sea turtle protection measures including ...isurus.mote.org/techreps/500/500.pdfextremely high. all...

SEA TURTLE PROTECTION MEASURESINCLUDING NEST/HATCH

AND SAND COMPACTNESS MONITORINGFOR THE

CITY OF VENICEBEACH RESTORATION PROJECT

SARASOTA COUNTY

1996 ACTIVITIES SUMMARY

Submitted to: The City of VeniceATTN: Charles RoseCity Engineer401 West Venice AvenueVenice, FL 34285

Submitted by: Mote Marine Laboratory1600 Ken Thompson ParkwaySarasota, FL 34236

Prepared by: Jerris J. FooteJay Sprinkel

Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report No. 500.

This document is printed on recycled paper.

January 1997

Suggested reference Foote JJ, Sprinkel J. 1997. Sea Turtle

protection measures including nest/hatch and sand compactnessmonitoring for the city of Venice beach restoration project

Sarasota County. The City of Venice. Mote Marine LaboratoryTechnical Report no 500. 26 p. and appendices. Available from:Mote Marine Laboratory Library.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MARINE TURTLE MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BACKGROUND.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Turtle Emergences (Nests and False Crawls) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tagged Turtle Sighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Seasonal Pattern of Sea Turtle Emergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cross-Shore Nest Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Incubation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hatch and Emergence Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nest Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nesting Turtle Disorientation Incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hatchling Disorientation Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Marine Turtle Strandings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BEACHCOMPACTNESS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BACKGROUND.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SCOPE AND MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REFERENCES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i

ii

iii

1

2

2

2

4

4777

111112131315

15

15

16

16

25

25

Appendices:

A. 1996 FDEP Marine Turtle PermitsB. Mote Marine Laboratory Zone DescriptionsC. FDEP Guidelines for Nest CagingD. Marine Turtle Nesting DataE. Mote Marine Laboratory Nest/Hatch Data Summary for All KeysF. 1996 FDEP Nesting Survey and Nest Success Reporting FormsG. Marine Turtle Disorientation Incident ReportH. Marine Turtle Hatchling Disorientation Incident Report FormI. NMFS Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network - Stranding ReportsJ. Sand Compactness Measurements at Sea Turtle Nesting Sites, Venice Beach,

Florida

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

LIST OF FIGURESPage

Map of Venice showing FDNR survey profile monuments;MML turtle monitoring zones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The historical pattern of sea turtle emergences on VeniceBeaches, Sarasota County, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The 1996 seasonal pattern of daily sea turtle emergencesfor Venice Beaches, Sarasota County, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Visual representations of nest locations on the nourishedand native sections of beach, Venice, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Average compactness, mean and standard deviation at seaturtle activity sites along the shoreline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Histograms of beach compactness readings for each depthand all depths combined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

A longshore profile of sea turtle activity withcorresponding average sand compactness, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Scatter plots of nest locations with beach width anddistance from shoreline (top) and beach width and sandcompactness (bottom). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

ii

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Page

LIST OF TABLES

Nest to false crawl ratio for marine turtles nesting onVenice beaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Turtle emergence activity by MML Patrol Zone. . . . . . . . . . . .

Nest locations by relative beach width using visualclassification regardless of actual beach width (n=263). . . . . . . .

Nest locations measured upland from the mean high tideline (n=152). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hatch success for relocated and in situ (i.e., not relocated)nests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hatchling emergence success for relocated versus in situnests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nests documented as experiencing either partial orcomplete damage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of 1996 marine turtle hatchling disorientations(n=26). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Beach compactness summary for Venice Beach, 1996. . . . . . . .

Beach compactness and turtle nesting summary for VeniceBeach, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

6

9

9

11

12

13

14

17

22

iii

INTRODUCTION

On August 18, 1993, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)(formerly Florida Department of Natural Resources/FDNR) approved Permit NumberDBS-900264-ST, for the City of Venice (permittee) Beach Restoration Project. Thispermit allowed the nourishment of the beaches of Venice, Sarasota County Florida, andimposed several special permit conditions. One of the special conditions sought toprevent adverse impacts to marine turtles. Venice beaches host a significant nestingpopulation of Caretta caretta (the loggerhead turtle) and during the 1994 season aChelonia mydas (green turtle) nest was verified. Chelonia mydas is listed as anendangered species, and Caretta caretta is listed as a threatened species under the U.S.Endangered Species Act, 1973 and Chapter 370, F.S. This report summarizes measurestaken to address the following special permit conditions:

Monitoring for marine turtle nesting must commence 65 days prior toconstruction or on April 15 whichever is later. Surveys shall be continueduntil September 15 in order to assess the performance of the restoredbeach.

Nest survey, nest relocation, screening or caging activities, and nestsuccess evaluations shall be conducted by persons with prior experienceand authorized to conduct such activities through a current and validFDEP Marine Turtle Permit. Survey work, including any necessarymarine turtle protection measures, shall be performed prior to anyconstruction activity.

Relocation of endangered nests must occur between sunrise and 9:00 a.m.daily.

Surveys for escarpment of beach berm shall be made in March of the twoyears following the project completion. Escarpments interfering withmarine turtle nesting or which exceed 18 inches in height for a distanceof 100 feet shall be leveled to the natural beach contour prior to April 15of the two nesting seasons following initial construction. Escarpments thatoccur during the nesting season shall be leveled immediately whileprotecting both in situ and relocated nests.

Because of difficulties in obtaining sand sources sufficient to nourish the entire4.6 miles of beach, the project was divided into two phases. Phase One, from FDNRmonument R- 115 south to approximately 650 ft south of R- 123, was completed duringthe summer and fall of 1994. Phase Two, from approximately FDNR monument T-122

1

south to 650 ft south of R-132 was completed in the spring and summer of 1996. Thisreport documents the marine turtle protection measures, nesting activity, nest success,and sand compactness monitoring at turtle activity sites for the entire 4.6 mile length ofVenice beaches.

MARINE TURTLE MONITORING

BACKGROUND

Beginning April 15, 1996, daily monitoring of Venice beaches was begun to fulfillthe Florida Department of Environmental Protection guidelines for sea turtle protectionand to fulfill the scope of work contracted by Mote Marine Laboratory (MML) with theCity of Venice. Mote Marine Laboratory personnel and volunteer patrol personnel arepermitted through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection under the 1996marine turtle permits #028 and #054 (Appendix A).

The monitored area begins at the Venice Jetties at approximately FDNR CoastalConstruction Control Line survey profile monument R-115 and proceeds south throughNorth Casperson Beach at approximately monument R-138 (Figure 1).

PROCEDURES

The entire 4.6 miles of Venice beaches were monitored daily between the hoursof 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. during the nest/hatch season (April 15 through October 31).All marine turtle activity resulting in either successful nesting or false crawls (non-nesting emergences) were recorded.

