Read

Leatherback Sea Turtle
Dermochelys coriacea
T
Federal Status: Endangered (June 2, 1970)
he leatherback sea turtle is the largest of all the sea
turtles. It is also unique among sea turtles, because
Critical Habitat: Designated (September 1978
instead of a bony carapace, it has leather-like outer
and March 1979): Sandy Point,
St. Croix, U.S.Virgin Islands, and
skin in which is embedded a mosaic of small bones. The
surrounding waters. leatherback nests regularly in small numbers on the east
coast of Florida. The nesting and hatching season extends
Florida Status: Endangered
from mid-February through mid-November. Sea turtles, in
Recovery Plan Status: Contribution (May 1999) general, are susceptible to human changes to the marine
Geographic Coverage: South Florida
environment, as well as to their nesting beaches. This
account provides an overview of the biology of the
leatherback sea turtle throughout its range. The discussion
Figure 1. Florida nesting distribution of the of environmental threats and management activities,
leatherback sea turtle. however, pertains only to Florida and the U.S. Caribbean.
Serious threats to the leatherback turtle on its nesting
beaches include: artificial lighting, beach nourishment,
increased human presence, and exotic beach and dune
vegetation.
This account is from the 1992 Recovery Plan for
Leatherback Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and
Gulf of Mexico (NMFS and FWS 1992). Updated
information is included only for South Florida.
Description
The leatherback sea turtle is the largest of the sea turtles and
is so distinctive that it is placed in a separate family,
Dermochelyidae. The leatherback sea turtle possesses a
skeletal morphology unique among turtles (Rhodin et al.
1981) and recent karyological studies with this species
(Medrano et al. 1987) support classifications which segregate
extant sea turtle species into two distinct families (Gaffney
1975, 1984, Bickham and Carr 1983). All other extant sea
turtles are in the family Cheloniidae.
The carapace of the leatherback sea turtle is also different
from that of other sea turtles. Other sea turtles have bony
plates covered with horny scutes on the carapace, while the
slightly flexible carapace of the leatherback is distinguished
by a rubber-like texture. The carapace of the leatherback is
Page 4-665
LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE Multi-Species Recovery Plan for South Florida
about 4 cm thick and is made primarily of tough, oil-saturated connective tissue

raised into seven prominent longitudinal 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. No sharp angle is formed between the carapace
and the plastron, resulting in a barrel-shaped appearance. The front flippers are
proportionally longer than in other sea turtles and may span 270 cm in an adult.
The leatherbacks mean curved carapace length for adult females nesting in the
U.S. Caribbean is 155 cm (range 137 to 176). On Sandy Point NWR, weights of
262 kg to 506 kg have been recorded (Eckert and Eckert 1985, Basford et al. 1986,
Brandner et al. 1987). Adults and near adults captured in Virginia waters have
ranged from 137 to 183 cm curved carapace length (NMFS and FWS 1992). Size
and weight relationships calculated from adult females in St. Croix suggest the
Virginia leatherbacks range in weight from 204 to 696 kg. The largest leatherback
on record (a male stranded on the coast of Wales in 1988) weighed 916 kg
(Morgan 1989).
Leatherback hatchlings are dorsally mostly black and 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. In the U.S. Virgin Islands
hatchlings average 61.3 mm in straightline carapace length and 45.8 g in weight
(Eckert et al. 1984). Both front and rear flippers lack claws. In the adult the
epidermis is black (with varying degrees of pale spotting) and scaleless. This
scaleless condition is unique among sea turtles. The undersurface is mottled,
pinkish-white and black, the proportion of light to dark pigment being highly
variable. In both adults and hatchlings, the upper jaw bears two tooth-like
projections, each flanked by deep cusps, at the premaxillary-maxillary sutures
(Pritchard 1971).
The crawl of the nesting leatherback is very deep and broad, with symmetrical
diagonal marks left by the front flippers usually with a deep incised median
groove formed by dragging of the relatively long tail (Pritchard et al. 1983).
The internal anatomy and physiology of the leatherback is also distinctive.
The core body temperature, at least for adults in cold water, has been shown to be
several degrees C above the ambient temperature (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, Friar et al. 1972, Greer
et al. 1973, Neill and Stevens 1974, Goff and Stenson 1988, Davenport et al.
1990, Paladino et al. 1990). The skeleton of the leatherback remains extensively
cartilaginous, even in adult animals, and the species is unique among turtles in
showing an extensive cartilage canal vascular system in the epiphyseal regions
(Rhodin et al. 1981).
Taxonomy
The generic name Dermochelys was introduced by Blainville (1816). The
binomial refers to the distinctive leathery, scaleless skin of the adult turtle. The
specific name coriacea was first used by Vandelli (1761) and adopted by Linneaus
(1766) (see Rhodin and Smith 1982). Refer to Pritchard and Trebbau (1984) for a
more detailed discussion of taxonomy and synonymy.
Page 4-666
Juvenile leatherback sea turtle.

Original photograph courtesy
of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Distribution
The wide-ranging leatherback sea turtle nests on shores of the Atlantic, Pacific
and Indian Oceans. Non-breeding animals have been recorded as far north as
the British Isles and the maritime Provinces of Canada and as far south as
Argentina and the Cape of Good Hope (Pritchard 1992).
Efforts to determine the distribution and numbers of leatherback sea turtles
in the marine environment have met with varying degrees of success. A 1987
aerial survey of shallow Gulf of Mexico waters (Perdido Bay, Alabama to Cape
San Blas, Florida) described leatherbacks as uncommon in all study areas
(though relatively more common in autumn than in spring), the highest density
being 0.027 leatherbacks/100 km2 offshore Louisiana in October (Lohoefener
et al. 1988). Earlier surveys (April 1982 to February 1983) in the Atlantic
revealed leatherbacks in the study area (Key West, Florida to Cape Hatteras,
North Carolina, out to the western boundary of the Gulf Stream) year-round,
but no density estimates were given (Thompson 1984). Thompson (1984)
reported a significant negative correlation between leatherbacks and water
temperature in the spring, fall and winter, suggesting that the species is not
dependent upon warm temperatures and is likely to be associated with cooler,
perhaps more productive waters. The same study reported that leatherbacks
appeared to prefer water about 20°C (± 5°) and were rarely sighted in the Gulf
Stream sampling areas. Summarizing incidental catch and interview data (1897
to 1980), as well as at-sea observations recorded during shore to Gulf Stream
summer transects, Lee and Palmer (1981) also concluded that (at least off
North Carolina) leatherbacks were rarely seen in the Gulf Stream and were
most often seen in waters < 915 m in depth.
A survey conducted during March 1982 to August 1984, but restricted to
the Cape Canaveral area, reported that 94.5 percent of all leatherback sightings
(n=128 total) occurred east of the 20 m isobath, and 90.6 percent occurred
Page 4-667
during the summer (Schroeder and Thompson 1987). In contrast, New England
Aquarium surveys of Florida and Georgia (1984 to 1988) reported few
leatherbacks prior to 1988, but in mid-February of that year 168 leatherbacks
were sighted along the northeast coast of Florida, with peak densities reported
along 80 km of coastline between Daytona Beach and Cape Canaveral
(Knowlton and Weigle 1989). The impetus for this sudden winter abundance in
Florida nearshore waters is unknown; by the following survey (16 March) the
animals had disappeared (Knowlton and Weigle 1989). The extent to which
distribution and abundance are defined by transient phenomena is presently
unclear.
A 1979 aerial survey of the mid- and north-Atlantic areas of the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf (shoreline to the surface projection of the 2,000 m isobath)
between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Cape Sable, Nova Scotia, showed
leatherbacks to be present April to November throughout the study area (but
most likely to be observed from the Gulf of Maine south to Long Island); peak
estimates of relative abundances during the summer were in the hundreds
(Shoop et al. 1981). The same study concluded that leatherbacks were
observed more frequently in colder waters at higher latitudes during the
summer than were other sea turtle species.
Nesting grounds for the leatherback are distributed circumglobally (ca.
40°N to 35°S; Sternberg 1981), with the Pacific coast of Mexico supporting the
worlds largest known concentration of nesting turtles. Pritchard (1982)
estimates that 115,000 adult female leatherbacks remain worldwide and that
some 50 percent of them may nest in western Mexico. The largest nesting
colony in the wider Caribbean region is found at Ya:lima:po-Les Hattes, French
Guiana, where the total number of adult females is estimated to be 14,700 to
15,300 (Fretey and Girondot 1989). Lower density Caribbean nesting is also
reported from Surinam (Pritchard 1973, Schulz 1975), Guyana (Pritchard
1988a,b), Colombia and Venezuela (Pritchard and Trebbau 1984), Panama
(Meylan et al. 1985, Garcia 1987), and Costa Rica (e.g., Carr and Ogren 1959,
Hirth and Ogren 1987).
On the islands of the eastern Caribbean, Bacon (1970) estimated that 150
to 200 leatherbacks nested annually in Trinidad, primarily at Matura and Paria
bays. Shortly thereafter, Bacon and Maliphant (1971) indicated that perhaps
200 to 250 leatherbacks nested annually in Trinidad; recent population
estimates are not available. Nesting north of Trinidad in the Lesser and Greater
Antilles is predictable, but occurs nowhere in large numbers (Caldwell and
Rathjen 1969, Carr et al. 1982, Meylan 1983). The largest sub-regional nesting
colony is in the Dominican Republic, where an estimated 300 leatherbacks nest
annually (Ross and Ottenwalder 1983). The U.S. Caribbean supports relatively
minor nesting colonies (probably 150-200 adult females per annum, combined)
but represents the most significant nesting activity within the U.S.
Leatherback nesting in the U.S. Caribbean is reported from the Virgin
Islands (St. Croix, St. Thomas, St. John) and Puerto Rico, including Islas
Culebra, Vieques, and Mona. The total number of nests deposited annually on
Sandy Point NWR has ranged from 82 (1986) to 355 (1994) (Eckert and Eckert
1985, Basford et al. 1986, 1988, McDonald et al. 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994). On
Page 4-668
Isla Culebra, the colony is smaller (88 to 271 nests per year 1984 to 1995,
Tallevast et al. 1990, FWS unpublished reports). Playas Resaca and Brava
receive 91 to 100 percent of all leatherback nesting on Culebra (Tucker 1988).
Throughout the southeastern U.S. the geography of beach coverage is more
or less complete, but the timing is often inadequate to gain a complete picture
of leatherback nesting. Beach patrols generally commence in May and are
designed to maximize observations of leatherback sea turtle nests. However,
leatherbacks have been known to start nesting as early as late February or
March, thus, current data may slightly underestimate the actual nesting activity.
Leatherback nests reported from Florida and Georgia are probably deposited
by 10 to 25 females annually. Leatherback turtles have been known to nest in
Georgia and South Carolina, but only on rare occasions. Hildebrand (1963)
was informed by a resident of Padre Island, Texas that a few nesting
individuals had been seen on the island in the 1930s, but none in recent years.
Leatherback nesting in Florida was once considered extremely rare (Carr
1952, Caldwell et al. 1956, Allen and Neill 1957). However, the leatherback is
now known to nest regularly in small numbers on Floridas east coast (Meylan
et al. 1995). Leatherback nesting has also been reported on the west coast of
Florida on St. Vincent NWR (LeBuff 1990), St. Joseph Peninsula State Park
and St. George Island (S. MacPherson, FWS, personal communication 1997).
In South Florida, leatherbacks have been observed on nesting beaches in Indian
River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties on
the east coast (Figure 1).
Virtually nothing is known of the pelagic distribution of hatchling or
juvenile leatherback turtles. The paths taken by hatchlings leaving their natal
beaches are uncharted. Discussions of the lost year (the early pelagic stage
of sea turtle development) which include tabulated summaries of neonate and
juvenile sea turtles associated with Sargassum weed or taken from pelagic
habitats (e.g., Carr 1987) have not mentioned sightings of young Dermochelys.
Our knowledge of juvenile distribution rests on a handful of chance
observations, and includes sightings in waters within (Caldwell 1959, Johnson
1989) and outside (e.g., Brongersma 1970, Hughes 1974, Pritchard 1977,
Horrocks 1987) the U.S.
Strandings
Leatherbacks stranding on U.S. shores are generally of adult or near adult size,
demonstrating the importance of pelagic habitat under U.S. jurisdiction to
turtles breeding in tropical and subtropical latitudes. Direct evidence of this is
available from Caribbean and South American tagged turtles stranding on U.S.
shores. Nesters tagged in French Guiana subsequently stranded in Georgia
(NMFS and FWS 1992), as well as in New York (NMFS and FWS 1992), New
Jersey, South Carolina, and Texas (Pritchard 1976). Nesters tagged in Trinidad
and St. Croix subsequently stranded in New York (Lambie 1983) and New
Jersey (Boulon et al. 1988), respectively. Conversely, an individual tagged in
Virginia waters in 1985 was killed a year later in Cuba (Barnard et al. 1989).
Additional evidence of the importance of U.S. coastal waters for leatherbacks
is provided by the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network. During the
Page 4-669
period 1980 to 1991, 816 leatherback strandings were recorded along the
continental U.S. coastline. During this same period, 161 leatherbacks were
recovered dead along Floridas coast. Curved carapace lengths for the Florida
strandings ranged from 110 to 195 cm. Eighty-four percent of all leatherback
strandings in Florida occurred between January to April and October to
December. Strandings were lowest (16 percent) during summer months, May
to September.
Habitat
Adult leatherback sea turtles are highly migratory and believed to be the most
pelagic of all sea turtles. Habitat requirements for juvenile and post-hatchling
leatherbacks, however, are virtually unknown. Nesting females prefer high-
energy beaches with deep, unobstructed access (Hirth 1980, Mrosovsky 1983),
which occur most frequently along continental shorelines (Hendrickson 1980).
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat was designated for the leatherback sea turtle in September
1978 and March 1979. Although the designation did not include Florida, is
does include nesting beach on Sandy Point, St. Croix and the surrounding
waters. Critical habitat for leatherback sea turtles identify specific areas which
have those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
leatherback sea turtle and/or may require special management considerations.
Behavior
Reproduction and Demography

