female turtles were not killed for meat, but occasionally fishermen would kill

an adult leatherback to use it as shark bait. Also, adults were entangled in trammel nets

placed in front of the beaches.

Mexiquillo and Chacahua beaches received the first conservation efforts, prior to 1983, and

later Barra de la Cruz, Oaxaca in 1990. For Tierra Colorada, in spite of being reported as one

of the most important nesting areas, conservation efforts have been irregular. The main tasks

of these programs have been the relocation of eggs to protected areas and protection and

tagging of nesting females. The number of protected nests has reached 90% at each beach

per season.

Some of the projects have research programs designed to yield information on biological

aspects of the leatherback and they involve conservation groups supported by government

institutions, universities and non-government organizations. 

Although information on the number of nestings per season doesn't exist for all the

leatherback nesting beaches and for all the years, the groups working for different institutions

in each beach, have recently established a regular information exchange to enable a

comprehensive view of nesting along the entire coast. 

Mexiquillo is the only rookery in the Mexican Pacific which has maintained continuous

monitoring of the nesting and number of females for over 12 years. The project (managed by

Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM) has recorded fluctuations in the number of nestings each

season, however the data indicates a declining trend. The most drastic decline in the nesting

at Mexiquillo occurred in the 1993-94 season, in which 78 nests were estimated (Sarti et al.

1994). A similar phenomenon was observed also in Chacahua (43 nestings, Alvarado-Padilla

et al. 1994) and Barra de la Cruz (C. Peñaflores, pers. comm.). The causes of this decline are

not known, but Sarti et al. in 1994 attributed the decline to:
28

a) Natural fluctuations in the reproductive biology of this species.

b) Displacement of the females to unknown nesting areas.

c) Poor recruitment to population caused by egg poaching in previous years.

d) Unsuitable environmental conditions affecting the reproductive capability of the females.

e) A real decrease in the nesting population, caused by incidental capture or poaching of

adult females.

During the 1994-95 season a slight rebound in nesting activity occurred with over 400

nestings estimated in Mexiquillo (Sarti et al. 1996), 341 in Barra de la Cruz (Sandoval and

Vazquez 1995) and 196 in Chacahua (Alvarado-Padilla et al. 1995). 

Continuing research into effective population size, age to sexual maturity, sex ratio in

natural populations, phylopatry, etc. are underway and are fundamental for the proper

establishment of conservation programs. The group from Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, has

conducted several research projects on this species, obtaining basic data on the females size,

general conditions of the females, clutch size, hatching success and number of nests.

Additionally, research on nesting frequency, fertility, tag lost rate, effects of incubation

temperature on hatching success and sex ratio, diving behavior and internesting movements

has been accomplished. Other projects include research of efficiency of nest relocation

techniques, effects of physicochemical characteristics of sand on the development and the

presence of pollutants in sand, sea water and eggshells.
29

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

on reasonable geographic parameters. 

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

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

3) Nesting populations at "source beaches" are either stable or increasing over a 25 year

monitoring period.

4) Existing foraging areas are maintained as healthy environments. 

5) Foraging populations are exhibiting statistically significant increases at several key

foraging grounds within each stock region.

6) All Priority #1 tasks have been implemented. 

7) A management plan designed to maintain sustained populations of turtles is in place.

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.

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.
30

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. Pacific 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 leatherbacks in the U.S. Pacific,

we strongly advocate that the United States financially and logistically support the efforts of

Mexico, Malaysia, Indonesia, PNG and other Pacific nations with nesting grounds to

preserve their leatherback populations. The following tasks may be used as guidelines to

enhance the reproductive success of sea turtle populations at their 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 protective 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 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.
31

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 such as the Polynesian Rat (Rattus exulans), 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.

1.1.5.1 Monitor nesting activity to identify important nesting beaches, determine number

of nesting females, and determine population trends.
32

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. 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 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.

Because nesting populations can form the basis for stock management,

it is important to be able to pair juvenile and subadult turtles with their
33

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 leatherback

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 can also contribute to forensics and law

enforcement. (see Section 2.1.1) 

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

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.
34

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 leatherback 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. This is particularly significant for the leatherback in U.S. jurisdiction.

2.1.1 Eliminate directed take of turtles.

There is no known directed take in U.S. waters however there are still Chilean,

Peruvian and Mexican meat harvests. Direct take of turtles is identified as a threat to

population recovery in the Pacific Ocean and must be eliminated if sea turtles are to

recover.

2.1.1.1 Reduce directed take of turtles through public education and information.
35

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. 

2.1.1.2 Maintain the enforcement of protective laws on the part of law enforcement and

the courts.

One of the major threats identified for turtle populations in the Pacific is the

illegal harvest of turtles both on the nesting beach and in the water. Rigorous

efforts in law enforcement should be undertaken immediately to reduce this

source of mortality. Such efforts need to include training of enforcement

personnel in the importance of protecting turtles, as well as supplying such

personnel with adequate logistical support (boats, communication and

surveillance equipment etc.). Judges and prosecutors must also be educated in

the importance of these matters. 

2.1.2 Determine distribution, abundance, and status in the marine environment.

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 leatherback

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 leatherback 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

leatherback, even less is understood about distribution of foraging adult and

juvenile populations. Quantitative surveys of foraging areas to determine

leatherback abundance, and to identify essential habitat are of significant

importance for restoration of leatherback populations.

2.1.2.2 Determine adult (male and female) migration routes and internesting

movements.

Like all species of sea turtle (with the possible exception of the Flatback turtle,

Natator depressus), leatherbacks 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 leatherbacks follow between nesting and foraging areas. 

Satellite telemetry studies of both males and females are needed. For U.S.
36

recovery efforts, determination of migratory movements and foraging areas

represent highest priority.

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. This is especially

true for leatherbacks for which the least information on growth is available. 

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 stage based 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 leatherback 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 leatherbacks. Studies on

such threats should be undertaken immediately.

