RED LIST ASSESSMENT

Questionnaire(please complete one questionnaire per taxon, extra sheets may be used)

1. SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES.The IUCN Red List generally focuses at the species level. Subspecies, plant varieties, and subpopulations (as defined in the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 3.1) may also be assessed and will be considered for inclusion in the IUCN Red List only if the species-level assessment is also available. Hybrids will not be considered for inclusion in the IUCN Red List. For currently undescribed species, please refer to the rules outlined in section 2.1 of current version of the Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.

1a. Scientific name (including authority details):

Lepidochelys kempii (Garman 1880)

1b. Synonym/s (if there has been a taxonomic change in the last 5 years or if widely used):Thalassochelys kempii (Garman, 1880)

1c. English Common Name (if known):Kemp’s ridley sea turtle

1d. Other Common Names (if known and state language):(English) Kemp’s ridley, Atlantic ridley, Mexican ridley, Gulf ridley; (French) Ridley de Kemp, Lépidochelyde de Kemp, Tortue de Kemp; (Spanish) Cotorra, Tortuga lora, Tortuga Marina Bastarda, Atlantik-Bastardschildkröte (German)

2. HIGHER TAXONOMYNote that the IUCN Red List does not record sub-families, sub-orders, etc. Only the taxonomic levels requested below should be provided. A taxonomic notes field is also provided to allow further details about taxonomy to be recorded – see section 4a.

2a. Kingdom 2b. Phylum 2c. Class

Animalia Chordata Reptilia

2c. Order 2b. Family

Testudines Cheloniidae

1

3. COUNTRY, SUBCOUNTRY AND MARINE AREA OCCURRENCESProvide a list of the countries and subcountry units (e.g., states, provinces, etc.) in which this taxon occurs. For marine taxa, also record names of FAO fisheries areas and (optional) Large Marine Ecosystems (LME).

Presence: For each country, subcountry or marine area, please record whether this taxon is extant, extinct, possibly extinct, or presence uncertain.Origin: For each country, subcountry or marine area, please record whether this taxon is native, reintroduced, introduced, vagrant, or origin uncertain.

Note: A distribution map showing the extent of occurrence MUST also be attached.See the current version of the Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria for the IUCN definition of “extent of occurrence”.

3a. Countries 3b. Subcountry units (if known)

Country name Presence Origin Subcountry unit name Presence Origin

Mexico

United States

Extant

Extant

Native

Native

TamaulipasVeracruzTabascoCampecheYucatan

TexasLouisianaMississippiAlabamaFloridaGeorgiaSouth CarolinaNorth CarolinaVirginiaMarylandDelawareNew JerseyNew YorkConnecticutRhode IslandMassachusettsNew HampshireMaine

ExtantExtantExtantExtantExtant

Extant ExtantExtantExtantExtantExtantExtantExtantExtant Extant ExtantExtantExtantExtant Extant ExtantExtantExtantExtant

NativeNativeNativeNativeNative

NativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNative

3c. Marine Areas

FAO area name or LME Presence Origin

2

Western Central Atlantic (Major Fishing Area 31)Northwest Atlantic (Major Fishing Area 21)

Extant Native

3

4. TEXT DOCUMENTATIONProvide a short narrative for each of the topics below to support the information used for the Red List assessment in section 5 and to complement and provide more detail for the Classification Scheme codes for habitats, threats, stresses and conservation actions recorded in Annex 1 (use additional sheets if required).Please avoid using one-word answers in this section; the Red List assessment should be treated in the same way as a scientific paper, where the information is presented as clearly as possible for the reader, and all references used as cited within the text.

4a. Taxonomic NotesRecord any recent taxonomic changes or current taxonomic doubts or debates about the validity or identity of the taxon.

Not Applicable

4b. DistributionProvide a summary of the current information available about the taxon’s geographic range. Include a mention of important sites for this taxon.The Kemp’s ridley has one of the most restricted distributions of all sea turtles (Wallace et al. 2010; Fig. 1). This species is primarily distributed throughout the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic coast of the United States (Pritchard and Marquez-M. 1973, Marquez 1984, Marquez 1994), with rare occurrences in Bermuda, the Azores, Madeira, the Mediterranean Sea and along the eastern coast of Europe (Carr and Caldwell, 1956. Carr 1957, 1980, Mowbray and Caldwell, 1958, Bolton and Martins, 1990, Witt et al. 2007, Tomas and Raga, 2003, 2008). Nesting is primarily restricted to the western Gulf of Mexico, ranging from Texas, United States, to Veracruz, Mexico, with the majority of nesting occurring at a single primary nesting beach located near Rancho Nuevo, in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. (Fig. 1)

4c. PopulationProvide a summary of the information available for size and trend of the global population. Information about sizes and trends of subpopulations or trends in particular regions of the taxon’s range can also be included in this section. If no quantitative information on population sizes or trends is available, please record whether the species is common, abundant, rare, etc. If there really is no information at all about the population, please note this.

4

The global population of the Kemp’s ridley is represented by a single population with no known subpopulations (Bowen et al., 1991; Bowen and Karl, 2007). This species primarily occurs in the Gulf of Mexico, with a single primary nesting beach located in the western Gulf of Mexico near Rancho Nuevo, Mexico.

The current estimated number of mature individuals in the population (n=15,664) was calculated using standard IUCN protocol for sea turtle Red List assessments. The calculation takes into account the total average number of annual nests from 2013-2015 (n=14,885, Table 1), an estimated clutch frequency of 2.5 clutches per year, a remigration interval of 2.0 years, and a sex ratio of 3.17 females:1.0 males (all values are reviewed and reported in the Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley, NMFS, USFW, and SEMARNAT, 2015).

Current population trend (tick () one box only)

IncreasingDecreasingStableUnknown X

4d. Habitats and EcologyProvide a summary of the habitats occupied by the taxon, highlighting essential habitats and ecological requirements. It is not necessary to know the details of behavioural traits, etc. unless these are relevant to the taxon’s Red List status (e.g., it has a particular life cycle, growth pattern or behaviour that makes it vulnerable to specific threats).

The Kemp’s ridley inhabits coastal areas throughout the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic coast of the United States (Pritchard and Marquez, 1973; Marquez, 1994) (Fig. 1). Although the primary nesting beach is located in the western Gulf of Mexico near Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, coastal areas throughout the Gulf of Mexico appear to be important developmental and foraging habitat, as well as migratory corridors for reproductively active adults (Dobie et al. 1961, Hildebrand 1963, 1982, Ogren and McVea 1982, Marquez 1984, Hildebrand 1987, Ogren 1989, Witzell and Schmid, 2005, Shaver and Rubio 2008, Putman et al. 2013, Shaver et al. 2013; Shaver et al. 2016). Additionally, the regular occurrence of juvenile Kemp’s ridleys in coastal areas along the Atlantic coast of the U.S. indicate that these areas also represent developmental and foraging habitats (Lazell, 1980; Morreale et al, 1992; Musick and Limpus, 1997). For further information on Kemp’s ridley habitat use and ecology, see NMFS et al. (2011), NMFS and USFWS (2015).

