Review of the 

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle 

Headstart Program 

22 - 23 September 1992 

Galveston, Texas 

U. S . Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-3 

August 1994 
Review Team 

Dr. Scott A. Eckert (Chairman) - Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute 

Dr. Deborah Crouse - Center for Marine Conservation 

Dr. Larry B. Crowder - North Carolina State University 

Dr. Michael Maceina - Auburn University 

Dr. Arvind Shah - University of South Alabama 

This report represents the findings of an independent scientific 

review team assembled by the U.S. National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) whose purpose was to examine the experimental 

design of the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Headstart Experiment. 

The team was charged with making recommendations to the NMFS 

on how to improve the project's experimental design and to 

propose future directions for the program. The content of this 

report represents the views of the independent review team and not 

necessarily those of the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Suggested citation for this printing: Eckert, Scott A., Deborah 

Crouse, Larry B. Crowder, Michael Maceina, and Arvind Shah. 

1994. Review of the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Headstart Program. 

U.S. Dep. Cornmer., NOAA Tech. Memo..NMFS-OPR-3, 11 p. 
Review of the 

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle 

Headstart Program 

22 - 23 September 1992 

Galveston, Texas 

NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-OPR-3 

August 1994 

U .S . Department of Commerce 

Ronald H. Brown, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

D. James Baker, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Rolland A. Schmitten, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
Contents 

Historical Background 

Experimental Design Review 

Experimental Hypothesis 

Sample Sizes 

Experimental and Control Groups 

End Point 

Summary 

Tag Retention Rate 

Fecundity Clarification 

Literature Cited 

Appendix I 
Historical Background 

The Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelvs kem~ii, is classified under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as Endangered. This species is considered the rarest of all sea turtle 

species (all sea turtles occurring in U.S. waters are listed as Threatened or Endangered). Less 

than 50 years ago, Kemp's ridley sea turtles were considered abundant in the Gulf of Mexico. 

A 16 rnrn film record from 1947 of a single breeding aggregation (known as an Arribada) 

contained approximately 40,000 females at a single beach in Northeast Mexico. By 1992, the 

species was reduced to less than 500 nesting turtles. 

In 1966, protection of the remaining turtles was undertaken by the Mexican 

Government at the primary nesting beach at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, and in 1977 the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service began a cooperative program with Mexico to support this protection. In 

1978, under a complex cooperative agreement between U. S. and Mexican resource management 

agencies a "headstarting" program was created. Headstarting (a term first coined by Dr. Archie 

Carr at a meeting in Morges, Switzerland: Mrosovsky, 1983) refers to the captive hatching and 

rearing of young turtles to a larger size, thus passing through a vulnerable life-stage in an 

environment free from predators. These turtles are released to the wild where they 

(theoretically) have improved survival rates. Concurrent with the headstarting program, a 

program was created to imprint hatchlings on a beach at Padre Island National Seashore with 

the hope that these turtles would return to nest at Padre Island when mature. The imprinting 

project was discontinued in 1988, because 1) no turtles had been recorded as returning to nest 

and 2) it was felt that a sufficient number of turtles had been imprinted and released such that 

some should return over the next ten years (Shaver, 1990). To date, none of the turtles 

imprinted at Padre Island have returned. Subsequently, the imprinting program is focused on 

monitoring the (Padre Island) nesting beach. 

Since 1978, the headstarting project annually imported about 2,000 Kemp's ridley eggs 

from the Rancho Nuevo nesting beach. An overall average of 87.1 % (range 65.6% - 97.6%) 

were hatched, tagged and released. Tagging techniques varied among years, but turtles were 

either flipper-tagged with Hascol, model 681 metal tags, internal binary code wire tagged, 

microchip tagged (Passive Integrated Transponder Tag = PIT tag), or living tagged (a portion 

of the white plastron is surgically implanted into the dark-colored carapace). In most cases a 

combination of tagging methods was used. The release location for the headstarted turtles was 

generally offshore from the barrier islands. 

Mention of trade names or commercial firms does not imply endorsement by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, or the Review Team. 
The headstarting program has been controversial among sea turtle biologists almost 

from its inception (Allen, 1981; Buitrago, 1981; Goodwin, 1981; Mrosovsky , 1981, 1983; 

Mortimer, 1988; Pritchard, 1981; Woody, 1981, 1990, 1991; Taubes, 1992) because 

headstarting might act as a mitigation measure (Frazer, 1992). Criticism tends to revolve around 

concern that headstarted turtles will not nest, and that they may not integrate into wild 

populations due to confinement during their first year of life. Concern was also expressed that 

the headstart program acted to mollify resource policy makers into believing that the causes for 

the dramatic decline in the Kemp's ridley population do not need to be addressed 

In response to these criticisms, proponents of headstarting generally stated that not 

enough time has elapsed for headstarted turtles to reach maturity and return to nest. They also 

commented that marking techniques in the early years were not adequate, and tagged turtles did 

not remain tagged long enough to be recognized when they are mature and are encountered on 

the nesting beach. Further, headstarting was an experiment, not a mitigation measure, so that 

it should not be considered a mitigation technique (Allen, 1990, 1992). 