2.1.3 Reduce the effects of entanglement and ingestion of marine debris.

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 leatherbacks ingest persistent debris and become

entangled.

Quantification of the extent to which leatherbacks 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.
37

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 severe threat. These

mortalities are associated with international fleets operating on the high seas

and fisheries in coastal 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 fisherman 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. Genetic studies are a valuable tool to identify the nesting

stocks being impacted by fisheries in forage areas or migratory corridors. 

2.1.4.2 Reduce incidental mortality in the commercial and recreational fisheries.

 Efforts to reduce mortality induced by fisheries include gear modifications or

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 less turtle attractive gear. Technological improvements

to fishing gear, such as the development of Turtle Excluder Devices (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.

Not applicable to leatherbacks.

2.1.6 Study the impact of diseases on turtles.
38

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 leatherbacks. 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 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 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 turtles which have carried identification tags for many years. 

Conventional flipper tags generally only last 2 or 3 years in leatherbacks, and other

forms of identification, such as Passive Integrated Transponders (PITs) and

photoidentification are more appropriate for long-term projects (McDonald and Dutton,

In Press). 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.

Leatherbacks are primarily pelagic, although they often enter nearshore waters. Human

activities which degrade important leatherback habitat must be limited.

2.2.1 Identify important marine habitats.
39

These areas are virtually unknown for this species and represent a high priority

research need. (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

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 Prevent the degradation of marine habitat caused by environmental contaminants such

as sewage and other pollutants.

The effect of such pollution on leatherbacks has not been evaluated. However,

leatherbacks are likely prone to concentrating such contaminants within their tissues

because of their position in the food web.

2.2.4 Prevent the degradation or destruction of important habitats caused by upland and

coastal erosion and siltation. 

These processes, often made worse by coastal construction, disrupt 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.

3 ENSURE PROPER CARE IN CAPTIVITY.

Not an issue for leatherback turtles which have proven to be impossible to rear in captivity.

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 leatherbacks 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
40

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 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 which provide connecting

legs for travelers to the areas where leatherbacks occur.

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.
41

III. REFERENCES CITED

Aikanathan, S., and M. Kavanagh. 1988. The effects of fishing on leatherback turtles. WWFMalaysia Report, Kuala Lumpur. 9 pp.

Alvarado, J., and A. Figueroa. 1990. The ecological recovery of sea turtles of Michoacán,

Mexico. Special attention: The black turtle, Chelonia agassizi. Final Report 1989-1990

submitted to the U.S. FWS and W.W.F. - U.S.A. 97 pp. + tables/figs.

Alvarado-Padilla, J.C., G.H. Cruz R., and G. Sanchez S. 1995. Informe final del Programa

Nacional de Proteccion y Conservacion de Tortugas Marinas en Chacahua, Oax.

Pages 94-95 in Memorias de resúmenes del XII Encuentro Interuniversitario y II

Internacional para la Conservacion de las Tortugas Marinas. Centro Mexicano de la

Tortuga. Mazunte, Oax. del 12 al 16 de junio de 1995.

Alvarado-Padilla, J.C., I. Rojas-Silva, H. Cruz-Reyes, and G. Sánchez-Sandoval. 1994. 

Informe final del Programa Nacional de Protección y Conservación de Tortugas

Marinas en Chacahua, Oax., Pages 93-94 in Memorias de resúmenes del XI Encuentro

Interuniversitario sobre Tortugas Marinas, celebrado en San Patricio-Melaque, Jalisco,

México del 12 al 18 de junio de 1994.

Anonymous. 1967. 764-pound turtle caught. The Honolulu Advertiser, 17 November.

Anonymous. 1958. Aquarium gets rare turtle. Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 30 May (B section),

p.17.

Anonymous. 1935. 445-pound turtle caught by sampan. Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 8 April, p.3.

Balazs, G.H. 1973. Status of marine turtles in the Hawaiian Islands. 'Elepaio [J. Hawaii

Audubon Soc.] 33(12):1-5.

Balazs, G.H. 1975. Marine turtles in the Phoenix Islands. Atoll Res. Bull. 184:1-7.

Balazs, G. H. 1982a. Driftnets catch leatherback turtles. Oryx 16(5):428-430.

Balazs, G.H. 1982b. 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. 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. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFC54. 582 pp.
42

Balazs, G.H. and S.G. Pooley. 1994. Research plan to assess marine turtle hooking mortality:

Results of an expert workshop held in Honolulu, Hawaii, November 16-18, 1993. U.S.

Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-201, 166 pp.

Bannikov, A.G., I.S. Darevsky, and A.K. Rustamov. 1971. Zemnovodni i presmikaushchienya

USSR. Izdatelistvo "Misl", Moscow. 304 pp.

Bels, V., F. Rimblot-Baly, and J. Lescure. 1988. Croissance et maintien en captivité de la

Tortue Luth, Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli 1761). Revue fr. Aquariol. 15(1988)2:59-

64.

Betz, W., and M. Welch. 1992. Once thriving colony of leatherback sea turtles declining at

Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 56:8-9.

Bhaskar, S. 1985. Mass nesting by leatherbacks in Irian Jaya. WWF Monthly Report, January

1985:15-16.

Bickham, J.W. and J.L. Carr. 1983. Taxonomy and phylogeny of the higher categories of

cryptodiran turtles based on a cladistic analysis of chromosomal data. Copeia

1983:918-932.

Blainville, H.M. de. 1816. Prodrome d’une nouvelle distribution systematique de regne animal. 

Reptiles. Bull. Sci. Soc. Philom. Paris (111):119.

Bleakney, J. S. 1965. Reports of marine turtles from New England and eastern Canada. Can.

Field Nat. 79:120-128.

Bowen, B.W., W.S. Nelson and J.C. Avise. 1993. A molecular phylogeny for marine turtles:

trait mapping, rate assessment, and conservation relevance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

USA 90: 5574-5577.

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. 1969. Miscellaneous notes on turtles. IIA, IIB. Proc. Koninkl. Nederl. Akad.

van Wetenschappen -- Amsterdam. Ser. C, 72(1):76-102.