Elevationin m above sea level

Upper limit: Depthin m below sea level

Upper limit: 0Lower limit: Lower limit:

4e. Use and TradeProvide a summary of any utilization of and/or trade in the taxon (at local, national and international levels). Please remember that the taxon may be utilized or be the focus of local, national or international trade, but if these activities are carried out sustainably they may not actually be a threat to the species; it is therefore useful to record whether this utilization/trade is a likely threat to the global population; this information helps to identify species that are important for human livelihoods, but which may be under threat from factors other than utilization or trade.

5

If unknown or there is no trade in the taxon, please state this.

The Kemp’s ridley is a protected species throughout its distribution in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coastal waters of the U.S. There is no legal trade of this species.

4f. ThreatsProvide a summary of the major threats affecting, or likely to affect, the taxon. Try to indicate whether these threats are historic threats that caused past population declines, or current threats affecting the population now, and whether they are likely to affect the population in future.

Please record as much detail about the threats as possible, including the main cause of the threat (the driver), the threat itself, the scale of the threat (e.g., is most of the global population affected, or is the threat affecting only small parts of the population), and the stress this threat places on the taxon (e.g., habitat degradation, loss of breeding sites, loss of prey base, direct mortality, etc.).As reviewed in the Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (NMFS et al., 2011), the major threats to the Kemp’s ridley vary seasonally and geographically throughout their distribution and include:

1) Fisheries (Bottom trawls)2) Fisheries (Top & midwater trawl, Demersal gillnet, Hook & line commercial, Hook & line

recreational, Boat strikes)3) Fisheries (Pelagic longline, Demersal longline, Drift & sink gillnet, Pot)4) Predation5) Cold stunning6) Pollution, impact of marine debris7) Climate Change8) Illegal harvest9) Industrial plant intake/entrainment10) Dredging11) Oil spills can impact multiple Kemp’s ridley habitats in the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico

has abundant oil reserves and represents an active area for the oil industry (Burgess et al, 2016). Relatively large numbers of active and exploratory wells span the northern, western, and southwestern Gulf of Mexico, from Alabama, USA, to Campeche, Mexico, and the two largest accidental oil spills in history both occurred in the Gulf of Mexico (Ixtoc 1 oil spill in 1979 in the Bay of Campeche, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 in the northern Gulf of Mexico).

Oil spills can affect all nesting beaches, foraging and developmental habitats, migratory corridors, and hatchling dispersal corridors in the Gulf of Mexico. As an example, the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill of 2010 occurred in a northern Gulf of Mexico location that is known to be a major foraging and developmental habitat as well as a migratory corridor for the Kemp’s ridley. Additionally, many of the Kemp’s ridley hatchlings are carried by major

6

surface currents from from Rancho Nuevo in the western Gulf of Mexico into the northern Gulf of Mexico (Putman, 2013). Although a variety of factors may have contributed, a Kemp’s ridley stock assessment conducted in 2012 indicated that a mortality event occurred in 2010 which significantly affected the recovery rate of the Kemp’s ridley (Galloway et al, 2016).

4g. Conservation ActionsProvide a summary of the conservation actions currently in place, and realistic actions needed to mitigate the major threats to the taxon (if any). This section should not be used to record a full “wish list” of conservation actions for the species; please try to restrict recommendations to those actions that could realistically be implemented and have a good chance of improving the status of the taxon.

Sections G.1.1. through G.3.1 of the Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (NMFS et al., 2011) provide a comprehensive review of the conservation actions that have been implemented to protect the Kemp’s ridley and facilitate its recovery. Those sections are shown below:

G.1.1. MexicoEfforts to protect nesting Kemp’s ridleys and nesting beaches in Mexico have been ongoing since the 1960s (Marquez 1994). Legal ordinances were enacted that prohibited harvest of certain marine turtle species seasonally from May to August in the Gulf of Mexico in 1973 (DOF 1973); and all marine turtle species that occurred along the Pacific and Gulf of Mexico were protected year-round in 1978 (Márquez et al. 1989). In 1990, take of all marine turtle species was prohibited by presidential decree (DOF 1990). Also in 1990, the Secretariat of Urban Development and Ecology (SEDUE) and Secretariat of Fisheries (SEPESCA) published the “Programa Nacional de Protection y Conservacion de Tortugas Marinas (Propuesta).” This document was the origin of the National Program for Protection, Conservation, Research and Management of Marine Turtles, which was implemented in 2000 and which proposed strategies and actions for the protection, conservation, and recovery of marine turtle populations that nest in Mexico. Rancho Nuevo was declared a Natural Reservation in 1977 (DOF 1977) and further protection measures were added in 1986 (DOF 1986, Marquez et al. 1989). Rancho Nuevo was declared a Sanctuary in 2002 (DOF 2002b). In 2004, it was included in the listing of Wetlands of International Importance under the Convention on Wetlands (RAMSAR).

In 1993, Mexico mandated the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean through the publication of the Official Mexican Norm NOM-002-PESC-1993 (DOF 1993). In 1997, the NOM was modified to require the use of hard TEDs along the Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean coasts (DOF 1997). Hard TEDs are similar to those used in the U.S., consisting of a metal grid installed in front of the codend and an escape opening either at the top or bottom of the net. These, and a number of factors are responsible for the post-1990 increase in survival rates (e.g., nest protection, TEDs, decreased shrimping effort), which have contributed to the increase in reproduction documented on the nesting beaches (TEWG 1998, Heppell et al. 2005).

G.1.2. United States

The Kemp’s ridley has been protected under U.S. law since its listing as an endangered species on December 2, 1970. The US Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits ‘take’ of species listed under its authority. Take is defined as “harass, harm [to the species or its habitat], pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Exceptions to the take prohibitions may be provided under the ESA for research, experimental populations, and take incidental to otherwise legal activities as long as the take does not jeopardize the continued existence of the species or adversely modify the species’ critical habitat. The ESA also calls for recovery plans, such as this one, to help guide the recovery of the species. Protection from international trade has been afforded by CITES under which the Kemp’s ridley is listed on Appendix I.

G.2. Beach Protection

7

G.2.1. Mexico

In 1966, Mexico sent a team of biologists that included Humberto Chavez, Martin Contreras, and, in 1967, Rene Marquez, to Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, to survey the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle population at Rancho Nuevo, and to establish a conservation effort for this diminishing population (Chavez et al. 1967). The objective of the effort in Mexico was to protect the remaining nesting females, their eggs and hatchlings from human and animal predators thus eliminating the land-based mortality from the life cycle.

From 1966 to 1987, the conservation program focused on the area of Rancho Nuevo with the camp located first at Barra Calabazas and then at Barra Coma where it presently exists. In 1977, the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), Mexico’s National Park Service (NPS), the US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) all joined in the conservation efforts with Mexico’s Instituo Nacional de Pesca (INP) at Rancho Nuevo (Manzella et al. 1988, Woody 1989). In 1988, the program (now a bi-national one), expanded to the south to Barra del Tordo with a camp at Playa Dos. In 1989, a third camp was established to the north at Barra Ostionales on Rancho Los Pericos. The north camp's location was changed 10 km to the north of its original location, to near the town of Tepehuajes in 1996 for logistical reasons. Also in 1996, in coordination with SEMARNAP and the Tamaulipas' State Government, a camp was established in La Pesca. Under SEMARNAP’s supervision, Gladys Porter Zoo (GPZ), Administracion’ Portuaria Integral de Altamira (API Altamira) and Universidad del Noreste expanded the project to include the beaches of Tampico and Altamira. In Veracruz, El Raudal camp was installed in 1994, but was later transferred to Lechuguillas, municipality of Vega de Alatorre. In 1997, this camp was incorporated into the bi-national program.