Mating behavior of the leatherback is described by Carr and Carr (1986) in
waters off Puerto Rico, though there is some indirect evidence that mating
typically occurs prior to (or during) migration to the nesting ground (Eckert
and Eckert 1988). Nesting behavior (i.e., the basic sequence entailing
beaching, ascent, selection of a suitable site, body pitting, egg chamber
excavation, oviposition, nest filling and camouflage, departure) is similar to
that of other marine turtle species (detailed descriptions in Deraniyagala 1936,
Carr and Ogren 1959). Gravid females emerge from the sea nocturnally;
diurnal nesting occurs only occasionally. Because of a proclivity for nesting in
high-energy and thus frequently unpredictable environments, it is not
uncommon that large numbers of eggs are lost to erosion (Bacon 1970,
Pritchard 1971, Hughes 1974, Mrosovsky 1983, Eckert 1987), though this is
not always the case (Tucker 1989). While the majority of females return to the
same nesting beach repeatedly throughout the nesting season, some females are
known to nest on separate beaches > 100 km apart within a season.
In the U.S. Caribbean, nesting commences in March (a very few nests are
laid in February) and continues into July. The most systematic data available on
reproductive output has been gathered at Sandy Point NWR and Isla Culebra.
Data from these projects reveal that females arrive at the nesting beach
asynchronously, renest an average of every 9 to 10 days, deposit 5 to 7 nests per
annum (observed maximum = 11), and remigrate predominantly at 2 to 3 year
intervals. The annual nest : false crawl ratio on Culebra (all beaches) is 4:1 to
Page 4-670
6.2:1 (1984 to 1987; Tucker 1988); 1.2:1 to 3:1 on Sandy Point (1982-1988;
NMFS and FWS 1992). Clutch size averages 116 eggs, including 80 yolked eggs,
on Sandy Point NWR, 103 eggs, including 70 yolked eggs, on Culebra. Clutch
size averages 101 eggs, including 76 yolked, on Hutchinson Island, Florida
(NMFS and FWS 1992). Similar clutch sizes are reported elsewhere on St. Croix
(Adams 1988) and Puerto Rico (Matos 1986, 1987), as well as in Georgia
(Ruckdeschel et al. 1982) and Florida (Carr 1952, Caldwell 1959, Broward
County Erosion Prevention District/Environmental Quality Control Board--now
Department of Natural Resource Protection--1987). Eggs incubate for 55 to 75
days, consistently averaging 63 days on both Sandy Point and Culebra and 64
days on Hutchinson Island, Florida. In situ hatch success for nests surviving to
term is about 55 percent on Manchenil Bay, St. Croix (Adams 1988), about 65
percent on Sandy Point NWR (Eckert and Eckert 1985, Brandner et al. 1987,
1990), and about 66 percent on Hutchison Island, Florida (NMFS and FWS
1992). Higher success (about 75 percent) is reported on Culebra (Tucker 1988,
1989).
No data on the growth rate of juvenile leatherback turtles in the wild are
available. This situation arises from the unfortunate fact that the distribution of
juvenile leatherback turtles is unknown, and thus specimens are unavailable for
capture-recapture methodologies designed to measure growth. The problem is
exacerbated by poor survivability in captivity, which further limits
opportunities for study. Nonetheless, some investigators have been successful
in raising leatherbacks and publishing data on captive growth rates
(Deraniyagala 1936, Glusing 1967, Frair 1970, Spoczynska 1970, Phillips
1977, Witham 1977, Bels et al. 1988). With the exception of Bels et al. (1988),
turtles did not survive beyond 2 years.
Captive growth data are widely disparate, but the 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 2 to 3 years (Rhodin 1985). Bels et
al. (1988) challenge this hypothesis in their report of a healthy captive
leatherback 1,200 days of age weighing 28.5 kg, with a carapace 82 cm in
length. While leatherbacks may grow to sexual maturity at an earlier age than
other sea turtles, it is clear that more data are needed before growth rates can
be accurately calculated.
Migration
The leatherback migrates farther (Pritchard 1976) and ventures into colder
water than does any other marine reptile (e.g., Threlfall 1978, Goff and Lien
1988). The evidence currently available from tag returns and strandings in the
western Atlantic suggests that adults engage in routine migrations between
boreal, temperate and tropical waters, presumably to optimize both foraging
and nesting opportunities (Bleakney 1965, Pritchard 1976, Lazell 1980,
Rhodin and Schoelkopf 1982, Boulon et al. 1988). The composition of
epibiotic barnacle communities on Caribbean-nesting leatherbacks provides
indirect evidence that gravid females embark from and subsequently return to
temperate latitudes (Eckert and Eckert 1988).
Direct evidence of long-distance movement is scarce, but is available from
leatherbacks tagged while nesting in the Caribbean and subsequently stranding
Page 4-671
in northern latitudes (Pritchard 1973, 1976, Lambie 1983, Boulon et al. 1988);
and also from a turtle tagged in Chesapeake Bay in 1985 and killed in Cuba in
1986 (Barnard et al. 1989). In addition, a nester tagged at Jupiter Beach,
Florida, was recaptured near Cayo Arcas, Gulf of Campeche (Hildebrand
1987), and a nester tagged at Sandy Point NWR, St. Croix, was recaptured near
Cayos Triangulos, also in the Gulf of Campeche, 2 years later and some 3,000
km from the tagging site (Boulon 1989). The longest known movement is that
of an adult female who traveled 5,900 km to Ghana, West Africa, after nesting
in Surinam (Pritchard 1973). An adult female tagged with a satellite transmitter
while nesting in French Guiana in 1986 traveled 820 km in three weeks (an
average speed of 40 km/day, Duron-DuFrenne 1987). A nester tagged with a
satellite transmitter on Sandy Point NWR, St. Croix in 1989 travelled 515 km
(and ventured some 200 km south of St. Croix) before the transmitter was
removed 18 days later when the turtle emerged to nest on Isla Culebra (NMFS
and FWS 1992).
Foraging
Food habits are known primarily from the stomach samples of slaughtered
animals (Brongersma 1969, Hartog 1980, Hartog and Van Nierop 1984).
Leatherbacks feed on pelagic medusae (jellyfish), siphonophores, and salpae in
temperate and boreal latitudes (e.g., Bleakney 1965, Brongersma 1969, Duron
1978, Eisenberg and Frazier 1983, Musick 1988). Aerial surveys document
leatherbacks in Virginia waters, especially May to July during peak jellyfish
(Chrysaora spp., Aurelia spp.) abundance (Musick 1988, NMFS and FWS
1992). Further south, foraging on the cabbage head jellyfish (Stomolophus
meleagris) has been observed in waters off North Carolina (NMFS and FWS
1992). In February 1989, an adult female leatherback (originally tagged in
French Guiana) stranded on the Georgia coast and stomach contents revealed
unidentified medusae and Libinia sp., a small crab commensal on Stomolophus
(NMFS and FWS 1992). Captain Joe Webster has observed leatherbacks feeding
on jellyballs (Stomolophus) in Georgia waters and notes that the turtles are seen
in water as shallow as 5.6 m where jellyballs are abundant (NMFS and FWS
1992). In the Gulf of Mexico, aerial survey data often show leatherbacks
associated with Stomolophus (Leary 1957, Lohoefener et al. 1988). Other
observers have also reported a co-incidence of leatherbacks and maximum
jellyfish abundance, especially Aurelia, in the Gulf (NMFS and FWS 1992).
Foraging has most often been observed at the surface, but Hartog (1980)
after finding nematocysts from deep water siphonophores in leatherback stomach
samples, speculated that foraging may occur at depth. Limpus (1984) reported a
leatherback feeding on octopus bait on a handline at 50 m depth off western
Australia. 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 zooplankters, chiefly siphonophore and salp
colonies in the Caribbean, (Michel and Foyo 1976). Eckert et al. (1989) calculate
a maximum dive depth of 1,300 m, but report that 95 percent of all dives are <
20 minutes in length and < 200 m in depth.
Page 4-672
Relationship to Other Species

In South Florida, the leatherback sea turtle shares nesting beaches with the
threatened loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) and the endangered green sea turtle
(Chelonia mydas) in several counties where it nests, most commonly in Martin
and Palm Beach counties. Other federally listed species that occur in coastal dune
and coastal strand habitat, and that need to be considered when managing nesting
beaches, are the southeastern beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris)
and the beach jacquemontia (Jacquemontia reclinata). Beach nourishment
projects, in particular, could affect these species as well as the turtles. The range
of the beach mouse in South Florida is estimated to include Indian River County
south to Broward County. The beach jacquemontia is found in Palm Beach
County south to Miami, Miami-Dade County.
A variety of natural and introduced predators such as raccoons (Procyon
lotor), feral hogs, opossums (Didelphis virginiana), ghost crabs (Ocypode
quadratus), and ants prey on incubating eggs and hatchlings. The principal
predator of leatherback sea turtle eggs is the raccoon. Raccoons are particularly
destructive and may take up to 96 percent of all nests deposited on a beach (Davis
and Whiting 1977, Hopkins and Murphy 1980, Stancyk et al. 1980, Talbert et al.
1980, Schroeder 1981, Labisky et al. 1986). In 1996, Hobe Sound NWR
experienced depredation in 23 percent of the nests enumerated. In addition to the
destruction of eggs, certain predators may take considerable numbers of
Table 1. Average number
hatchlings just prior to or upon emergence from the sand.
of leatherback nests by
Status and Trends

