Sea Turtle Monitoring, Nest Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009

Transcription

1 Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 SUBMITTED To: Sarasota County Environmental Services, Coastal Resources 2817 Cattlemen Road Sarasota, FL SUBMITTED By: Tony Tucker Ph.D., Ryan Welsh, Kristen Mazzarella, Kendra Garrett and Sarah Hirsch Sea Turtle Conservation and Research Program Mote Marine Laboratory 1600 Ken Thompson Parkway, Sarasota, FL December 18, 2009 Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report o. 1434

2 T ABLE OF COTETS Page o. TABLE OF COTETS ii LIST OF TABLES... iii LIST OF FIGURES... iv LIST OF ACROYMS AD ABBREVIATIOS v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 ITRODUCTIO BAGROUD... 4 SEA TURTLE MOITORIG Project Location Procedures Hatching Surveys and est Evaluations... 7 Sea Turtle Protection Measures... 8 Data Analysis... 8 ESTIG SUCCESS... 8 Turtle Emergences (ests and on-esting Emergences)... 8 Categorization of on-esting Emergences (Es}... 9 Visual Assessment of Obstructions to esting est Site Selection est Chamber Characteristics ests Lost to Erosion or Inundation est Damage by Depredation or Invasion REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS Incubation period Hatch Success Emergence Success Hatchling Disorientation Events AOWLEDGMETS LITERATURE CITED ApPEDICES Appendix A: ests and on-esting Emergences 2009 Appendix B: FWC Marine Turtle Disorientation Reports 2009 Appendix C: Sarasota County Trends 2009 Appendix D: STCRP Research Progress 2009 Appendix E: Casey Key Photographs and Incidental otes 2009 MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

3 LIST OF TABLES Page o. Table 1. est and non-nesting emergence (E) numbers and nesting success for sea turtles nesting on Casey Key, Table 2. Categories of non-nesting emergences (Es) for Casey Key, Table 3a. turtle nest chamber measurements for Casey Key, Table 3b. Green turtle nest chamber measurements for Casey Key, Table 4. Sea turtle nests affected by tidal activity on Casey Key, Table Sa. est damage and preventative measures taken due to predation or invasion on Casey Key, Table 5b. Identified nest predators on Casey Key, Table 6a. Total incubation period of relocated and in situ loggerhead nests that experienced hatch on Casey Key, Table 6b. Total incubation period of relocated and in situ green nests that experienced hatch on Casey Key, Table 7. Hatch Success for relocated and in situ loggerhead nests on Casey Key, Table 8. Hatchling Emergence Success for relocated and in situ loggerhead nests on Casey Key, Table 9. Sea turtle disorientations on Casey Key, MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measuresfor Casey Key 2009 III

4 LIST OF FIGURES Page o. Figure 1a. The northern end of Casey Key is a control site (Casey Key Control) for comparison to the Siesta Key Beach ourishment Project Figure lb. Casey Key Emergency Sand Placement Figure 2. A non-nesting emergence and a nest Figure 3. Sea turtle nest sign and a marked sea turtle nest Figure 4. umber of sea turtle nests and non-nesting emergences (Es) on Casey Key by week in Figure 5. Casey Key nest locations for Figure 6. Casey Key sea turtle nesting and non-nesting emergence (E) data from Figure 7. Distribution of nests and non-nesting emergences (Es) on Casey Key in 2009 by FDEP monument Figure 8. A comparison of the number and type of nesting obstructions encountered by sea turtles on Casey Key from Figure 9. A comparison of the number and type depredation events on Casey Key from Figure 10. Trends in hatchling disorientation events on Casey Key from Figure 11. Sources of disorientation events on Casey Key, MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key 2009 IV

5 LIST OF ACROYMS AD ABBREVIATIOS CITES em ESA ESP FDEP ft FWC GPS kin m MML E o.l# STCRP Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna centimeter( s) U.S. Endangered Species Act Emergency Sand Placement Florida Department of Environmental Protection feet Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Global Positioning System kilometer(s) meter(s) Mote Marine Laboratory on-nesting emergence number Sea Turtle Conservation and Research Program MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key 2009 v