In the 2002 season, two auxiliary corrals were constructed on the Rancho Nuevo beach. One was located to the north at Barra Carrizo and the other was constructed to the south. The additional corrals were constructed to protect nests from predation, decrease the distance eggs were transported, and provide additional space to the main corral at Rancho Nuevo.

Today, general monitoring and protection activities consist of daily beach patrols made by one team to search for nesting females and protect observed nests. When several females are counted in one trip, the monitoring team alerts the camps of a possible arribada event. During the arribadas, several teams patrol the beach on all-terrain vehicles, collecting biological data from females and relocating clutches to the protected corrals. The clutches are collected and transported to the corrals as soon as possible, with the necessary precautions to avoid the early embryo mortality caused by handling. Each clutch is reburied in a cavity of similar size and depth as the in situ nest and marked for monitoring throughout the incubation period. After hatchlings emerge from their nests, they are counted, collected, and released in large groups in different spots on the beach. The content of the nest is excavated after the hatchlings are released to determine hatching success.

G.2.2. United States

During the last 50 years, more confirmed Kemp’s ridley nests have been located at Padre Island National Sea Shore (PAIS) in south Texas than at any other location in the U.S. (Shaver and Caillouet 1998, Shaver 2005a). The first documented record of Kemp’s ridley nesting on the Texas coast was made in 1948 (Carr 1967) at what was later designated as PAIS. PAIS is considered a secondary nesting colony (Shaver 1998a, Shaver 1999a). Nests have been found elsewhere in the southeastern U.S. in conjunction with reports from the public and during monitoring conducted for loggerhead nesting activity (Anonymous 1992, Marquez et al. 1996, Johnson et al. 1999, Foote and Mueller 2002, Williams et al. 2006).

Since 1986, NPS staff and volunteers have conducted patrols on North Padre Island to detect and protect nesting Kemp’s ridley turtles and their eggs, determine results of the imprinting and headstarting experiment (see G.4.2. Imprinting and Headstarting), and gather biological data (Shaver

8

1990, 2005a). Patrols are conducted along the entire 128 km Gulf of Mexico shoreline of North Padre Island, including 104 km of PAIS and 24 km north of the PAIS north boundary and patrol effort increased over time (Shaver 2004, 2005a). From 1986-1994, the entire North Padre Island target patrol area was covered from 2-5 days each week. From 1995-1997, the entire area was covered 7 days each week. Starting in 1998, the entire area was repeatedly traversed each day to increase the likelihood of observing nesting females and locating their eggs.

Systematic patrol programs were developed by various entities to detect Kemp’s nesting at other locations in Texas starting in 1999. NPS staff at PAIS aided with development of many of these other nesting patrol projects by providing training, technical assistance, and some equipment.FWS, Sea Turtle, Inc., and GPZ (some years) led a program of repeated daily patrols by staff, volunteers, and interns on the 11 km of Boca Chica Beach beginning in 1999 and on the northernmost 51 km of South Padre Island beginning in 2000. Additional walking patrols were conducted on the southern developed portion of South Padre Island starting in 2006. FWS staff and Texas Master Naturalists volunteers began patrols on 45 km of Matagorda Island in 2003 and later expanded this program to include more days per week, repeated daily patrols, and the entire Kemp’s ridley nesting season. Staff and volunteers with the Animal Rehabilitation Keep (ARK) and University of Texas Marine Science Institute at Port Aransas conducted a few nesting patrols on 30 km of Mustang Island during the 2004 nesting season. The program was reinstituted and expanded to encompass at least one patrol per day during most days of the nesting season in 2006 and all days of the nesting season starting in 2007. San Jose Island has been patrolled once every eighth day since the mid-1990s. In 2005, volunteers with Help Endangered Animals-Ridley Turtles (HEART) and the Sea Turtle Restoration Project conducted patrols intermittently during the nesting season along various segments of the 230 km shoreline between Sabine Pass and the Matagorda Peninsula. This effort continued, but starting in 2006 FWS led the intermittent patrols by staff and volunteers on the northern end of Matagorda Peninsula. Texas A&M University at Galveston (TAMU) conducted patrols on Galveston Island starting in 2007 and on Bolivar Peninsula starting in 2008.

Educational programs alerting beach users to report nesting Kemp’s ridley turtles were implemented at PAIS in the mid-1980s and later expanded coast-wide by various groups (Shaver 1990, 2004, 2005a, 2006b, 2006c, Shaver and Miller 1999). Beach user reports have been investigated, resulting in documentation of up to half of the Kemp’s ridley nests found in Texas each year through the mid-2000s. However, from 2006-2010, beach users only found 14-21% of the annual number nests documented in Texas, likely due to the more comprehensive patrol programs conducted state-wide during those years.

From 1978-1999, eggs from the nests found by patrollers and beach users along the entire Texas coast were transported to the incubation facility at PAIS for protected care. After 2000, eggs from most nests located on North Padre Island and northward on the Texas coast were transferred to the facility. The first two incubation facilities at PAIS were screen-enclosed structures attached to buildings. The first was operated from 1978-1982, the second was operated from 1983-2005, and both were used to hold over 22,000 incubating eggs received from Mexico during the experimental imprinting and headstarting project from 1978-1988 (see G.4.2. Imprinting and Headstarting). A larger solid-walled building was used starting in 2006. Further information on the incubation facilities and egg care procedures can be found in Shaver (1989, 1990, 1994, 1997a,1997b, 1998a, 1999b, 2000, 2001a, 2002a, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2006b, 2006c) and Shaver et al. (1988). Nearly all of the turtles hatched in the incubation facility were released during the early evening, night, or morning at the northern end of PAIS, in the vicinity of the incubation facility, although a few were released elsewhere on the beach. Healthy hatchlings from all but one of the nests found in Texas were allowed to go free after release.

However, hatchlings from one Texas nest were transferred to the NMFS Galveston Laboratory for headstarting, as were the majority of hatchlings that emerged from eggs that were part of the 1978-1988 experimental imprinting effort (see G.4.2. Imprinting and Headstarting).

Starting in 2008, some nests found at the southern end of PAIS were incubated in a corral located at

9

the turtle patrol base camp, near the PAIS 64-km marker. The hatchlings from these nests were released at the southern end of PAIS (D. Shaver, PAIS, personal communication, 2009).

In 2000 and 2001, eggs found on Boca Chica Beach and South Padre Island were transferred to a corral on Boca Chica Beach. In 2002, eggs found on Boca Chica Beach were transferred to a corral there and on South Padre Island were transferred to a corral there. Starting in 2003, eggs from both South Padre Island and Boca Chica Beach nests were incubated in a corral on South Padre Island. The hatchlings were released at the corral locations that they emerged from on Boca Chica Beach or South Padre Island.