County Average
The leatherback sea turtle was listed as endangered under the Endangered
Indian River* 3.3 Species Act on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495). Internationally, it is considered
St. Lucie 14 endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (IUCN). It is also included on Appendix I of the Convention
Martin 43 on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Palm Beach 66 (CITES), which the U.S. ratified in 1974. The nesting beach at Sandy Point
NWR, St. Croix, became the first nesting beach of any marine turtle to be
Broward 10 proposed as critical habitat (Federal Register, 23 March 1978; 43 FR 12050-
Dade 3.2 12051) (Dodd 1978). In September 1978, the FWS designated the nesting
beach on Sandy Point, St. Croix, as critical habitat; in March 1979, the NMFS
Monroe** - determined the surrounding waters as critical habitat.
Collier** -
Declines in the number of nesting females have been documented in
Malaysia (Brahim et al. 1987), India (Cameron 1923, Kar and Bhaskar 1982),
Lee** - Thailand (Polunin 1977), and the West Indies (Bacon 1970, Eckert and
Lettsome 1988, Eckert 1989). It is not known whether leatherback populations
Charlotte** -
within the U.S. are stable, increasing or declining, but there is no question that
Sarasota** - some nesting populations (e.g., St. John, St. Thomas) have been virtually
exterminated. The number of leatherbacks nesting in the past at what is now
*Nesting activity reported Sandy Point NWR is unknown, but studies of the population since 1981 show
from 1993-1995 only annual fluctuations which do not project a long-term decline.
**Nesting activity not Today, most beaches in Florida are monitored for sea turtle nesting. Here,
reported
leatherback nesting has fluctuated widely during the survey period between
1979 and 1994 (Meylan et al. 1995, DEP 1996). Between 1988 and 1992,
Page 4-673
annual reported leatherback sea turtle nests varied between 98 and 188
statewide. The distribution of these nests differs from the loggerhead and green
sea turtle nests. Leatherback nests have a center of distribution at Palm Beach
County which supports half of the total nests reported throughout Florida.
Martin and St. Lucie county beaches have been the site of 27.7 percent and
13.2 percent of leatherback nests, respectively. South of Palm Beach County,
the number of leatherback nests declines more sharply. Broward County
supported 3.0 percent of leatherback nesting and Miami-Dade County
supported 1.6 percent.
The average number of nests annually for leatherback turtles within South
Florida is shown in Table 1. These data show that Palm Beach County is clearly
the most important nesting location within the region for the endangered
leatherback. Leatherback nests constitute 0.8 percent of the total in Palm Beach
County but only 0.4 and 0.5 percent in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties,
respectively. We chose to represent only the past 10 years of survey data in
Table 1, because there was less beach surveyed and the data were not complete
prior to 1985.
Environmental Threats
A number of threats exist to sea turtles in the marine environment, including: oil
and gas exploration, development, and transportation; pollution; trawl, purse
seine, hook and line, gill net, pound net, longline, and trap fisheries; underwater
explosions; dredging; offshore artificial lighting; power plant entrapment;
entanglement in debris; ingestion of marine debris; marina and dock development;
boat collisions; and poaching. These threats and protective measures are discussed
in detail in the Recovery Plan for Leatherback Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean,
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (NMFS and FWS 1992). In South Florida, and for
this Recovery Plan, we are focusing on the threats to nesting beaches, including:
beach erosion, armoring and nourishment; artificial lighting; beach cleaning;
increased human presence; recreational beach equipment; exotic dune and beach
vegetation; nest loss to abiotic factors; and poaching.
Beach Erosion: Erosion of nesting beaches can result in partial or total loss
of suitable nesting habitat. Erosion rates are influenced by dynamic coastal
processes, including sea level rise. Mans interference with these natural
processes through coastal development and associated activities has resulted in
accelerated erosion rates and interruption of natural shoreline migration
(National Research Council 1990).
Beach Armoring: Where beachfront development occurs, the site is often
fortified to protect the property from erosion. Virtually all shoreline
engineering is carried out to save structures, not dry sandy beaches, and
ultimately results in environmental damage. One type of shoreline engineering,
collectively referred to as beach armoring, includes sea walls, rock revetments,
riprap, sandbag installations, groins and jetties. Beach armoring can result in
permanent loss of a dry nesting beach through accelerated erosion and
prevention of natural beach/dune accretion and can prevent or hamper nesting
females from accessing suitable nesting sites. Clutches deposited seaward of
these structures may be inundated at high tide or washed out entirely by
increased wave action near the base of these structures.
Page 4-674
As these structures fail and break apart, they spread debris on the beach
trapping both adults and hatchlings, thus impeding access to suitable nesting
areas and causing higher incidences of false crawls (non-nesting emergences).
Sandbags are particularly susceptible to rapid failure and result in extensive
debris on nesting beaches. Rock revetments, riprap, and sandbags can cause
nesting turtles to abandon nesting attempts or to construct improperly sized and
shaped egg cavities when inadequate amounts of sand cover these structures.
Information obtained during preparation of the sea turtle recovery plans
indicated that approximately 21 percent (234 km) of Floridas beaches were
armored at that time (NMFS and FWS 1992).
Groins and jetties are designed to trap sand during transport in longshore
currents or to keep sand from flowing into channels in the case of the latter.
These structures prevent normal sand transport and accrete beaches on one
side, of the structure while starving neighboring beaches on the other side
thereby resulting in severe beach erosion (Pilkey et al. 1984) and
corresponding degradation of suitable nesting habitat.
Drift fences, also commonly called sand fences, are erected to build and
stabilize dunes by trapping sand moving along the beach and preventing
excessive sand loss. Additionally, these fences can serve to protect dune
systems by deterring public access. Constructed of narrowly spaced wooden or
plastic slats or plastic fabric, drift fences when improperly placed can impede
nesting attempts and/or trap emergent hatchlings and nesting females.
Beach Nourishment: Beach nourishment consists of pumping, trucking, or
scraping sand onto the beach to rebuild what has been lost to erosion. Although
beach nourishment may increase the potential nesting area, significant adverse
effects to sea turtles may result if protective measures are not taken. Placement
of sand on an eroded section of beach or an existing beach in and of itself may
not provide suitable nesting habitat for sea turtles.
Beach nourishment can impact turtles through direct burial of nests and by
disturbance to nesting turtles if conducted during the nesting season. Beach
nourishment may result in changes in sand density (compaction), beach shear
resistance (hardness), beach moisture content, beach slope, sand color, sand
grain size, sand grain shape, and sand grain mineral content, if the placed sand
is dissimilar from the original beach sand (Nelson and Dickerson 1988a).
These changes can affect nest site selection, digging behavior, incubation
temperature (and hence sex ratios), gas exchange parameters within incubating
nests, hydric environment of the nest, hatching success and hatchling emerging
success (Mann 1977, Ackerman 1980, Mortimer 1982, Raymond 1984a).
Beach compaction and unnatural beach profiles that may result from beach
nourishment activities could adversely affect sea turtles regardless of the
timing of the projects. Very fine sand and/or the use of heavy machinery can
cause sand compaction on nourished beaches (Nelson and Dickerson 1988a).
Significant reductions in nesting success have been documented on severely
compacted nourished beaches (Raymond 1984a). Increased false crawls result
in increased physiological stress to nesting females. Sand compaction may
increase the length of time required for female sea turtles to excavate nests,
also causing increased physiological stress to the animals (Nelson and
Dickerson 1988c). Nelson and Dickerson (1988b) evaluated compaction levels
Page 4-675
at 10 renourished east coast Florida beaches and concluded that 50 percent

were hard enough to inhibit nest digging, 30 percent were questionable as to
whether their hardness affected nest digging, and 20 percent were probably not
hard enough to affect nest digging. They further concluded that, in general,
beaches nourished from offshore borrow sites are harder than natural beaches,
and, while some may soften over time through erosion and accretion of sand,
others may remain hard for 10 years or more.
On nourished beaches, steep escarpments may develop along their water
line interface as they adjust from an unnatural construction profile to a more
natural beach profile (Coastal Engineering Research Center 1984, Nelson and
Dickerson 1987). These escarpments can hamper or prevent access to nesting
sites. Female turtles coming ashore to nest can be discouraged by the formation
of an escarpment, leading to situations where they choose marginal or
unsuitable nesting areas to deposit eggs (e.g., in front of the escarpments,
which often results in failure of nests due to repeated tidal inundation). This
effect can be minimized by leveling the beach prior to the nesting season.
A change in sediment color due to beach nourishment could change the
natural incubation temperatures of nests. This, in turn, could alter natural sex
ratios. To provide the most suitable sediment for nesting sea turtles, the color
of the nourished sediments must resemble the natural beach sand in the area.
Natural reworking of sediments and bleaching from exposure to the sun would
help to lighten dark nourishment sediments; however, the time frame for
sediment mixing and bleaching to occur could be critical to a successful sea
turtle nesting season.
Nourishment projects result in heavy machinery, pipelines, increased human
activity and artificial lighting on the project beach. These activities are normally
conducted on a 24-hour basis and can adversely affect nesting and hatching
activities. Pipelines and heavy machinery can create barriers to nesting females
emerging from the surf and crawling up the beach, causing a higher incidence of
false crawls (non-nesting emergences) and an unnecessary energy expenditure.
Increased human activity on the project beach at night may cause further
disturbance to nesting females. Artificial lights along the project beach and in the
nearshore area of the borrow site may deter nesting females and disorient or
misorient emergent hatchlings from adjacent non-project beaches.
Beach nourishment projects require continual maintenance (subsequent
nourishment) as beaches erode; therefore their negative impacts to turtles are
repeated on a regular basis. Nourishment of highly eroded beaches (especially
those with a complete absence of dry beach) can be beneficial to nesting turtles
if conducted properly. Careful consideration and advance planning and
coordination must be carried out to ensure timing, methodology, and sand
sources are compatible with nesting and hatching requirements.
Artificial Lighting: Extensive research has demonstrated that the principal
component of the sea finding behavior of emergent hatchlings is a visual
response to light (Daniel and Smith 1947, Hendrickson 1958, Carr and Ogren
1960, Ehrenfeld and Carr 1967, Dickerson and Nelson 1989, Witherington and
Bjorndal 1991). Artificial beachfront lighting from buildings, streetlights, dune
crossovers, vehicles and other types of beachfront lights have been
documented in the disorientation (loss of bearings) and misorientation
Page 4-676
(incorrect orientation) of hatchling turtles (McFarlane 1963, Philibosian 1976,