For the purposes of this report, each identified sea turtle emergence was classifiedas resulting in either a “false crawl” or a “nest”. A false crawl was defined as anemergence which did not result in egg deposition. The following are examples of falsecrawls: 1) a turtle that moved onto the beach but did not excavate a nest and returnedto the water or 2) a turtle that moved up the beach, excavated a nest cavity or numerousnest cavities but for unknown reasons did not deposit any eggs in the nest (often theseaborted nest excavations are left uncovered by the turtle). A nest was defined as a turtleemergence which resulted in the turtle successfully depositing eggs. Where anemergence resulted in what “appeared” to the experienced patrol personnel to be asuccessful nest but the eggs were not verified, the site was identified as a “possible nest”and was monitored along with the nests to observe for hatching. These possible nestswere reclassified as either nests or false crawls depending on the outcome.

Throughout the turtle season patrol personnel walked the beach, which for easeof walking and as a location aid had been broken into six separate “zones” (Figure 1;

2

Figure 1. Map of Venice showing FDNR survey profile monuments; MML turtle monitoring zones.

Appendix B). During the initial pass down the beach, false crawls were recorded andnests were marked with a wooden stake. If the nest was determined to be endangered,it was carefully hand excavated. The eggs were placed in a bucket lined with sand andwere transported higher on the beach at the same location. If adequate beach was notavailable the nest was relocated to a more protected area nearby. The following threecriteria were assessed to determine if a nest was to be relocated: 1) if a nest was locatedin front of a main drain or in saturated sand it was relocated to an adjacent beachlocation. 2) If a nest was located at or below mean high water it was relocated higheron the beach at the same location. 3) If a nest was partially destroyed by predators, itwas either cleaned out and new sand placed over the nest at the original location, or theremaining eggs were carefully relocated to an adjacent area of beach.

All nests occurring in the area between 550 ft south of R-128 and R-138 (southof Service Club Park, Zone 4 through Zone 6) were caged with self-releasing raccoonproof nest cages (Appendix C) as raccoon predation in this area continued to beextremely high. All other nests, were marked with a painted wooden stake and signageidentifying the site as a protected sea turtle nest and left in place on the beach. Each nestwas additionally marked with the date the nest was laid, and the location of the nest.Nest location was documented by two methods. In the field, monitoring personnellocated nests by relative position to the nearest street address, building, or otherlandmark. These descriptions were checked in the Laboratory’s offices against annotatedaerial photographs to associate the locations to the nearest FDNR monuments. Allnesting activity and compactness data in this report are summarized and presented by1,000 ft long sections of shoreline defined by the nearest monument to the north.

After 45 days incubation, nests were monitored in the early morning and againin the evening. Observance of one or more of the following was used to determine thefirst day of hatch to calculate incubation periods: 1) a hatchling or hatchlings present atthe surface, 2) a hatchling crawl or crawls in the sand leading out from the nest area, or3) a depression or emergence hole in the sand directly over the nest.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Turtle Emergences (Nests and False Crawls)

The above procedures resulted in the documentation of 263 nests, and 372 falsecrawls (see Appendix D for complete listing of all nest and false crawl activity) for the4.6 miles of beach. All of the nests were completed by Caretta caretta (loggerhead), noChelonia mydas (green turtle) nests were documented for the 1996 season. The 1996total number of nests indicates a slight increase from previous years (Figure 2). Thefalse crawl to nest ratio- has returned to 1.41 false crawls to one nest after the unusualhigh of 2.73 false crawls to one nest of 1995 (Table 1).

Figure 2. The historical pattern of sea turtle emergences on Venice Beaches, Sarasota County, Florida.

1996 263 372 4.61995 203 556 4.61994 188 238 4.61993 157 230 4.61992 196 227 4.61991 150 175 4.61990 68 84 3.61989 74 82 3.61988 77 63 3.61987 68 61 3.6

1.41:12.73:11.26:l1.46:11.15:l1.16:11.23:11.10:l0.81: 10.89: 1

Total #FC Miles Covered FC/N Ratio

Table 1. Nest to false crawl ratio for marine turtles nesting on Venice beaches.

Year Total #N

The Phase I, MML Patrol Zone 1, beach nourished in 1994 recorded the highestincidence of turtle activity. This area had 29.4 emergences per 1,000 feet and a falsecrawl to nest ratio of one to one (Table 2). The area with the lowest activity, MMLZone 5, recorded 16.9 emergences per 1,000 feet and had a false crawl to nest ratio of5.5 crawls to one nest.

1 T-115 to T-122 105 101 1.0:12 T-122 to R-125 29 45 1.6:l3 R-125 to R-128.5 40 72 1.8:14 R-128.5:875’S of R-130 6 33 5.5:15 875’S of R-130:R-133 16 45 2.8:16 R-133 to R-138 67 76 1.1:1

No. ofNests

#FalseCrawls

FC/NRatioDNR Monuments

MMLPatrolZones

Turtle emergence activity by MML Patrol Zone.Table 2.

The higher incidence of false crawls for 1995 (556) and 1996 (372) compared toall other years, could be caused by a number of factors. These factors included: 1) thepresence of escarpments in excess of 1.5 foot, 2) presence of a barrier such as a rockrevetment or retaining wall, and 3) unknown factors.

6

Although all escarpments were graded prior to the nesting season, escarpmentscontinued to form throughout the season. Escarpments ranging in height from one footto approximately six feet were recorded during the season. Periodic grading wasconducted by the City of Venice. This activity was coordinated with monitoringpersonnel to avoid any negative impact to marine turtle nests.

Tagged Turtle Sighting

A Caretta caretta (loggerhead) with NMFS tag #SSM855 on the trailing edge ofher right front flipper was observed nesting on the beach in front of the Chateaugay at1200 Tarpon Center Drive on June 26th. This turtle, also known as #1468, had beentagged by MML scientists on Casey Key on June 1, 1996, after she had completednesting. This same turtle was observed successfully nesting again on Casey Key July 7th

and July 17th Number 1468 was 92.8 cm long and 87.4 cm wide (over the curvemeasurements), the straight line carapace (shell) length and width were 88.3 cm and 69.0cm, respectively. A total of 252 hatchlings emerged from a total of 260 eggs depositedby this one turtle. Number 1468 chose the upper beach twice for her nesting site andnested once on mid beach and once on the lower beach.

Seasonal Pattern of Sea Turtle Emergence

The seasonal pattern of sea turtle emergence is shown in Figure 3. The firstemergence was a false crawl May 15th on Brohard Beach. The first nest was laid onMay 18th at 1150 Tarpon Center Drive. The last two emergences, a nest at 950 TarponCenter Drive, and a false crawl at 225 Esplanade, occurred on August 15th. The periodof peak nesting occurred in the seven weeks from May 25th through July 13th duringwhich time 78 percent (205) of the total nests were created.

Cross-Shore Nest Position

All nesting activity for 1996 occurred post construction. The turtles had accessto both native and nourished stretches of beach that ranged in width from 50 to 380 footabove mean high tide. In order to determine the turtles’ preference in nesting location,or the cross-shore nest position on the beach, two methods were employed. In the firstmethod the beach width at nest sites were measured (n= 152) while in the second methodthe beach width at each nest site was visually estimated in the field (n= 111). The beachwidth was divided into thirds, and nest locations were then classified as either upperbeach (landward), middle beach, or lower beach (seaward) (Table 3). By looking at thebeach regardless of width, the seaward third or lower beach was the preferred locationwith 49 percent (n= 129) of the nests. Twenty-nine percent (77) of the nests occurredin the middle beach area, and 20 percent occurred on the upper beach.