G.3. Marine Protection

G.3.1. Mexico

Mexico has implemented several protection measures for turtles in the marine environment. Sailing and fishing within 6.44 km of the beach at Rancho Nuevo was prohibited through the 1986 amendment to the declaration of Rancho Nuevo as a National Reservation and the 2002 declaration as a Sanctuary. TEDs have been required in the shrimp fishery operating in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean since 1993.

Mexican Official Standard NOM-029 (DOF 2006) prohibits the longline shark fishery from fishing in a 5 km buffer zone off the six beaches of Tamaulipas from March through June and the five beaches of Veracruz from March through August, which overlap with the nesting period of the Kemp’s ridley. The NOM also mandated removal of fish hooks from turtles captured incidentally and required longlines to be used in the marine zone, away from a coastal band of 18.53 km starting from the baseline from which the Territorial Sea is measured (DOF 2007).

G.3.2. United States

Development of TEDs began in the late 1970s to reduce incidental capture of sea turtles in the shrimp fishery (Henwood et al. 1992). TEDs consist of a device that prevents the turtle from entering the codend of the net and an escape opening that allows the turtle to escape. TEDs were first required by Florida state law in 1987 to be used by large shrimp vessels operating along the east coast of Florida between 28° and 29° N. latitudes. From 1987 through 1990, their seasonal use in the shrimp fishery expanded to include all ocean waters south of the North Carolina/Virginia border all the way around to Texas. Beginning in 1992, TEDs were required in the summer flounder fishery operating in waters off North Carolina to southern Virginia; at the same time, the shrimp fishery rules were expanded to require TED use in both inshore and ocean waters during all times of the year. The National Research Council (Magnuson et al. 1990) reviewed numerous studies and data and determined that there was strong evidence that shrimp trawling was the primary cause of sea turtle mortality in the southeast United States. They estimated that shrimp trawling caused 86% of the human caused mortalities of juvenile and adult sea turtles. The consistent and correct use of TEDs has reduced mortality due to shrimp fishing and contributed to the Kemp’s ridley population increase. It is also likely that the decline in the shrimp fishing effort in the northern Gulf of Mexico since the early 1990s has reduced sea turtle mortalities from shrimp trawling (Caillouet et al. 2008, Hart and Nance, 2013, NMFS 2007a).

Since 1990, corresponding with the more widespread use of TEDs in U.S. waters, the instantaneous mortality rate of neritic sea turtles (all species observed to interact with the shrimp fishery) has been reduced by 44%-50% (TEWG 2000). The range in annual mortality reduction represents the post-1990 mortality multiplier necessary to be included in the model to obtain the observed rate of the Kemp’s ridley population increase. Age-based models indicate an increase in large benthic and adult survival post-1990s (Heppell et al. 2005).

In addition to the use of TEDs, time and area closures have been established to enhance shrimp catch. The Texas Legislature established the Texas Closure through the Shrimp Conservation Act of

10

1959. The Texas Closure was implemented to delay harvest of brown shrimp in the Texas Territorial Sea (TTS) until the shrimp reach a larger, more valuable size and to minimize waste caused by discarding smaller shrimp during Gulf harvest (Fuls 2001). The timing of the closure can be altered by Texas, but generally occurs mid-May through mid-July, which coincides with the peak Kemp’s ridley nesting period. In addition, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Shrimp Fishery Management Plan implements a closure of the U.S. waters off Texas to complement the traditional Texas Closure. Several rules were adopted in the early 2000s by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission to reduce fishing effort on shrimp stocks and provide additional protection to sea turtles, particularly in the nearshore Gulf (Osburn et al. 2003). The most significant rule conserving Kemp’s ridleys in Texas is a seasonal shrimping closure from Corpus Christi Fish Pass to the Texas-Mexico border (177 linear km) including all of PAIS from the beach out to 5 nautical miles from December 1 to the Summer Gulf opening or July 15. Historically, 68% of the turtle strandings and less than 3% of the total Texas shrimp weight of landings occur in this area during this timeframe. However, despite TED regulations and reductions in fishing effort, significant correlations between sea turtle stranding rates and shrimp trawling intensities in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico continued to exist through at least 1993 (Caillouet et al. 1996).

Other gear regulations may also protect Kemp’s ridleys. Several states, including Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Hampshire and Florida, maintain offshore areas permanently closed to trawling. The State of Georgia requires the use of NMFS-approved TEDs in all trawl fisheries operating in state waters. South Carolina uses a water-temperature trigger to ensure whelk trawling occurs only when sea turtles are less abundant. Many states (South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas) have prohibited gillnets, but there remain active fisheries in other states and in Federal waters. Several regulations have been implemented to protect sea turtles, including Kemp’s ridleys. Since 2001, gillnet restrictions have been implemented in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina, and in offshore waters of the Economic Exclusive Zone to reduce sea turtle interactions. In 2002, NMFS prohibited, in certain areas and at certain times in the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, pound nets with leaders having mesh greater than or equal to 30.5 cm and leaders with stringers.

The Marine Pollution Act was enacted under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and subsequent regulations by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) to restrict the discharge of plastics and set the standards for other solid waste dumping into the marine environment (Shaver and Plotkin 1998). A large portion of the debris found washed ashore at the nesting beach, and presumably floating in neonatal/juvenile pelagic habitat, is garbage dumped from ships and oil platforms. Over 90% of the trash is composed of inorganic material, mainly plastic (Sarti et al. 1996). The regulations prohibit the disposal by all vessels and offshore platforms of all plastics, paper, rags, glass, metal, bottles, crockery, and similar refuse.

Oil and gas exploration activities require mitigation and measures to minimize the impacts to the Kemp’s ridley nesting beaches and marine environment. Various Federal, state, and local entities have developed spill contingency plans that are updated annually. These entities formed emergency response teams to reduce potential impacts from these spills. Oil and gas exploration and development occur at PAIS. The NPS strictly regulates these activities through the use of NPS regulations, in-depth environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act, consultation with resource agencies, and close coordination with the mineral owners and developers. The NPS and FWS work to make sure that the conditions under which approval of this drilling is granted protect the park's resources, especially the Kemp's ridley turtle. Measures have been developed to protect Kemp’s ridleys, and the plans allowing for the drilling of new wells incorporate these strict measures. Patrols are conducted at PAIS to locate and move eggs for protected incubation, thereby limiting threats from oil and gas activities and natural threats to the eggs and hatchlings. Beach patrols also involve location and protection of nesting and live- stranded turtles, although beach visitors sometimes find them before patrollers arrive. Oil and gas development and exploration in other areas on the Texas coast where Kemp's ridleys have been documented nesting are regulated by various local, state, and Federal regulations.

11

12

5. DATA FOR RED LIST CRITERIARecord the available data for population sizes, trends, decline rates, ranges, etc. to compare against the IUCN Red List Criteria thresholds.For full IUCN definitions of “population size”, “subpopulation”, “mature individuals”, “generation length”, “reduction”, “continuing decline”, “extreme fluctuation”, “severely fragmented”, “extent of occurrence”, “area of occupancy”, “location”, and “quantitative analysis”, please refer to the current version of the Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.