Experimental Design Review 

The purpose of this review is to examine the experimental design of the Kemp's ridley 

headstarting program. We have attempted to focus on whether the design of the experiment is 

appropriate and provide suggestions for improvement rather than determine if the project should 

be continued. If and when the feasibility of headstarting is proven, its continuation will need 

to be judged more on an economic/policy basis. Our goal is to recommend improvements in 

the experimental design which will provide the scientific information needed for such a decision. 

As with any experiment, there are a number of elements that must be considered. The elements 

we chose to examine are: 1) is there a testable hypothesis? 2) are sample sizes adequate and 

unbiased? 3) does the experiment have a control and an experimental group? 4) does the project 

have an 'end point' or a final goal. 

Experimental Hypothesis 

The first component to be considered is the project's hypothesis. Our impression from 

the materials provided is that at inception, the project really didn't have an experimental 

hypothesis that could prove whether headstarting was an effective method to support the wild 

population. The program was so focused on the challenges of captive rearing that any 

consideration of an experimental design was overlooked. There appeared to be an assumption 

that survival in the marine environment was assured after hatchlings were raised for a year. 

However, in the last few years, in part because the program has become very successful at 

captive rearing of Kemp's ridleys, and because of outside pressure, an experimental hypothesis 

or set of goals began to emerge. In particular, a 1989 blue-ribbon review panel suggested the 

project consider two criteria for success (labelled as the "Provisional Criteria" and the "Ultimate 

Criterion") (Wibbels et al., 1989): 
Provisional Criteria 

A) Apparent competence of headstarted turtles at and after release (i.e., Do headstarted turtles 

survive and grow in the wild, and are they comparable to wild Ridleys in body weight, feeding 

behavior, orientation, and reactions?). 

B) Ratio of recoveries (tag returns and strandings) of headstarted turtles to naturally occurring 

Kemp's Ridleys, taking into consideration the number of hatchlings produced at Rancho Nuevo 

and the number of headstarted hatchlings (taking into account the possibility of biased sampling 

due to the presence of tags on headstarted turtles). 

C) Comparison of recovery locations of headstarted and non-headstarted ridleys. 

Ultimate Criterion 

A) If headstarting is successful, the proportion of nesting headstarted females should increase 

relative to the proportion of non-headstarted nesting females. We consider that a gradual 

increase in this proportion over a five-year period would be an indicator that headstarting is an 

effective conservation technique. 

We generally agree with the "Provisional Criteria", and applaud the choice of these 

factors in guiding the headstart program. However, the "Ultimate Criterion" appears to be 

based upon the tacit assumption that the population is in a continuous state of decrease, which 

may have been true in 1989, but may not always be true. Indeed, data since 1987 suggest that 

a slight increase in the population size may be occurring (R. Byles2) If the wild turtle population 

increases, and the number of headstart turtles released remains constant, as it has for the last 12 

years, the proportion of headstarted turtles in the population will decline. Thus, it will be 

impossible to judge whether headstarting is successful using the "Ultimate Criterion". 

We suggest a more general project goal expressed as a two-part hypothesis (if the 

project is an "experiment" then it should logically have a testable hypothesis): 

A. Headstarting can produce Kemp's ridley juvenile sea turtles which are able to join the 

natural, wild populations, find their way to nesting beaches, procreate and hatch viable offspring 

of their own. 

B. Headstarted turtles demonstrate equivalent or superior biological fitness (defined as equal or 

better survival rates from egg to reproductive adult, and equivalent or better fecundity) when 

compared to wild Kemp's Ridleys. 

R. Byles. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal Comrnun., 1992. 
Part A of the hypothesis addresses the viability of headstarting to produce productive 

turtles; part B of the hypothesis determines whether headstarting turtles is more effective than 

allowing the wild population to recover on its own once the factors which caused the population 

decline are removed. 