Brueggeman, J.J. (ed.). 1991. Oregon and Washington Marine Mammal and Seabird

Surveys. OCS Study MMS 91-000 (contract 14-12-0001-30426). Pacific OCS Region,

Minerals Mgmt. Serv., Los Angeles. U.S. Dept. Interior. Draft Report.

Bustard, H.R. 1972. Australian Sea Turtles: Their Natural History and Conservation. Collins,

London. 220 pp.

Carr, A.F. 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. Cons. Biol.

1(2):103-121.
43

Carr, A., and L. Ogren. 1959. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 3. Dermochelys in

Costa Rica. Amer. Mus. Novitates 1958:1-29.

Chan, E.H., and H.C. Liew. 1989. The leatherback turtle: a Malaysian heritage. Tropical Press

Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 49 pp.

Chan, E.H., H.C. Liew, and A.G. Mazlan. 1988. The incidental capture of sea turtles in fishing

gear in Terengganu, Malaysia. Biol. Cons. 43:1-7.

Chandler, M. 1991. New records of sea turtles in Chile. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 52:8-11

Chen, B.Y., and S.H. Mao. 1981. Hemoglobin fingerprint correspondence and relationships of

turtles. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 68B:497-503.

Chen, B.Y., S.H. Mao, and Y.H. Ling. 1980. Evolutionary relationships of turtles suggested by

immunological cross-reactivity of albumins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 66B:421-425.

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 Institution Press,

Washington, D. C. 583 pp.

Chua, T.H. 1988. On the road to local extinction: the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys

coriacea) in Terengganu, Malaysia. Pages 153-158 in A. Sasekumar, R. D'Cruz, and S.

Lim Lee Hong (eds.), Proc. 11th Annual Seminar Malay. Soc. Mar. Sci. Univ. Malaya,

Kuala Lumpur.

Chua, T.H., and J.I. Furtado. 1988. Nesting frequency and clutch size in Dermochelys

coriacea in Malaysia. J. Herpetol. 22(2):208-218.

Cliffton, K., D.O. Cornejo, and R.S. Felger. 1982. Sea turtles of the Pacific coast of Mexico,

p.199-209 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian

Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Cornelius, S.E. 1982. Status of sea turtles along the Pacific coast of Middle America. Pages

211-219 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian

Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Cornelius, S.E. 1986. The sea turtles of Santa Rosa National Park. Fundación de Parques

Nacionales Costa Rica. 64 pp.

Crouse, O.T., Crowder, L.B. and Cashell, M. 1987. A stage based population model for

loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecology 68(5):1412-1423.

Cruz, L., L. Sarti M., A. Villaseñor G., B. Jimenez A., M. Robles D. and T. Ruiz M. 1987. I

Informe de trabajo "Investigación y Conservación de las tortugas laúd (Dermochelys

coriacea) en Mexiquillo, Michoacán", temporada de anidacion 1984-1985. Annual
44

Report, Sec. Desarrollo Urbano Ecol. (SEDUE), Sub-delegacion Ecologia, Michoacan.

45 pp.

Davenport, J. 1988. Do diving leatherbacks pursue glowing jelly? Br. Herp. Soc. Bull. 

24:20-21.

Davenport, J., and G.H. Balazs. 1991. 'Fiery bodies' -- are pyrosomas an important

component of the diet of leatherback turtles? Brit. Herp. Soc. Bull. 31:33-38.

Davenport, J., D.L. Holland, and J. East. 1990. Thermal and biochemical characteristics of

the lipids of the leatherback, Dermochelys coriacea: evidence of endothermy. J. Mar.

Biol. Assoc. U.K. 70:33-41.

de Celis, N.C. 1982. The status of research, exploitation, and conservation of marine turtles

in the Philippines. Pages 323-326 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of

Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D. C. 583 pp.

de Silva, G.S. 1982. The status of sea turtle populations in East Malaysia and the South

China Sea. Pages 327-337 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea

Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D. C. 583 pp.

Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1932. Notes on the development of the leathery turtle, Dermochelys

coriacea. Ceylon J. Sci. (B) Zool. Geol. Spoila Zeylanica 17:73-102.

Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1936a. Some post-natal changes in the leathery turtle, Dermochelys

coriacea. Ceylon J. Sci. (B) Zool. Geol. Spoila Zeylanica 19:225-239.

Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1936b. The nesting habit of the leathery turtle, Dermochelys coriacea.

Ceylon J. Sci. (B) Zool. Geol. Spoila Zeylanica 19(3):331-337.

Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1994. Norma oficial mexicana NOM-059-ECOL-1994, que

determina las especies y subespecies de flora y fauna silvestres terrestres y acuáticas

en peligro de extinción, amenazadas, raras y las sujetas a protección especial, y que

establece especificaciones para su protección. Tomo CDLXXXVIII No. 10. 16 de mayo

de 1994.

 Díaz, I. 1994. Protección e investigación de algunos aspectos biológicos y reproductivos de

las tortugas marinas en la zona sur de la costa michoacana. Temporada 1993-94.

Informe final de Servicio Social. Facultad de Ciencias, U.N.A.M. Mexico. 18 pp.

Dohl, T.P., R.C. Guess, M.L. Duman, and R.C. Helm. 1983. Cetaceans of central and

northern California, 1980-1983: status, abundance, and distribution. Contract report to

Minerals Mgmt. Serv., U.S. Dept. Interior. 269 pp.

Doi, H. 1936. On a leathery turtle from the sea near Korea. Jour. Chosen Nat. Hist. Soc.

21:109-112.
45

Dunlap, C.E. 1955. Notes on the visceral anatomy of the giant leatherback turtle

(Dermochelys coriacea, L.). Bull. Tulane Med. Faculty 14(2):55-69.

Dutton, P.H. 1995. Molecular evolution of sea turtles with special reference to the

leatherback, Dermochelys coriacea. PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College

Station, TX, 137 pp.