5a. Data for criterion A: rate of population reduction

Generation length(please state the unit used).

18 yearsTime period used for criterion A (tick () one box only)

10 years

3 generations X Time

period 67 years

Criteria A1 and A2:% population size reduction over the last 10 yrs or 3 generations:

87.8 to 91.8% Data quality:

Observed XEstimated XInferredSuspected

Are the causes of this reduction understood? (tick () one box only)

Yes X Have the causes of the reduction now ceased? (tick () one box only)

Yes Is the reduction reversible? i.e., is the population now showing signs of recovery? (tick () one box only)

Yes XNo No X No

Unknown Unknown Unknown

Past population reduction rate based on (select any combination):

Direct observationIndex of abundance XDecline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence, and/or habitat qualityActual or potential levels of exploitation XEffects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites

Criterion A3:% population size reduction over the next 10 yrs or 3 generations (max. 100 years in future):

Data quality:Projected

Suspected

Future population reduction rate based on (select any combination):

Index of abundanceDecline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence, and/or habitat quality

Actual or potential levels of exploitation

Effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites

Criterion A4:% population size reduction over the longer time period of 10 yrs or 3 generations, where some time falls in the past and some is projected in to the future (max. 100 yrs in future):

>80% Data quality:

Observed XEstimatedInferredProjectedSuspected X

Population reduction rate based on (select any combination):

Direct observation XIndex of abundance XDecline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence, and/or habitat qualityActual or potential levels of exploitation X

13

Effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites

5b. Data for criterion B: restricted range

Criterion B1: Extent of occurrence (EOO) in km²:

17,670 Criterion B2: Area of occupancy (AOO) in km²:

292

Is the population severely fragmented? (tick () one box only)

Yes If yes, justify this statement in the population text box (refer to habitat fragmentation AND the dispersal abilities of the taxon).

Number of locations:

1No XUnknown

Extent of occurrenceContinuing decline

ObservedInferred

Projected

Extreme fluctuation

Area of occupancyContinuing decline

ObservedInferred

Projected

Extreme fluctuation

Area, extent and/or quality of habitat Continuing decline

ObservedInferred

Projected

Number of locations or subpopulations

Continuing declineObserved

InferredProjected

Extreme fluctuation

Number of mature individuals

Continuing declineObservedInferredProjected

Extreme fluctuation

14

5c. Data for criterion C: small population size and continuing decline

Population sizeNumber of mature individuals in the global population:

15,664

Is there continuing decline in the population? (tick one box only)

Yes Rate of continuing decline known? (tick one box only)

YesNo No

Unknown X Unknown X

Estimated continuing decline % within 3 years or 1 generation (whichever is the longer time period; max. 100 years in future):

Estimated continuing decline % within 5 years or 2 generation (whichever is the longer time period; max. 100 years in future):

Estimated continuing decline % within 10 years or 3 generation (whichever is the longer time period; max. 100 years in future):

Number of mature individuals in largest subpopulation: 15,664 % of mature individuals in largest

subpopulation 100

Extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals:

YesNo XUnknown

5d. Data for criterion D: small population size or restricted range

Population sizeNumber of mature individuals in the global population:

15,664

Area of occupancy (AOO) in km²: 292 Number of

locations: 1Is there a plausible threat that could rapidly push the taxon towards extinction?

Yes XNo

Unknown

15

5e. Data for criterion E: quantitative analysis

Has a quantitative analysis predicting probability of extinction been carried out? (e.g. Population Viability Analysis)

YesNo X

Unknown

Probability (%) of extinction within the next 10 years or 3 generations (use the longer time period; max. 100 years in future)

Probability (%) of extinction within the next 20 years or 5 generations (use the longer time period; max. 100 years in future)

Probability (%) of extinction within the next 100 years

16

6. RED LIST ASSESSMENTAssess the taxon using the information and data recorded in section 4 and 5, and following the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: version 3.1. and current version of the Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria for guidance on applying the IUCN criteria.

6a. Red List Category & CriteriaTick () one of the following Red List categories, For taxa qualifying for a threatened category (CR, EN or VU), record all criteria and subcriteria met. For the NT category, record all criteria and subcriteria nearly met:

Extinct (EX) Date last seen in wild (day/month/year)

Extinct in the Wild (EW)

Date last seen in wild (day/month/year)

X Critically Endangered (CR) Criteria met for CR A2bd

Endangered (EN) Criteria met for EN

Vulnerable (VU) Criteria met for VU

Near Threatened (NT) Criteria nearly met for NT

Least Concern (LC)

Data Deficient (DD)

Not Evaluated (NE)

Is this taxon Possibly Extinct? (applies to CR taxa only)

YesNo X

Unknown

17

6b. Rationale for the assessment

The global population of the Kemp’s ridley is represented by a single population with no known subpopulations (Bowen 1991, Bowen and Karl 2007). This species primarily occurs in the Gulf of Mexico, with approximately 71.2% of nesting for the species occurring on a single, 30.4 km stretch of nesting beach located in the western Gulf of Mexico at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico. The Kemp’s ridley qualifies as “Critically Endangered” under the IUCN Red List Assessment Criterion A2bd based on an observed population size reduction of more than 80% (estimated reduction = 88%-92%) over three generations (Bevan et al. 2016), whose causes are known and reversible, (e.g. egg collection for human consumption), but some of which have not yet ceased (e.g. incidental capture in fisheries, pollution).

JustificationThe Kemp’s ridley population qualifies for “Critically Endangered” under Criterion A2bd due to a long-term reduction in population size that exceeds 80% (87.8 to 91.8%) the causes of which are known but have not ceased. This reduction in nesting is based on comprehensive nesting data since 1978 and on estimates of historic population size based on the 1947 Herrera film (Hildebrand, 1963; Bevan et al. 2016) (Fig. 2).The availability of long-term nest counts (as an index of population abundance), and their comparison to historic population estimates by Hildebrand (1963), documentation from Andres Herrera recorded in 1947, and analysis of historic and current nesting data (Bevan et al. 2016), indicate that the current population represents a greater than 80% reduction in historic population size (i.e. 87.8 to 91.8% reduction). By comparing abundance trends from recent years with an independent quantification of the estimated number of turtles in the 1947 arribada filmed by Andres Herrera (i.e. estimate of 26, 916 turtles in a single arribada, one of several that occur annually) and a previous estimate of total nesting abundance in that arribada (40,000 turtles; Hildebrand [1963]) facilitated updated estimates of total nest abundance in 1947. Using this approach, Bevan et al. (2016) estimated between 121,517 and 180,587 nests during the 1947 nesting season. In contrast, the maximum annual abundance of nests over the past several decades was 21,144 in 2009, but decreased to 12,053 in 2014, and averaged 14,885 nests from 2013 to 2015 (Fig. 2). Causes for this recent deviation from exponential recovery are unknown at present, but possibly include fisheries bycatch and impact of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.The causes for the decline from 1947-1985, ranging from an estimate of 99.4% to 99.6% (Hildebrand 1963; Bevan et al, 2016) were clearly understood (e.g. incidental capture by fisheries, egg harvesting, and natural predation at the nesting beach), and were reversible. The population exhibited an exponential increase from approximately mid 1990’s to 2009 due to reduction of egg harvest on key nesting beaches as well as implementation of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in trawl gear operating in the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS et al. 2011). However, the causal basis for the change from the exponential recovery trajectory previously observed through 2009 – i.e., average annual increase in nesting of 2799 nests ± 452 nests from 2004 through 2009 -- to the recent deviation from exponential recovery– e.g. average annual decrease in nesting of 1,818 ± 6070 nests from 2009 through 2014 – is currently not understood, and historical threats (e.g., bycatch) remain. The future levels of the Kemp’s ridley are currently unclear. It is unknown whether or not the recent deviation from exponential recovery is temporary, and if the recovery of the Kemp’s ridley will regain its exponential recovery rate that was present prior to 2010.In summary, the current population represents <20% (Bevan et al, 2016) of the historic population, or a >80% decline in abundance, and though causes for this decline are

