ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH
Endang Species Res
Vol. 4: 73–84, 2008
doi: 10.3354/esr00077
Printed January 2008
Published online January 18, 2008
INTRODUCTION
The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii is
listed as critically endangered by the World Conserva-
tion Union and as endangered under the US Endan-
gered Species Act (IUCN 2006, 50 US Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] 17.11). No nesting sites were known
for the species until 1961, when Henry Hildebrand dis-
covered a 1947 film depicting a daytime nesting aggre-
gation (arribada) of an estimated 10 000 to 40 000
females at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico (Carr
1963, Hildebrand 1963). By 1965, the largest arribadas at
Rancho Nuevo numbered less than 5000 ridleys
(Pritchard 1997), and conservation efforts were initiated
by the Mexican National Fisheries Institute (INP) in 1966
(Márquez et al. 2005). The US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and the Mexican INP began a bi-national re-
search and protection program for Kemp’s ridleys at
Rancho Nuevo in 1978 (Márquez et al. 2005, Heppell et
al. 2007). Exponential nesting increases of 12 to 19% yr–1
have been observed at Rancho Nuevo since 1985, likely
due to egg protection and integration of turtle excluder
devices (TEDs) into the US and Mexican shrimp fisheries
(Lewison et al. 2003, Heppell et al. 2007).
© Inter-Research 2008 · www.int-res.com*Email: eseney@tamu.edu
THEME SECTION
Movements of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles nesting on
the upper Texas coast: implications for management
Erin E. Seney1, 2,*, André M. Landry Jr.1
1Sea Turtle & Fisheries Ecology Research Laboratory, Department of Marine Biology, Texas A&M University at Galveston,
5007 Avenue U, Galveston, Texas 77551, USA
2NOAA Fisheries Sea Turtle Facility, NOAA Fisheries Service, US Department of Commerce, 4700 Avenue U,
Galveston, Texas 77551, USA
ABSTRACT: Increased nesting by the critically endangered Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys
kempii at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico has been complemented by commencement and growth of nesting
in Texas, USA. Six female Kemp’s ridleys were fitted with satellite transmitters after nesting on the
upper Texas coast during 2005 and 2006 and subsequently tracked for 20 to 153 d. Two were con-
firmed nesting a second time on Galveston Island, whereas satellite tracks of these and 2 other
females suggested that each nested a total of 3 times on the upper Texas coast within a season. Five
of the females showed fidelity to nearshore waters off Galveston Island during their respective nest-
ing seasons, and all 4 ridleys tracked after the nesting season established foraging areas on the con-
tinental shelf of Louisiana. One female stranded dead on Galveston Island 20 d after transmitter
deployment. Fidelity of these nesters to the upper Texas coast, along with apparent increases in nest-
ing activity in the region, warrant establishment of sea turtle management schemes comparable to
those utilized in south Texas. Potential threats posed by urbanization, tourism, and in-water activities
along the upper Texas coast should be addressed by federal, state, and local authorities, whereas
increased nesting may also present opportunities for educational outreach and responsible eco-
tourism.
KEY WORDS: Kemp’s ridley · Nesting · Satellite telemetry · Tracking · Management · United States ·
Texas
Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher
The following text is a contribution to Inter-Research Symposium 1
’Satellite Tracking for the Conservation of Migratory Vertebrates’
held in Myrtle Beach, SC, USA in February 2007
OPEN
ACCESS

Endang Species Res 4: 73–84, 2008
Bi-national conservation initiatives at Rancho
Nuevo were supplemented by efforts to establish a
Kemp’s ridley nesting colony at Padre Island National
Seashore (PINS) in Texas, USA (Fig. 1) and develop-
ment of an experimental headstart program at the US
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, now the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[NOAA] Fisheries Service) Galveston Laboratory
(Klima & McVey 1982, Fontaine & Shaver 2005).
From 1978 to 2000, 27 137 Kemp’s ridley hatchlings
were transferred to the NMFS Galveston Laboratory
from PINS (PINS-imprinted) or directly from Rancho
Nuevo (Mexico-imprinted) for captive-rearing (Fon-
taine & Shaver 2005, Shaver 2005). The majority of
these hatchlings were raised in captivity (i.e. ‘head-
started’) for 9 to 10 mo, with 23 987 conspecifics sub-
sequently tagged and released into the Gulf of Mex-
ico primarily off PINS and Galveston from 1979 to
2003 (Shaver 2005, Shaver & Wibbels 2007, B. Hig-
gins pers. comm.).
Historical accounts compiled by Hildebrand (1963),
Shaver & Caillouet (1998), and Burchfield (2005) indi-
cate that limited Kemp’s ridley nesting was docu-
mented along North Padre Island, Texas as early as
1948. This activity grew from 1 to 2 nests annually prior
to 1995 (Shaver & Caillouet 1998) to a record of 102
documented along the Texas coast in 2006 (D. Shaver
pers. comm.). Although most ridley nesting in Texas
occurs at PINS, 26 nests documented along the upper
Texas coast in Brazoria and Galveston Counties from
2002 to 2006 (Shaver et al. 2005a, Shaver & Wibbels
2007, NOAA Fisheries Sea Turtle Facility [NOAA STF]
unpubl. data courtesy of S. Kethan) suggest a reestab-
lishment or northern expansion of the species’ nesting
range. Nine females that nested on the upper Texas
coast from 2002 to 2006 were Mexico-imprinted head-
starts from the 1989, 1991, and 1992 year-classes,
whereas 3 others were wild (non-headstart) females
that lacked both tags and tag scars (Shaver et al.
2005a, Shaver & Wibbels 2007, NOAA STF unpubl.
data courtesy of S. Kethan). These data suggest ‘nat-
ural’ Kemp’s ridley nesting on the upper Texas coast, in
addition to that by Mexico-imprinted headstarts.
The written history of Galveston Island is largely
devoid of specific references to sea turtles on land (cf.
sea turtles landed, but not necessarily caught in the
area); however, there are 2 specific accounts that,
when combined with current knowledge of Kemp’s
ridley nesting behavior, suggest that recent nesting on
the upper Texas coast represents a reestablishment of
the species’ historical nesting range. Evidence that the
upper Texas coast was a historical nesting site is inher-
ent in Burchfield’s (2005) suggestion that an account
describing ‘clusters of mammoth turtles’ on a Galve-
ston Island beach during April or May 1851 (Vielé
1858) refers to nesting Kemp’s ridleys. Likewise, The
Galveston News reported that approximately a dozen
sea turtles were encountered on the beach at 41st
Street on Galveston Island on 14 May 1880. Although
the newspaper mentions that ‘those [sea turtles] usu-
ally found in the bay are called loggerheads’ (Anony-
mous 1880), it should be noted that the Kemp’s ridley
was not formally described as a species
until 1880, and as late as the 1970s, ridleys
were often sold and reported as logger-
head Caretta caretta meat (Rebel 1974).