Mann 1977, Ehrhart 1983).
The results of disorientation or misorientation are often fatal. Many
lighting ordinance requirements do not become effective until 11 p.m., whereas
over 30 percent of hatchling emergence occurs prior to this time (Witherington
et al. 1990). As hatchlings head toward lights or meander along the beach, their
exposure to predators and likelihood of desiccation is greatly increased.
Misoriented hatchlings can become entrapped in vegetation or debris, and
many hatchlings are found dead on nearby roadways and in parking lots after
being struck by vehicles. Hatchlings that successfully find the water may be
misoriented after entering the surf zone or while in nearshore waters. Intense
artificial lighting can even draw hatchlings back out of the surf (Daniel and
Smith 1947, Carr and Ogren 1960). During the period 1989 to 1990, a total of
37,159 misoriented hatchlings were reported to the Florida Department of
Natural Resources. Undoubtedly a large but unquantifiable number of
additional misorientation events occurred but were not documented due to
obliteration of observable sign, depredation, entrapment in thick vegetation,
loss in storm drains, or obliteration of carcasses by vehicle tires.
The problem of artificial beachfront lighting is not restricted to hatchlings.
Raymond (1984a) indicated that adult loggerhead emergence patterns were
correlated with variations in beachfront lighting in south Brevard County,
Florida, and that nesting females avoided areas where beachfront lights were
the most intense. Witherington (1986) noted that loggerheads aborted nesting
attempts at a greater frequency in lighted areas. Problem lights may not be
restricted to those placed directly on or in close proximity to nesting beaches.
The background glow associated with intensive inland lighting, such as that
emanating from nearby large metropolitan areas, may deter nesting females
and disorient or misorient hatchlings navigating the nearshore waters.
Cumulatively, along the heavily developed beaches of the southeastern U.S.,
the negative effects of artificial lights are profound.
Beach Cleaning: Beach cleaning refers to the removal of both abiotic and
biotic debris from developed beaches. There are several methods employed
including mechanical raking, hand raking, and picking up debris by hand.
Mechanical raking can result in heavy machinery repeatedly traversing nests
and potentially compacting sand above nests and also results in tire ruts along
the beach, which may hinder or trap emergent hatchlings. Mann (1977)
suggested that mortality within nests may increase when externally applied
pressure from beach cleaning machinery is exerted on soft beaches with large
grain sand. Mechanically pulled rakes and hand rakes can penetrate the surface
and disturb the sealed nest or may actually uncover pre-emergent hatchlings
near the surface of the nest. In some areas, collected debris is buried directly
on the beach, and this can lead to excavation and destruction of incubating egg
clutches. Disposal of debris near the dune line or on the high beach can cover
incubating egg clutches and subsequently hinder and entrap emergent
hatchlings and may alter natural nest temperatures.
Increased Human Presence: Residential and tourist use of developed (and
developing) nesting beaches can result in negative impacts to nesting turtles,
incubating egg clutches, and hatchlings. The most serious threat caused by
increased human presence on the beach is the disturbance to nesting females.
Page 4-677
Nighttime human activity can cause nesting females to abort nesting attempts
at all stages of the behavioral process. Murphy (1985) reported that disturbance
can cause turtles to shift their nesting beaches, delay egg laying, and select
poor nesting sites. Heavy utilization of nesting beaches by humans (pedestrian
traffic) may result in lowered hatchling emerging success rates due to
compaction of sand above nests (Mann 1977), and pedestrian tracks can
interfere with the ability of hatchlings to reach the ocean (Hosier et al. 1981).
Campfires and the use of flashlights on nesting beaches misorient hatchlings
and can deter nesting females (Mortimer 1979).
Recreational Beach Equipment: The placement of physical obstacles (e.g.,
lounge chairs, cabanas, umbrellas, Hobie cats, canoes, small boats and beach
cycles) on nesting beaches can hamper or deter nesting attempts and interfere
with incubating egg clutches and the sea approach of hatchlings. The
documentation of false crawls at these obstacles is becoming increasingly
common as more recreational beach equipment is left in place nightly on
nesting beaches. Additionally, there are documented reports of nesting females
becoming entrapped under heavy wooden lounge chairs and cabanas on South
Florida nesting beaches (NMFS and FWS 1992). The placement of recreational
beach equipment directly above incubating egg clutches may hamper
hatchlings during emergence and can destroy eggs through direct invasion of
the nest (NMFS and FWS 1992).
Exotic Dune and Beach Vegetation: Non-native vegetation has invaded
many coastal areas and often outcompetes native species such as sea oats,
railroad vine, sea grape, dune panic grass and pennywort. The invasion of less
stabilizing vegetation can lead to increased erosion and degradation of suitable
nesting habitat. Exotic vegetation may also form impenetrable root mats which
can prevent proper nest cavity excavation, invade and desiccate eggs, or trap
hatchlings. The Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) is particularly
detrimental. Dense stands of this species have taken over many coastal strand
areas throughout central and South Florida. Australian pines cause excessive
shading of the beach that would not otherwise occur. Studies in Florida suggest
that nests laid in shaded areas are subjected to lower incubation temperatures,
which may alter the natural hatchling sex ratio. Fallen Australian pines limit
access to suitable nest sites and can entrap nesting females. Davis and Whiting
(1977) reported that nesting activity declined in Everglades National Park
where dense stands of Australian pine took over native beach berm vegetation
on a remote nesting beach. Conversely, along highly developed beaches,
nesting may be concentrated in areas where dense stands of Australian pines
create a barrier to intense beachfront and beach vicinity lighting.
Nest Loss to Abiotic Factors: Erosion or inundation and accretion of sand
above incubating nests appear to be the principal abiotic factors that may
negatively affect incubating egg clutches. While these factors are often widely
perceived as contributing significantly to nest mortality or lowered hatching
success, few quantitative studies have been conducted. Studies on a relatively
undisturbed nesting beach by Witherington (1986) indicated that excepting a late
season severe storm event, erosion and inundation played a relatively minor role
in destruction of incubating nests. Inundation of nests and accretion of sand
above incubating nests as a result of the late season storm played a major role in
Page 4-678
destroying nests from which hatchlings had not yet emerged. Severe storm events
(e.g., tropical storms and hurricanes) may result in significant nest loss, but these
events are typically aperiodic rather than annual occurrences. In the southeastern
U.S., severe storm events are generally experienced after the peak of the hatching
season and hence would not be expected to affect the majority of incubating
nests. Erosion and inundation of nests are exacerbated through coastal
development and shoreline engineering. These threats are discussed above under
beach armoring.
Predation: Predators, particularly exotics such as fire ants (Solenopsis
invicta), and human-associated ones including raccoons and opossums are
becoming increasingly detrimental to nesting beaches.
Poaching: In the U.S., killing of female turtles is infrequent. However, in
a number of areas, egg poaching and clandestine markets for eggs are not
uncommon. From 1983 to 1989, the Florida Marine Patrol, DEP, made 29
arrests for illegal possession of turtle eggs.
Management
Conservation efforts for the leatherback have greatly improved since it was
federally listed as endangered on June 2, 1970. During the 1970s, nest survey and
protection efforts were generally sporadic and did little to reduce the widespread
egg poaching on U.S. Caribbean beaches. Beginning in 1981, however, intensive
nest survey and protection efforts were initiated on the single most important
leatherback nesting beach in the U.S. Caribbean, Sandy Point, St. Croix. Prior to
this, the majority of the 150 to 350 nests deposited annually were lost to poaching
or erosion. Now overall hatch success exceeds 50 to 60 percent in most years.
The FWS, in cooperation with Earthwatch, initiated similar measures on the
other main U.S. Caribbean leatherback nesting beaches on Isla Culebra in 1984.
Prior to the intensive nighttime patrolling, a high percentage of the nests on this
island were poached. Overall hatch success is now greater than 75 percent in
most years. Nest survey and protection efforts occur on several other U.S.
Caribbean beaches of lesser but still significant importance such as Manchenil,
St. Croix, and Pinones, Humacao, and Luquillo beaches in Puerto Rico.
In Florida, leatherback nesting data are collected in conjunction with
loggerhead nesting surveys, which generally begin in early to mid-May. While a
portion of the leatherback nesting season is missed by the systematic loggerhead
and green sea turtle surveys, most nests are observed by someone and probably
reported because of intensive public use of the main leatherback nesting beaches
in Florida.
Along with the basic information on nest numbers, clutch size, and hatching
success, the Sandy Point and Culebra projects have included additional studies
of the nesting females and provided information on intra- and inter-nesting
frequency, movements, survivorship, turtle size and weight, diving behavior, pre-
reproductive migrations, nest temperature and expected hatchling sex ratio,
depredation rates, nest site selection, and embryonic deformities.
In 1982, 310 ha of land on Isla Culebra, including Playas Resaca and
Brava, were transferred to Culebra NWR. In 1984 the FWS purchased the 2.4
km long leatherback nesting beach at Sandy Point, St. Croix, establishing
Page 4-679
Sandy Point NWR. These actions ensure the long-time protection of the most
important leatherback nesting beaches in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico,
although neither area is immune from external threats such as light pollution.
Recent reviews of sea turtle conservation efforts in the southeastern U.S.
appear in Hopkins-Murphy (1988) and Possardt (1991). In addition to
management of coastal habitats, NMFS and FWS (1992) discuss conservation
measures for the leatherback turtle in the marine environment. In the South
Florida Ecosystem, there are a number of management activities ongoing to
benefit the leatherback sea turtle.
Conservation of sea turtle nesting habitat is continuing on several NWRs in
South Florida, including Archie Carr, Hobe Sound, Ten Thousand Islands, and
the complex of satellite refuges in the Florida Keys. Acquisition of high-density
nesting beaches between Melbourne Beach and Wabasso Beach, Florida, is
continuing to complete the Archie Carr NWR. The State of Florida purchased the
first parcel specifically for the refuge in July 1990. Federal acquisition began in
1991. When completed, the refuge will protect up to 16 km of nesting beach.
Since the initial acquisition, Brevard County and the Richard King Mellon
Foundation have joined in as acquisition partners. Hobe Sound NWR, located
north of West Palm Beach in Martin County, contains 5.25 km of Atlantic coast
shoreline for nesting habitat. In addition to providing some of the most
productive sea turtle nesting habitat in the U.S., the refuge is also home to Florida
scrub-jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens) and gopher tortoises (Gopherus
polyphemus). The most longstanding beach management program has been to
reduce destruction of nests by natural predators, such as raccoons. Control of
numerous exotic plants such as Australian pine and Brazilian pepper (Schinus
terebinthifolius) are also major issues in managing the refuge.
One of the most difficult habitat protection efforts throughout South Florida
is trying to minimize or eliminate the construction of seawalls, riprap, groins,
sandbags, and improperly placed drift or sand fences. State and Federal laws
designed to protect the beach and dune habitat in South Florida include the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 and the Coastal Zone Protection Act of
1985. These have had varying degrees of success at maintaining suitable nesting
sites for sea turtles. Prior to 1995, DEP permits were required for all coastal
armoring projects prior to construction. When issuing these permits, DEP
incorporated sea turtle protection measures, and sea turtle concerns were
generally well addressed.
However, in 1995, the Florida Legislature passed a law giving coastal
counties and municipalities the authority to approve construction of coastal
armoring during certain emergency situations. (All non-emergency armoring
situations must still receive an DEP permit prior to construction.) Although the
new law weakened prior regulations on armoring, it does require that emergency
armoring structures approved by a coastal county or municipality be temporary
and that the structure be removed or a permit application submitted to DEP for a
permanent rigid coastal structure within 60 days after the emergency installation
of the structure.
In addition, to implement this new law, DEP finalized a formal agency rule
on coastal armoring on September 12, 1996. The new rule recommends that local
governments obtain the necessary approval from the FWS prior to authorizing
Page 4-680
armoring projects. The new rule also requires that several measures be
undertaken to address sea turtle concerns for non-emergency armoring and for
placement of permanent rigid coastal structures subsequent to an emergency
(temporary) armoring event. For example, the new regulations require that (1)
special conditions be placed on permitted activities to limit the nature, timing,
and sequence of construction, as well as address lighting concerns; (2) structures
not be used where the construction would result in a significant adverse impact,
and (3) armoring be removed if it is determined to not be effective or to be
causing a significant adverse impact to the beach and dune system.
Beach nourishment is a better alternative for sea turtles than seawalls and
jetties. When beach nourishment was done mostly in the summer, all nests had
to be moved from the beach prior to nourishment. Now FWS and State natural
resource agencies review beach nourishment projects to ensure appropriate
timing of nourishment during the nesting and hatching season. In southeast
Florida, the leatherback nesting and hatching season is from February 15 through
November 30. Any management decisions regarding beach nourishment, beach
armoring and other coastal construction, marina and dock development, and
artificial lighting should consider these dates. Beaches where compaction after
nourishment is a problem are plowed to a depth of 92 cm to soften the sand so
that it is useable for nesting turtles (Nelson and Dickerson 1987). Progress is
being made toward better timing of projects and sand quality.
Progress is being made by counties and cities to prevent disorientation and
misorientation of hatchlings due to artificial lighting (Ernest et al. 1987, Shoup
and Wolf 1987). In South Florida, lighting ordinances have been passed by
Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, Monroe, Collier,
Charlotte, Sarasota and Lee counties, as well as numerous municipalities. Most
recently, Witherington and Martin (1996) provide a thorough discussion of the
effects of light pollution on sea turtle nesting beaches and on juvenile and adult
turtles, and offer a variety of effective management solutions for ameliorating
this problem.
Information on the status and distribution of the leatherback sea turtle is
critical to its conservation. Monitoring the various life stages of the turtles on
nesting beaches is being conducted to evaluate current and past management
practices. Data are collected on the number of nests laid, the number of nests that
successfully hatch, and the production of hatchlings reaching the ocean.
Standardized ground surveys on index beaches are underway throughout Florida
by the FWS, DEP, and private groups and universities. Because of the turtles
slow growth rates and subsequent delayed sexual maturity, all monitoring will
need to be conducted over a long period of time to establish population trends.
Mortality of leatherback turtles has been monitored since 1980 through the
implementation of a regional data collection effort. This voluntary stranding
network from Maine to Texas is coordinated by the NMFS and serves to
document the geographic and seasonal distribution of sea turtle mortality
(Schroeder 1987). Since 1987, four index zones have been systematically
surveyed. It is clear that strandings represent an absolute minimum mortality.
However, they can be used as an annual index to mortality and are an indication
of the size and distribution of turtles being killed. They can also provide valuable
biological information on food habits, reproductive condition, and sex ratios.
Page 4-681
A substantial effort is being made by government and non-government