18

understood, they have not yet ceased. For these reasons, the Kemp’s ridley qualifies as “Critically Endangered” under the IUCN Red List Assessment Criterion A2bd.

Criterion A: Critically EndangeredRationale: An observed population size reduction of ≥80% (estimate ranging from to 91.8% (Hildebrand, 1963; Bevan et al, 2016) to 87.8% (Bevan et al, 2016)) over three generations based on b) an index of abundance appropriate for the Kemp’s ridley (i.e. total number of nests per season), and d) actual or potential levels of exploitation. Primary factors contributing to the decline included 1) harvesting of eggs on the nesting beach (Hildebrand, 1963; Adams, 1966), 2) incidental capture by fisheries (NMFS et al., 2011; Magnuson et al., 1990), and 3) natural predation on the nesting beach (Hildebrand, 1963; Pritchard and Marquez, 1973; Marquez, 1994). The observed decline is based on a comparison to historic population estimates in Hildebrand (1963), documentation from Andres Herrera recorded in 1947, and analysis of historic and current nesting data (Bevan et al. 2016). Despite an exponential increase in abundance from the 1990s through 2009, the recent deviation from this exponential recovery rate since 2009 is currently not understood and may not be reversible. These factors are also the basis for the conclusion that the Kemp’s ridley is Critically Endangered under Criterion A2bd.

Criterion B: Least ConcernRationale B2a: Although the Kemp’s ridley occurs throughout the coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast of USA, all Kemp’s belong to a single location (i.e., genetic stock). The Kemp’s ridley has shown a strong site fidelity over time for the primary nesting beach near Rancho Nuevo (at least since 1947 Herrera film). Approximately 71.2% of global Kemp’s nesting occurs on 30.4 km of beach near Rancho Nuevo, Mexico and approximately 97% of the Kemp’s ridley global population’s nesting activity occurs on a 146 km stretch of beach that includes Rancho Nuevo along the western Gulf of Mexico in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Thus, the Area of Occupancy (AOO) is less than 500 km2. Lower levels of nesting occur in scattered areas along the coasts of Veracruz, Mexico, and Texas, US, but these beaches serve as nesting habitat for less than 3% of the population. The occurrence of a single primary nesting beach qualifies under B2a “Severely fragmented or known to exist at only a single location” and it has an area of less than 500 km2 (B2). Additionally, the Kemp’s ridley has had an unexpected deviation from its exponent recovery rate, but it is unclear whether this is actually a continued decline in population size. Therefore, this subpopulation is Least Concern under Criterion B.

Criterion C and D: Least ConcernPopulation of mature individuals (adult males and females) is currently estimated as 15,664 therefore, the Kemp’s ridley does not qualify for a threatened category under Criteria C or D. The current estimated number of mature individuals in the population (15,664) was calculated using standard IUCN protocol for sea turtle red list assessment. The calculation takes into account the average number of annual nests from 2013-2015 (n=14,885), an estimated clutch frequency of 2.5 clutches per year, a remigration interval of 2.0 years, and a sex ratio of 3.17 females:1.0 males (all values are reviewed in the Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley, NMFS, USFW, & SEMARNAT, 2015).

Criterion E: Not assessedRationale: There have been no formal PVAs conducted

Assessment Date:DD MM YYY

Y

27 07 2017

19

Assessors’ Names: Given Name(s) Family Name Email Address Institution

Thane Wibbels twibbels@uab.eduUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham

Elizabeth Bevan Libby84@uab.eduUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham

6c. Changes in Red List statusCheck the IUCN Red List web site (www.iucnredlist.org) to find out whether the taxon has previously been assessed.

Has this taxon been assessed for a previous IUCN Red List?

Yes X If yes, what was the previous assessment?

Critically EndangeredNo

Unknown

If yes, has the taxon changed category since its last assessment?

YesIf no, have the criteria changed?

No X Yes

No

Reason for change in category:

Genuine change

New/better information available

Recent changeNon-genuine

change

Taxonomic change

Change since first assessment Incorrect application of criteria previously

Criteria thresholds changed since previous assessment

20

7. LITERATURE REFERENCESProvide a list of all published and unpublished reference sources used for the information recorded above. Please provide full references, and try to avoid abbreviations (e.g., write Conservation Biology rather than Cons. Biol.).Anonymous. 1992. First Kemp's ridley nesting in South Carolina. Marine Turtle Newsletter 59.Bevan, E., T. Wibbels, B. M. Z. Najera, L. Sarti, F. I. Martinez, J. M. Cuevas, B. J. Gallaway, L. J.

Pena, and P. M. Burchfield. Estimating the historic size and current status of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) population. Ecosphere, in press, 32 p.

Bolton, A. B., and H. R. Martins. 1990. Kemp’s ridley captured in the Azores. Mar. Turtle Newsl 48:23.Bowen, B., and S. Karl. 2007. Population genetics and phylogeography of sea turtles. Molecular

Ecology 16:4886-4907.Bowen, B. W. 1991. Evolutionary distinctiveness of the endangered Kemp’s ridley. Nature 352:22.Burgess, G.L., Kazanis, E.G, and Shepard, N.K. 2016. Estimated oil and gas reserves Gulf of Mexico OCS region. December 13, 2014. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 29 p. New Orleans, LACaillouet Jr, C. W., R. A. Hart, and J. M. Nance. 2008. Growth overfishing in the brown shrimp fishery

of Texas, Louisiana, and adjoining Gulf of Mexico EEZ. Fisheries Research 92:289-302.Caillouet Jr, C. W., D. J. Shaver, W. G. Teas, D. B. Revera, and A. C. Cannon. 1996. Relationship

between sea turtle stranding rates and shrimp fishing intensities in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: 1986-1989 versus. Fishery Bulletin 94:237-249.

Carr, A. F. 1957. Notes on the zoogeography of the Atlantic sea turtles of the genus Lepidochelys. Rev. Biol. Trop. 5:45-61.