Even today, the 2 species are often con-
fused by the public, and Kemp’s ridleys are
also occasionally misidentified as green
turtles Chelonia mydas due to their ‘green-
ish’ coloration (E. E. Seney pers. obs.). The
timing of the 1851 and 1880 accounts sug-
gests Kemp’s ridley nesting activity, given
that the species often nests during daylight
hours, and in April and May, whereas both
loggerhead and green turtles typically nest
in Texas later in the year and at night
(Burchfield 2005, D. Shaver pers. comm.).
The current criteria for downlisting
the Kemp’s ridley from ‘endangered’ to
‘threatened’ under the US Endangered
Species Act include attaining ‘a population
of at least 10 000 females nesting in a sea-
son’ (USFWS & NMFS 1992). The afore-
mentioned nesting trends, in conjunction
with recent reductions in shrimping effort
74
Fig 1. Western Gulf of Mexico showing the locations of Rancho Nuevo,
Tampaulipas, Mexico, Padre Island National Seashore (PINS), and Galve-
ston Island, Texas, USA

Seney & Landry: Tracking Kemp’s ridley turtles nesting on the upper Texas coast
in the Gulf of Mexico (LGL Ecological Research Asso-
ciates 2007) and declines in Texas ridley strandings
(Lewison et al. 2003), are indications that this species’
recovery is underway. Reaching the goal of 10 000
females (USFWS & NMFS 1992) will require continued
management and enforcement efforts, assessing and
reducing fishery impacts, evaluation of nearshore
time/area fishery closures, and increased efforts to
understand the species’ ecology and survival (Lewison
et al. 2003, Heppell et al. 2007). Additionally, Caillouet
(2005, 2006) recommends that ongoing revisions to the
Kemp’s Ridley Recovery Plan (USFWS & NMFS 1992)
reevaluate the 10 000-nest benchmark, designate
‘Texas beaches as known nesting habitats,’ and pro-
vide increased protection for all ridley life stages on
Texas beaches and in state waters.
Extensive urbanization, development, and tourism
along the upper Texas coast, particularly in Galveston
County, present additional obstacles that nesting rid-
leys do not typically encounter at PINS and other
protected beaches. Upper Texas coast nesting has
occurred near densely populated areas and on beaches
subject to vehicular traffic, raking, coastal armoring,
and artificial nourishment. Anticipated growth in rid-
ley nesting activity and concurrent use of beaches by
humans will likely translate into ecotourism opportuni-
ties (Campbell 2003), as well as a vast array of resource
management concerns. Characterizing nesting activity
and use of Texas coastal waters by ridleys during the
nesting season is essential to identifying and resolving
conflicts between these activities and those of the
beach-going public, in addition to exploring new eco-
tourism opportunities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Satellite telemetry. Six Kemp’s ridleys were selected
for tracking after nesting on the upper Texas coast
(Galveston and Brazoria Counties) during May 2005
and from April to May 2006. Individuals tracked dur-
ing 2005 were fitted with Telonics ST-10 (n = 2) or
ST-20 (n = 1) platform terminal transmitters (PTTs),
and those tracked during 2006 were fitted with
Sirtrack KiwiSat 101 (n = 2) or KiwiSat 202 (n = 1) PTTs.
Prior to transmitter application, each turtle’s anterior
carapace scutes were sanded and cleaned with ace-
tone. The 2005 PTTs were attached to the carapace
with PowerFast two-part marine epoxy. A layer of
PowerFast covered by SonicWeld steel-reinforced
epoxy putty (Mansfield & Musick 2004) was used to
attach the 2006 units, which were sprayed with a clear
antifouling paint (Tempo Marine) prior to attachment.
Additionally, two coats of a brush-on antifouling paint
(Interlux Micron Extra with ‘Biolux’) were applied to
the non-metal surfaces of the transmitters and cured
adhesives in 2006. Each tracked ridley was ultra-
sounded by J. Flanagan, Doctor of Veterinary Medi-
cine at the Houston Zoo, and released within 24 h of
egg deposition near her initial nesting site.
The Telonics ST-10 and ST-20 and Sirtrack KiwiSat
101 PTTs were set to a duty cycle of 6 h on:6 h off,
whereas the KiwiSat 202 unit had a duty cycle of 6 h
on:18 h off. Messages received from satellites were
processed by CLS America (formerly Service Argos) to
give Doppler-derived locations and classified based on
the number of messages used in processing. Location
classes (LC) 3, 2, 1, and 0 were derived from at least 4
messages and had estimated accuracies of <150 m,
<350 m, <1000 m, and >1000 m, respectively. The
other classes (A, B, Z) did not yield estimates of accu-
racy. LC A and LC B were calculated from 3 and 2
messages, respectively, whereas LC Z ‘indicate[d]
that the location process failed’ (CLS America 2007,
www.clsamerica.com/argos-system/faq.html). Studies
using fixed transmitters (Hays et al. 2001) and units
attached to captive gray seals Halichoerus grypus
(Vincent et al. 2002) have indicated that LC A locations
are of similar accuracy to LC 1 and that both LC A
and LC B can provide useful information after appro-
priate filtering.
Data filtering and analysis. Location data were
filtered using criteria similar to those utilized in prior
studies on adult female olive ridleys Lepidochelys oli-
vacea (Plotkin 1998) and adult male Kemp’s ridleys
(Shaver et al. 2005b). The SEATURTLE.ORG Satellite
Tracking and Analysis Tool (STAT, Coyne & Godley
2005) was used to exclude locations that fell into any of
the following categories: (1) LC Z, (2) locations that
required straight-line swimming speeds over 6 km h–1,
and (3) locations that occurred at elevations over 0.5 m.
Obviously erroneous points (e.g. those that ‘criss-
crossed’ land or large areas of water) that remained
after the STAT filtering process were removed manu-
ally in ArcMap 9.1. Water depth and sea surface tem-
perature at the accepted locations were determined by
STAT (Coyne & Godley 2005) using data produced by
NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center and
NOAA’s Geostationary Operational Environmental
Satellites (GOES) sea surface temperature (SST),
respectively.
Mean daily locations were generated from the
accepted locations for each turtle in order to minimize
autocorrelation in spatial analyses (James et al. 2005).