agencies and private individuals to increase public awareness of sea turtle
conservation issues. Federal and State agencies and private conservation
organizations, such as the Center for Marine Conservation, Greenpeace, and
National Audubon Society, have produced and distributed a variety of audio-
visual aids and printed materials about sea turtles. These include: a booklet on
the different types of light fixtures and ways of screening lights to lessen their
effects on hatchlings (Raymond 1984b), the brochure Attention Beach Users,
Lights Out bumper stickers and decals, a coloring book, video tapes,
slide/tape programs, full color identification posters of the various species of
sea turtles, and a leatherback poster. Florida Power and Light Company also
has produced a booklet (Van Meter 1990) and two leaflets with information on
sea turtles, as well as a coastal roadway lighting manual. Many beaches have
been posted with signs informing people of the laws protecting sea turtles and
providing either a local or a hotline number to report violations.
Page 4-682
Literature Cited Ackerman, R. A. 1980. Physiological and ecological aspects of gas exchange by sea
turtle eggs. American Zoologist 20:575-583.
Adams, T. W. 1988. Manchenil Bay leatherback sea turtle research and conservation
project, 1988. Final report, submitted to U.S. Virgin Islands Division Fish and
Wildlife.
Allen, E. R., and W. T. Neill. 1957. Another record of the Atlantic leatherback,
Dermochelys coriacea, on the Florida coast. Copeia 1957:143-144.
Bacon, P. R. 1970. Studies on the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea (L.), in
Trinidad, West Indies. Biological Conservation 2:213-217.
Bacon, P. R., and G. K. Maliphant. 1971. Further studies on sea turtles in Trinidad and
Tobago with a guide to the common species and their hatchlings. Journal Trinidad
Field Naturalists Club 1971:2-17.
Barnard, D. E., J. A. Keinath, and J. A. Musick. 1989. Distribution of ridley, green and
leatherback turtles in Chesapeake Bay and adjacent waters. Pages 201-203 in S. A.
Eckert, K.L. Eckert and T. H. Richardson, eds. Proceedings of the ninth annual
workshop on sea turtle conservation and biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-SEFC 232. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.
Basford, S. J., R. L. Brandner, and R. H. Boulon. 1986. Tagging and nesting research
on leatherback sea turtles Dermochelys coriacea on Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S.
Virgin Islands, 1986. Annual report. U.S. Virgin Islands Division of Fish and
Wildlife. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Vero Beach, Florida.
Basford, S. J., R. L. Brandner, and R. H. Boulon. 1988. Tagging and nesting research
Virgin Islands, 1988. Annual Report. U.S. Virgin Islands Division of Fish and
Bels, V., F. Rimblot-Baly, and J. Lescure. 1988. Croissance et maintien en captivity de
la tortue luth, Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli 1761). Revue Française d
Aquariologie 15(l988)2:59-64.
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.
Bleakney, J. S. 1965. Reports of marine turtles from New England and eastern Canada.
Canadian Field Naturalist 79:120-128.
Boulon, R. H. 1989. Virgin Island turtle recoveries outside of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Pages 207-209 in S. A. Eckert, K. L. Eckert, and T. H. Richardson, compilers.
Proceedings of the ninth annual workshop on sea turtle conservation and biology.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232. On file at South Florida
Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.
Boulon, R. H., K. L. Eckert, and S. A. Eckert. 1988. Dermochelys coriacea.
(leatherback sea turtle) migration. Herpetological Review 19(4):88.
Page 4-683
Brahim, S., E. H. Chan, and A. K. Rahman. 1987. An update on the population status
and conservation of the leatherback turtle of Terengganu. Pages 69-77 in A.
Sasekumar, S. M. Phang, and E. L. Chong, eds. Proceedings of the tenth annual
seminar towards conserving Malaysias marine heritage, 28 March 1987;
Malaysian Society of Marine Sciences, University of Malaya.
Brandner, R. L., S. J. Basford, and R. H. Boulon. 1987. Tagging and nesting research
Virgin Islands, 1987. Annual report. U.S. Virgin Islands Division of Fish and
Brongersma, L. D. 1969. Miscellaneous notes on turtles. IIA, IIB. Proceedings of the
Koninklljke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam C 72(l):76-
102.
Brongersma, L. D. 1970. Miscellaneous notes on turtles, III. Proceedings of the
Koninklljk Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam C 73(4):323-
335.
Broward County Erosion Prevention District Environmental Quality Control Board.
1987. Sea turtle conservation project, Broward County, Florida, 1987 report. On
file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero
Beach, Florida.
Caldwell, D. K. 1959. On the status of the Atlantic leatherback turtle, Dermochelys
coriacea, as a visitant to Florida nesting beaches, with natural history notes.
Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Science 21(3):285-291.
Caldwell, D. K., A. Carr, and T. R. Hellier, Jr. 1956. A nest of the Atlantic leatherback
turtle, Dermochelys coriacea (Linnaeus), on the Atlantic coast of Florida, with a
summary of American nesting records. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy
of Science 18(4):279-284.
Caldwell, D. K., and Rathjen, W. F. 1969. Unrecorded West Indian nesting sites for the
leatherback and hawksbill sea turtles Dermochelys coriacea and Eretmochelys
imbricate. Copeia 1969: 622-623.
Cameron, T. H. 1923. Notes on turtles. Journal Bombay Natural History Society
29:299-300.
Carr, A. 1952. Handbook of turtles. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell
University Press; Ithaca, New York.
Carr, A. 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development.
Conservation Biology 1(2):103-121.
Carr, A., A. Meylan, J. Mortimer, K. Bjorndal and T. Carr. 1982. Surveys of sea turtle
populations and habitats in the Western Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-SEFC-91.
Carr, A., and L. Ogren. 1959. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 3:
Dermochelys in Costa Rica. American Museum Novitiates 1958:1-29.
Carr, A. F., Jr., and L. H. Ogren. 1960. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 4.
The green turtle in the Caribbean Sea. Bulletin American Museum of Natural
History 121:1-48.
Carr, T., and N. Carr. 1986. Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle) copulation.
Herpetological review 17(1):24-25.
Page 4-684
Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1984. Shore Protection Manual, volumes I and
II. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station; Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Daniel, R. S., and K. U. Smith. 1947. The sea-approach behavior of the neonate
loggerhead turtle. Journal Comparative Physiological Psychology 40:413-420.
Davenport, J., D. L. Holland, and J. East. 1990. Thermal and biochemical
characteristics of the lipids of the leatherback, Dermochelys coriacea: evidence of
endothermy. Journal Marine Biological Association United Kingdom 70:33-41.
Davis, G.E., and M.C. Whiting. 1977. Loggerhead sea turtle nesting in Everglades
National Park, Florida, USA. Herpetologica 33:18-28
Deraniyagala, P. E. P. 1936. The nesting habit of the leathery turtle, Dermochelys
coriacea. Notes, Ceylon Journal Science B 19(3):331-336.
Dickerson, D. D., and D. A. Nelson. 1989. Recent results on hatchling orientation
responses to light wavelengths and intensities. Page 41 in S. A. Eckert, K. L.
Eckert, and T. H. Richardson, compilers. Proceedings of the ninth annual
workshop on sea turtle conservation and biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-SEFC-232. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish and
Dodd, C. K. 1978. Terrestrial critical habitat and marine turtles. Paper presented at
Symposium: Recovery and Management of Marine Turtles in the Southeast
Region, 26-27 June 1978; Tampa, Florida. On file at South Florida Ecosystem
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.
Duron, M. 1978. Contribution a letude de la biologie de Dermochelys coriacea
(Linne) dans les Pertuis Charentais. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of
Bordeaux.
Duron-DeFrenne, M. 1987. Premier suivi par satellite en Atlantique dune tortue luth
Dermochelys coriacea. C. R. Academic des Sciences de Paris 304, serie III n° 15,
1987:399-402.
Eckert, K. L. 1987. Environmental unpredictability and leatherback sea turtle
Dermochelys coriacea nest loss. Herpetologica 43(3):31 5-323.
Eckert, K. L. 1989. (Draft) WIDECAST sea turtle recovery action plan for the U.S.
Virgin Islands. Caribbean Environment Programme, United Nations Environment
Programme. Contract #CR/5102-86. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.
Eckert, K. L., and S. A. Eckert. 1985. Tagging and nesting research of leatherback sea
turtles Dermochelys coriacea on Sandy Point, St. Croix, 1985. Annual report. U.S.
Virgin Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish Wildlife Reference Service
MIN 54-8680431. Laurel, Maryland.
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, K. L., S. A. Eckert, and D. W. Nellis. 1984. Tagging and nesting research of
leatherback sea turtles Dermochelys coriacea on Sandy Point, St. Croix, 1984,
with management recommendations for the population. Annual report. U.S. Virgin
Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish Wildlife Reference Service. MIN
54-8580175. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Page 4-685
Eckert, K. L., and B. B. Lettsome. 1988. (Draft) WIDECAST sea turtle recovery action
plan for the British Virgin Islands. Caribbean Environment Programme, United
Nations Environment Programme. Contract #CR/5102-86. On file at South Florida
Eckert, S. A., K. L. Eckert, P. Ponganis, and G. L. Kooyman. 1989. Diving and foraging
behavior of leatherback sea turtles Dermochelys coriacea. Canadian Journal of
Zoology 67:2834-2840.
Ehrenfeld, D. W., and A. Carr. 1967. The role of vision in the sea-finding orientation
of the green turtle Chelonia mydas. Animal Behavior 15:25-36.
Ehrhart, L. M. 1983. A survey of nesting by the green turtle, Chelonia mydas, and
loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, in south Brevard County, Florida. Unpublished.
Report to World Wildlife Fund--U.S.; Washington, D.C. On file at South Florida
Eisenberg, J. F., and J. Frazier. 1983. A leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea
feeding in the wild. Journal of Herpetology. 17:81-82.
Ernest, R.G., R. Erick, and C.J. Bove. 1987. Development of a comprehensive sea
turtle protection ordinance for St. Lucie County, Florida. (Abstract). seventh
annual workshop on sea turtle biology and conservation. February 1987, Wekiva
Springs State Park, Florida. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection [DEP]. 1996. Unpublished data.
Reported nesting activity of the leatherback, Dermochelys coriacea, in Florida,
1993-1995. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Frair, W. 1970. The worlds largest living turtle. Salt Water Aquarium 5:235-241.
Frair, W., R. G. Ackman, and N. Mrosovsky. 1972. Body temperature of Dermochelys
coriacea: warm turtle from cold water. Science 177:791-793.
Fretey, J., and M. Girondot. 1989. Lactivite de ponte de la tortue luths, Dermochelys
coriacea (Vandelli, 1761), pendant la saison 1988 en Guyane Française. Revue
dEcologie (Terre Vie) 44:261-274.
Gaffney, E. S. 1975. A phylogeny and classification of the higher categories of turtles.
Bulletin American Museum of Natural History 155:397-436.
Gaffney, E. S. 1984. Historical analysis of theories of Chelonian relationship.
Systematic Zoology 33:283-301.
Garcia, V. F. A. 1987. National Report for Panama to the western Atlantic turtle
symposium, October 1987; Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. On file at South Florida
Glusing, G. 1967. Aufrucht-versuch junger Lederschild Kroten Dermochelys coriacea.
Aguarien-und Terrarien Zeitschrift 20:61-63.
Goff, G. P., and J. Lien. 1988. Atlantic leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, in
cold water off Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Field Naturalist 102(l):1-5.
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.
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.
Page 4-686
Hartog, J. C. den. 1980. Notes on the food of sea turtles: Eretmochelys imbricata
(Linnaeus) and Dermochelys coriacea (Linnaeus). Netherlands Journal of
Zoology 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. Zoologische
Verhandelingen 209(l984):1-36.
Hendrickson, J. R. 1958. The green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linn.) in Malaya and
Sarawak. Proceedings Zoological Society of London 130:455-535.
Hendrickson, J. R. 1980. The ecological strategies of sea turtles. American Zoologist
20:597-608.
Hildebrand, H. H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidacion de la tortuga marina lora,
Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), en la costa occidental del Golfo de Mexico.
Ciencia Mexicana 26(4):105-112.
Hildebrand, H. 1987. A reconnaissance of beaches and coastal waters from the border
of Belize to the Mississippi River as habitats for marine turtles. Final report,
NOAA/NMFS/SEFC Panama City Lab (purchase order #NA-84-CF-A-134). On
Beach, Florida.
Hirth, H. G. 1980. Some aspects of the nesting behavior and reproductive biology of
sea turtles. American Zoologist 20:507-523.
Hirth, H. G., and L. H. Ogren. 1987. Some aspects of the ecology of the leatherback
turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, at Laguna Jalova, Costa Rica. NOAA Technical
Report NMFS 56. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish and
Hopkins-Murphy, S. R. 1988. Sea turtle recovery efforts in the southeastern U.S. Pages
63-71 in R. R. Odum, K. A. Riddleberger, and J. C. Ozier, eds., Proceedings of the
third southeastern non-game and endangered wildlife symposium, August 1987;
Athens, Georgia.
Hopkins, S.R., and T.M. Murphy. 1980. Reproductive ecology of Caretta caretta in
South Carolina. South Carolina Wildlife Marine Resources Department
completion report. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish and
Horrocks, J. A. 1987. Leatherbacks in Barbados. Marine Turtle Newsletter 41:7.
Hosier, P. E., M. Kochhar, and V. Thayer. 1981. Off-road vehicle and pedestrian track
effects on the sea-approach of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Environmental
Conservation 8:158-161.
Hughes, G. R. 1974. The sea turtles of South-East Africa, 11. Investigational report No.
36. Oceanographic Research Institutuion; Durban, Republic of South Africa.
Johnson, M. L. 1989. Juvenile leatherback cared for in captivity. Marine Turtle
Newsletter 47:13-14.
Kar, C. S., and S. Bhaskar. 1982. Status of sea turtles in the eastern Indian Ocean.
Pages 365-372 in K. A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology and conservation of sea turtles.
Smithsonian Institution Press; Washington D.C.
Page 4-687
Knowlton, A. R., and B. Weigle. 1989. A note on the distribution of leatherback turtles
Dermochelys coriacea along the Florida coast in February 1988. Pages 83-85 in S.
A. Eckert, K. L. Eckert, and T. H. Richardson, compilers. Proceedings of the ninth
annual workshop on sea turtle conservation and biology. NOAA Technical
Memornadum NMFS-SEFC-232. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.
Labisky, R.F., M.A. Mercadante, and W.L. Finger. 1986. Factors affecting reproductive
success of sea turtles on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, 1985. Final
report to the U.S. Air Force; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Unit, Agreement No. 14-16-0009-1544, Work Order No. 25. On
Beach, Florida.
Lambie, I. 1983. Two tagging records from Trinidad. Marine Turtle Newsletter 24:17.
Lazell, J. D. 1980. New England waters: critical habitat for marine turtles. Copeia
1980:290-295.
Leary, T. R. 1957. A schooling of leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, on the
Texas coast. Copeia 1957:232.
LeBuff, C. R., Jr. 1990. The loggerhead turtle in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Caretta
Research Incorporated; Sanibel Island, Florida.
Lee, D. S., and W. M. Palmer. 1981. Records of leatherback turtles, Dermochelys
coriacea (Linnaeus), and other marine turtles in North Carolina waters.
Brimleyana 5:95-106.
Limpus, C. J. 1984. A benthic feeding record from neritic water for the leathery turtle
Dermochelys coriacea. Copia 1984:552-553.
Lohoefener, R. R., W. Hoggard, C. L. Roden, K. Mullin, and C. M. Rogers. 1988.
Distribution and relative abundance of surfaced sea turtles in the north-central
Gulf of Mexico: spring and fall 1987. Pages 47-50 in B.A. Schroeder, compiler.
Proceedings of the eighth annual workshop on sea turtle conservation and biology.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-214. On file at South Florida
MacPherson, S. 1997. Personal communication.
Mann, T. M. 1977. Impact of developed coastline on nesting and hatchling sea turtles
in southeastern Florida. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Florida Atlantic University,
Boca Raton.
Matos, R. 1986. Sea turtle hatchery project with specific reference to the leatherback
Dermochelys coriacea, Humacao, Puerto Rico, 1986. Annual Report, Puerto Rico
Department of Natural Resources.
Matos, R. 1987. Sea turtle hatchery project with specific reference to the leatherback
Dermochelys coriacea and hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata sea turtles,
Humacao, Puerto Rico, 1987. Annual report, Puerto Rico Department of Natural
Resources.
McDonald, D., P. H. Dutton, and R. H. Boulon. 1991. Tagging and nesting research on
leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) on Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S.
Virgin Islands. Annual report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Contract No.
PC-P&NR-287-91 to U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural
Resources, October, 1991. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish
Page 4-688
Virgin Islands. Annual report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Contract No.
PC-P&NR-287-92 to U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural
Resources, November, 1991. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish
Virgin Islands, 1993. Annual report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Contract
No. PC-P&NR-287-93 to U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural
Resources, November, 1991. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish
Virgin Islands, 1994. Annual Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Contract No. PC-P&NR-287-94 to U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning
and Natural Resources, October, 1994. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.
McFarlane, R. W. 1963. Disorientation of loggerhead hatchlings by artificial road
lighting. Copeia 1963:153.
Medrano, L., M. Dorizzi, F. Rimblot, and C. Pieau. 1987. Karyotypes of the sea turtle
Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli, 1761). Amphibia-Reptilia 8(1987):171-178.
Meylan, A. 1983. Marine turtles of the Leeward Islands, Lesser Antilles. Atoll
Research Bulletin 278:1-24.
Meylan, A., P. Meylan, and A. Ruiz. 1985. Nesting of Dermochelys coriacea in
Caribbean Panama. Journal of Herpetology 19(2):293-297.
Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the State
of Florida 1979-1992. Florida Marine Research Publications Number 52; St.
Petersburg, Florida.
Michel, H. B., and M. Foyo. 1976. Caribbean zooplankton, Part 1. Department of
Defense, Navy Department, Office of Naval Research. Government Printing
Office; Washington D.C.
Morgan, P. J. 1989. Occurrence of leatherback turtles Dermochelys coriacea in the
British Isles in 1988 with reference to a record specimen. Pages 119-120 in S. A.
Eckert, K. L. Eckert, and T. H. Richardson, compilers. Proceedings of the ninth
annual conference on sea turtle conservation and biology. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.
Mortimer, J. A. 1979. Ascension Island: British jeopardize 45 years of conservation.
Marine Turtle Newsletter 10:7-8.
Mortimer, J. A. 1982. Factors influencing beach selection by nesting sea turtles, Pages
45-51 in K. A. Bjorndal, ed., Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles.
Smithsonian Institution Press; Washington, D.C.
Mrosovsky, N. 1983. Ecology and nest-site selection of leatherback turtles,
Dermochelys coriacea. Biological Conservation 26:47-56.
Page 4-689
Mrosovsky, N., and P. C. H. Pritchard. 1971. Body temperatures of Dermochelys