Carr, A. F. 1967. So excellent a fishe; a natural history of sea turtles.Carr, A. F. 1980. Some problems of sea turtle ecology. Amer. Zool. 20:489-498.Carr, A. F., and D. K. Caldwell. 1956. The ecology and migration of sea turtles, 1. Results of field

work in Florida, 1955. Amer. Mus. Novitates 1793:1-23.Chávez, H., E. T. P. Hernández, and M. Contreras. 1967. Aspectos biologicos y proteccion de la

Tortuga Lora, Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), en la costa de Tamaulipas, Mexico.Chavez, H., M. Contreras-G, and T. Hernandez-D. 1968. On the coast of Tamaulipas. Internat. Turt.

Tort. Soc. J 2:20-29.Chávez, H., M. Contreras, and T. Hernandez-D. 1968. On the coast of Tamaulipas. Part two. International Turtle and Tortoise Society Journal 2:16-19.

Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1973. Acuerdo por el que se establece la veda de la tortugamarina para las especies del litoral del Golfo de México y Mar Caribe del 12 de julio al31 de agosto de 1973 y del 1 de mayo al 31 de agosto para los años siguientes. DiarioOficial de la Federación, México, julio 13, 1973.

Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1977. Acuerdo que establece como Zona de Refugio y de Vedapara la protección de la tortuga lora marina Lepidochelys kempi la comprendida en laplaya Rancho Nuevo, Mpio. Villa Aldama, Tam. Diario Oficial de la Federación,México, julio 4, 1977.

Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1986. Decreto por el que se determinan como Zonas deReserva y Sitios de Refugio para la protección, conservación, repoblación, desarrollo ycontrol de las diversas especies de tortuga marina, los lugares donde anida y desovandichas especies. Diario Oficial de la Federación. México, octubre 29, 1986.

Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1990. Acuerdo por el que se establece veda total para todas lasespecies y subespecies de tortugas marinas en aguas de jurisdicción nacional de loslitorales del Océano Pacífico, Golfo de México y Mar Caribe. Diario Oficial de laFederación, México, mayo 31, 1990.

Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1993. Norma Oficial Mexicana 002-PESC-1993, para ordenarel aprovechamiento de las especies de camarón en aguas de jurisdicción federal de losEstados Unidos Mexicanos. Diario Oficial de la Federación, México, diciembre 31,1993.

Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1997. Modificación a la Norma Oficial Mexicana 002-PESC-1993. Para ordenar el aprovechamiento de las especies de camarón en aguas dejurisdicción federal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, publicada el 31 de diciembre de1993. Diario Oficial de la Federación, México, julio 30, 1997.

21

Diario Oficial de la Federación. 2002b. Acuerdo por el que se determinan como áreas naturalesprotegidas, con la categoría de santuarios, a las zonas de reserva y sitios de refugio parala protección, conservación, repoblación, desarrollo y control de las diversas especies detortuga marina, ubicadas en los estados de Chiapas, Guerrero, Jalisco, Michoacán,Oaxaca, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas y Yucatán, identificadas en el decreto publicado el 29 deIV-8 octubre de 1986. Diario Oficial de la Federación, México, Julio16, 2002.

Diario Oficial de la Federacion. 2006. Acuerdo mediante el cual se aprueba la actualizacion de la Carta Nacional Pesquera. Diario Oficial de la Federacion. Mexico. Viernas 25 de agosto de 2006.Diario Oficial de ala Federacion. 2007. NOM-29-PESC-2006. Pecas responsable de tiburones y rayas. Especificaciones para su aprovechamiento. Diaraio Oficial de la Federaction. 14 de febrero de 2007.Dobie, J. L., L. H. Ogren, and J. F. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1961. Food notes and records of the Atlantic ridley

turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) from Louisiana. Copeia 1961:109-110.Foote, J., and T. Mueller. 2002. Two Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) nests on the central Gulf

coast of Sarasota County Florida (USA). Pages 252-253 in Proceedings of the 20th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

Johnson, S. A., A. L. Bass, B. Libert, M. Marshall, and D. Fulk. 1999. Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi) nesting in Florida. Florida Scientist 62:194-204.

Garman, S. 1880. On certain species of Chelonioidae. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 6:122-126.

Hart, Rick A., J. M. Nance. 2013. Three decades of US Gulf of Mexico white shrimp, Litopenaeus setiferus, commercial catch statistics. Mar. Fish. Rev. 75(4):43-47.

Henwood, T. W. Stuntz, and N. Thompson. 1992. Evaluation of U.S. protective turtle measusres under existing TED regulations. Including estimates of shrimp trawler related mortality in the wider Carribean. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-303 15pp.

Heppell, S. S., D. T. Crouse, L. B. Crowder, S. P. Epperly, W. Gabriel, T. Henwood, R. Marquez, and N. B. Thompson. 2005. A population model to estimate recovery time, population size and management impacts on Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:767-773.

Heppell, S. S., P. M. Burchfield, and L. J. Pena. 2007. Kemp's Ridley Recovery. Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles:325.

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 (Rept., Chel.). Ciencia, Mexico 22:105-112.

Hildebrand, H. H. 1982. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Hildebrand, H. H. 1987. A reconassaince of beaches and coastal waters from Belize to the Mississippi River as habitat for marine turtles Report Reproduced by USFWS, Region 2, Albuquerque, NM., Report Prepared for NOAA NMFS, SEFC Panama City Laboratory, Contract No. NA-CF -84A-134.

Lazell Jr, J. D. 1980. New England waters: critical habitat for marine turtles. Copeia:290-295.Marquez, R. 1984. Kemp's ridley turtle overview of biology. Pages 96-100 in Proceedings of the

Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. University of Miami Press, Miami.Marquez-M., R., A. Villanueva, and P. Burchfield. 1989. Nesting population and production of

hatchlings of Kemp's ridley sea turtle at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Pages 16-19 in Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation, and Management. Department of Commerce, Galveston, Texas.

Magnuson, J. J., K. A. Bjorndal, W. D. Dupaul, G. L. Graham, D. W. Owens, C. H. Peterson, P. C. H. Pritchard, J. I. Richardson, G. E. Sual, and C. W. West. 1990. Decline of the sea turtles. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Marquez, M. R. 1994. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle, Lepidochelys kempi (Garman, 1880). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-343:91p.

Marquez, M., R. Byles, P. Burchfield, M. Sánchez, J. DÍAZ, A. Carrasco, A. Leo, and M. Jimenez-O.

22

1996. Good news! Rising numbers of Kemp's ridleys nest at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Marine Turtle Newsletter 73:2-5.

Morreale, S. J., A. B. Meylan, S. S. Sadove, and E. A. Standora. 1992. Annual occurrence and winter mortality of marine turtles in New York waters. Journal of Herpetology:301-308.

Mowbray, L. S., and D. K. Caldwell. 1958. First Record of the Ridley Turtle from Bermuda, with Notes on Other Sea Turtles and the Turtle Fishery in the Islands. Copeia 1958:147-148.

Musick, J. A., and C. J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles.in P. L. Lutz and J. A. Musick, editors. The biology of sea turtles. CRC Press, New York, New York.

NMFS, USFWS, and SEMARNAT. 2011. Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, 156 p.

NMFS, and USFWS. 2007. 5-Year Review of Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle.NMFS and USFWS. 2015. Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 5-year review: summary

and evaluation, 50 p.Ogren, L. H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and subadult Kemp’s ridley turtles: Preliminary results from

the 1984-1987 surveys.in Proceedings from the 1st Symposium on Kemp’s ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation, and Management. Sea Grant College Program, Galveston, TX.