The resulting coordinates were included in kernel
density estimation (KDE) analyses across all individu-
als within respective nesting seasons and the 2 nesting
seasons combined. Each nesting season was defined
by the dates during which nesting was documented
on the upper Texas coast. The Home Range Tools for
75

Endang Species Res 4: 73–84, 2008
ArcGIS extension (Rodgers et al. 2005) and fixed least
squares cross-validation smoothing factor (hcv) were
used for each KDE (Worton 1995, Seaman & Powell
1996), whereas the 50% probability contour was desig-
nated as ‘the core area of activity’ (Hooge et al. 1999).
Each KDE output was clipped in ArcMap 9.1 to
exclude land, followed by calculation of the in-water
area (km2) within each 50% contour.
The use of duty cycles necessitated examination of
tracklines, rather than raw Argos data, to infer nesting
events. Each filtered track was visually examined for
movement patterns similar to those documented dur-
ing 2 confirmed nesting events by tracked ridleys.
Unconfirmed, but probable, nesting events were
inferred at the end of short periods (2 to 3 d) during
which the turtle moved and remained close to shore on
the Gulf side of Galveston Island and after which the
turtle clearly left the area. In the future, this process
could be improved by deploying PTTs without a duty
cycle in order to pinpoint nesting events during
prolonged haulout times.
Examination of existing management scheme. In
addition to examining Kemp’s ridley nesting dynamics
and post-nesting movements, we sought to apply these
results to management of sea turtle nesting along the
upper Texas coast. Applicable sea turtle and protected
species legislation was identified using resources such
as LexisNexis (www.lexisnexis.com), the US Govern-
ment Printing Office Access website (www.gpoaccess.
gov), and the Texas Administrative Code (TAC,
www.sos.state.tx.us/tac). Local sea turtle policy, proto-
cols, and practices were compiled from personal
knowledge and personal communications with perti-
nent officials from federal and state agencies.
RESULTS
The 6 ridleys (Table 1) intercepted while nesting on
the upper Texas coast and subsequently tracked aver-
aged 64.0 cm straight carapace length (SCL, SD = 2.1,
n = 6). All possessed egg follicles prior to transmitter
deployment (J. Flanagan unpubl. data), implying that
they were likely to nest again during their respective
nesting seasons; however, the last turtle tracked in
2006 (RRV233) exhibited much less dense follicles than
did the other five nesters (J. Flanagan unpubl. data),
suggesting she might not nest again.
The average track duration (Table 1) of 80 d (SD =
51, n = 6) included that from a 2005 nester (RRV251)
that stranded dead; excluding this track increased
average track duration to 92 d (SD = 47, n = 5). The
stranded turtle, which was reported and examined
within a few hours of death, exhibited no external
abnormalities other than 4 areas of exposed bone on
the plastron and moderate barnacle coverage on the
PTT. A necropsy of RRV251 revealed signs of both
trauma and drowning, including hemorrhaging in both
pectoral muscles and fluid and clotted blood in the
lungs (J. Flanagan & E. Seney unpubl. data), whereas
a histological examination by the Texas Veterinary
Medical Diagnostic Laboratory identified parasitic ova
in some tissues (P. Varner unpubl. data). There were
no indications that the PTT had any impact on this tur-
tle’s health, and none of the Argos data or tracks sug-
gested that any of the other females were dead or
debilitated at the time transmissions ceased. Barnacle
growth seen on the stranded ridley’s PTT and on that
of SSD127 at her second documented nesting event
suggested that fouling of the saltwater switches may
76
Turtle ID SCL Initial nesting PTT Date of No. of days No. accepted Confirmed Inferred
(type) (cm) location deployment tracked locations nesting date(s) nesting date(s)
SSD127 65.8 Galveston Is. Telonics ST-10 17 May 2005 44 27 16 May 2005 4 June 2005
(1992 HS) 20 June 2005
RRV251 62.5 Galveston Is. Telonics ST-10 29 May 2005 20a 8 29 May 2005 None
(W)
RRV253 63.0 Galveston Is. Telonics ST-20 31 May 2005 50 93 30 May 2005 13 June 2005
(1992 HS) 26 June 2005
RRV231 67.2 Galveston Is. Sirtrack KS101 28 Apr 2006 146 170 28 April 2006 19 May 2006
(W) 14 June 2006b
RRV315 61.5 Galveston Is. Sirtrack KS101 7 May 2006 87 197 6 May 2006 10 June 2006
(1989 HS) 26 May 2006
RRV233 63.8 Surfside Sirtrack KS202 27 May 2006 132 190 27 May 2006 None
(W)
aTurtle stranded dead on Galveston Island
bBeach visitor saw turtle with transmitter returning to water at nest site
Table 1. Lepidochelys kempii. Nesting and tracking details for 6 Kemp’s ridley sea turtles from the upper Texas coast, 2005–2006.
Turtle type details in parentheses: HS, headstart (including year); W, wild; SCL, straight carapace length (from notch to tip); PTT,
platform terminal transmitter manufacturer and type; No. accepted locations, locations remaining after filtering raw Argos data

Seney & Landry: Tracking Kemp’s ridley turtles nesting on the upper Texas coast
have been a cause of transmission loss in 2005. Anti-
fouling paints were incorporated into the attachment
protocol in 2006, likely contributing to the increase in
average track duration (mean, x– ± 1 SD = 122 ± 32 d,
n = 3). Additionally, the antenna on SSD127’s PTT was
bent nearly parallel to the turtle’s carapace when she
renested, suggesting antenna loss as another possible
cause of transmission loss for both years.
Internesting habitat
SSD127 and RRV315 were confirmed renesting via
visual observations 35 and 20 d, respectively, after ini-
tial nesting encounters, whereas satellite tracks of
these females and 2 other individuals (RRV253,
RRV231) indicated they nested again in the Galveston
area (Fig. 2, Table 1). Based on documented nesting
events and satellite tracks, it was estimated that
each of these 4 ridleys nested on the upper Texas coast
a total of 3 times, at 2 to 3 wk intervals (Table 1).
RRV251 stranded dead 20 d after her first nesting
encounter, and no shelled eggs were found during the
necropsy, suggesting she may have nested again prior
to stranding. The last female tracked (RRV233) ex-
hibited fewer follicles at the time of ultrasound and
immediately left the upper Texas coast after PTT
deployment, indicating she had completed her nesting
cycle. Given that Kemp’s ridleys typically lay 2 to 3
nests per year (Turtle Expert Working Group 2000,
Rostal 2005), it is likely that RRV233 nested undetected
earlier in the 2006 season.
Core areas of activity (50% kernel contours) for the
2005 nesting season (16 May to 20 June), 2006 nesting
season (28 April to 14 June), and
both nesting seasons combined cen-
tered on Galveston Island (Fig. 3).
Approximately 80% of the accepted
locations during the 2 nesting sea-
sons occurred in waters less than
10 m deep. During these time peri-
ods, GOES SST data were available
for 221 of the filtered locations, and
the 6 ridleys occupied waters at 24.5
to 30.7° C SST (x– ± 1 SD = 27.0 ±
1.7° C) during their respective nest-
ing seasons.