Dutton, P.H., S.K. Davis, and D.W. Owens. 1994. Genetic population survey of leatherbacks

based on mtDNA. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle

Biology and Conservation, 1-5 March 1994, Hilton Head, South Carolina.

Dutton, P.H., C.P. Whitmore and N. Mrosovsky. 1985. Masculinisation of leatherback turtle,

Dermochelys coriacea hatchlings from eggs incubated in styrofoam boxes. Biol. Cons.

31:249-264.

Dutton, P.H., S.K. Davis, T. Guerra, and D.W. Owens. 1996. Molecular phylogeny for marine

turtles based on sequences of the ND4-leucine tRNA and control regions of

mitochondrial DNA. Mol. Phylogenet. Evolution 5:511-521. 

Eckert, K.L. 1987. Environmental unpredictability and leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys

coriacea) nest loss. Herpetologica 43(3):315-323. 

Eckert, K.L. 1993. The biology and population status of marine turtles in the north Pacific

Ocean. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-186. 156 pp.

Eckert, K.L. and S.A. Eckert. 1988. Pre-reproductive movements of leatherback sea turtles

(Dermochelys coriacea) nesting in the Caribbean. Copeia 1988:400-406.

Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, P. Ponganis, and G.L. Kooyman. 1989. Diving and foraging

behavior of leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Can. J. Zool. 67:2834-

2840.

Eggleston, D. 1971. Leathery turtle (Reptilia: Chelonia) in Foveaux Strait (Note). New Zeal. J.

Mar. Freshw. Res. 5(3-4):522-523.

Eisenberg, J.F. and J. Frazier. 1983. A leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) feeding in

the wild. J. Herpetol. 17:81-82.

Engbring, J., N. Idechong, C. Cook, G. Wiles, and R. Bauer. 1992. Observations on the

defensive and aggressive behavior of the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys

coriacea) at sea.

Frair, W. 1979. Taxonomic relations among sea turtles elucidated by serological tests.

Herpetologica 35:239-244.

Frair, W. 1982. Serum electrophoresis and sea turtle classification. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.

72B:1-4.
46

Frair, W., R.G. Ackman, and N. Mrosovsky. 1972. Body temperature of Dermochelys

coriacea: warm turtle from cold water. Science 177:791-793.

Frazier, J.G., and J.L. Brito Montero. 1990. Incidental capture of marine turtles by the

swordfish fishery at San Antonio, Chile. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 49:8-13.

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.

Fretey, J. 1987. Nouvelle capture d'une tortue luth (Dermochelys coriacea) en Polynésie

française. Bull. Soc. Herp. Fr. 41:28-29.

Fretey, J., and A. Lebeau. 1985. Capture d'une tortue luth, Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli,

1761) en Polynésie française. Bull. Soc. Herp. Fr. 33:37-42.

Fritts, T.H., M.L. Stinson, and R. Márquez M. 1982. Status of sea turtle nesting in southern

Baja California, México. Bull. South. Calif. Acad. Sci. 81(2):51-60.

Gaffney, E.S. 1975. A phylogeny and classification of the higher categories of turtles. Bull.

Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 155:397-436.

Gaffney, E.S. 1984. Historical analysis of theories of Chelonian relationship. Syst. Zool.

33:283-301.

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. NMFS/U.S.F.W.S.

Goff, G.P., and G.B. Stenson. 1988. Brown adipose tissue in leatherback sea turtles: a

thermogenic organ in an endothermic reptile? Copeia 1988:1071-1074.

Graham, J. 1964. The North Otago Shelf Fauna. Part IV. Chordata, Classes Reptilia, Aves,

Mammalia. Trans. Roy. Soc. New Zealand (Zool.) 4:135-138.

Grant, G.S. 1994. Juvenile leatherback turtle caught by longline fishing in American Samoa.

Mar. Turtle Newsl. 66:3-5.

Greer, A.E., J.D. Lazell, and R.M. Wright. 1973. Anatomical evidence for counter-current heat

exchanger in the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Nature 244:181.

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.
47

Hartog, J.C. den. 1980. Notes on the food of sea turtles: Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus)

and Dermochelys coriacea (Linnaeus). Neth. J. Zool. 30(4):595-610.

Hartog, J.C. den, and M.M. van Nierop. 1984. A study on the gut contents of six leathery

turtles, Dermochelys coriacea (Linnaeus) (Reptilia: Testudines: Dermochelyidae) from

British waters and from the Netherlands. Zool. Verh. 209 (1984):1-36.

Hendrickson, J. R. and Alfred, E. R. 1961. Nesting populations of sea turtles on the east

coast of Malaya Bull. Raffles Mus. Singapore. 26: 190-196 

Hirth, H.F. 1980. Some aspects of the nesting behavior and reproductive biology of sea

turtles. Amer. Zool. 20(3):507-523.

Hodge, R.P. 1979. Dermochelys coriacea schlegeli (Pacific leatherback) USA: Alaska. Herp.

Rev. 10(3):102.

Kamezaki, N. 1989. The nesting sites of sea turtles in the Ryukyu Archipelago, Japan and

Taiwan. Pages 342-348 in M. Matsui, T. Hikida and R.C. Goris (eds.), Current

Herpetology in East Asia. Herpetol. Soc. Japan, Kyoto. 521 pp.

Lazell, J. 1980. New England waters: critical habitat for marine turtles. Copeia 1980:290-295.

Leh, C. 1985. Marine turtles in Sarawak. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 35:1-3.

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. 1995. Global overview of the status of marine turtles: A 1995 viewpoint. Pages

605-609 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles (Revised

Edition), Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 615 pp.

Limpus, C.J., and N.C. McLachlan. 1979. Observations on the leatherback turtle,

Dermochelys coriacea (L.), in Australia. Aust. Wildl. Res. 6:105-116.

Limpus, C.J., N.C. McLachlan, and J.D. Miller. 1984. Further observations on breeding of

Dermochelys coriacea in Australia. Aust. Wildl. Res. 11:567-571.

Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systemae Naturae. Tomus 1, Pars 1, Regnum animale. 12th edition.

Laurentii Salvii, Stockholm, Holmiae.

Lockhart, R. 1989. Marine turtles of Papua New Guinea. PNG Univ. Technol., Dept.

Mathematics and Statistics Report No. 1-89. 88 pp. + append.

Logier, E.B.S., and G.C. Toner. 1961. Check list of the Amphibians and Reptiles of Canada

and Alaska. Royal Ontario Mus., Life Sci. Div., Contribution No. 53:55-56.
48

López S., C., and L. Sarti M. 1989. Evaluación de algunos aspectos poblacionales,

biológicos y de conservación de la tortuga golfina Lepidochelys olivacea y la tortuga

laúd Dermochelys coriacea en la zona sur del Estado de Michoacán. Temporada 1988-

1989. Informe final de Biología de Campo. Facultad de Ciencias, U.N.A.M. Mexico City.

López C., L. Sarti, and N. Garcia. 1992. Estudio de las poblaciones de tortugas marinas 

Lepidochelys olivacea (golfina) y Dermochelys coriacea (laúd) con enfasis en aspectos

conductuales y reproductivos en la Playon de Mexiquillo, Michoacán. Temporada 1991-

92. Informe final de Biología de Campo. Facultad de Ciencias, U.N.A.M. Mexico. 140

pp.

López C., L. Sarti, and N. Garcia. 1991. Las tortugas marinas de la costa sur del Estado de

Michoacán. Temporada 1990-91. Informe final de Biología de Campo. Facultad de

Ciencias, U.N.A.M. Mexico. 101 pp.

López C., L. Sarti, and N. Garcia. 1990. Situatión actual de las pesquerías de las

poblaciones de tortuga golfina Lepidochelys olivacea y la tortuga laúd Dermochelys

coriacea en la zona sur del Estado de Michoacán. Temporada 1989-90. Informe final

de Biología de Campo. Facultad de Ciencias, U.N.A.M. Mexico. 89 pp.

Lowe, C.H., Jr., and K.S. Norris. 1955. Measurements and weight of a Pacific leatherback

turtle, Dermochelys coriacea schlegeli, captured off San Diego, California. Copeia

1955:256.

Lyster, S. 1985. International 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.

MacAskie, I.B., and C.R. Forrester. 1962. Pacific leatherback turtles (Dermochelys) off the

coast of British Columbia. Copeia 1962:646.

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.

Mao, S.H. 1971. Turtles of Taiwan: a natural history of the turtles. The Commercial Press,

Ltd. Taipei, Taiwan. 128 pp.

Márquez M., R. 1976. Reservas naturales para la conservacion de las tortugas marinas en

México. Inst. Nac. Pesca, México, Ser. Informacion 83:1-21.

Márquez, M., R., and M.A. Carrasco A. 1993. Resúmen de playas de anidación de tortugas

marinas, reservas naturales y actividades de conservación. Programa Nacional de

Investigación y Manejo de Tortugas Marinas. INP. CRIP-Manzanillo. Manzanillo, Col.

Reporte interno. 21 pp.
49

Márquez M., R., A. Villanueva, and C. Peñaflores. 1981. Anidación de la Tortuga Laúd

Dermochelys coriacea schlegelli en el Pacífico mexicano. Ciencia Pesquera 1(1):45-52

INP, México.

McCann, C. 1969. First southern hemisphere record of the platylepadine barnacle,

Stomatolepas elegans (Costa), and notes on the host, Dermochelys coriacea (Linné).

New Zealand J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 3:152-158.

McCoy, M.A. 1974. Man and turtle in the Central Carolines. Micronesica 10(2):207-221.

McDonald, D.L., and P.H. Dutton. 1996 (In Press). Use of PIT tags and photoidentification to

revise remigration estimates of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in St. Croix,

U.S. Virgin Islands, 1979-1995. Chelonian Conservation and Biology.

Medrano, L., M. Dorizzi, F. Rimblot, and C. Pieau. 1987. Karyotypes of the sea turtle

Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli, 1761). Amph.-Rept. 8(1987):171-178.

Michel, H.B., and M. Foyo. 1976. Caribbean zooplankton, Part I. Dept. Defense, Navy Dept.,

Office of Naval Research. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

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.

Montero, J.L.B. 1995. The first sea turtle tagging efforts in Chile. Marine Turtle Newsletter

68: 18-19.

Morreale, S.J., E.A. Standora, F.V. Paladino, and J.R. Spotila. 1994. Leatherback migrations

along deepwater bathymetric contours. Pages 109-110 in B.A. Schroeder and B.E.

Witherington (compilers), Proc. Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology

and Conservation. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-341. 341

pp.

Mrosovsky, N. 1972. The water-finding ability of sea turtles: behavioral studies and

physiological speculation. Brain Behav. Evol. 5:202-225.

Mrosovsky, N. 1977. Individual differences in the sea-finding mechanism of hatching

leatherback turtles. Brain Behav. Evol. 14:261-273.

Mrosovsky, N. 1983. Ecology and nest-site selection of leatherback turtles, Dermochelys

coriacea. Biol. Cons. 26:47-56.

Mrosovsky, N., and P.C.H. Pritchard. 1971. Body temperatures of Dermochelys coriacea and

other sea turtles. Copeia 1971:624-631.

Mrosovsky, N., and C.L. Yntema. 1980. Temperature dependence of sexual differentiation in

sea turtles: implications for conservation practices. Biol. Cons. 18:271-180.
50

Mrosovsky, N., P.H. Dutton, and C.P. Whitmore. 1984. Sex ratios of two species of sea

turtles nesting in Suriname. Can. J. Zool. 62:2227-2239.

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.

Neill, W.H., and E.D. Stevens. 1974. Thermal inertia versus thermoregulation in "warm"

turtles and tunas. Science 184:1008-1010.