Sample Sizes 

The most important factor which must be considered about sample size is whether 

effects of the experiment can be detected when compared to a control group. In the case of this 

experiment, the questions are, "can it be determined that headstarted turtles survive to maturity, 

nest and hatch viable young?" and "if viable how does their survival and fecundity compare to 

wild raised turtles?". The experimental group consists of the headstarted turtles and the control 

group consists of wild turtles. .Answering these questions requires that headstarted and marked 

wild turtles be detected and distinguished from each other on the nesting beach. 

To detect marked (headstarted or wild-raised) turtles at the nesting beach requires a 

particular level of nesting beach coverage, and on the number of marked turtles available to be 

detected. Consequently, experimental and control group sample sizes are very important. A 

small number of tagged individuals will require a higher detection effort to observe any 

experimental effect. In this case, detection effort is positively associated with beach coverage. 

However, an advantage of small sample size is that fewer turtles are impacted by the 

experimental technique (headstarting). Conversely, large sample sizes require less detection 

effort to observe experimental effect. To date, the headstarting experiment annually releases a 

relatively small numbers of headstarted turtles. Thus, a high level of coverage on the beach is 

required to detect headstarted turtles. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. According to 

Pritchard (1990), only 50% of the nestings at Rancho Nuevo were observed during the 1989 

nesting season, and such coverage was typical. The probability of detecting a headstarted turtle 

with a coverage of 50% is very low because headstarted turtles represent such a small proportion 

of the population. Furthermore, tagging techniques previously used by the headstart program 

virtually guarantee that the headstarted turtles will not be detected. Almost all headstart turtles 

have only been marked with a single flipper tag, a living tag or one of two styles of internal 

tags. Flipper tags, which are most readily identifiable, have a notoriously short life span (2-4 

yr). Living tags have a completely unknown detection rate and may be easily misidentified. 

Internal tags, which are at least archival, require special detection equipment which the beach 

project does not have in adequate quantity. 

The "blue ribbon panel" (Wibbels et al., 1989) suggested that the shrimp fleet was 

severely reducing the survival rate of the headstarted Kemp's population, and this possibly 

accounts for the complete absence of headstarted turtles at the nesting beach. They subsequently 

suggested that the project continue to release approximately 2,000 headstarted turtles per year 

for 10 years after Turtle Excluder Devices (TED) are implemented on 100% of all shrimp 

fishing vessels. We agree that mortality rates associated with trawling are likely high, and that 

TEDs should be required on all shrimping vessels, but coverage of the nesting beach was 

probably not adequate to detect any headstarted turtles even if the mortality due to shrimping 
was nil. Thus evaluation of the current headstart program will be ineffectual given the current 

beach coverage. 

We propose that coverage at Rancho Nuevo be increased to observe all turtles that 

nest. All field teams should be outfitted to detect headstarted turtles. We suggest that because 

approximately 12,000 headstarted turtles have been released with coded wire tags and another 

4,500 with PIT tags (with about another 2,000 headstart turtles due to be released within 1 

year), an increase in beach coverage should be able to determine if any of those turtles are 

currently nesting. 

We are not comfortable with relying on living tags as a means to detect headstarted 

turtles. Living tags are too easily misinterpreted, and there has not been adequate research to 

determine the retention and detection rate of those tags after release. 

Experimental and Control Groups 

The experimental group in this project is the headstarted turtle cohort. Approximately 

2,000 of these turtles were released annually for 12 years. Marking was probably adequate to 

detect 16,500 of these turtles, given the proper detection equipment. The control group of the 

project consists of wild-raised turtles. This latter group has been overlooked, leaving no 

comparison by which to measure the experiment. Recent efforts using stranding data have 

described the distribution of the species in the Gulf of Mexico, however we believe that 

stranding data have many biases (e.g. only turtles which have died near the coast wash ashore, 

tagged turtles are more readily reported, etc.) which limit the usefulness of such data. 

Therefore, we recommend a rigorous mark and recapture program be undertaken. Not only will 

such a program allow the archival tagging of wild Kemp's ridleys and maintenance of previously 

attached or implanted tags, but it will allow determination of growth rates, survival rates, tag 

retention rates, and a host of important life history characteristics on both wild and headstarted 

turtles. 

It should be noted that in the last few years there has been a required increase in TED 

use such that mortality factors on the turtle population have probably changed. Therefore, to 

calculate the comparative survival rates of headstarted and wild turtles, it will be necessary to 

capture both wild and headstarted turtles as part of the mark and recapture program. Calculation 

of survival rates to maturity can only be based upon those turtles captured during this program. 