coriacea and other sea turtles. Copeia 1971(4):624-631.
Murphy, T. M. 1985. Telemetric monitoring of nesting loggerhead sea turtles subjected
to disturbance on the beach. Paper presented at fifth annual workshop on sea turtle
biology and conservation, 13-16 March 1985; Waverly, Georgia.
Musick, J. A. 1988. The sea turtles of Virginia with notes on identification and natural
history. Virginia Sea Grant Program, Virginia Institute of Marine Science;
Gloucester Point, Virginia.
National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS].
1992. Recovery plan for leatherback turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and
Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service; Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1990. Managing coastal erosion. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
Neill, W. H., and E. D. Stevens. 1974. Thermal inertia versus thermoregulation in
warm turtles and tunas. Science 184:1008-1010.
Nelson, D.A., and D.D. Dickerson. 1987. Correlation of loggerhead turtle nesting
digging with beach sand consistency. (Abstract). Seventh annual workshop on sea
turtle biology and conservation, February 1987; Wekiva Springs State Park,
Florida.
Nelson, D.A., and D.D. Dickerson. 1988a. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles.
in L.S. Tait, ed. Proceedings of the beach preservation technology conference 88.
Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association, Incorporated; Tallahassee,
Florida.
Nelson, D.A., and D.D. Dickerson. 1988b. Hardness of nourished and natural sea turtle
nesting beaches on the east coast of Florida. Unpublished report. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station; Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1988c. Response of nesting sea turtles to tilling of
compacted beaches, Jupiter Island, Florida. Unpublished Report. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station; Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Paladino, F. V., M. P. OConnor, and J. R. Spotila. 1990. Metabolism of leatherback
turtles, gigantothermy, and thermoregulation of dinosaurs. Nature 344:858-860.
Philibosian, R. 1976. Disorientation of hawksbill turtle hatchlings, Eretmochelys
imbricata, by stadium lights. Copeia 1976:824.
Phillips, E. J. 1977. Raising hatchlings of the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys
coriacea. Britanic Journal of Herpetology 5:677-678.
Pilkey, 0. H., Jr., D. C. Sharma, H. R. Wanless, L. J. Doyle, 0. H. Pilkey, Sr., W. J. Neal,
and B. L. Gruver. 1984. Living with the east Florida shore. Duke University Press;
Durham, North Carolina.
Polunin, N. V. C. 1977. Wildlife Thailand. Conservation News 1977:6-10.
Possardt, E. E. 1991. A conservation program for sea turtles in the southeastern
continental U.S. Journal of Alabama Academy of Science 62:35-48.
Pritchard, P. C. H. 1971. The leatherback or leathery turtle, Dermochelys coriacea.
International Union for Conservation of Nature Monograph 1:1-39. Morges,
Switzerland.
Pritchard, P. C. H. 1973. International migrations of South American sea turtles
(Cheloniidae and Dermochelyidae). Animal Behavior 21:18-27.
Page 4-690
Pritchard, P. C. H. 1976. Post-nesting movements of marine turtles (Cheloniidae and

Dermochelyidae) tagged in the Guianas. Copeia 1976:749-754.
Pritchard, P. C. H. 1977. Marine Turtles of Micronesia. Chelonia Press; San Francisco,
California.
Pritchard, P. C. H. 1982. 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. 1988a. (Draft) WIDECAST Recovery Action Plan for Guyana.
Caribbean Environment Programme, United Nations Environment Programme.
Contract #CR/5102-86. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish and
Pritchard, P. C. H. 1988b. Sea turtles in Guyana, Pages 85-87 in B. A. Schroeder
Comp., Proceedings of the eighth annual workshop on sea turtle conservation and
biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFC-214. On file at South
Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.
Pritchard, P. C. H. 1992. Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea. Pages 214-218 in
P.E. Moler, ed. rare and endangered biota of florida, volume III. University Press
of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Pritchard, P. C. H., and P. Trebbau. 1984. The turtles of Venezuela. Society for the
Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.
Pritchard, P.C.H. P.R. Bacon, F.H. Berry, J. Fletemeyer, A.F. Carr, R.M. Gallagher.
R.R. Lankford, R. Marquez, L.H. Ogren, W.G. Pringle, Jr., H.M. Reichardt, and R.
Witham. 1983. Sea turtle manual of research and conservation techniques. Western
Atlantic Turtle Symposium.
Raymond, P. W. 1984a. The effects of beach restoration on marine turtles nesting in
south Brevard County, Florida. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. University of Central
Florida, Orlando.
Raymond, P. W. 1984b. Sea turtle hatchling disorientation and artificial beachfront
lighting; a review of the problem and potential solutions. Center for
Environmental Education; Washington, D.C.
Rhodin, A. G. J. 1985. Comparative chondro-osseous development and growth in
marine turtles. Copeia 1985:752-771.
Rhodin, A. G. J., J. A. Ogden, and G. J. Conlogue. 1981. Chondro-osseous morphology
of Dermochelys coriacea, a marine reptile with mammalian skeletal features.
Nature 290:244-246.
Rhodin, A. G. J., and R. C. Schoelkopf. 1982. Reproductive data on a female
leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, stranded in New Jersey. Copeia
1982:181-183.
Rhodin, A. G. J., and H. M. Smith. 1982. The original authorship and type specimen of
Dermochelys coriacea. Journal of Herpetology 16(3):316-317.
Ross, J. P., and J. P. Ottenwalder. 1983. The leatherback sea turtle, Dermochelys
coriacea, nesting in the Dominican Republic. Pages 189-209 in A. Rhodin and K.
Miyata, eds. Advances in herpetology and evolutionary biology. Smithsonian
Institution Press; Washington D.C.
Ruckdeschel, C., L. Ellis, and C.R. Shoop. 1982. Dermochelys coriacea (Leatherback
sea turtle) nesting. Herpetological Review 13:126.
Page 4-691
Schroeder, B.A. 1981. Predation and nest success in two species of marine turtles
(Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas) at Merritt Island, Florida. Florida Scientist
44(l):35.
Schroeder, B. A., and N. B. Thompson. 1987. Distribution of the loggerhead turtle,
Caretta caretta, and the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, in the Cape
Canaveral, Florida area: results of aerial surveys. Pages 45-53 in W. N. Witzell, ed.
Ecology of east Florida sea turtles. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 53. National
Marine Fisheries Service; Miami, Florida.
Schulz, J. 1975. Sea turtles nesting in Surinam. Zoologische Verhandelingen. (Leiden)
No. 143. On file at South Florida Ecosystem Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Shoop, C. R., T. L. Doty, and N. E. Bray. 1981. Sea turtles in the region between Cape
Hatteras and Nova Scotia in 1979. Pages 68-75 in A characterization of marine
mammals and turtles in the mid- and north-Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer
continental shelf (CeTAP), executive summary. On file at South Florida
Shoup, L.P., and R.E. Wolf. 1987. Boca Raton beach area outdoor lighting restrictions
for the protection of sea turtles. (Abstract). Seventh annual workshop on sea turtle
biology and conservation, February 1987; Wekiva Springs State Park, Florida.
Spoczinska, J.O.I. 1970. Rearing hatchlings of Dermochelys coriacea (L.) British
Journal of Herpetology 4:189-192
Stancyk, S.E., O.R. Talbert, and J.M. Dean. 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead
turtle Caretta caretta in South Carolina, II: protection of nests from raccoon
predation by transplantation. Biological Conservation 18:289-298.
Sternberg, J. 1981. The worldwide distribution of sea turtle nesting beaches. Center for
Environmental Education; Washington, D.C.
Talbert, O.R., Jr., S.E. Stancyk, J.M. Dean, and J.M. Will. 1980. Nesting activity of the
loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta in South Carolina I: a rookery in transition.
Copeia 1980:709-718.
Tallevast, T., J. Howell, C. Campbell, N. Colon, W. Colon, and V. Nichols. 1990.
Leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, nesting study in Culebra, Puerto Rico,
1989. Annual Report to Puerto Rico Conservation Foundation and the U.S. Fish
Wildlife Service.
Thompson, N. S. 1984. Progress report on estimating density and abundance of marine
turtles: results of first year pelagic surveys in the Southeast U.S. National Marine
Fisheries Service; Miami, Florida.
Threlfall, W. 1978. First record of the Atlantic leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea
from Labrador. Canadian Field Naturalist 92(3):287.
Tucker, A. D. 1988. A summary of leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea nesting at
Culebra, Puerto Rico, from 1984-1987 with management recommendations.
Report submitted to U.S. Fish Wildlife Service. On file at South Florida
Tucker, A. D. 1989. The influence of reproductive variations and spatial distribution on
nesting success for leatherback sea turtles Dermochelys coriacea. Unpublished
M.S. Thesis. University of Georgia.
Page 4-692
Van Meter, V. B. 1990. Floridas Sea Turtles. Florida Power and Light Company;
Miami, Florida.
Witham, R. 1977. Dermochelys coriacea in captivity. Marine Turtle Newsletter 3:6.
Witherington, B. E. 1986. Human and natural causes of marine turtle clutch and
hatchling mortality and their relationship to hatchling production on an important
Florida nesting beach. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. University of Central Florida,
Orlando.
Witherington, B.E., K.A. Bjorndal, and C.M. McCabe. 1990. Temporal pattern of
nocturnal emergence of loggerhead turtle hatchlings from natural nests. Copeia
1990:1165-1168.
Witherington, B. E., and K. A. Bjorndal. 1991. Influences of artificial lighting on the
seaward orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta. Biological
Conservation 55:139-149.
Witherington, B.E., and R.E. Martin. 1996. Understanding, assessing, and resolving
light pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. FMRI Technical Report
TR-2. Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Page 4-693
Page 4-694
Recovery for the
Leatherback Sea Turtle
Dermochelys coriacea
Recovery Objective: DELIST the species once recovery criteria are met.
South Florida Contribution: SUPPORT delisting actions..
Recovery Criteria
The South Florida recovery contribution parallels the existing recovery plans for sea turtles. South Floridas
objective for the loggerhead, green, leatherback and hawksbill sea turtles will be achieved when: the level
of nesting for each species is continuously monitored and increases to the species-specific recovery goal;
beaches supporting greater than 50 percent of the nesting activity are in public ownership; all important
nesting beaches are protected and appropriately managed to prevent further degradation; non-native
nuisance species have been controlled or eliminated on public lands; at least 60 percent hatch success is
documented on major nesting beaches; effective lighting ordinances or lighting plans are implemented; and
beaches are restored or rehabilitated to be suitable for nesting where appropriate.
Species-level Recovery Actions