Migration and foraging habitat
Of the post-nesting ridleys, 4
were tracked beyond the May to
June 2005 (RRV253) and April to
June 2006 (RRV231, RRV315,
RRV233) nesting seasons (Fig. 2).
These turtles migrated along the
Texas and Louisiana continental
shelf, predominantly in waters less
than 20 m deep. All four estab-
lished foraging sites offshore of the
central Louisiana coast (Vermilion,
Iberia, St. Mary, and Terrebonne
Parishes), and remained in waters
10 to 30 m deep throughout the
duration of their tracks. SST values
recorded after the nesting season
were 27.7 to 31.6°C (x– ± 1 SD =
29.8 ± 0.8°C, n = 394); however,
departure of these females from the
Galveston area did not correlate
with any temperature changes.
77
Fig. 2. Lepidochelys kempii. Filtered tracks for 6 Kemp’s ridley sea turtles encoun-
tered nesting on the upper Texas coast during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006. : start;
: end point of each track

Endang Species Res 4: 73–84, 2008
Nesting management on the upper Texas coast
Examination of ridley nesting management on the
upper Texas coast required consideration of stakehold-
ers ranging from international to federal, state, and
local entities to non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), members of the public, and the turtles them-
selves. The primary stakeholders identified for upper
Texas coast ridley nesting are listed in Table 2 and
further described in the following.
The USA and Mexico are parties to the Inter-Ameri-
can Convention for the Protection and Conservation of
Sea Turtles (IAC Secretariat 2004), which requires they
undertake appropriate measures to protect and con-
serve sea turtle species and their habitats. The Kemp’s
ridley was originally listed in the USA as an endan-
gered species in 1970 (50 CFR 17.11, as amended
2 December 1970) and is currently protected under the
US Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA, 7 United
States Code [USC] 136, 16 USC 460 et seq.). Sea turtles
fall under the jurisdictions of the USFWS (50 CFR
17.11) and NOAA Fisheries Service (50 CFR 222.23, 50
CFR 227.4), whereas Section 7 of the ESA requires
other federal agencies to consult with USFWS and
NOAA regarding any activities that may impact sea
turtles. Measures must be taken to reduce bycatch,
including sea turtles, in US fisheries under the Magnu-
son-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSFCMA), as overseen by the NOAA Fisheries
Service (16 USC 1801 et seq.), and this requirement
is also inherent in the IAC. The NOAA Fisheries
Service (50 CFR 222.23, 50 CFR 227.4), USFWS (50
CFR 17.11), and US Coast Guard (50 CFR 622.41)
provide federal enforcement of sea turtle regulations,
and the USFWS oversees the National Wildlife Refuge
System (50 CFR 25.11), which includes 5 refuges along
the Texas Gulf coast.
Within Texas, USFWS currently defers to the Na-
tional Park Service (NPS), specifically PINS (36 CFR
7.75), regarding protocols for collection of sea turtle
nesting data, nest relocation, and incubation of eggs (D.
Shaver pers. comm.). The length of the Texas coast
necessitates dividing sea turtle nesting patrols, nesting
response, and stranding response among multiple
agencies, including NPS and various national wildlife
refuges, state universities, and non-profit organiza-
tions. The NOAA STF currently conducts nesting and
stranding response, data collection, and nest excava-
tions on the upper Texas coast, per a memorandum of
understanding with USFWS (C. Yeargan pers. comm.).
Additionally, Texas A&M University at Galveston
(TAMUG) has assisted the NOAA STF with nesting re-
sponse since 2005 and will take on a larger role in 2008.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)
has jurisdiction over protected species in Texas,
78
Fig. 3. Lepidochelys kempii. Mean daily locations (d) for each
turtle and core areas of activity (50% kernel contours, red
shaded areas) during the (a) 2005 (n = 37, hcv = 0.193), (b) 2006
(n = 87, hcv = 0.148), and (c) combined 2005-2006 (n = 124,
hcv = 0.133) upper Texas coast Kemp’s ridley nesting seasons,
where (hcv) is the fixed least squares cross-validation smooth-
ing factor. The 50% kernel contours encompass 1017 km2,
622 km2, and 716 km2 of in-water area in (a), (b) and (c),
respectively. Dashed lines: 20 m isobath

Seney & Landry: Tracking Kemp’s ridley turtles nesting on the upper Texas coast 79
Stakeholder Role/interest
International
Inter-American Convention for the Protection Ratified by 12 nations (in force May 2001)a
and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC)
Mexico Primary nesting ground located in Tamaulipas.b IAC partya
United States Secondary nesting grounds along Texas coast.c IAC partya
Federal
National Park Service Oversees National Seashore system.d (Includes Padre Island National
Seashore’s nesting response and monitoring, research, and manage-
ment of Texas nesting data per agreement with USFWS)
NOAA Fisheries Service Jurisdiction over sea turtles in the water.e (Includes upper Texas coast
nesting response by NOAA Fisheries Galveston per agreement with
USFWS)
US Army Corps of Engineers Beach renourishment and channel dredgingf
US Fish & Wildlife Service Jurisdiction over sea turtles on land.g Oversees National Wildlife
Refuge systemh (Texas Point, McFaddin, San Bernard, Aransas, and
Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuges are located on the Texas
gulf coast). Local USFWS offices defer to PINS for state nesting
program managment and to NOAA Fisheries Galveston for upper
Texas coast nesting responsei
State of Texas
Texas General Land Office Jurisdiction over beach projects and dune related activities in Texasj
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Jurisdiction over protected species and fisheries in Texas. Oversees
Texas state park system (Sea Rim, Galveston Island, and Mustang
Island State Parks are located on the Texas gulf coast)k
Texas A&M University System Sea turtle research and upper Texas coast nesting response
University of Texas System Sea turtle research and middle Texas coast nesting response
County and local
Brazoria County Local government and law enforcement
Chambers County Local government and law enforcement
Galveston County Local government and law enforcement
Jefferson County Local government and law enforcement
City of Galveston (Galveston County) Local government and law enforcement
City of Jamaica Beach (Galveston County) Local government and law enforcement
Village of Surfside (Brazoria County) Local government and law enforcement
Texas-based non-governmental organizations
Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) - Texas Promotes conservation of marine species, particularly recreational
gamefish (www.ccatexas.org)
Help Endangered Animals-Ridley Turtles (HEART) Public education and fundraising (www.ridleyturtles.org)
Recreational Fishing Alliance - Texas State Chapter Promotes conservation of marine species, particularly recreational
gamefish (www.rfatexas.org)
Texas Open Beach Advocates (TOBA) Promotes each access rights, public education and stewardship
(www.texasopenbeaches.org)
Texas Shrimp Association Represents interests of Texas shrimpers
General public
Global community Intrinsic and existence value of species.l Educational valuesm
Texas coast residents Intrinsic and existence value of species.l Educational values.m
Possible interactions with nesting turtles/nests/hatchlingsn
Texas coast businesses Possible interactions with nesting turtles/nests/hatchlings.n Possibility
for ecotourismm
Texas coast visitors Possible interactions with nesting turtles/nests/hatchlings.n Educa-
tional valuesm
aIAC Secretariat (2004) bMárquez et al. (2005)
cShaver (2005) d36 CFR 1.2
e50 CFR 222.23, 50 CFR 227.4 f33 CFR 320.1
g50 CFR 17.11 h50 CFR 25.11
iPer memorandum of understanding j31 TAC 15, 16, 25
k31 TAC 55, 57, 58, 59, 65 lWitherington & Frazer (2003)
mCampbell (2003) nUSFWS & NMFS (1992)
Table 2. Primary stakeholders for Kemp’s ridley nesting on the upper Texas coast

Endang Species Res 4: 73–84, 2008
including all federally protected species and others
threatened with extinction within the state (31 TAC 65,
5 Texas Parks and Wildlife Code [TPWC] 68). TPWD
also maintains the state park system and constituent
beaches (31 TAC 59) and oversees commercial and
recreational fishing activities in state waters, which
extend 9 nautical miles offshore of the Texas coast (31
TAC 57-58, 5 TPWC 46-47, 66). In addition to permit-
ting research and recovery activities in Texas, TPWD’s
primary role with regard to sea turtles is that of
in-water enforcement (M. Ray pers. comm.). All
shrimpers must comply with state and federal TED
regulations and with shrimp fishery closures, which
occur annually along the upper Texas coast from
15 May to 15 July and along the lower and middle
Texas coast from 1 December to 15 July (TPWD 2006).