Nick, L. 1912. Das Kopfskelett von Dermochelys coriacea. Zool. Jahrb. Abt. Anat. 33:1-238.

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.

Pejabat, P.N., and K.T. Siow. 1977. Observations on the exploitation of turtles in the

Philippines. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 3:7.

Philippi, R.A. 1899. Las tortugas chilenas. An. Univ. Chile 104:727-736.

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. 1971. The leatherback or leathery turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. IUCN

Monograph 1:1-39.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1973. International migrations of South American sea turtles (Cheloniidae

and Dermochelyidae). Anim. Behav. 21:18-27.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1977. Marine turtles of Micronesia. Chelonia Press, San Francisco. 83 pp.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1980. Dermochelys coriacea: leatherback turtle. Catalog Amer. Amphib.

Rept. 238:1-4.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982a. Nesting of the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, in Pacific

Mexico, with a new estimate of the world population status. Copeia 1982:741-747.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982b. Marine turtles of the South Pacific. Pages 253-262 in K.A. Bjorndal

(ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington, D. C. 583 pp.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982c. 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.
51

Pritchard, P.C.H., and P. Trebbau. 1984. The turtles of Venezuela. Society for the Study of

Amphibians and Reptiles, Contrib. Herpetol. 2.

Rhodin, A.G.J. 1985. Comparative chondro-osseous development and growth in marine

turtles. Copeia 1985:752-771.

Rhodin, A.G.J., and H.M. Smith. 1982. The original authorship and type specimen of

Dermochelys coriacea. J. Herpetol. 16:316-317.

Rhodin, A.G.J., J.A. Ogden, and G.J. Conolgue. 1981. Chondro-osseous morphology of

Dermochelys coriacea, a marine reptile with mammalian skeletal features. Nature

290:244-246.

Rimblot-Baly, F., J. Lescure, J. Fretey, and C. Pieau. 1986-1987. Sensibilité à la température

de la différenciation sexuelle chez la tortue luth, Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli 1761);

application des donneés de l'incubation artificielle à l'étude de la sex-ratio dans la

nature. Ann. Sci. Nat., Zool., Paris 13e Série, 1986-1987(8):277-290.

Ross, J.P., and M.A. Barwani. 1982. Historical decline of loggerhead, ridley, and leatherback

sea turtles. Pages 189-195 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea

Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D. C. 583 pp.

Sandoval, I., and G.D. Vazquez. 1995. Estado actual de las tortugas marinas en la playa de

Barra de la Cruz, Santiago Astata, Oax. en: Memorias de resumenes del xii encuentro

intruniversiutario y ii internacional para la conservacion de las tortugas marinas. Centro

Mexicano de la Tortuga. Mazunte, Oax. del 12 al 16 de junio de 1995.

Sarti M., L., and A. Barragan. 1995. Variabilidad genética y estimación del tamaño de la

población de tortuga laúd Dermochelys coriacea en el Pacífico mexicano. Informe

Final. Laboratorio de Tortugas Marinas, Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM. 

Sarti M., L., L. Floreso, and A. Aguayo L. 1991. Una nota sobre la alimentación de Orcinus

orca. Paper presented at XVI Reunión Intl. para el estudio de los mamiferos marinos,

Nayarit, Mexico, 2-5 April 1991.

Sarti M., L., S.A. Eckert, N. García T., and A.R. Barragan. 1996. Decline of the world’s largest

nesting assemblage of leatherback turtles. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 74:2-5.

Sarti M., L., C. López., N. García T., and S. Karam M. 1994. Resultado de las Actividades de

Protección de las Tortugas Golfina Lepidochelys olivacea y Laúd Dermochelys

coriacea en el Playón de Mexiquillo, Mich. Pages 1993-94 in Memorias de Resúmenes

del XI Encuentro Interuniversitario sobre Tortugas Marinas en México, celebrado en

San Patricio-Melaque, Jalisco, México del 12 al 18 de junio de 1994.

Sarti M., L., B. Jimenez A., J. Carranza S., A. Villaseñor G., and M. Robles D. 1986. II

Informe de trabajo "Investigación y Conservación de las tortugas laúd (Dermochelys

coriacea) y golfina (Lepidochelys olivacea) en Mexiquillo, Michoacán", temporada de
52

anidacion 1985-1986. Annual Report, Sec. Desarrollo Urbano Ecol. (SEDUE), Subdelegacion Ecologia, Michoacán. 47 pp.

Sarti M., L., B. Jimenez A., J. Carranza S., A. Villaseñor G., and M. Robles D. 1987. III

Informe de trabajo "Investigación y Conservación de las tortugas laúd (Dermochelys

coriacea) y golfina (Lepidochelys olivacea) en Mexiquillo, Michoacán", temporada de

anidacion 1986-1987. Annual Report, Sec. Desarrollo Urbano Ecol. (SEDUE), Subdelegacion Ecologia, Michoacán. 75 pp.

Sarti M., L., B. Jimenez A., J. Carranza S., A. Villaseñor G., and M. Robles D. 1988. IV

Informe de trabajo "Investigación y Conservación de las tortugas laúd (Dermochelys

coriacea) y golfina (Lepidochelys olivacea) en Mexiquillo, Michoacán", temporada de

anidacion 1987-1988. Annual Report, Sec. Desarrollo Urbano Ecol. (SEDUE), Subdelegacion Ecologia, Michoacán. 46 pp.

Sarti M., L., B. Jimenez A., J. Carranza S., A. Villaseñor G., and M. Robles D. 1989. V

Informe de trabajo "Investigación y Conservación de las tortugas laúd (Dermochelys

coriacea) y golfina (Lepidochelys olivacea) en Mexiquillo, Michoacán", temporada de

anidacion 1988-1989. Annual Report, Sec. Desarrollo Urbano Ecol. (SEDUE), Subdelegacion Ecologia, Michoacán. 39 pp.

Sarti M., L., C. López, N. García, L. Gámez, C. Hernández, C. Ordoñez, A. Barragán, and F.