7

Figure 3. The 1996 seasonal pattern of daily sea turtle emergences for Venice Beaches, Sarasota County, Florida.

Table 3. Nest locations by relative beach width using visual classification regardlessof actual beach width (n=263).

Location Number of Nests

Landward 52Mid-beach 77Seaward 129Not recorded 5

To validate additionally the turtles’ preferred nesting location, nests were plottedby distance above the mean high tide (n= 152) line (Table 4).

Table 4. Nest locations measured upland from the mean high tide line (n= 152).

Ft above Mean High Tide Number of Nests

0- 20 2120 - 40 3940 - 60 4460 - 80 2780 - 100 11

100 - 120 4120 - 140 3140 - 160 0160 - 180 1180 - 200 0

200+ 2

The above data indicate that the majority of turtles prefer nesting as high aspossible on a narrow beach, frequently nesting at barriers comprised of either anerosional escarpment, seawall, stairs, or dense vegetation. When faced with a wideexpanse of beach the turtles preferred the lower (seaward) to mid-beach location.Figure 4 exhibits a visual representation of the nest locations on the nourished and nativebeach. It is apparent from this figure that the majority of turtles continue to nest withinthe shoreward 100 feet of beach regardless of additional beach width available. Thesedata are consistent with the 1995 Venice data and the nesting data from Longboat Key,Florida where immediately following the Longboat Key beach restoration, the turtlespreference for nesting also switched to the seaward third (55 %) of the beach width (Footeand Truitt, 1993).

9

Figure 4. Visual representations of nest locations on the nourished and native sections of beach, Venice, 1996.

Incubation

The average incubation was calculated for in situ (not relocated) and relocatednests. Nests that were damaged or destroyed or that did not have complete data were notincluded in these calculations. Nests left in situ (n= 231) on the beach, or not relocated,had an average incubation of 50 days (range 44-68 days); nests that were relocated(n=32) had an average incubation of 51 days (range 46-60 days). There appeared to beno significant difference in incubation for in situ versus relocated nests.

The average incubation was also calculated for nests located in the nourishedportion of beach versus nests located in the not nourished or native beach. Nests in thenourished beach (n= 191) had an average incubation of 51 days (range 44-68 days); nestsin the not nourished beach had an average incubation of 48 days (range 45-52 days).

Hatch and Emergence Success

The total number of nests excavated for evaluation was 250. Only nests forwhich we had complete data were evaluated. Those not evaluated (n= 13) included neststhat washed out and those that exhibited no hatch and the egg chamber was not found.All partial data was recorded for future reference but was not included in the evaluations.

The distribution of mean hatch success is shown in Table 5. Hatch successranged from 78.7 percent for relocated nests to 75.1 percent for nests left in situ. Theoverall hatch success rate was 75.6 percent for both relocated and in situ nests. The1996 hatch success was the highest ever recorded for Venice nests. (See Appendix E fora comparison to all areas monitored by MML, and Appendix F for 1996 FDEP NestingSurvey and Nest Success Reporting Forms.)

Table 5. Hatch success for relocated and in situ (i. e. , not relocated) nests.

Relocatedn=31

In situn=203

Totaln=234

Eggs Destroyed 5Eggs Hatched 2,678Eggs Unhatched 613Live Pipped 7Dead Pipped 97Total # of Eggs 3,400Percent Hatch Success 78.7 %

80 8516,702 19,3804,961 5,574

38 45444 541

22,225 25,62575.1% 75.6%

11

Each evaluated nest was excavated three days or 72 hours after the initial hatch.This allowed the majority of hatchlings to emerge from the nest on their own. Hatchlingsthat have emerged on their own are more vigorous and better equipped to handle the trekdown the shoreline to the water. Once in the water, these hatchlings also have a betterchance at survival as their external yolk sacs have been completely utilized allowing thehatchling to dive more readily and swim more vigorously.

Excavations of the evaluated nests revealed a total of 841 live hatchlings and 276dead hatchlings remaining in the nests as compared to 18,263 that had emerged on theirown within the 72 hour time frame (Table 6). The percent of hatchlings that emergedsuccessfully from relocated nests was 90.5 percent as compared to a 94.8 percentemergence success for in situ nests. The overall emergence success for the evaluatednests was 94 percent.

Table 6. Hatchling emergence success for relocated versus in situ nests.

Relocated In situ Total

# Eggs Hatched 2,678 16,702 19,380Live in nest 216 625 841Dead in nest 38 238 276# Hatchlings emerged 2,424 15,839 82,634

Emergence Success 90.5% 94.8% 94.2%

Nest Damage

Only 33 out of the total 263 nests experienced either partial or completedestruction during the 1996 season (Table 7). Twenty-five nests were inundated due toextreme high tides or storm events. Of these fifteen nests experienced some hatch inspite of the water intrusion. Nest marking stakes were washed away for two nests, thesenests subsequently could not be found and were classified as being washed out. Otherdamage to nests was caused by predation by ants (n=2), and dogs (n=3). In one casethe turtle excavated a shallow nest and broke five eggs while she was attempting to coverher nest.

Sixty-eight nests were caged with self release wire mesh cages in the Brohard andCasperson Beach areas (south Venice) to prevent raccoon predation thus no nests weredamaged prior to hatch by raccoons for the 1996 season. Raccoons continued toexcavate hatched nests after the cages were removed to scavenge nest remains.

12

Table 7. Nests documented as experiencing either partial or complete damage.

Cause # Nests Experiencing Some Hatch Total

Washed out 0 2Inundated 15 25Ant Predation 0 2Dog Predation 2 3Turtle 1 1

Nesting Turtle Disorientation Incident

An adult loggerhead turtle was found in the swimming pool at The BeachcomberCondominium, 720 Golden Beach Blvd., at 5:00 a.m. on Sunday, May 26th The turtlehad crawled up the beach approximately 13 feet and successfully nested. After nestingshe proceeded landward approximately 1,200 feet in a disoriented fashion on the beachbefore crawling across the yard and into the swimming pool of the Beachcomber. At onepoint on the beach she followed a tire track on the beach parallel to the shoreline forapproximately 100 feet. This track was made from heavy equipment utilized during thebeach nourishment project.

The turtle was retrieved from the pool at 5:30 a.m. She then proceededshoreward where she entered the water and swam away. Bright lights, including aspotlight, four lights at the swimming pool and a bright white light at the parking lotwere illuminating the beach. It is possible that the turtle was disoriented by these lights.A disorientation report was submitted to the City of Venice and the Florida Departmentof Environmental Protection (see Appendix G).

Hatchling Disorientation Events

Twenty-six hatchling disorientation events (Appendix H) were recorded for theseason (Table 8). Sixty-six additional nests were caged with a wire mesh restrainingcage at hatch to confine the hatchlings at the nest site prior to supervised release at adark section of beach. After emerging from the nest, hatchlings typically move awayfrom shadows (e.g., dune vegetation, tree silhouettes, and unlighted structures) and movetoward the lighter, open horizon of the water (Salmon et al., 1992). Hatchlings areattracted to artificial lighting (Witherington, 1991; 1992) and instead of heading towardthe water will travel great distances to artificially lighted areas. This activity of loopingaround or traveling in a direction other than to the water is termed a disorientation.Disorientations often lead to death of the hatchling from dehydration, predation, or beingrun over. Disorientations may involve from one hatchling to an entire nest.