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes sea turtle monitoring by Mote Marine Laboratory' s Sea Turtle Conservation and Research Program for the Casey Key shoreline in Casey Key shoreline contains 1l.8 km (7.3 mi) of sea turtle nesting habitat. turtles accounted for 98.2% of sea turtle activity on Casey Key in 2009, green turtles accounted for 1.5%, and Kemp' s ridley turtles accounted for the remaining 0.3%. nesting occurred between May 10 and August 23, green nesting occurred between June 24 and August 15, and the two Kemp' s ridley nests were laid on April 25 and May 12. esting activity peaked during the fourth week of June. Beach monitoring efforts documented 410 loggerhead nests, 367 loggerhead Es, seven green turtle nests, five green turtle Es, two Kemp' s ridley nests, and zero Kemp' s ridley Es. There were 388 in situ and 31 relocated nests. esting density, including loggerhead, green, and Kemp' s ridley nests, was 35.5 nestslkm (57.2 nests/mi) for the entire island, with 34.7 nestslkm (55.9 nests/mi) for loggerheads, 0.6 nestslkm (1.0 nests/mi) for green turtles, and 0.2 nestslkm (0.3 nests/mi) for Kemp' s ridley turtles. esting success on Casey Key was 53.0%. Regions with lower nesting success were FDEP monuments R-88 (2 nests: 7 Es) and R-96 to R-103 (67 nests: 119 Es). Regions with high nesting success were adjacent to FDEP monument R-82 (13 nests: 3 Es), R-91 (16 nests: 1 Es), and R-114 (5 nests: 1 Es). Turtles accessing the Casey Key shoreline encountered obstacles on 462 emergences, representing 58.4% of all activities. Of these emergences, 49.1 % (227/462) resulted in Es. Turtles were obstructed by escarpments (413), rocks (31), walkovers (13), roads (8), seawalls (6), beach furniture (6), beach debris (5), stepped revetment (2), vegetation (2), and other (10). Of the nests on Casey Key, 59.6% (243 /408) were in the upper third of the beach, 30.6% (125/408) were in the middle third, and 9.8% (40/408) were in the lower third. There were no hurricanes or named storms contributing to coastal erosion andlor sand accretion for the 2009 nesting season. Tidal activity caused inundation of 30.8% (129/419) of nests on Casey Key (Table 4), 54 of which washed out. Predators affected 17.9% (75 /419) of nests, all loggerheads except for one green. The depredation incidents involved raccoons (59), roots (12), ghost crabs (3), domestic dogs (3), nesting turtles (2), human poaching (1), and unknown predators (7). Four incidents of nest vandalism and one nest poaching occurred in The average incubation period for both in situ and relocated loggerhead nests on Casey Key (n = 308) was 52.9 days with a range of days. The first loggerhead nest hatched on July 11 and the last nest hatched on October 5. The average incubation period for green turtle nests on Casey Key (n = 7, all in situ) was 50.1 days with a range of days. The first green turtle nest hatched on August 10 and the last nest hatched on October 5. Of the Kemp' s ridley nests (n = 2, MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measuresfor Casey Key