The Texas General Land Office (TGLO) is tasked
with management of human impacts on the state’s
beach/dune system, including the conservation of ‘flora
and fauna and their habitat’ and acting in accordance
with federal and TPWD protected species regulations
(31 TAC 15). State and federally-funded beach and
dune projects that impact sea turtles are required by
TGLO to have appropriate USFWS consultation, miti-
gation, and/or monitoring, in addition to applicable US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and state permits
(B. Rhame pers. comm.). Locally and privately-funded
beach projects are also required to obtain appropriate
permits, and TGLO recommends (but does not require)
that those projects with potential sea turtle impacts con-
tact USFWS for consultation (B. Rhame pers. comm.).
Local citizens, businesses, and visitors are also stake-
holders for upper Texas coast nesting issues, and their
voices are often heard through local and national
NGOs, increasingly in the form of lawsuits. The 1989
decision of the US District Court for the District of
Columbia in National Wildlife Federation, et al. v.
Robert A. Mosbacher, U.S. Secretary of Commerce
required NMFS to reinstate suspended TED regula-
tions and enforcement (1989 US Dist Lexis 9748). Like-
wise in 1995, the US District Court for Orlando, Florida
held that a ‘species protected under [the] ESA has
standing to sue on its own right to enforce provisions of
[the] ESA’ in its decision of Loggerhead Turtle et al. v.
the County Council of Volusia County, Florida (896
Fed Suppl 1170, p. 1177). Although the vitality of
endangered species’ legal standing has been ques-
tioned, recent lawsuits have successfully forced state
and local governments to enforce the ESA (Brader
2005).
Houston, Texas-based HEART (Help Endangered
Animals-Ridley Turtles) is the Gulf of Mexico office for
the California-based Sea Turtle Restoration Project
(STRP), and is an NGO focused primarily on public
awareness, including volunteer nesting patrols,
fundraising, and activism (HEART, www.savetexas-
seaturtles.org/). HEART is particularly vocal with
regard to issues pertaining to shrimping and Kemp’s
ridley nesting, and both HEART and STRP were plain-
tiffs in a 1994 civil suit brought against NMFS (C. Allen
pers. comm.) that resulted in an Emergency Response
Plan detailing federal policy to ensure compliance of
sea turtle regulations (NOAA 1995).
Commercial marine fisheries are also represented by
NGOs, including the Texas Shrimp Association, and
such organizations have a vested interest in the impact
of sea turtle regulations on their industries. Likewise,
recreational anglers are represented by a variety of
organizations (e.g. Coastal Conservation Association,
Texas and the Recreational Fishing Alliance, Texas
State Chapter), and a subset of this group may include
anglers who, like many Texas beachgoers, currently
drive legally on beaches where sea turtle nesting has
been documented. Texas Open Beach Advocates
(TOBA) is a Galveston Island-based group that pro-
motes free public access to Texas beaches, including
driving, under the Texas Open Beaches Act (61 Texas
Natural Resources Code 011), as well as stewardship
and preservation of beaches (TOBA, www.texasopen-
beaches.org/open.htm).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Marine turtle satellite telemetry has grown from the
experimental tracking of adult female loggerhead sea
turtles during 1979 and 1980 (Stoneburner 1982, Timko
& Kolz 1982) to a standard method for examining move-
ments of 6 of the world’s 7 species (Godley et al. 2008,
this Theme Section). Satellite tracking has been utilized
to document extended post-nesting movements, such as
those of leatherback turtles Dermochelys coriacea span-
ning the Atlantic (James et al. 2005) and Pacific Oceans
(Benson et al. 2007), as well as more localized internest-
ing movements (e.g. olive ridleys: Plotkin 1998; logger-
heads: Stoneburner 1982, Godley et al. 2003; green tur-
tles: Hays et al. 1999, Troëng et al. 2005b; and hawksbill
turtles Eretmochelys imbricata: Troëng et al. 2005a,
Whiting et al. 2006).
Use of satellite telemetry on adult Kemp’s ridleys
was preceded by deployment of radio transmitters on 9
post-nesting individuals at Rancho Nuevo in 1980.
These females exhibited random movement in the
vicinity of the nesting beach for up to 2 d and subse-
quently displayed longshore movements of at least
10 km (Mendonça & Pritchard 1986). Fourteen post-
nesting females satellite tracked from Rancho Nuevo
in 1987 and 1988 remained in coastal waters less than
50 m in depth (R. Byles unpubl. data). Individual adult
females tracked by Renaud et al. (1996) and Gitschlag
80

Seney & Landry: Tracking Kemp’s ridley turtles nesting on the upper Texas coast
(1996) exhibited longshore migrations, with the indi-
vidual observed by the former being tracked from for-
aging grounds in Louisiana to Rancho Nuevo, where
she was documented nesting.