13

The tabulated data document 17 incidents in which more than 50 percent of thetotal hatch disoriented. Two incidents involved 10 or fewer hatchlings. The number ofdisorientation events documented was more than that documented for 1994 (n=2) and1995 (n= 18). This is partially due to the fact that Phase I and Phase II beachnourishment were completed which generated a wider beach for a greater distance, thusallowing lights to be visible at more nest sites than in previous years. The City ofVenice and MML continued to work toward compliance with the City of Venice LightingOrdinance.

Table 8.

IncidentDate

7/197/197/217/237/258/028/088/098/108/108/128/168/259/029/089/089/099/129/169/169/169/169/20

7/177/187/19

Summary of 1996 marine turtle hatchling disorientations (n=26).

Nest # HatchlingsLocation Disorienting Direction Travelled

R-121 500s *15 E,NE-STREET, PAVILIONR-126 450s 23 E,NE-CONDO, GOLDEN BEACH ACCESSR-122 50s 75 E,NE,SE-PAVILION, STREET, CONDOR-126 50s 90 NE-CONDO, POOL, PARKING LOTR-125 300s 60 E-CONDOR-123 500s 20 E-STREET, CONDOR-l 19 800s 7 N,S-PARKING LOTR-128 250s 15 S-RESTAURANT, CITY PIERR-120 OS 79 E,SE-CIRCLE KR-122 500s 95 E,NE-CONDO, POOL, PARKING, STREETR-l 19 500s 4 NE-MOTELR-130 850s 49 E-RESTAURANT, PARKING LOT, PIERR-132 960s 88 NE-SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTR-123 900s 60 N,NE-CONDOR-l 19 950s 89 E-CIRCLE KR-133 600s *40 N,NE-RESTAURANT, PIERR-l 16 500s 31 E-CONDOR-122 600s 20 N,NE-CIRCLE KR-127 800s 70 E,S-HOUSE, RESTAURANTR-126 900s 70 N,E-PORCHR-125 600s 90 N,NE-CONDOR-126 900s 107 N,E-CONDO (INTERIOR LIGHTS)R-127 900s 99 E,NE-PORCHR-126 700s 80 N,E-CONDO, GARAGER-126 800s 65 W,N-SINGLE FAMILY, CONDOR-123 600s 83 N,NW-CONDO, PARKING

* Exact total unknown; number indicates least number of hatchlings definitely known to have disoriented

14

Restraining cages were placed over nests after an initial disorientation event wasobserved and over those nests affected by obvious visible lighting. Sixty-eight nests werecaged with restraining cages in Patrol Zones 1, 2 and 3. The cages are a temporary,labor intensive device utilized to keep hatchlings from disorienting. As the exact hatchdate is unknown each cage is checked at sunset, midnight and before sunrise fromapproximately the 45th incubation date to approximately 72 hours after the initial hatchwhen the nest is excavated. The hatchlings subsequently removed from the cages weretaken to a darker section of beach and released. Because the cages were utilized thedisorientation events recorded are artificially low.

It is important to note that in newly nourished beach locations where the newbeach is much wider than the native or pre-project beach, the hatchling has a much betterview of surrounding lights and can be impacted by them for the duration of the periodof time that it is on the beach. Thus, for instance, the number of disorientation incidentson the newly nourished beach were much higher (two incidents in 1994 on the pre-project beach, 18 incidents in 1995, and 26 incidents in 1996 even though the Venicelighting ordinance was actively enforced) than on the narrow and more sloped nativebeaches. It is critical that the issue of “turtle friendly” lighting (no lighting, shielded ordimmed lighting, lights low to the ground and shielded by vegetative barriers) along thebeachfront property of Venice be kept foremost in the City plans.

Marine Turtle Strandings

Two marine turtle strandings were recovered from Venice beaches during 1996(Appendix I). Both strandings were juvenile Lepidochelys kempi (Kemp’s Ridley) turtleswhich are the most critically endangered of the seven remaining species of marine turtles.’

On June 21, 1996, a fresh dead Kemp’s Ridley was recovered from the north endof Venice Public Beach, approximately 170 feet south of R- 120. The turtle exhibitedtraumatic injury both on the right front flipper and the plastron (lower shell) with whatappeared to be scratch or chew marks along the marginals.

A moderately decomposed Kemp’s Ridley was retrieved from the beach onNovember 11, 1996. This turtle dead stranded approximately 2.8 miles south of theVenice Inlet near Sharkey’s Restaurant and the City Fishing Pier, approximately 800 feetsouth of R-130. The carcass appeared to be from an apparently healthy looking animalwith no traumatic injuries. There was no obvious cause of death found for this turtle.

BEACH COMPACTNESS

B A C K G R O U N D

Threshold compactness values (as measured with a cone penetrometer) have beententatively adopted by regulatory agencies and are used to determine a need for post-

15

project scarifying of the beach to reduce compactness (Hodgin et al., 1993). Thecriterion of “tilling” all areas exceeding a value of 500 Cone Index Units is included asa permit condition requirement in the City’s FDEP coastal construction permit. Thecompactness data presented below were collected to complement the City’s datacollection. Further evaluation is beyond the scope of this report.

SCOPE AND MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES

Mote Marine Laboratory personnel measured sand compactness at nest sites(n= 151) along nourished and native beach. The samples were collected as an aid tofurther understanding the relationship among sand compactness, turtle nest site selectionand hatchling emergence success. A hand-held cone penetrometer was used andmeasurements were taken at two locations adjacent to the area disturbed by the turtleduring nest building activity. The measurements taken adjacent to the nest site gavereadings of the sand compactness as it was at the location before the turtle nested.

The methodology and equipment used were the same as described by Nelson et al.(1987). A hand-held cone penetrometer (manufactured by Soiltest, Inc., Lake Bluff, IL)was pushed into the sand and the resistance was indicated by a dial which measures thedeflection of an integral proving ring. At each test station, compactness was measuredin a vertical series at three depths: 0-6 inches, 6-12 inches, and 12-18 inches.Measurements were recorded in Cone Index Units (termed CIU or CPU) up to the dialmaximum. The proving ring on the penetrometer used by Mote Marine Laboratory hasa dial-face that measures on a scale with 300 divisions. The resulting data weremultiplied by a 2.5 correction factor to generate standard readings to 750 CIU. Using.the convention adopted by Nelson et al. (1987), readings which had a dial maximum of“750” were recorded as “999” since the degree of additional compactness could not beaccurately determined.

Locations of nesting activity and test stations were documented in the field byrelative position to the nearest street address, building, or other landmark. Thesedescriptions were checked in the MML’s offices against annotated aerial photographs toassociate. the locations to FDNR profile survey monuments. All nesting and compactnessdata in this report are summarized and presented by 1,000-ft long sections of shorelinecorresponding to the nearest FDNR monument to the north. Because the aerialphotographs were not used in the field, the plots were completed from field descriptionsand the locations were approximated.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Compactness readings were collected at 151 nesting sites in 1996. Two replicateseries of three depths were made at each for a total of 906 readings. A completedatabase of these results is included as Appendix J. The data are summarized in Table 9where sites are grouped by the nearest FDNR monument marker to the north.