S1. Continue standardized surveys of nesting beaches. Nesting surveys are undertaken on the
majority of nesting beaches. In the past, beach coverage varied from year to year, as did the
frequency of surveys, experience and training of surveyors, and data reporting. Consequently,
no determination of nesting population trends had been possible with any degree of certainty.
However, in 1989, to better assess trends in nesting, DEP, in cooperation with FWS, initiated
an Index Nesting Beach Survey (INBS) program to collect nesting data that could be used to
statistically and scientifically analyze population trends. The INBS program should continue
to gather a long-term data base on nesting activities in Florida that can be used as an index of
nesting population trends.
S2. Protect and manage populations on nesting beaches. Predators, poaching, tidal inundation,
artificial lighting, and human activities on nesting beaches diminish reproductive success.
Monitoring of nesting activity is necessary to implement and evaluate appropriate nest
protection measures and determine trends in the nesting population.
S2.1. Evaluate nest success and implement appropriate nest protection measures.
Nesting and hatching success and hatchling emerging success on beaches occurring
on State or Federal lands and all other important local or regional nesting beaches
should be evaluated. Appropriate nest protection measures should be implemented
by FWS and DEP, and appropriate local governments or organizations, to ensure
greater than 60 percent hatch rate. Until recovery is ensured, however, projects on
all Federal and State lands and key nesting beaches, such as those in Brevard, Indian
Page 4-695
River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach counties, should strive for a higher rate of
hatching success. In all cases, the least manipulative method should be employed to
avoid interfering with known or unknown natural biological processes. Artificial
incubation should be avoided. Where beach hatcheries are necessary, they should be
located and constructed to allow self release, and hatch rates approaching 90 percent
should be attained. Nest protection measures should always enable hatchling release
the same night of hatching.
S2.2. Determine influence of factors such as tidal inundation and foot traffic on
hatching success. Tidal inundation can diminish hatching success, depending on
frequency, duration, and developmental stage of embryos. Some nests are relocated
due to the perceived threat from tides. The extent to which eggs can tolerate tidal
inundation needs to be quantified to enable development of guidelines for nest
relocation relative to tidal threats. The effect of foot traffic on hatching success is
unknown, although many beaches with significant nesting also have high public use.
FWS should support research and, in conjunction with DEP, develop
recommendations for nest protection from tidal threat and foot traffic.
S2.3. Reduce effects of artificial lighting on hatchlings and nesting females. Studies
have shown that light pollution can deter female sea turtles from coming onto the
beach to nest; in fact, brightly lit beaches have been determined to be used less
frequently for nesting. Also, females attempting to return to sea after nesting can be
disoriented by beach lighting and have difficulties making it back to the ocean. In
some cases, nesting females have ended up on coastal highways and been struck by
vehicles. Artificial beach lighting is even more detrimental to hatchling sea turtles,
which emerge from nests at night. Under natural conditions, hatchlings move toward
the brightest, most open horizon, which is over the ocean. However, when bright
light sources are present on the beach, they become the brightest spot on the horizon
and attract hatchlings in the wrong direction, making them more vulnerable to
predators, desiccation, exhaustion, and vehicles.
S2.3.1. Implement and enforce lighting ordinances and resolve lighting
problems in areas where lighting ordinances have not been adopted.
FWS and DEP should identify and resolve artificial lighting impacts to
sea turtles in South Florida. Since 1987, hatchling disorientation incidents
observed by DEP marine turtle permit holders and park personnel have
been reported through standardized reporting forms. Report forms serve
as documentation for lighting problems on nesting beaches and allow the
identification of specific problem light sources. FWS and DEP should use
these report forms to locate and resolve lighting problems, with the help
of local governments, through public education efforts, and by directly
contacting the owners of the problem lights and making
recommendations for their modification. FWS and DEP should also
proactively conduct pre-season lighting inspections to identify and make
recommendations for correcting problem light sources before they result
in disorientation events.
Where lighting ordinances have been adopted and enforced, hatchling
disorientation and misorientation have been drastically reduced. All
coastal counties and communities with nesting beaches should adopt
ordinances (March through October on the Atlantic Coast and May
Page 4-696
through October on the Gulf Coast). Many incorporated communities

within Broward and Palm Beach counties, Florida, are particularly
problematic because of the high-density nesting beaches and the lack of
effective lighting regulations. DEP should ensure appropriate lighting on
new construction projects.
S2.3.2. Evaluate extent of hatchling disorientation and misorientation on all
important nesting beaches. FWS, DEP, and counties should continue to
evaluate hatchling disorientation and misorientation problems on all
important nesting beaches. Many lighting ordinance requirements do not
become effective until 11 p.m., whereas over 30 percent of hatchling
emergence occurs prior to this time (Witherington et al. 1990). FWS,
DEP, and county governments should also support research to gather
additional quantitative data on hatchling emergence times and nesting
times on representative beaches throughout South Florida to support the
most effective time requirements for lighting ordinances.
S2.3.3. Prosecute individuals or entities responsible for hatchling
disorientation and misorientation under the Endangered Species Act
or appropriate State laws. Hatchling disorientation and misorientation
from artificial lights can cause high mortality and be the major source of
hatchling mortality on some nesting beaches if not controlled. Law
enforcement efforts should be focused where lighting ordinances are not
being implemented or enforced on major nesting beaches and where
repeated violations are not corrected.
S2.4. Ensure beach nourishment and coastal construction activities are planned to
avoid disruption of nesting and hatching activities. These activities can cause
significant disruption of nesting activities during the nesting season when viewed
cumulatively over the nesting range. Nest relocation can involve manipulation of
large numbers of nests, which can result in lowered hatch success and altered
hatchling sex ratios, and therefore is not an acceptable alternative to altering the
timing of projects during the peak nesting period. COE, FWS, and DEP should
ensure beach nourishment and other beach construction activities are not permitted
during the nesting season on important nesting beaches.
S2.5. Ensure law enforcement activities eliminate poaching and harassment.
Poaching, while not a significant cause of nest loss regionally, is occasionally a local
problem. Poaching has been repeatedly reported around the Ten Thousand Islands
NWR and adjacent islands in southwest Florida. In addition, intentional and
unintentional disturbance and harassment of nesting turtles is an increasing problem
on many beaches. FWS should work closely with DEP to identify problem areas and
focus intensive law enforcement efforts to eliminate poaching and deter harassment
of nesting turtles.
S3. Continue to gather information on species and population biology.
S3.1. Determine etiology of fibropapillomatosis. Research on the leatherback sea
turtle fibropapilloma disease should be continued and expanded.
Fibropapillomatosis (FP) is a disease of sea turtles characterized by the development
of multiple tumors on the skin and also internal organs, most frequently the lungs
and kidneys. The tumors interfere with swimming, eating, breathing, seeing, and
Page 4-697
reproduction, and turtles with heavy tumor burdens become severely debilitated and
die. FP has seriously impacted green turtle populations in Florida (about 50 percent
of juvenile green turtles in Indian River Lagoon and Florida Bay have
fibropapillomas) and is now emerging as a significant threat to the loggerhead as
well. FP is a transmissible disease caused by a virus, and, while both a unique
herpesvirus and retroviruses have been identified in FP tumors, neither has yet been
proven to be the cause of the disease. Researchers are concerned that there may be
environmental (contaminant) cofactors for this disease in nearshore areas.
Continuation and expansion of research on the disease is essential to developing an
approach to remedying the problem.
S3.2. Maintain the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network. Most accessible U.S.
beaches in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are surveyed for stranded sea turtles by
volunteer or contract personnel. Through the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage
Network, stranding data are archived and summarized by the NMFS Miami
Laboratory. These data provide an index of sea turtle mortality, and are thought to be
a cost-effective means of evaluating the effectiveness of the Turtle Exclusion Device
(TED) regulations. These data also provide basic biological information on sea
turtles and are useful in determining other sources of mortality. The systematic
stranding surveys of index areas need to be continued in South Florida. Periodic
review of the efficacy of surveys should also be conducted.
S3.3. Centralize administration and coordination of tagging programs. Sea turtle
researchers commonly tag turtles encountered during their research projects and
usually maintain independent tagging data bases. The lack of centralization for
administering these tagging data bases often results in confusion when tagged turtles
are recaptured, and delays in reporting of recaptures to the person originally tagging
the turtle. NMFS and FWS should investigate the possibilities of establishing a
centralized tagging data base, including Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags.
S3.3.1. Centralize tag series records. A centralized tag series data base is needed
to ensure that recaptured tagged turtles can be promptly reported to persons
who initially tagged the animal. The tag series data base would include
listings of all tag series that have been placed on sea turtles in the wild,
including the name and address of the researcher. This would eliminate
problems in determining which researcher is using which tag series or types
of tags, and would preclude unnecessary delays in reporting of tag returns.
NMFS and/or FWS should establish and maintain this data base.
S3.3.2. Centralize turtle tagging records. In addition to the need for a
centralization of tag series records, there are advantages in developing a
centralized turtle tagging data base. Such a data base would allow all
turtle researchers to trace unfamiliar tag series or types to their source,
and also to have immediate access to important biological information
collected at the time of original capture. The major disadvantage is that
this data base would require frequent editing and updating, and would be
costly and somewhat time consuming to maintain. It would also make it
possible for unethical researchers to exploit the work of others, while
providing no guarantees that such contributions would be acknowledged.
NMFS and FWS should determine whether such a data base can be
established and is feasible to maintain.
Page 4-698
S3.4. Develop requirements for care and maintenance of turtles in captivity,

including diet, water quality, tank size, and treatment of injury and disease. Sea
turtles are maintained in captivity for rehabilitation, research, or educational display.
Proper care will ensure the maximum number of rehabilitated turtles can be returned
to the wild and a minimum number removed from the wild for research or education
purposes. None of these requirements has been scientifically evaluated to determine
the best possible captive conditions for sea turtles. FWS and NMFS should support
the necessary research to develop these criteria, particularly relating to diet and the
treatment of injury and disease. These criteria should be published and required for
any permit to hold sea turtles in captivity. FWS, NMFS and/or DEP should inspect
permitted facilities at least annually for compliance with permit requirements.
S4. Monitor trends in nesting activity. DEP and FWS should continue to refine standardized nest
survey criteria, identify additional index survey beaches to be monitored, and continue to conduct
training workshops for surveyors. Surveys in Florida do not routinely cover the first two months
of the leatherback nesting season. Consequently, DEP and FWS should ensure that routine
monitoring of nesting beaches is done on at least a weekly basis during the time that leatherback
turtles are nesting, including any nesting that occurs outside of the regular survey period.
S5. Continue information and education activities. Sea turtle conservation requires long-term
public support over a large geographic area. The public must be factually informed of the
issues, particularly when conservation measures conflict with human activities, such as
commercial fisheries, beach development, and public use of nesting beaches. Public education
is the foundation upon which a long-term conservation program will succeed or fail.
S5.1. Update existing slide programs and information leaflets on sea turtle
conservation for the general public. FWS has developed a bilingual slide tape
program on sea turtle conservation and should keep the program current and
available for all public institutions and conservation organizations. FWS and DEP
should continually update and supply the public with informational brochures on sea
turtle ecology and conservation needs.
S5.2. Disseminate information from brochures and reports on recommended lighting
modifications or measures to reduce hatchling disorientation and misorientation.
Recently published literature contains information on the types of light, screening, or
shading that is best for turtles (e.g., Witherington and Martin 1996).
S5.3. Develop public service announcements (PSA) regarding the sea turtle artificial
lighting conflict and disturbance of nesting activities by public nighttime beach
activities. A professionally produced public service announcement for radio and TV
would provide tremendous support and reinforcement of the many coastal lighting
ordinances. It would generate greater support through understanding. FWS should
develop a high-quality PSA that could be used throughout the Southeast during the
nesting season.
S5.4. Ensure that facilities permitted to hold and display captive sea turtles have
appropriate informational displays. Over 50 facilities are permitted to hold sea turtles
for rehabilitation, research, and public education. Many are on public display and afford
opportunities for public education. Display of accurate information on the basic biology
and conservation problems should be a requirement of all permittees. All facilities
should be visited by FWS, NMFS and/or DEP to ensure captive sea turtles are being
displayed in a way to meet these criteria.
Page 4-699
S5.5. Post informational signs at public access points on nesting beaches. Public
access points to nesting beaches provide excellent opportunities to inform the public
of necessary precautions for compatible public use on the nesting beach and to
develop public support through informational and educational signs. FWS, NPS,
DEP and other appropriate organizations should post such educational and
informational signs on nesting beaches as appropriate.
Habitat-level Recovery Actions