Implications of telemetry results
Satellite tracks for Kemp’s ridleys nesting on the
upper Texas coast in 2005 and 2006 provided evidence
that this region holds unknown potential as nesting
habitat. Although these data and tracks were based on
a limited sample of ridleys from the Galveston area, the
number of nesters on the upper Texas coast is annually
increasing in a fashion similar to that at PINS (Shaver
& Rubio 2008, this Theme Section), where most of
the state’s nesting activity has occurred historically
(Shaver & Caillouet 1998). Additionally, the number of
nests documented on the upper Texas coast from 2002
to 2006 is likely a conservative number, given the lack
of standardized nesting patrols and outreach required
to educate the beach-going public to report nesting
activity. These issues are currently being addressed by
TAMUG and HEART, and standardized nesting
patrols, volunteer patrols, and increased public out-
reach occurred during 2007.
Nesting activity and internesting movements sum-
marized above in ‘Results’ suggest that upper Texas
coast beaches provide nesting habitat to both head-
started and ‘wild’ Kemp’s ridleys that spend their inter-
nesting intervals in waters adjacent to these beaches
from approximately April to June. Satellite telemetry
data, along with ultrasound detection of developing
follicles, also suggest each of these females nested
more than once on upper Texas coast beaches.
Although tracks were of limited duration, core activity
areas generated from filtered data indicate relatively
restricted, nearshore movement among nesters during
the inter-nesting period. This restricted movement
implies a strong fidelity to the upper Texas coast that is
supported by the confirmed renestings by SSD127 and
RRV315 on Galveston Island. Similar fidelity has been
exhibited by other female ridleys along PINS during
the nesting season (Shaver & Rubio 2008). The post-
reproductive migrations by 4 upper Texas coast nesters
along the Texas and Louisiana continental shelf also
mirrored movements of many females tracked from
PINS (Shaver & Rubio 2008) and 4 tracked from Galve-
ston in 2007 (A. Landry & C. Hughes unpubl. data).
Likewise, immature ridleys tracked from seasonal for-
aging grounds along the northwestern Gulf of Mexico
(Renaud & Williams 2005), the Florida Gulf coast
(Schmid & Witzell 2006), and New York (Morreale
& Standora 2005) utilized nearshore waters for both
foraging and migration.
Documentation of nesting activity on the upper
Texas coast also provided evidence that Kemp’s ridleys
nest along the upper Texas coast and establish fidelity
to constituent habitats during some or all phases of the
nesting season. This nesting activity, like that seen in
preliminary trends in south Texas (Shaver & Caillouet
1998), is likely to increase with this species’ ongoing
recovery. This increase will result in more mature
females utilizing upper Texas coast waters and
beaches where they lack the levels of protection cur-
rently afforded them along the middle and lower coast,
including the extended nearshore shrimp closure and
protected beaches along PINS.
The need for mitigation measures, such as regula-
tions affording increased protection to sea turtles along
upper Texas beaches and coastal waters, should be
examined and considered by state and federal man-
agers in order to reduce threats to the increasing num-
ber of nesting Kemp’s ridleys in the region and their
progeny. Such measures will help to (1) ensure the
realization of any latent nesting potential along the
upper Texas coast, (2) increase researchers’ and regu-
latory personnel’s ability to assess this nesting activity
and the importance of constituent beaches to ridley
recovery, (3) develop management strategies that
incorporate upper Texas coast beaches and adjacent
waters, (4) maintain and enhance the integrity of nest-
ing habitat and adjacent waters, and (5) increase the
potential for educational outreach and responsible
ecotourism on upper Texas coast beaches.
Nesting management on the upper Texas coast
The likelihood of increased Kemp’s ridley nesting
and associated human interactions on the upper Texas
coast warrants a proactive and coordinated manage-
ment approach in order to comply with the ESA and
Kemp’s Ridley Recovery Plan, avoid civil lawsuits, and
enhance opportunities for nature-based educational
outreach and tourism. Nesting response and documen-
tation on the upper Texas coast should continue within
the framework of the statewide program overseen by
PINS; however, a highly developed coastal zone and
involvement of multiple agencies and municipalities
necessitate a more complex management approach
than that taken along the protected beaches of south
Texas. The USFWS has primary jurisdiction over sea
turtle nesting, and as such, the agency has a responsi-
bility to spearhead integrated ridley nesting manage-
ment efforts on the upper Texas coast or to designate a
surrogate agency to do so. The PINS program, along
with requirements set forth by the ESA, Kemp’s Ridley
Recovery Plan, and various federal and state regula-
tions, provide substantial framework for nesting man-
81

Endang Species Res 4: 73–84, 2008
agement on the upper Texas coast. Guidance applica-
ble to urban areas may be gleaned from international
documents such as the Rio Declaration on the Environ-
ment and Development (United Nations 1992) and the
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Business
Charter for Sustainable Development (ICC 1991), in-
cluding use of a precautionary, rather than reactionary,
approach.
An examination of sea turtle policies and practices
within the state of Florida may provide a further
framework for TPWD and TGLO to minimize sea
turtle–human interactions on Texas nesting beaches,
particularly in urban areas along the upper Texas
coast. Florida’s Marine Turtle Protection Act (Florida
Statute 370.12) outlines general guidelines for the
state, and specific issues are further outlined in the
Florida Administrative Code (FAC). The state has
developed a model lighting ordinance for marine turtle
protection to guide local governments in creating their
own ordinances (62B FAC 55). Additionally, the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC) provides guidelines for minimizing effects of
lighting, beach furniture, mechanical beach cleaning,
and coastal armoring on sea turtles (FWC 2002).
Florida’s Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems must
ensure that beach construction activities ‘will not cause
a significant adverse impact to marine turtles,’ and that
measures are taken to protect turtles and their habitat,
which may include limitations on the nature and
timing of permitted activities (62B FAC 33).
Effective management of sea turtle nesting and
human interactions along developed beaches of the
upper Texas coast requires cooperation by local
governments with state and federal agencies involved
in sea turtle nesting response and management. South
Padre Island, Texas, which is comprised primarily of
developed beaches, may present an appropriate sea
turtle nesting ‘model’ for developed areas of the upper
Texas coast in Galveston and Brazoria Counties. In
contrast, the majority of beaches along Chambers and
Jefferson Counties are contained within the McFaddin
National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR), Sea Rim State Park
(SRSP), and Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge
(TPNWR), warranting a management scheme similar
to that at PINS and other protected beaches. Nesting
has not been documented in the 2 uppermost Texas
counties, but these beaches are not currently patrolled
for sea turtles aside from a weekly stranding survey
conducted by the NOAA STF. Wide beaches appro-
priate for ridley nesting exist along the eastern portion
of MNWR and within SRSP and TPNWR (E. E. Seney
pers. obs.), and structured patrols by USFWS and
TPWD are necessary to determine whether nesting
occurs and to dictate the need for management
schemes and increased public education in these
areas. Alternatively, funds to monitor potential, as well
as known, nesting beaches may be available through
competitive conservation grants under Section 6 of the
ESA, as administered by TWPD and USFWS.