7 all in situ) only one had a recorded hatch date. The Kemp' s ridley nest that did hatch incubated for 61 days and hatched on July 12. The hatch success for both in situ and relocated loggerhead nests (n = 256 nests and 24,937 eggs) was 77.7% with 20.5% unhatched eggs and l.8% pipped eggs. Hatch success was 70.3% for inundated loggerhead nests (n = 60) and 79.9% for non-inundated nests (n = 196). The hatch success for green turtle nests (n = 5 nests and 768 eggs) was 85.2% with 14.2% unhatched eggs and 0.7% pipped eggs. All green turtle nests were in situ and none were inundated in The single in situ Kemp' s ridley nest (n = 1 and 75 eggs) was not inundated and had a hatch success of72.0% with 22.7% unhatched eggs and 5.3% pipped eggs. The emergence success for all loggerhead nests (n = 254) was 76.1 %. The emergence success of in situ loggerhead nests (n = 248) was 76.8%. The six relocated loggerhead nests had an emergence success of 44.6%. Inundated loggerhead nests (n = 58) had a 68.6% emergence success while non-inundated loggerhead nests (n = 196) had 78.2% emergence success. The emergence success for all green turtle nests (n = 5, all in situ and non-inundated) was 76.4%. The emergence success for the single in situ non-inundated Kemp's ridley nest was 70.7%. Excavations of loggerhead nests for which complete excavation data were documented (in situ: n = 248; relocated: n = 6) revealed that 24,765 hatchlings emerged independently prior to nest excavation. Excavations of the in situ green turtle nests (n = 5) revealed 587 hatchlings emerged independently prior to nest excavation. Excavations of the in situ Kemp's ridley nest revealed 53 hatchlings emerged independently prior to nest excavation. A total of 25,040 live loggerhead hatchlings emerged independently from Casey Key nests. A total of 646 live green hatchlings emerged independently from Casey Key nests. A total of 127 live Kemp' s ridley hatchlings emerged independently from Casey Key nests. Zero adult turtle and 14 hatchling disorientation events were documented, resulting in a minimum of 328 disoriented hatchlings. Using only viable nests (i.e., those from which hatchlings emerged) a disorientation rate of 4.5% was observed for viable nests. The disorientation rate of all nests, both viable and nonviable (i.e., zero emergence) was 3.6%. Disorientations were related to single family residences (13), sky glow (11), hotels or condominiums (8), and flashlights on the beach (1). MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

8 ITRODUCTIO The Gulf of Mexico shoreline of Florida is used as nesting habitat by loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) (SWOT 2007). Sea turtles (including loggerheads, greens, Kemp's ridleys, and leatherbacks) are included in Annex II of the SPAW Protocol to the Cartagena Convention, requiring that Parties "ensure total protection and recovery" to this species, including prohibiting take, possession and killing; commercial trade (including eggs, parts or products); and, to the extent possible, disturbance during periods of breeding, incubation or migration, as well as other periods of biological stress. The species are also included on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), a designation which effectively bans trade in specimens or products except by special permit. Such pennit must show that the trade is not detrimental to the survival of the species and is not for primarily commercial purposes. Sea turtles are fully protected (listed in Appendix I) under the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), obliging Parties to prohibit the hunting, fishing, capturing or harassing of these species, as well as to conserve their habitat. Finally, the species are included in the annexes to the Convention on ature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (Washington, or Western Hemisphere Convention), a designation intended to convey that their protection is of "special urgency and importance." The species are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, the Marine Turtle Protection Act Chapter (Florida Administration Code), and the Sarasota County Sea Turtle Protection Ordinance (o ). The loggerhead was listed in 1978 as a threatened species (43 Federal Register 32800). Internationally it is considered "Vulnerable" and is listed as a species threatened with extinction in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). A recent 5-year re-evaluation ofthe loggerhead status remains classed as Threatened (MFS/ USFWS 2007). In addition to loggerhead turtles, other sea turtle species have been documented nesting in small numbers on the central Gulfbeaches. In 2009, there were eleven green turtle (Chelonia mydas) nests in Sarasota County, following seven nests laid in There have been a total of 101 green turtle nests in Sarasota County since Kemp' s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) nests were documented twice on Casey Key, once on Venice, and once on Manasota Key (Charlotte County) during the 2009 nesting season. This is the first documentation of a Kemp' s ridley sea turtle nesting in Sarasota County since In 2001, a leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) deposited a clutch on Longboat Key, which marked the first documented nesting of this species on the central west coast of Florida. A second reporting of a leatherback turtle nesting was documented on Sanibel Island (Lee County) in Juvenile loggerhead, Kemp' s ridley, and green turtles also utilize the near-shore waters of the central Gulf coast of Florida as developmental habitat. The green turtle is listed as endangered in Florida and federally listed as a protected species since 1978 (43 Federal Register 32800). The Kemp' s ridley is the most critically endangered of all sea turtle species and as such is protected throughout its range in the Gulf of Mexico and northwestern Atlantic Ocean. The leatherback is listed as endangered worldwide and federally listed since 1978 (35 Federal Register 8491). All sea turtles are listed in Appendix I of CITES. Land-based threats to these protected sea turtles include beach erosion, beach annoring, beach nourishment activities, artificial lighting, beach cleaning, increased human presence, recreational MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