Using the number of headstarted turtles released (with archival tags approx. 16,500) and the 

number later seen on the nesting beach to calculate survival rate, will give a rate biased by the 

high mortality associated with non-TED shrimp fishing. 

Since a large number of headstarted turtles were already released with archival quality 

tags, we do not feel it necessary to continue to release headstarted turtles. Efforts should be 

concentrated on detection of previously released headstarted turtles, and the establishment of a 

control group. 
End Point 

The experiment will be considered complete when the hypothesis is proven or 

disproven. We suggest that if no headstarted turtles are detected nesting at Rancho Nuevo from 

the turtles already released, given that approximately 100% of the nesters have been examined 

during the next 8-10 years and that wild Kemp's ridleys identified in the mark and recapture 

program are detected nesting, then the hypothesis is disproven. If instead, headstarted turtles 

are detected on the nesting beach, then fecundity and nesting success data are needed to evaluate 

part B of the hypothesis on page 3. 

Summary 

Our summary recommendations suggest some protocols that would be considered 

impossible for most sea turtle species. However, because of the small size of the Kemp's ridley 

population, which nests on a single primary beach, we believe these recommendations are 

feasible. In summary we propose the project proceed in the following mannef: 

Survival Rate Determination 

Survival rates of all sizelage classes of wild and headstarted turtles should be assessed. 

Determining survival rates for wild and headstarted populations should be the highest priority 

of the headstart program for the next few years. Because the program demonstrated a capacity 

to raise and release turtles, and a large number of archival marked turtles are already in the 

population, we feel that additional headstarting is unnecessary and instead the NMFS efforts 

should focus on understanding how the released turtles are faring. Ultimately it will be 

important to gain information on the survival/fitness of headstarted turtles compared to the wild 

populations. We propose that the NMFS focus on a large-scale mark and recapture program 

designed. to gather the following information (in order of priority) for both experimental 

(headstarted) and control (wild) turtles: 

A) Survival.rate of hatchlings to maturity. 

B) Average survival rate of juvenile size class turtles to maturity. 

C) Growth rates of juvenile turtles. 

D) Behavior: habitat selection, movement, and migration patterns. 

E) Physiology: compare physical fitness of headstarted turtles to wild caught turtles. 

F) Sex ratios of in situ populations. 

G) Size frequency distributions of juvenile populations. 

H) Determine age to maturity. 

It should be noted that some of these tasks may not be the direct jurisdictional responsibility 

of the National Marine Fisheries Service. However, the team feels strongly that NMFS should 

be encouraged to support activities which help determine the outcome of its experiment. 
The program should establish a large number of nettinglcapture areas around the Gulf 

of Mexico and along the U.S. east coast for the purpose of capturing and archival tagging 

Kemp's ridleys. Data on size, sex, habitat characteristics, as well as some physiological 

parameters and food preferences should be gathered. Simultaneously, beach coverage should 

be increased to observe 100% of all nesters, and all workers should be equipped to detect 

archival tags. 

To determine wild turtle survival rates from hatching to maturity, we recommend the 

following. For two consecutive seasons, a large number of wild hatchlings should be released 

with archival tags. The number of hatchlings to be tagged can be calculated 

based on the data in Appendix I. A most critical value that must be estimated for sample sizes 

to be valid, is survival rate to maturity. This review team is uncomfortable trying to predict that 

estimate, though it is probably fair to assume that it lies between .O1 and .001 (from hatchling 

to maturity). We strongly recommend that as large a sample size as possible be marked4 to 

reduce the error of the final estimate and that hatchlings be marked for two consecutive seasons 

to reduce stochastic year effects on survival. Each year class should be tagged such that the 

location of the tag will indicate year class. We realize that this is a very ambitious task, but the 

result will be critical to analyze part B of the hypothesis: that headstarted turtles have an equal 

or better survival rate to maturity than wild turtles. By conducting this tagging concurrent to 

the netting program, it may be feasible to recapture some of these turtles as they grow. We feel 

it necessary to recommend a large number of hatchlings be tagged, because of the (assumed) 

high mortality rate of small turtles, and because we hope that the netting program will recapture 

some of these, if enough have been marked. However, before starting this experiment it should 

be demonstrated that the use of magnetic wire-coded or PIT tags will not adversely impact 

hatchlings (by using techniques such as those developed by Lohmann (1991)). This is 

particularly true of magnetic tags since we know that sea turtle hatchlings are sensitive to 

magnetic fields. 

Determination of the number of hatchlings that should be tagged will rely heavily on 

the estimated survival rate to maturity and the appropriate error rate. The error rate must be 

lower than the survival rate to keep the confidence interval of calculated survival rate narrow, 

and to exclude zero from the interval. For more on the calculation of the sample size required, 

see Appendix I. 