Vargas. 1993. Protección e investigación de algunos aspectos biológicos y

reproductivos de las tortugas marinos en la zona sur de la de la costa michoacána. 

Temporada 1992-93. Informe final. Facultad de Ciencias. UNAM. Mexico. 34 pp. 

Sarti M., L., A. Villaseñor G., B. Jimenez A., J. Carranza S., and M. Robles D. 1989. 

Evaluacion prospectiva de las tecnicas conservacionistas utilizadas en el playon de

Mexiquillo, Michoacán, Mexico: Dermochelys coriacea y Lepidochelys olivacea,

temporada de anidacion 1986-1987. Unpubl. ms.

Shannon, F.A. 1956. The reptiles and amphibians of Korea. Herpetologica 12(Part 1):22-49.

Skillman, R.A. and G.H. Balazs. 1992. Leatherback turtle captured by ingestion of squid bait

on swordfish longline. Fis. Bull. 90(40): 807-808.

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.

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.

Starbird, C.H., and M.M. Suarez. 1994. Leatherback sea turtle nesting on the North Vogelkop

coast of Irian Jaya and the discovery of a leatherback sea turtle fishery on Kei Kecil

Island. Pages 143-146 in Bjorndal, K. A. , A.B. Bolten, D. A. Johnson, and Eliazar, P.
53

J., (compilers) Proc. of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and

Conservation. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-SEFSC-351. 323 pp.

Starbird, C., A. Baldridge, and J.T. Harvey. 1993. Seasonal occurrence of leatherback sea

turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the Monterey Bay Region, with notes on other sea

turtles, 1986-1991. Calif. Fish and Game 79(2):54-62.

Stick, K., and L. Hreha. 1989. Summary of the 1988 Washington/Oregon experimental

thresher shark gillnet fishery. State of Wash. Dept. Fish. Progr. Rept. No. 275.

Stinson, M.L. 1984. Biology of sea turtles in San Diego Bay, California, and in the

northeastern Pacific Ocean. Master's Thesis, San Diego State University. 578 pp.

Sutanto-Suwelo, I., C. Yunia-Yusuf, and K. Yamasaki. 1994. Leatherback turtles at

Jamursba-Medi Beach, Kepala Burung, Irian Jaya. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 64:12.

Szyndlar, Z. 1991. Distributional records for turtles and lizards from North Korea. Herp. Rev.

22(1):27.

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.

Tong, M.H., and K.S. Yon. 1961. Short note on Dermochelys coriacea. Saeng-Mul

1961(1):64.

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.

Vandelli, D. 1761. Epistola de Holothurio, et Testudine Coriacea ad Celeberrimum Carolum

Linnaeum. Conzatti: Patavii (Padova), 12 pp.

Wetherall, J.A., G.H. Balazs, R.A. Tokunaga, and M.Y.Y. Yong. 1993. Bycatch of marine

turtles in the North Pacific high-seas driftnet fisheries and impacts on the stocks. In: Ito,

J. et al. (editors), INPFC Symposium on biology, distribution, and stock assessment of

species caught in the high seas driftnet fisheries in theNorth Pacific Ocean, Bulletin

Number 53 (III): 519-538 Int. North. Pac. Fish Comm.

Witham, R. 1977. Dermochelys coriacea in captivity. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 3:6.

Witzell, W. N. 1984. Incidental capture of sea turtles in the Atlantic U.S. Fishery

Conservation Zone by the Japanese tuna longline fleet, 1978-81. Mar. Fish. Rev.

46(3):56-58.
54

Zhou, K. 1983. Caretta, Lepidochelys and Dermochelys from the coastal waters of Jiangsu

Province. Acta Herpetol. Sinica 2(3):57-63. (in Chinese, translated for the Recovery

Team by Zhang Yuanlin, Univ. Georgia, 1991).

Zug, G.R. 1966. The penial morphology and the relationships of cryptodiran turtles.

Occasional Papers, Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan 647:1-24.
55

IV. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

The Implementation Schedule outlines management and research actions and estimated costs

for the U.S. Pacific leatherback 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

DOC = U.S. Department of Commerce

DOI = U.S. Department of Interior

DOS = U.S. Deptartment 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

RMI = Republic of the Marshall Islands

NA = Not applicable

NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service

NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service (Soil Conservation Service)
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.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)

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

(1) Continuing FWS, NMFS,

DOS, 

(No nests

documented

under U.S.

jurisdiction)

15 25 20 20 20 Provide support

for international

information

exchange forum 

1.1.1.2 Law

enforcement-prevent

illegal exploitation &

harassment

(1) Continuing FWS, US

Customs, DOS,

NMFS

5 5 5 5 5 Provide support

for in-country law

enforcement

efforts 

1.1 Protect & manage

turtles on nesting

beaches (cont.)

1.1.2 Ensure coastal

construction activities

do not disrupt nesting

& hatching activities

(1) Continuing FWS, DOS,

NMFS

1.1.3 Reduce nest

predation by domestic

& feral animals

(1) 4 years 25 10 10 10
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)

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.

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

(3) Continuing FWS, DOS,

NMFS

No additional

costs. 

Information

gathered as part

of nest surveys

1.1.4.2 Implement,

enforce, evaluate

lighting regulations or

other lighting control

measures

(3) Continuing No specific

additional costs. 

Carried out by incountry regulatory

agencies

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 80 80 80 80 80 Includes Mexico,

Central America,

Indonesia

1.1.5.2 Evaluate nest

success, implement

nest-protection

measures

(1) 10 years 100 100 100 100 100 Includes Mexico,

Central America,

Indonesia. Reevaluate after 10

years.

1.1.5.3 Define stock

boundaries 

1 10 years NMFS, FWS 80 50 50 50 10
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)

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.

1.1 Protect & manage

turtles on nesting

beaches (cont.)

1.1.5 Collect

biological information

on nesting populations 

(cont.)