16

Table 9. Beach compactness summary for Venice Beach, 1996.

Nearest FDNR Compactness (CIU)Marker to North Count Mean S.D. Minimum Maximum

116

117

118

121

122

123

124

All Measurements 60 451 314 75 9990-6 Inches 20 231 118 75 4506-12 Inches 20 479 314 100 99912-18 Inches 20 642 320 100 999

All Measurements 66 427 267 100 9990-6 Inches 22 216 97 100 4506- 12 Inches 22 431 247 200 99912- 18 Inches 22 634 244 150 999

All Measurements 96 516 312 100 9990-6 Inches 32 257 151 100 9996-12 Inches 32 540 253 175 99912-18 Inches 32 750 292 175 999


All Measurements 84 348 3060-6 Inches 28 203 1516- 12 Inches 28 304 24912- 18 Inches 28 537 378

All Measurements 54 422 3480-6 Inches 18 249 1866- 12 Inches 18 425 35712-18 Inches 18 591 391


50755050

505050

100

100150200100

999725999999

999650999999

999500999999

Using the convention adopted by Nelson et al. (1987), readings which reach the maximum of “750” arerecorded as “999” since the degree of additional compactness cannot be accurately determined).

17

Table 9. Continued.


125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132


All Measurements 72 502 343 50 9990-6 Inches 24 221 93 75 4506- 12 Inches 24 535 302 50 99912-18 Inches 24 748 340 50 999







Using the convention adopted by Nelson et al. (1987), readings which reach the maximum of “750” arerecorded as “999” since the degree of additional compactness cannot be accurately determined).

18

Table 9. Continued.


133

134

135

136

137


All Measurements0-6 Inches6- 12 Inches12-18 Inches

84 497 337 50 99928 177 90 50 40028 513 246 50 99928 800 280 150 999




125 999125 400275 999400 999

Using the convention adopted by Nelson et al. (1987), readings which reach the maximum of “750” are recorded as “999”since the degree of additional compactness cannot be accurately determined).

The above data are presented graphically in Figure 5. No spatial (north-south) trend withcompactness is apparent. The most obvious result is the wide range of values recorded,particularly at the 6-12 and 12-18 inch depths. The coefficients of variation for the 0-6 inch, 6-12 inch and 12-18 inch readings respectively were 46.1% , 48.1% , and 58.0 % . Data from 1995are included in the figure (hollow symbols) and do not show appreciable differences form the1996 data. Since a trend of different sand compactness was not seen in different beach regions,histograms were made with all areas combined (Figure 6). This figure provides a visualsummary of all readings for 1996. As expected, the lowest compactness readings were collectedfor the 0-6 inch range. A very even distribution of compactness readings is seen for the 6-12inch range, and the 12-18 inch depths were dominated by values beyond the detection of thepenetrometer. These values are recorded as 999. For the 12-18 inch range 130 out of 302readings or 43 % were 999.

19

Figure 5. Average compactness, mean standard deviation at sea turtle activity sites along the shoreline. (Using theconvention adopted by Nelson et al. [1987], readings which had a dial maximum of “750” were recorded as“999” since the degree of additional compactness could not be accurately determined.)

Figure 6. Histograms of beach compactness readings for each depth and all depths combined.

Table 10 .

NearestFDNRMarker

Beach compactness and turtle nesting summary for Venice Beach, 1996.

CIU

n Mean SDFalseCrawl

Nest/FalseNest Crawl Ratio

116 60 451 314 21 23 1.10117 66 427 267 17 23 1.35118 96 516 312 20 24 1.20119 0 N/A N/A 17 22 1.29120 0 N/A N/A 10 6 0.60121 18 175 110 19 6 0.32122 84 348 306 16 16 1.00123 54 422 348 14 10 0.71124 30 452 301 20 4 0.20125 42 276 166 19 10 0.53126 72 502 343 22 14 0.64127 60 346 317 13 11 0.85128 36 478 356 27 6 0.22129 18 403 357 11 3 0.27

The nest and false crawl data are included in Appendix D and in Figures 3 (p. 8) and 4(p. 10). Figure 3 shows the counts of nests and false crawls by week. False crawls were morenumerous than nests in nine weeks, nests were more numerous three weeks, and they were equaltwo weeks. The peak nesting season was between mid-May and mid-July. An overall picture ofthe nest/false crawl numbers is provided with Figure 4 where data are summarized by year from1987 to 1996. The striking increase in false crawls in 1995 is greatly reduced in 1996. Thegreatest number of nests and the second highest number of false crawls were recorded in 1996.

The nest/false crawl data and beach compactness data are presented together in Table 10and Figure 7. The data are far from adequate for any definitive conclusions on the relationshipof compactness and nesting behavior, but are presented to check for possible trends. Thesymbols on Figure 7 represent compactness (read on right y-axis) and the bars above the zero-lineindicate nests and bars below the line represent false crawls (read on left y-axis). No relationshipis seen among the variables in this figure or in Table 10 where the ratio of nests to false crawlsis listed together with average compactness values.

Two scatter plots (Figure 8) were made to explore for trends with beach width on turtlenesting location or on compactness at the nest site. The distance from the waterline that theturtles traveled to nest did not show a correlation with beach width (top figure). Less than one-half of the turtles traveled more than 44 feet regardless of beach width. The bottom graph onFigure 8 was prepared to see if turtles nesting in wider beach areas were able to find locationsof less compact sand. The data appear completely random. Fifty percent of the turtles nestedin sand with average CIU values greater than 200 regardless of beach width, either out ofnecessity or because compactness was not a factor. An intense compactness mapping effortwould be required to examine thoroughly the role of compactness on nesting location decisionsfor these turtles.

22

Figure 7. A longshore profile of sea turtle activity with corresponding average and compactness, 1996.

Figure 8. Scatter plots of nest locations with beach width and distance fromshoreline (top) and beach width and sand compactness (bottom).

24

Table 10. Continued.

NearestFDNRMarker

130 6 533 386 9 2 0.22131 6 754 380 12 1 0.08132 12 336 277 19 10 0.53133 24 564 345 17 11 0.65134 84 497 337 20 23 1.15135 66 475 302 21 18 0.86136 48 506 294 17 12 0.71137 24 494 283 10 8 0.80138 0 N/A N/A 1 0 0.00

n Mean

CIUFalse Nest/False

SD Crawl Nest Crawl Ratio

Using the convention adopted by Nelson et al. (1987). readings which reach the maximum of “750” are recorded as “999”since the degree of additional compactness cannot be accurately determined).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the City of Venice, beachfront homeowners, business owners, andcondominium associations for allowing monitoring personnel access to all beach areas and forincreasing “turtle friendly lighting”. A special thank you goes to Harry Hoff, Project Inspector,for his invaluable assistance with lighting surveys and compliance issues. Also, specialappreciation to Nancy Phero, Harry and Peg Little, Fred and Ruth Verderosa, Gordon Muth, EdPhero, Charlie Wilson, April Ressiguie, Christine Gruschke, Paul and Rafaela Myers, Charlesand Rose Faith, and Reg Ringel - The Venice Turtle Patrol - for all of their time, hard work,and assistance. The authors also thank Mote Marine Laboratory staff: Dr. Cliff Truitt and LindaFranklin, for their assistance.