We recommend that prior to initiation of these projects that the NMFS assemble a team of 

experts in the experimental design of mark and recapture projects. We cannot overemphasize 

this recommendation. We have proposed a wide range of goals for these tagging programs, each 

of which may require a different sample size, and will take specialized expertise to determine 

the sample size that will meet all of the project goals. 
Tag Retention Rate 

Tag Retention rates for wild and headstarted turtles at different life history stages should 

be assessed. The lack of data on tag retention rates is a major stumbling block of the current 

headstart program. Specifically, all headstarted and wild-captured turtles should be doubletagged with visible tags and at least single tagged with archival tags. Furthermore, the tagging 

program should be organized and well supported such that its longevity is ensured: tag records 

should be available on a centrally coordinated, permanent data base; and most importantly, a 

means should be provided to detect archival tags by the wide range of groups who might 

encounter tagged turtles. 

Fecundity Clarification 

Fecundity estimates for wild and headstarted turtles are available from existing data, 

but there are a number of divergent estimates which need clarification. Furthermore, when/if 

headstart turtles are demonstrated to nest, it will be important to obtain accurate fecundity values 

for them to evaluate their fitness when compared to wild turtles. 
Literature Cited 

Allen, C. 1990. Give 'headstarting' a chance. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 51: 12-16. 

Allen, C. 1992. It's time to give Kemp's ridley head-starting a fair and scientific evaluation! 

Mar. Turtle Newsl. 56:21-24. 

Allen, K.R. 1981. Head-starting: the problems of imprinting and tagging. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 

19:2. 

Buitrago, J.B. 1981. Percentage of head-started turtles in a population as a criterion. Mar. Turtle 

Newsl. 19:3. 

Frazer, N. 1992. Sea turtle conservation and halfway technology. Conserv. Biol. 6(2): 179-1 84. 

Goodwin, M.H. 1981. Head-starting: evaluations and alternatives. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 19:4-5. 

Lohmann, K. 1991. Magnetic orientation by hatchling loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). 

J. Exper. Biol. 155:37-49. 

Mortimer, J. 1988. Management options for sea turtles: re-evaluating priorities. Fla. Defenders 

Environ. Bull. 25, 4 p. 

Mrosovsky, N. 1981. Editorial. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 19: 1-2. 

Mrosovsky, N. 1983. Conserving sea turtles. Brit. Herpetol. Soc. London, 170 p. 

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1981. Criteria for scientific evaluation of head-starting. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 

19:3-4. 

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1990. Kemp's ridleys are rarer than we thought. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 49: 1-3. 

Shaver, D.J. 1990. Kemp's ridley project at Padre Island enters a new phase. Park Sci. 

lO(1): 12-13. 

Taubes, G. 1992. A dubious battle to save the Kemp's ridley sea turtle. Science 256:614-616, 

Wibbles, T., N. Frazer, M. Grassman, J.R. Hendrickson, and P.C.H. Pritchard. 1989. Blue 

Ribbon Panel Review of the National Marine Fisheries Service Kemp's Ridley 

Headstart Program. Report submitted to Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, August 

1989. Miami, Fla.: Southeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service. 13 

PWoody, J.B. 1981. Head-starting of Kemp's ridley. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 195-6. 

9 
Woody, J.B. 1990. Is 'head-starting' a reasonable conservation measure? "On the surface, yes; 

in reality, no". Mar. Turtle Newsl. 50:8-11. 

Woody, J.B. 1991. It's time to stop headstarting Kemp's ridley. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 55:7-8. 
APPENDIX I 

The ability to determine survival rate for Kemp's ridleys will be strongly influenced 

by sample size. To calculate sample size requires at least an approximation of what the survival 

rate might be; an acceptably low error rate (which must be lower than the survival rate; 

information on the tag retention rate; what percent of the hatchlings will return to the nesting 

beach, as opposed to nesting somewhere else; and the probability of encountering a nesting turtle 

on the nesting beach. For this example of predicted sample size we used the following 

assumptions : 

1) All turtles retain at least one identification mark (tag) until maturity. 

2) Imprinting of the headstarted turtles is successful (i.e. 100% of the surviving 

imprinted turtles will return to Rancho Nuevo location of imprinting, assuming that 

location is being monitored for marked nesters). 

3) The probability of encountering a nesting turtle on the nesting beach is known. 

- ' e = the maximum error rate. 

p = the assumed survival rate to maturity. 

n = the required number of turtles to be marked.