Ogren, L. H., and C. McVea, Jr. 1982. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Osburn, H., M. Ray, and R. Riechers. 2003. Integrating turtle conservation into shrimpo management strategies: a Texas case history. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-SEFSC-503: 7-8.

Pritchard, P. C. H., and R. Marquez-M. 1973. Kemp's ridley turtle or Atlantic ridley. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Putman, N. F., K. L. Mansfield, R. He, D. J. Shaver, and P. Verley. 2013. Predicting the distribution of oceanic-stage Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Biology letters 9:20130345.

Sarti, L., S. A. Eckert, N. Garcia, and A. R. Barragan. 1996. Decline of the world’s largest nesting assemblage of leatherback turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 74:2-5.

Shaver, D. 1997a. Kemp's ridley turtles from international project return to Texas to nest. Pages 38-40 in Sixteenth Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting. University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA.

Shaver, D. 1997b. Padre Island National Seashore Kemp's ridley sea turtle project 1996 report. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D. 1999. Padre Island National Seashore Kemp's ridley sea turtle project and Texas sea turtle nesting and strandings 1998 report. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

Shaver, D. 2000. Padre Island National Seashore Kemp's ridley sea turtle project and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 1999 report. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D. 2001. Padre Island National Seashore Kemp's ridley sea turtle project and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2000 report. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D. 2002. Kemp's ridley project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2001 report. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D. 2004. Kemp's ridley project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2002 report. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D. 2005a. Kemp's ridley project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2003 report. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D. 2006a. Kemp's ridley project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2004 report. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D. 2006b. Kemp's ridley project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2005 report. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D., and P. Plotkin. 1998. Marine debris ingestion by sea turtles in South Texas: pre-and post-MARPOL ANNEX V. Byles, R. and Y.

Shaver, D. J., D. W. Owens, A. H. Chaney, C. W. Caillouet, P. Burchfield, and R. Marquez-M. 1988. Styrofoam box and beach temperatures in relation to incubation and sex ratios of Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Pages 103-108 in Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

Shaver, D. J. 1989. Results from eleven years of incubating Kemp's ridley sea turtle eggs at Padre Island National Seashore. Pages 163-165 in Proceedings of the 9th Annual Workshop on

23

Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology.Shaver, D. J. 1990. Kemp's ridley project at Padre Island enters a new phase. Park Science 10:12-

13.Shaver, D. J. 1994. Relative abundance, temporal patterns, and growth of sea turtles at the Mansfield

Channel, Texas. Journal of Herpetology:491-497.Shaver, D. J. 2005b. 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 Research Foundation.

Shaver, D. J., and C. W. Caillouet Jr. 1998. More Kemp's ridley turtles return to south Texas to nest. Marine Turtle Newsletter 82:1-5.

Shaver, D. J., and C. Rubio. 2008. Post-nesting movement of wild and head-started Kemp's ridley sea turtles Lepidochelys kempii in the Gulf of Mexico. Endangered Species Research 3:13.

Shaver, D. J., K. M. Hart, I. Fujisaki, C. Rubio, A. R. Sartain, J. Peña, P. M. Burchfield, D. G. Gamez, and J. Ortiz. 2013. Foraging area fidelity for Kemp's ridleys in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology and Evolution 3:2002-2012.

Shaver, D. J., K. M. Hart, I. Fujisaki, C. Rubio, A. R. Sartain-Iverson, J. Peña, D. G. Gamez, R. de Jesus Gonzales Diaz Miron, P. M. Burchfield, H. J. Martinez, and J. Ortiz. 2016. Migratory corridors of adult female Kemp's ridley turtles in the Gulf of Mexico. Biological Conservation 194:158-167.

TEWG. 2000. Assessment Update for the Kemp's Ridley and Loggerhead Sea Turtle Populations in the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-444:115 p.

Tomás, J., Á. Formia, M. Fernández, and J. A. Raga. 2003. Occurrence and genetic analysis of a Kemp's Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) in the Mediterranean Sea. Scientia Marina 67:367-369.

Tomás, J., and J. Raga. 2008. Occurrence of Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) in the Mediterranean. Marine Biodiversity Records 1:e58.

Wallace, B.P., DiMatteo, A.D., Hurley, B.J., Finkbeiner, E.M., Bolten, A.B., Chaloupka, M.Y., Hutchinson, B.J., Abreu-Grobois, F.A., Amorocho, D., Bjorndal, K.A., Bourjea, J., Bowen, B.W., Duenas, R.B., Casale, P., Choudhury, B.C., Costa, A., Dutton, P.H., Fallabrino, A., Girard, A., Girondot, M., Godfrey, M.H., Hamann, M., Lopez-Mendilaharsu, M., Marcovaldi, M.A., Mortimer, J.A., Musick, J.A., Nel, R., Pilcher, N.J., Seminoff, J.A., Troeng, S., Witherington, B. and Mast, R.B. 2010. Regional management units for marine turtles: a novel framework for prioritizing conservation and research across multiple scales. PLoS ONE 5: e15465.

Witt, M. J., R. Penrose, and B. J. Godley. 2007. Spatio-temporal patterns of juvenile marine turtle occurrence in waters of the European continental shelf. Marine Biology, 151: 873-885 p.

Witzell, W. N., and J. R. Schmid. 2005. Diet of immature Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempi) from Gullivan Bay, Ten Thousand Islands, southwest Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 77:191-200.

Table 1. Three generation change in the amount of nesting by the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle. Past and current amount of nesting are shown for each location and for the entire Gulf of Mexico (GoM). Estimates of a three generation change for nesting in Texas and at Tecolutla were not possible due to the lack of historic data dating back three generations.

24

AreaHistoric Year(s) and Estimated

Annual Number of Nests

Recent 2015 Annual Nests

Nesting 3 Generations

Ago

Avg Annual Estimate of

Nests 2013-2015

3-Generation Change

(Percent) Citations

Texas 2000-2002 (Avg): 19 nests/year 159 N/A 144 N/A A

Tecolutla, Veracruz 2000-2002 (Avg): 141 nests/year 485 N/A 593 N/A B

Rancho Nuevo/Tamaulipas 1947: 121,517 nests 14,006 121,517 14,148 -88.4 C

Rancho Nuevo/Tamaulipas 1947: 180,587 nests 14,006 180,587 14,148 -92.2 D

GoM Total 1947: 121,517 nests 14,650 121,517 14,885 -87.8 E

GoM Total 1947: 180,587 nests 14,650 180,587 14,885 -91.8 F APadre Island National Seashore Kemp's Ridley Program Annual Reports,BTecoluta Preservation Project (unpublished data)CBevan et al. 2016, Hildebrand 1963; Bevan et al. 2016DBevan et al. 2016; Kemp's Ridley Bi-National Program Annual ReportsEHildebrand 1963; Bevan et al. 2016; Kemp's Ridley Bi-National Program Annual Reports

25

Figure 1. Global distribution (top) and core area of the Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii).

26

Figure 2. Annual Kemp’s ridley nests per year showing estimated historic levels, decline recent recovery and relevant conservation events.

27