REFERENCES

Foote, J.J. and Truitt, C.L. 1993. “Sea Turtle Protection Measures Including Nest/Hatch andSand Compactness Monitoring for the Longboat Key Beach Restoration Project.” MMLTechnical Report No. 313 submitted to Applied Technology and Management, Inc.,Gainesville, FL. and The Town of Longboat Key, Longboat Key, FL.

Hodgin, D.A., Truitt, C.L. and Foote, J.J. 1993. “Beach Compactness Regulatory Criteria forNesting Sea Turtles on the Southwest Florida Shoreline”, Proceedings of the 1993National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, Florida Shore and BeachPreservation Society, Tallahassee, Florida.

25

Nelson, D.A., Mauck, K. and Fletemeyer, J. 1987. “Physical Effects of Beach Nourishmenton Sea Turtle Nesting, Delray Beach, Florida,” Technical Report EL-87-15, US ArmyWaterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

Salmon, M. Wyneken, J., Fritz, E.U., and Lucas, M. 1992. “Ocean Finding by Hatchling SeaTurtles: Interplay of Silhouette, Slope and Brightness as Guideposts in Orientation,”Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation,NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-302, National Marine Fisheries Service,Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Florida.

Witherington, B.E. 1991. “Photopollution on Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches: Problems and Next-Best Solutions, ” Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology andConservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-278, National MarineFisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Florida.

Witherington, B.E. 1992. “How are Hatchling Sea Turtles Able and Unable to Locate theSea?,” Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology andConservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-302, National MarineFisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Florida

26

APPENDIX A

1996 FDEP MARINE TURTLE PERMITS

The information contained in this section was notselected for electronic conversion.

The information in this section was not

selected for electronic conversion.

MOTE MARINE LABORATORYZONE DESCRIPTIONS

APPENDIX B

A P P E N D I X C

FDEP GUIDELINES FOR NEST CAGING

MARINE TURTLE CONSERVATION GUIDELINES

PERMIT ACTIVITY: NEST CAGING

AUTHORIZATION SUMMARYThis section is specifically intended for those persons whose permit authorizes them to protectnests with self-releasing screen/cage or protect nests with restraining cage. These personnelare also authorized to:

mark nests

Personnel are not authorized to conduct the following activities unless specifically stated on theirpermit:

conduct nesting surveys relocate nestsl use self releasing hatcheryl use restraining hatchery

Personnel are not authorized to conduct the following activities without explicit permission fromFDEP:

use any caging material with a mesh size that is smaller than 2” x 4” unlessauthorized to protect nests with restraining cage or unless there is an areamaintained along the seaward face of the cage from which hatchlings can readilyescape use probes (other than fingers) to locate clutches

ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONWhen a nest is at high risk of predation (by raccoons, foxes, pigs, coyotes, etc.), the eggs andpre-emergent hatchlings may be protected by placing a self-releasing cage over the nest. Whenhatchlings at a nest site are certain to be misoriented by lighting, and the lighting cannot beresolved before the hatchlings are due to emerge, then the nest may be covered by a restrainingcage to keep hatchlings from crawling toward lighting. While the exact construction of cagesmay vary (see examples of two cages in Figure 12 and Figure 13), all restraining cages are toprovide enough room for all hatchlings to completely emerge from the sand. In all self-releasingcages, the 2” X 4” mesh of the cage must be oriented so that the 4” opening is parallel to thesurface of the sand. If self-releasing cages are not constructed of a material with a mesh sizethat is 2” X 4” or greater, than they’ are to have, on the seaward face of the cage, a regularlymaintained area from which hatchlings can readily escape. If hatchlings are to escape throughan opening in the cage, the bottom edge of the opening may not extend above the sand’s surface,the top edge of the opening is to be at least 2” above the sand’s surface, and the opening is toextend along the entire seaward side of the cage. Cages are to be centered exactly over the eggchamber to make it less likely that mammalian predators will burrow to the eggs from the side

16

GUIDELINES FOR NESTING BEACH ACTIVITIES

of the cage, and to make sure that any anchoring stakes placed along the edges of the cage willnot enter the egg chamber.

The first step in caging a nest is to find the location of the egg chamber within the body pit.Do this by gently and systematically digging by hand, and probing with fingers only. Do notuse shovels. or any other tools for either digging or probing. Once the top eggs are located,use moist sand from a similar depth to re-cover the eggs. Dry sand should not be allowed to fallinto the egg chamber. Once the egg chamber is re-covered to the upper level of the surroundingmoist sand, gently pat the sand surface above the eggs with your hand. Temporarily mark thelocation of the egg chamber by carefully placing a marker a very short distance into the sandabove the egg chamber. Be sure that this marker is not inserted into the egg chamber. Replacethe dry sand over this area to the depth present before you began excavation. Your temporarymarker should be tall enough to extend above the sand level.

Most cages are anchored by burying the outward pointing flanges (Figure 13) about one footunder the sand’s surface. Center the cage over the egg chamber and trace the edges of the cagein the sand. The cage should be oriented so that the opposing sides of the cage are eitherparallel or perpendicular to the shoreline. Remove the cage and the temporary egg chambermarker, and carefully dig a one foot deep trench along the tracing of the edges of the cage.Place the cage into the trench and fill the trench with sand. When completed, the sand aroundthe cage and over the egg chamber should be at the original level. If stakes are used to securea cage, drive the stakes at an angle away from the egg chamber. Signs for marking cagednests are available from FDEP.

Because cages may become partially or completely dislodged, they should be checked regularly.If a restraining cage is used, each cage must be checked for hatchlings at least twice a nightbeginning 45 days after the clutch was deposited and ending when the cage is removed.Restraining cages must be checked for hatchlings once between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m., and oncebetween 5 a.m. and 7 a.m. After checking the nest during the latter period, restraining cagesshould be opened (see Figure 12) to allow hatchlings that may emerge during the day to escapethe cage. These cages may then be closed again at sunset. All hatchlings that are discoveredwithin restraining cages are immediately released at an appropriate beach site and allowed tocrawl to the water. Remember, there must be a way to get hatchlings out of a restraining cagewithout pulling the cage off the nest. Self-releasing cages should be checked each morningduring the period of anticipated hatching, just in case some hatchlings have become trapped.Please remove all cages from the beach after hatchling emergence is completed.

Figure 12. Example of a self-releasing cage.The cage is constructed of 2” x 4” weldedutility wire. Hatchlings are able to escapethrough the mesh of the wire. Cage designcourtesy of The Conservancy.