1.1.5.3.1 Identify

stock type for major

nesting beach areas

(1) 10 years FWS, NMFS Costs covered by

Task 1.1.5.3

1.1.5.3.2 Determine

nesting beach originsjuvenile & subadult

populations

1 10 years Costs covered by

Task 1.1.5.3

1.1.5.3.3 Determine

genetic relationship

among populations

1 10 years Costs covered by

Task 1.1.5.3

1.2 Protect & manage

nesting habitat

1.2.1. Prevent

degradation due to

erosion-control

measures, jetties &

breakwaters

(3) Continuing FWS, DOS,

NMFS

No costs. Carried

out by in-country

resource &

regulatory

agencies

1.2.2 Eliminate sand,

coral rubble removal

& mining practices

(3) Continuing No costs. Carried

out by in-country

resource &

regulatory

agencies
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)

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.

1.2 Protect & manage

nesting habitat 

(cont.)

1.2.3 Develop,

evaluate natural

beach-landscaping

guidelines

(3) Continuing FWS, DOS, No costs. Carried

out by in-country

resource &

regulatory

agencies

1.2.4 Ensure

replenishment

projects maintain

quality habitat

(3) Continuing No costs. Carried

out by in-country

resource &

regulatory

agencies

1.2.5 Implement nonmechanical beach

cleaning alternatives

NA NA

1.2.6 Prevent

vehicular driving on

nesting beaches

(3) Continuing No costs. Carried

out by in-country

resource &

regulatory

agencies
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)

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 60 The lead agency is listed first.

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

1 Continuing NMFS, U.S.

West Coast,

Hawaii,

American

Samoa, Guam,

Palau, CNMI,

RMI, FSM,

Unincorp.

Territories, DOS,

FWS

30 30 30 30 30

2.1.1.2 Maintain

enforcement reduce

exploitation

1 Continuing NMFS, USCG,

DOS

No additional

costs - part of

ongoing

leatherback

program

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 50 20 20 Combine 2.1.2.1

and 2.1.2.3 under

single study, 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)

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 61 The lead agency is listed first.

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in marine

habitat (cont.)

2.1.2 Determine

distribution,

abundance, status

(cont.)

2.1.2.2 Determine

adult migration

(males and females)

routes, internesting

habitats

1 10 years NMFS, FWS 150 150 150 150 150

2.1.2.3 Determine

growth rates,

survivorship, age

sexual maturity

1 30 years 100 50 50

2.1.2.4 Identify

current threats adults,

juveniles on foraging

grounds

1 10 years 40 40 40

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

1 Continuing NMFS, EPA 25 25 25 25 25

2.1.3.2 Evaluate

effects ingestion

persistent debris &

entanglement

1 Continuing 30 30 30 30
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)

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 62 The lead agency is listed first.

2.1.3.3 Reduce,

eliminate persistent

debris and sources of

entanglement

1 Continuing NMFS, EPA,

USCG

10 10 10 10

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in marine

habitat (cont.)

2.1.4 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

Task 2.1.4.1 in

loggerhead plan

2.1.4.2 Reduce

incidental mortality in

commercial,

recreational fisheries

1 Continuing 250 250 250 250 250 Duplicative of

Task 2.1.4.1 in

loggerhead plan

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in marine

habitat (cont.)

2.1.5 Eliminate

harassment of turtles

at sea

2 NA NMFS,

U.S.West Coast ,

Hawaii,

American

Samoa, Guam,

Palau, CNMI,

RMI, FSM,

Unincorp.

Territories

NA
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)

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 63 The lead agency is listed first.

2.1.6 Study the impact

of diseases on turtles

3 NA NMFS,

U.S.West Coast ,

Hawaii,

American

Samoa, Guam,

Palau, CNMI,

RMI, FSM,

Unincorp.

Territories, FWS

(as appropriate to

beach habitat)

NA

2.1.6.1 Investigate

parasites and other

infectious agents

3 1 year Review literature.

Determine need

2.1 Protect & manage

populations in marine

habitat (cont.)

2.1.7 Develop carcass

stranding network

2 Continuing NMFS, FWS 5 5 5 5 5 Coordinate with

existing marine

mammal network;

includes all

species

2.1.8 Centralize

tagging program and

tag-series records

2 Continuing 60 60 60 60 60 Total funds for all

species
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)

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 64 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 2.1.2.2. 

Funds are covered

with these tasks.

2.2.2 Ensure longterm protection

1 Continuing Part of ongoing

program activities

2.2.3 Prevent

degradation of marine

habitat by pollution

(2) Continuing NMFS, EPA,

USCG, DOS

Part of ongoing

program activities

2.2.4 Prevent

degradation or

destruction by upland,

coastal erosion,

siltation

(2) NA FWS, EPA,

NRCS, DOS,

NMFS, COE

2.2 Protect & manage

marine habitat (cont.)

2.2.5 Prevent

degradation of pelagic

habitat by oil

transshipment

2 Continuing USCG, NMFS,

EPA

Part of ongoing

program activities

2.2.6 Identify other

threats, take action

2 Continuing NMFS, EPA,

USCG

Part of ongoing

program activities
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/U.S. PACIFIC

Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)

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 65 The lead agency is listed first.

3 Ensure proper care

in captivity

NA NA

4 International

cooperation

4.1 Support 

agreements, conventions, protect in

foreign water

1 Continuing FWS, NMFS,

DOS, DOI, DOC

100 100 100 100 This includes all

sea turtle species

and Tasks 4.2, 4.3

(1 FTE plus

travel)

4.2 CITES

membership,

compliance

1 Continuing

4.3 Develop new

agreements to protect

in foreign waters

1 Continuing NMFS, DOS,

DOI, DOC

4 International

cooperation (cont.)

4.4 Display

information at airports

2 5 years NMFS, U.S.

West Coast,

Hawaii,

American

Samoa, Guam,

Palau, CNMI,

RMI, FSM,

Unicorp.

Territories, FWS

15 15 15 15 15 Includes all sea

turtle species
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 66 The lead agency is listed first.