Concluding remarks
Use of satellite telemetry has confirmed that beaches
and nearshore waters of the upper Texas coast are
nesting and internesting habitats for the Kemp’s ridley
sea turtle. Current management schemes, however,
limit researchers’ abilities to fully assess sea turtle
nesting in the region, and limited protection measures
are in force to control and minimize interactions
between nesting ridleys and human development,
beach use, and in-water activities. Effective protection
and management of nesting ridleys requires stake-
holder involvement and ultimately coordinated efforts
by federal, state, and local agencies. Such a scheme
will not only facilitate the recovery of an endangered
species, but should minimize liability of involved
parties and may facilitate ecotourism.
Acknowledgements. B. Higgins and S. Kethan of the NOAA
Fisheries Sea Turtle Facility in Galveston, Texas helped facil-
itate telemetry conducted by TAMUG. J. Flanagan of the
Houston Zoo traveled to Galveston to conduct examinations
and ultrasounds. D. Shaver of Padre Island National Seashore
answered numerous questions regarding telemetry and nest-
ing. R. Hauch (USACE), M. Ray (TPWD), B. Rhame (TGLO),
and C. Yeargan (USFWS) graciously discussed management
issues with E.E.S. The inspiration for this paper came from an
environmental management course taught at TAMUG by Dr.
W. M. von Zharen, and 3 reviewers provided valuable com-
ments for its improvement. Satellite telemetry was funded by
the Texas General Land Office Coastal Impact Assistance
Program and the TAMUG Department of Marine Biology, and
in-kind support was provided by the NOAA Fisheries Service
Galveston Laboratory. Research was conducted in accor-
dance with federal, state, and institutional guidelines con-
cerning sampling of endangered species and animal research
under USFWS Endangered and Threatened Species Permit
TE676379-4, Texas Parks and Wildlife Scientific Permit SPR-
0390-038, and Texas A&M University Animal Use Protocol
2005-125.
LITERATURE CITED
Anonymous (1880) Large sea turtle caught. The Galveston
News May 15, 1880, Galveston, TX
Benson SR, Dutton PH, Hitipeuw C, Samber B, Bakarbessy J,
Parker D (2007) Post-nesting migrations of leatherback
turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) from Jamursba-Medi,
Bird’s Head Peninsula, Indonesia. Chelonian Conserv Biol
6:150–154
Brader VJM (2005) Shell games: vicarious liability of state and
local governments for insufficiently protective regulations
under the ESA. Nat Resour J 45:103–133
82

Seney & Landry: Tracking Kemp’s ridley turtles nesting on the upper Texas coast
Burchfield PM (2005) Texans, turtles, and the early Kemp’s
ridley population restoration project, 1963-67. Chelonian
Conserv Biol 4:835–837
Caillouet CW Jr (2005) Wild and head-started Kemp’s ridley
nesters, eggs, hatchlings, nesting beaches and adjoining
nearshore waters in Texas should receive greater protec-
tion. Mar Turtle Newsl 110:1–3
Caillouet CW Jr (2006) Revision of the Kemp’s ridley recovery
plan. Mar Turtle Newsl 114:2–5
Campbell LM (2003) Contemporary culture, use, and conser-
vation of sea turtles. In: Lutz PL, Musick JA, and Wyneken
J (eds) The biology of sea turtles, Vol II. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, p 301–338
Carr AF (1963) Panspecific reproductive convergence in
Lepidochelys kempi. Ergeb Biol 26:298–303
Coyne MS, Godley BJ (2005) Satellite Tracking and Analysis
Tool (STAT): an integrated system for archiving, analyzing
and mapping animal tracking data. Mar Ecol Prog Ser
301:1–7
Fontaine C, Shaver D (2005) Head-starting the Kemp’s ridley
sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, at the NMFS Galveston
Laboratory, 1978-1992: a review. Chelonian Conserv Biol
4:838–845
FWC (2002) Sea turtle conservation guidelines. Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee,
FL. Available at: www.myfwc.com/seaturtle/Guidelines/
Guidelines.pdf
Gitschlag GR (1996) Migration and diving behavior of Kemp’s
ridley (Garman) sea turtles along the US southeastern
Atlantic coast. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 205:115–135
Godley BJ, Broderick AC, Glen F, Hays GC (2003) Post-nest-
ing movements and submergence patterns of loggerhead
marine turtles in the Mediterranean assessed by satellite
tracking. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 287:119–134
Godley BJ, Blumenthal JM, Broderick AC, Coyne MS, God-
frey MH, Hawkes LA, Witt MJ (2008) Satellite tracking of
sea turtles: Where have we been and where do we go
next? Endang Species Res 4:3–22
Hays GC, Luschi P, Papi F, del Seppia C, Marsh R (1999)
Changes in behaviour during the inter-nesting period and
post-nesting migration for Ascension Island green turtles.
Mar Ecol Prog Ser 189:263–273
Hays GC, Åkesson S, Godley BJ, Luschi P, Santidrian P (2001)
The implications of location accuracy for the interpretation
of satellite-tracking data. Anim Behav 61:1035–1040
Heppell SS, Burchfield PM, Peña LJ (2007) Kemp’s ridley
recovery: how far have we come, and where are we
headed? In: Plotkin PT (ed) Biology and conservation of
ridley sea turtles. Johns Hopkins University Press, Balti-
more, MD, p 325–335
Hildebrand HH (1963) Hallazgo del área de anidación de la
tortuga marina ‘lora,’ Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), en la
costa occidental del Golfo de México. Ciencia 22:105–112
Hooge PN, Eichenlaub WM, Solomon EK (1999) Using GIS to
analyze animal movements in the marine environment.