17

MARINE TURTLE CONSERVATION GUIDELINES

Figure 13. Example of a cage that can be eitherself-releasing or restraining. The cage isconstructed of 1/2” galvanized hardware cloth.It becomes self-releasing if a 3” flap is cutalong the entire bottom edge of the seaward sideof the cage. This flap is folded outward anddownward into a trench dug in front of thecage. The flap is then buried under no morethan one inch of sand, leaving a 2” tall spacethrough which hatchlings can escape.Restrained hatchlings are collected through a 6”x 6” flap cut in the top of the screened andsecured by wire ties. Cage design courtesy ofEcological Associates, Inc.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTSThe principal permit holder is to report the total number of nests that are caged as well as thetype of caging used and the reasons for caging on the annual nesting summary forms.

PERMIT ACTIVITY: NEST RELOCATION

AUTHORIZATION SUMMARYThis section is specifically intended for those persons whose permit authorizes them to relocatenests. These personnel are also authorized to:

mark nests

Personnel are not authorized to conduct the following activities unless specifically stated on theirpermit:

l conduct nesting surveys protect nests with self-releasing screen/cagel protect nests with restraining cage

18

APPENDIX D

MARINE TURTLE NESTING DATA

The information contained in this section was not


APPENDIX E

MOTE MARINE LABORATORYNEST/HATCH DATA SUMMARY FOR ALL KEYS

MOTE MARINE LABORATORY1600 THOMPSON PARKWAY

SARASOTA, FL 34236SARASOTA COUNTY FLORIDA, USA

Caretta caretta (loggerhead)*Chelonia mydas (green)NEST/HATCH DATA

1996 SUMMARY OF ALL KEYS

Permit # Area Miles #Nests #Fc First N Last N

054 LongboatLidoSiestaN SiestaS Siesta

5.32.6

3.42.2

048 Casey Key 7.3

028 Venice 4.6

TOTAL

Total # EmergencesTotal # Evaluated Nests

Total # Eggs (evaluated nests)Total # Hatch (evaluated nests)

Longboat average incubationAverage hatch success = 73.7%

Lido average incubationAverage hatch success = 76.3%

Siesta Key N average incubationAverage hatch success = 52.4%

Siesta Key S average incubationAverage hatch success = 80.5%

Casey Key average incubationAverage hatch success = 76.8%

Venice average incubationAverage hatch success

156 226 5/14/96 8/16/9650 35 5/11/96 8/12/96

18 48 5/28/96 7/28/96193 63 5/10/96 8/10/96

1* 6/15/96

739 370 5/04/96 8/15/96

263 372 5/18/96 8/15/96

1420 1114

25341176

12201393182

= 59 days (range 43-72 days)





= 50 days (range 44-68 days)= 75.6%

MOTE MARINE LABORATORY1600 THOMPSON PARKWAYSARASOTA, FL 34236

Sarasota County Florida, USA

Caretta caretta (loggerhead)NEST/HATCH DATA

1995 SUMMARY OF ALL KEYS

Permit # AREA MILES N(95) FC(95)

054 Longboat 5.3 97 210Lido 2.6 34 50SiestaN Siesta 3.4 34 47S Siesta 2.2 309 207

028 Casey Key 7.3 1073 771Venice 4.6 203 556

TOTAL 1750 1841(Manasota Key zone 1-8) (851 936)

FIRST N

5/14 8/125/19 8/08

5/20 8/135/09 8/17

5/01 8/255/03 8/14

Total # Emergences: 3591Total # Nests Evaluated: 1041

Total # Eggs (evaluated nests): 106185Total # Hatch (evaluated nests): 7 9 1 2 0

Total # Nests documented as exhibiting partial or completedestruction: 747

Damage due to: Inundation = 432Washed out = 37Depredation = 256Roots = 3Unspecified = 19

Longboat average incubation = 61 days (range 52-69 days)Average hatch success = 80%

Lido average incubation = 62 days (range 54-76 days)Average hatch success = 66%

Siesta Key N average incubation = 63 days (range 54-70 days)Average hatch success = 31%

Siesta Key S average incubation = 57 days. (range 43-74 days)Average hatch success = 78%

Casey Key average incubation = 58 days (range 48-71 days)Average hatch success = 78%

Venice average incubation = 52 days (range 44-62 days)Average hatch success = 63%

APPENDIX F

1996 FDEP NESTING SURVEY

NEST SUCCESS REPORTING FORMS

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVlRONMENTAL PROTECTIONNESTING SURVEY REPORTING FORM FOR 1996



MARINE TURTLE DISORIENTATIONINCIDENT REPORT

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX H

MARINE TURTLE HATCHLING DISORIENTATIONINCIDENT REPORT FORM

The information contained in this section was notselected for electronic conversion.

APPENDIX I

NMFS SEA TURTLE STRANDING AND SALVAGENETWORK - STRANDING REPORTS



APPENDIX J

SAND COMPACTNESS MEASUREMENTSAT SEA TURTLE NESTING SITES,

VENICE BEACH, FLORIDA

Appendix J. Sand compactness measurements at sea turtle nesting sites, Venice Beach, 1996.

FLDNRMonument

ApproximateDistance

South (ft)Nest to

MHW(ft)

BeachWidth

(ft)Nest/False

Crawl

116 100 48 173 Nest116 100 49 174 Nest116 400 16 161 Nest116 500 45 190 Nest116 650 41 236 Nest116 700 52 249 Nest116 700 74 246 Nest116 700 53 239 Nest116 700 58 240 Nest116 725 67 249 Nest117 0 43 176 Nest117 175 43 204 Nest117 250 29 206 Nest117 300 51 209 Nest117 500 50 216 Nest117 550 61 211 Nest117 550 21 212 Nest117 600 61 212 Nest117 600 9 200 Nest117 800 22 199 Nest117 800 18 183 Nest118 0 45 215 Nest118 0 49 198 Nest118 0 27 198 Nest118 0 72 185 Nest118 300 35 198 Nest118 300 19 183 Nest

CIU MeasurementsDepth-6 in.

Rep. 1

225100400450350275

75250

75300225225200350450250125200100150225225999275175250225

Rep. 2

100100250350400200150250100225225150225250450225125200100100200450250250200275250

Depth-12 in.Rep. 1 Rep. 2

Depth-18 in.Rep. 1

350 325 550300 400 500999 999 999999 999 999500 350 550350 400 999100 100 100600 600 700100 125 200700 275 999400 375 700250 350 700450 500 650999 999 999999 500 999350 350 500325 250 550200 225 150225 250 550425 425 600325 300 500700 700 999999 550 999400 550 450175 200 175350 450 700600 450 600

Rep.2

600600999999550500100999200700650500999999500350700250500999600999500500200999600

Using the convention adopted by Nelson et al. (1987), readings which had a dial maximum of “750” were recorded as “999” sincethe degree of additional compactness could not be accurately determined.

Appendix J. Continued. Page 2

FLDNRMonument

118 330 42 183 Nest118 350 13 182 Nest118 400 21 209 Nest118 500 84 214 Nest118 600 70 186 Nest118 600 13 196 Nest118 625 35 194 Nest118 750 23 188 Nest118 800 34 204 Nest118 850 102 222 Nest121 0 37 328 Nest121 400 30 330 Nest121 400 42 339 Nest121 500 95 337 Nest122 0 32 383 Nest122 50 12 187 Nest122 50 26 188 Nest122 100 26 230 Nest122 400 36 228 Nest122 400 132 228 Nest122 500 102 222 Nest122 500 39 225 Nest122 550 24 210 Nest122 600 21 231 Nest122 600 42 162 Nest122 600 24 240 Nest122 675 21 231 Nest

ApproximateDistance

South (ft)Nest to

MHW (ft)

BeachWidth

0Nest/False

Crawl

CIU MeasurementsDepth-6 in. Depth-12 in.