H1. Protect and manage nesting habitat. Coastal development has already destroyed or
degraded many miles of nesting habitat in South Florida. Although sea turtle nesting occurs
on over 2,240 km of beaches within the southeast United States, development pressures are so
great that cumulative impacts could result in increased degradation or destruction of nesting
habitat and eventually lead to a significant population decline if not properly managed.
H1.1. Ensure beach nourishment projects are compatible with maintaining good
quality nesting habitat. Beach nourishment can improve nesting habitat in areas of
severe erosion and is a preferred alternative to beach armoring. However, placement
of sand on an eroded section of beach or an existing beach in and of itself may not
provide suitable nesting habitat for sea turtles. Although beach nourishment may
increase the potential nesting area, significant negative impacts to sea turtles may
result if protective measures are not incorporated during construction.
H1.1.2. Evaluate sand transfer systems as an alternative to beach nourishment.
Sand transfer systems can diminish the necessity for frequent beach
renourishment and thereby reduce disruption of nesting activities and
eliminate sand compaction. The construction and operation of these systems
must be carefully evaluated to ensure important nearshore habitats are not
degraded or sea turtles injured or destroyed.
H1.1.3. Refine a sand budget formulation methodology for Sebastian Inlet.
Inlets interrupt the natural flow of longshore sediment transport along the
shoreline. The interrupted flow of sand is diverted either offshore in ebb tide
shoals, into bays or lagoons in flood tide shoals, or in navigation channels
(National Research Council 1990). As a result, erosion occurs downdrift of
the interrupted shoreline. There are six man-made inlets on the Atlantic coast
from Indian River County to Broward County. In Indian River County, for
example, erosion has been nearly 2 m per year at Sebastian Inlet SRA (just
south of Sebastian Inlet), when the average erosion rate for the county is just
under 0.3 m per year (J. Tabar, Indian River County, personal
communication 1996). DEP, Sebastian Inlet Tax District, and Indian River
County should conduct engineering studies to refine a sand budget
formulation methodology for the Sebastian Inlet. Other needs include:
annually bypassing sand to downdrift beaches, conducting further studies of
the long-term effects of the flood shoal on the inlet-related sediment budget,
identifying the long-term impacts associated with the inlet in terms of sand
impoundment and sediment volume deficit to downdrift areas, and
determining the area of inlet influence.
Page 4-700
H1.2. Prevent degradation of nesting habitat from seawalls, revetments, sand bags,
sand fences or other erosion-control measures. One of the most difficult habitat
protection efforts throughout South Florida is trying to minimize or eliminate the
construction of seawalls, riprap, groins, sandbags, and improperly placed drift or
sand fences. In 1995, the Florida Legislature passed a law giving coastal counties
and municipalities the authority to approve construction of coastal armoring during
certain emergency situations. (All non-emergency armoring situations must still
receive an DEP permit prior to construction.) Although the new law weakened prior
regulations on armoring, it does require that emergency armoring structures
approved by a coastal county or municipality be temporary and that the structure be
removed, or a permit application submitted to DEP for a permanent rigid coastal
structure, within 60 days after the emergency installation of the structure. In
addition, to implement this new law, DEP finalized a formal agency rule on coastal
armoring on September 12, 1996.
H1.2.1. Ensure laws regulating coastal construction and beach armoring are
enforced. The 1996 DEP rule recommends that local governments obtain
an incidental take permit from FWS under section 10 of the Endangered
Species Act and develop a sea turtle habitat conservation plan prior to
authorizing armoring projects. The new rule also requires that several
measures be undertaken to address sea turtle concerns for non-emergency
armoring and for placement of permanent rigid coastal structures
subsequent to an emergency (temporary) armoring event. For example,
the new regulations require that (1) special conditions be placed on
permitted activities to limit the nature, timing, and sequence of
construction, as well as address lighting concerns; (2) structures not be
used where the construction would result in a significant adverse impact;
and (3) armoring be removed if it is determined to not be effective or to
be causing a significant adverse impact to the beach and dune system.
H1.2.2. Ensure failed erosion control structures are removed. Failed erosion
control structures such as uncovered plastic bags or tubes and fragmented
concrete or wooden structures degrade nesting habitat and deter nesting
activities. DEP should ensure failed structures are removed from nesting
beaches.
H1.2.3. Develop standard requirements for sand fence construction. Sand
fences can effectively build dune systems and improve nesting habitat;
however, improperly designed sand fences can trap nesting females or
hatchlings and prevent access to suitable nesting habitat. DEP and FWS
should develop and evaluate sand fencing designs and establish standard
requirements for sand fence construction.
H1.3. Identify important nesting beaches experiencing greater than 40 percent nest
loss from erosion and implement appropriate habitat restoration measures
(without relocation). Some important nesting beaches now suffer severe erosion as
a result of inlet maintenance or jetty construction. In some situations, limited safe
locations for relocating nests place constraints on nest relocation programs. Nest
relocation programs should be considered as a short-term measure at best to protect
nests in these situations with primary efforts directed toward habitat restoration.
Page 4-701
DEP and FWS should review all important nesting beaches and identify those with
40 percent or more nest loss due to erosion or tidal inundation. Habitat restoration
plans should be developed and implemented for identified nesting beaches.
H1.4. Acquire or otherwise ensure the long-term protection of important nesting
beaches. Acquisition of important sea turtle nesting beaches would ensure long-term
protection of U.S. nesting habitat. Acquisition and protection of undisturbed nesting
habitat would enhance sea turtle nesting and hatching success.
H1.4.1. Continue to acquire in fee title all undeveloped beaches between
Melbourne Beach and Wabasso Beach, Florida, for the Archie Carr
National Wildlife Refuge. The Archie Carr NWR was designated by
Congress in 1989 in recognition of the need for long stretches of quiet,
undisturbed sandy beaches, with little or no artificial lighting, to ensure the
reproductive success and survival of sea turtles. The refuge is located within
a 33-km stretch of beach on the barrier islands of Brevard and Indian River
Counties on the Atlantic coast of Florida. The proposed acquisition plan for
the refuge set a goal for purchase of 15 km within four sections of this 33-
km stretch. Three of the sections are located in Brevard County and one in
Indian River County.
Partners in the land acquisition effort for the refuge and adjacent buffer areas
on the barrier island include FWS, DEP, Brevard County, Indian River
County, Richard King Mellon Foundation, The Conservation Fund, and The
Nature Conservancy. To date, contributions from the State of Florida and
local county partnerships account for over 70 percent of land acquisition
expenditures, while contributions from the Richard King Mellon Foundation
account for over 21 percent of acquisition costs for lands on the barrier
island. Federal acquisition efforts account for about 8 percent of purchases
to date.
About 61 percent of the available beachfront acquisitions for the Refuge
have been completed. Of the original 15 km of beachfront identified for
acquisition, approximately 8 km have been acquired and 5 km are awaiting
purchase. The remaining lands have been purchased for private
development and are no longer available. Escalating coastal development
in Brevard and Indian River counties threatens the remaining parcels
identified for acquisition. Ongoing development continues to fragment the
remaining habitat and could result in increased lighting and beach
armoring, which negatively impact sea turtles. A narrow window of
opportunity is left to acquire the last remaining lands required for the
refuge.
H1.4.2. Evaluate status of other undeveloped beaches that provide important
habitat for maintaining the historic nesting distribution and develop a
plan for long-term protection. DEP and FWS should evaluate other
nesting beaches in the Southeast that contribute significantly to the historic
nesting distribution to ensure long-term protection.
Page 4-702
H2. Restore areas to suitable habitat.

H2.1. Reestablish dunes and native vegetation. Dune restoration and revegetation with
native plants should be a required component of all renourishment projects. This will
enhance beach stability and nesting habitat and may result in the need for less frequent
renourishment activities.
H2.2. Remove exotic vegetation and prevent spread to nesting beaches. Australian pine
trees shade nests and can alter natural hatchling sex ratios. Australian pines also
aggressively replace native dune and beach vegetation through shading and chemical
inhibition and consequently exacerbate erosion and loss of nesting habitat. Erosion can
topple trees and leave exposed roots that can entrap nesting females. Removal of
exotics, such as is ongoing at St. Lucie Inlet SP, Hobe Sound NWR, and Dry Tortugas
NP, Florida, should continue. DEP, FWS, and NPS should identify other important
nesting beaches where exotic vegetation is degrading nesting habitat and work with
responsible parties to restore natural vegetation.
H3. Conduct research to evaluate the relationship of sand characteristics (including aragonite)
and female nesting behavior, nesting success, hatching success, hatchling emerging success,
hatchling fitness, and sex ratios. Beach nourishment may result in changes in sand density
(compaction), beach shear resistance (hardness), beach moisture content, beach slope, sand color,
sand grain size, sand grain shape, and sand grain mineral content if the placed sand is dissimilar
from the original beach sand. These changes could result in adverse impacts on nest site selection,
digging behavior, clutch viability, and emergence by hatchlings. Gas diffusion of nests could be
affected by sand grain shape, size, and compaction and variations could alter hatching success.
Sand color and moisture influence nest incubation temperature and can affect hatchling sex
determination. The effect of importing non-native materials, such as aragonite, to U.S. beaches
for beach nourishment adds additional unknowns that could conceivably affect female nesting
behavior, nesting success, hatching success, hatchling emerging success, hatchling fitness and sex
ratios, and should be fully evaluated before large-scale use.
Studies of alternative sand sources for beach renourishment and their suitability for sea turtles are
needed. After years of beach renourishment, Miami-Dade County is running out of suitable sand
material for future renourishment projects. Broward and Palm Beach counties will also be running
out of sand sources in the near future. COE is exploring the potential use of sand from upland sand
sources and the importation of sand from the Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
Concerns have been raised about the long-term consequences to nesting and incubating sea turtles
using these alternative beach renourishing materials. In order to adequately address these
concerns in section 7 consultations, studies must be conducted on the suitability of these materials
prior to receiving a proposal for large-scale nourishment of Florida beaches with these alternative
sand sources.
Page 4-703
Page 4-704

Read

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Read

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Read

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leatherback Sea Turtle

about 4 cm thick and is made primarily of tough, oil-saturated connective tissue

Juvenile leatherback sea turtle.

Reproduction and Demography

Relationship to Other Species

Status and Trends

at 10 renourished east coast Florida beaches and concluded that 50 percent

(incorrect orientation) of hatchling turtles (McFarlane 1963, Philibosian 1976,

A substantial effort is being made by government and non-government

Mrosovsky, N., and P. C. H. Pritchard. 1971. Body temperatures of Dermochelys

Pritchard, P. C. H. 1976. Post-nesting movements of marine turtles (Cheloniidae and

South Florida Contribution: SUPPORT delisting actions..

Species-level Recovery Actions

through October on the Gulf Coast). Many incorporated communities

S3.4. Develop requirements for care and maintenance of turtles in captivity,

Habitat-level Recovery Actions

H2. Restore areas to suitable habitat.

You might also like