US Geological Survey, Glacier Bay Field Station,
AK. Available at: www.absc.usgs.gov/glba/gistools/anim_
mov_useme.pdf
IAC Secretariat (2004) Inter-American Convention for the
Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles — an introduc-
tion. Pro tempore Secretariat of the Inter-American Con-
vention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles,
San José, Costa Rica
ICC (1991) The business charter for sustainable development:
principles for environmental management. International
Chamber of Commerce, Paris
IUCN (2006) 2006 IUCN Red List of threatened species. Inter-
national Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources, World Conservation Union, Gland. Available
at: www.iucnredlist.org
James MC, Ottensmeyer A, Myers RA (2005) Identification of
high-use habitat and threats to leatherback sea turtles in
northern waters: new directions for conservation. Ecol Lett
8:195–201
Klima EF, McVey JP (1982) Head-starting the Kemp’s ridley
turtle, Lepidochelys kempii. In: Bjorndal KA (ed) Biology
and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, DC, p 481–487
Lewison RL, Crowder LB, Shaver DJ (2003) The impact of tur-
tle excluder devices and fisheries closures on loggerhead
and Kemp’s ridley strandings in the western Gulf of
Mexico. Conserv Biol 17:1089–1097
LGL Ecological Research Associates (2007) Estimation of
shrimp fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico-2006. Final
Annual Effort Report for January–March 2006 to National
Marine Fisheries Service, Galveston Laboratory, Galve-
ston, TX
Mansfield KL, Musick JA (2004) Sea turtle diving behavior in
Virginia. 2003 Final report submitted to the US Army
Corps of Engineers, Norfolk, VA
Márquez-M R, Burchfield PM, Días-F J, Sánchez-P M and
others (2005) Status of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, Lepi-
dochelys kempii. Chelonian Conserv Biol 4:761–766
Mendonça MT, Pritchard PCH (1986) Offshore movements of
post-nesting Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys
kempi). Herpetologica 42:373–381
Morreale SJ, Standora EA (2005) Western North Atlantic
waters: crucial developmental habitat for Kemp’s ridley
and loggerhead sea turtles. Chelonian Conserv Biol
4:872–882
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
(1995) Revised sea turtle/shrimp fishery emergency
response plan. US Fed Reg 60:52121–52128
Plotkin PT (1998) Interaction between behavior of marine
organisms and the performance of satellite transmitters: a
marine turtle case study. Mar Technol Soc J 32:5–10
Pritchard PCH (1997) Evolution, phylogeny, and current sta-
tus. In: Lutz PL, Musick JA (eds) The biology of sea turtles.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 1–28
Rebel TP (1974) Sea turtles and the turtle industry of the West
Indies, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico, revised edn. Uni-
versity of Miami Press, Miami, FL
Renaud ML, Williams JA (2005) Kemp’s ridley sea turtle
movements and migrations. Chelonian Conserv Biol
4:808–816
Renaud ML, Carpenter JA, Williams JA, Landry AMJ (1996)
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) tracked by
satellite telemetry from Louisiana to nesting beach at Ran-
cho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Chelonian Conserv Biol
2:108–109
Rodgers AR, Carr AP, Smith L, Kie JG (2005) HRT: Home
Range Tools for ArcGIS. Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem
Research, Thunder Bay, ON
Rostal DC (2005) Seasonal reproductive biology of the Kemp’s
ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii): comparison of
captive and wild populations. Chelonian Conserv Biol
4:788–800
Schmid JR, Witzell WN (2006) Seasonal migrations of imma-
ture Kemp’s ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii Garman)
along the west coast of Florida. Gulf Mex Sci 2006:28–40
Seaman DE, Powell RA (1996) An evaluation of the accuracy
of kernel density estimators for home range analysis.
Ecology 77:2075–2085
83

Endang Species Res 4: 73–84, 2008
Shaver DJ (2005) Analysis of the Kemp’s ridley imprinting
and headstart project at Padre Island National Seashore,
Texas, 1978-88, with subsequent nesting and stranding
records on the Texas coast. Chelonian Conserv Biol
4:846–859
Shaver DJ, Caillouet CW Jr (1998) More Kemp’s ridley turtles
return to south Texas to nest. Mar Turtle Newsl 82:1–5
Shaver DJ, Rubio C (2008) Post-nesting movements of wild and
headstarted Kemp’s ridley sea turtles Lepidochelys kempii
in the Gulf of Mexico. Endang Species Res 4:43–55
Shaver DJ, Wibbels T (2007) Head-starting the Kemp’s ridley
sea turtle. In: Plotkin PT (ed) Biology and conservation of
ridley sea turtles. Johns Hopkins University Press, Balti-
more, MD, p 297–323
Shaver DJ, Amos AF, Higgins B, Mays J (2005a) Record 42
Kemp’s ridley nests found in Texas in 2004. Mar Turtle
Newsl 108:1–3
Shaver DJ, Schroeder BA, Byles RA, Burchfield PM, Peña J,
Márquez R, Martinez HJ (2005b) Movements and home
ranges of adult male Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (Lepi-
dochelys kempii) in the Gulf of Mexico investigated by
satellite telemetry. Chelonian Conserv Biol 4:817–827
Stoneburner DL (1982) Satellite telemetry of loggerhead sea
turtle movement in the Georgia Bight. Copeia 1982:
400–408
Timko RE, Kolz AL (1982) Satellite sea turtle tracking. Mar
Fish Rev 44:19–24
TPWD (2006) 2006-2007 Texas commercial fishing guide.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX
Troëng S, Dutton PH, Evans D (2005a) Migration of hawksbill
turtles Eretmochelys imbricata from Tortuguero, Costa
Rica. Ecography 28:394–402
Troëng S, Evans DR, Harrison E, Lagueux CJ (2005b) Migra-
tion of green turtles Chelonia mydas from Tortuguero,
Costa Rica. Mar Biol 148:435–447
Turtle Expert Working Group (2000) Assessment update for
the Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in
the western north Atlantic. US Department of Commerce,
Miami, FL. NOAA Tech Mem NMFS-SEFSC-444
United Nations (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development. International Legal Materials 31:874–880
USFWS & NMFS (1992) Recovery plan for the Kemp’s ridley
sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). US Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, FL
Vielé TG (1858) ‘Following the drum’: a glimpse of frontier
life. Rudd and Carleton, New York
Vincent C, McConnell BJ, Ridoux V, Fedak MA (2002)
Assessment of Argos location accuracy from satellite tags
on captive gray seals. Mar Mamm Sci 18:156–166
Whiting S, Hartley S, Lalara S, White D, Bara T, Maminyamunja
C, Wurramarrba L (2006) Hawksbill turtle tracking as part of
initial sea turtle research and conservation at Groote Ey-
landt, Northern Australia. Mar Turtle Newsl 114:14–15
Witherington BE, Frazer NB (2003) Social and economic
aspects of sea turtle conservation. In: Lutz PL, Musick JA,
Wyneken J (eds) The biology of sea turtles, Vol II. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 355–384
Worton BJ (1995) Using Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate
kernel-based home range estimators. J Wildl Manag
59:794–800
84
Editorial responsibility: Brendan Godley (Editor-in-Chief),
University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, UK
Submitted: July 25, 2007; Accepted: November 26, 2007
Proofs received from author(s): December 26, 2007