Rep.1

225125250100200200225250275235

0200125125700250150150125150200125250150200100175

Rep. 2 Rep. 1 Rep.2 Rep.2

200 999 999 999225 600 500 700150 500 450 999150 250 225 400250 300 350 300225 350 500 999200 700 700 999250 500 700 999400 999 999 999275 250 275 450

0 0 0 0200 175 125 75150 75 325 150125 125 150 150725 999 999 999250 500 450 999150 100 150 225125 100 50 100125 100 250 10075 150 75 350

175 225 300 500125 125 50 125150 500 500 999150 300 350 325237.5 300 600 500150 150 350 300150 350 200 999

Depth-18 in.Rep.2

999700999400999999999999999350

010055022599999917550

999225500125999999999150550


Appendix J. Continued.

FLDNRMonument

ApproximateDistance

South (ft)

122 675123 50123 200123 300123 300123 325123 500123 600123 675123 900124 0124 100124 200124 500124 800125 0125 100125 300125 475125 500125 600125 700126 0126 0126 50126 50126 50

Nest toMHW (ft)

42111

3664

1208462343912391553363030281447144012

219401345

172

BeachWidth

(ft)Nest/False

Crawl

231 Nest237 Nest288 Nest267 Nest300 Nest291 Nest261 Nest259 Nest289 Nest264 Nest276 Nest282 Nest294 Nest275 Nest153 Nest216 Nest217 Nest234 Nest195 Nest164 Nest169 Nest247 Nest304 Nest265 Nest273 Nest265 Nest301 Nest

Page 3


Rep.1 Rep.2 Rep.1

225 150 150125 125 125200 200 200100 50 250150 150 200200 150 150100 150 150275 275 700650 550 999650 375 999300 500 350200 200 300150 200 450250 150 500150 225 200225 125 200175 100 375150 137.5 275200 200 400300 450 400150 200 100400 150 400150 75 150250 250 500150 75 700250 350 525137.5 75 150

Rep. 2

150150250

50275500100550999999999250550650275

5050

300275350100350175600300525

50

Depth-18 in.Rep.1

600125450450200150250999999999700550725999100450700400500450

50300250600550999100

Rep.2

150300500125999999100999999999999400999999225

5050

425450500100600200999700999

50


Appendix J. Continued.

FLDNRMonument

126126126126126126126127127127127127127127127127127128128128128128128129129129130

ApproximateDistance( f t )South

200300400600700750900150150200300300300400800800900

0250350450500700480520600850

Nest toMHW (ft)

BeachWidth

(ft)Nest/False

CrawlDepth-6 in.

Rep. 1

50 265 Nest 30048 227 Nest 15055 275 Nest 15040 217 Nest 25044 182 Nest 45033 204 Nest 30044 215 Nest 25060 220 Nest 10061 220 Nest 7559 259 Nest 42554 248 Nest 12519 229 Nest 22566 258 Nest 15052 262 Nest 10041 113 Nest 32593 117 Nest 20033 174 Nest 7510 160 Nest 30016 171 Nest 1507 158 Nest 550

52 164 Nest 12550 164 Nest 10044 223 Nest 35068 227 Nest 15036 232 Nest 350

213 218 Nest 7566 157 Nest 400

Page 4


Rep.2 Rep.1

250 400175 250200 550250 999350 999225 700250 350175 150100 100150 999200 200175 600125 150150 125225 625100 325125 75350 725150 999300 999

75 350125 100150 400100 100250 999125 150150 999

Rep. 2

375550300999999999700250150600400550

50200999200175999250999

75225225300999150150

Rep.1

999500999999999999300250100999200999600150700999

75999999999725100725350999237.5999

Rep. 2

999725999999999999999400250999999999

25200999200350999250999150600600700999225500



FLDNRMonument

131132132133133133133134134134134134134134134134134134134134134135135135135135135

ApproximateDistance

South (ft)

390960400550700800

0189250310600750780850850850850900900975

050

140500600700

Nest toMHW (ft)

30 212 Nest21 211 Nest

133 140 Nest64 84 Nest32 70 Nest44 83 Nest77 77 Nest63 91 Nest50 86 Nest69 79 Nest68 68 Nest74 81 Nest84 84 Nest83 86 Nest84 84 Nest90 90 Nest69 90 Nest69 90 Nest89 89 Nest

103 103 Nest18 62 Nest48 101 Nest50 102 Nest45 99 Nest37 109 Nest59 124 Nest

6 51 Nest

BeachWidth

(ft)Nest/False

Crawl

CIU MeasurementsDepth-6 in. Depth-12 in. Depth-18 in.

Rep.1 Rep.2 R e p . 1

275 250 999150 137.5 125175 100 500225 125 325275 225 999250 225 999150 250 350400 300 999250 350 700250 225 600

50 50 50250 250 999100 75 275175 150 700125 125 500150 50 500175 200 550175 200 550250 100 650200 100 200

75 150 375275 250 450275 300 600100 150 400250 225 500250 200 550100 100 325

Rep. 2 Rep.1 Rep. 2

999 999 999150 500 350200 999 650700 999 999550 999 999700 999 999450 300 450700 999 999999 999 999600 650 999

50 150 275600 999 600300 650 600650 999 999350 999 999375 999 650450 999 999450 999 999450 999 700300 300 250450 600 999550 999 999350 650 999700 999 999600 999 999350 600 550225 400 550



ApproximateFLDNR DistanceMonument South (ft)

135 700 44 56 Nest 200 200 400 375 999135 700 38 61 Nest 200 200 650 999 999135 875 36 70 Nest 200 150 450 350 999135 900 80 80 Nest 150 200 200 300 300135 904 78 78 Nest 225 200 225 400 550136 30 71 71 Nest 200 225 600 550 700136 100 63 86 Nest 125 125 500 300 450136 150 10 60 Nest 275 300 625 350 999136 200 84 84 Nest 150 200 550 600 999136 600 64 76 Nest 100 125 600 650 999136 650 12 54 Nest 300 275 600 475 999136 675 68 74 Nest 125 125 350 450 600136 850 63 77 Nest 250 250 700 600 999137 0 37 79 Nest 400 400 550 650 500137 200 58 90 Nest 150 175 450 999 999137 200 57 72 Nest 175 200 700 500 999137 600 31 68 Nest 150 125 275 550 450

Nest toMHW Cft)

BeachWidth

(ft)Nest/False

CrawlDepth-6 in.

Rep. 1 Rep.2

CIU MeasurementsDepth-12 in.

Rep. 1 Rep.2Depth-18 in.

Rep.1 Rep.2

650999999250500550450400999999999500999600999400450


sea turtle protection measures including ...isurus.mote.org/techreps/500/500.pdfextremely high. all...

Documents