9 beach equipment, exotic dune and beach vegetation, nest depredation, nest loss to abiotic factors, and poaching. Threats within the marine environment include, but are not limited to, incidental take from dredging, marina and dock development, pollution, sea grass bed degradation, fisheries activities including hook and line fisheries, boat collisions, offshore artificial lighting, ingestion of marine debris, poaching, and predation (MFSIUSFWS 2009). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), ational Marine Fisheries Service (MFS), and u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) evaluate data pertaining to sea turtle species, their use of habitat, nesting success, and any protection measures undertaken to protect the adult turtle, the nest, and emerging hatchlings. This is in support of identifying appropriate construction techniques that occur in sea turtle nesting habitat. Sarasota County Environmental Services contracted Mote Marine Laboratory's (MML) Sea Turtle Conservation and Research Program (STCRP) to identify critical issues related to the protection of sea turtles, their nesting habitat, nests, and hatchlings on Casey Key beaches. This 2009 report summarizes STCRP' s sea turtle monitoring, evaluation and protection efforts on Casey Key. BAGROUD The Casey Key shoreline is used as nesting habitat by sea turtles that are protected by the ESA of 1973, the Marine Turtle Protection Act Chapter (Florida Administrative Code), and the Sarasota County Sea Turtle Protection Ordinance (o ). Beach nourishment or restoration can result in changes in beach properties such as sand density, beach shear resistance, moisture content, beach slope, sand color, grain size, and shape (Crain et al. 1995, Davis et al. 1999, Peterson and Bishop 2005, Rumbold et al. 2007, Brock et al. 2009). These changes may affect the nesting activity of sea turtles and the hatch and subsequent emergence success of the nests. Consequently, special conditions are included in beach construction permits to minimize impacts to the turtles, nests, and hatchlings. Casey Key is one of the few beaches in Southwest Florida that is not nourished and also one of the few beaches classified by the USGS Coastal Classification Atlas and the Beaches and Shores Resource Center as without critical erosion sections (Moreton and Peterson 2003). However, beaches are dynamic environments subject to change, and much of the coastal development on Casey Key can be found at variance with the Coastal Construction Control Line. The erosion on Casey has resulted in some of the most expansive armoring systems in the County (multiproperty bulkhead, massive stepped revetment, and miles of rock revetment) (Kenya Leonard, pers. comm.). As sea level rises in the future or where tropical storms affect the shores, this situation may change and coastal nourishment projects may be planned. The main objectives of such projects are to restore the eroded coastline and protect beach property. The 2009 Casey Key report focuses on nesting activity across the entire island. However, Casey Key' s northern zones also provided monitoring control data (Casey Key Control) for comparisons in the adjacent South Siesta Key Beach Restoration Project (FDEP Permit JC) (Figure 1a). To minimize cross-referencing among reports, Casey Key Control sections MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

10 only have relevance within the context of the Siesta Key Restoration Project and so are covered by the companion report on Siesta Key (Tucker et al. 2008). Although Casey Key was previously characterized as a native beach, the Casey Key Emergency Sand Placement (ESP), (FDEP permit FP1712) placed sand from two upland sources on approximately 860 feet of shoreline for dune restoration in the spring of 2008 (Figure Ib). The Project shoreline extends from 0 ft to 860 ft north of FDEP monument R-98. The orthern Control shoreline stretches 500 ft north of the northern Project boundary and the Southern Control shoreline stretches 500 ft south of the southern Project boundary. The failure of this project due to loss of all sand placed in 2008 concluded any subsequent post-construction reporting. It will be important to compare previous nesting data with that of construction and postconstruction years to evaluate the effects of beach nourishment on sea turtle nesting. During the year of beach nourishment, special conditions are included in beach construction permits to minimize impacts to the turtles, nests, and hatchlings. The special permit conditions for any Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and FWC approved nourishment project include fill material composition requirements, permitted construction material and machinery locations, requirements for escarpment formation surveys, post-construction beach compactness monitoring, and sea turtle activity monitoring. STCRP personnel document sea turtle activity and implement nest protection and evaluation measures. Special permit conditions pertaining to sea turtle monitoring activities included: Daily dawn sea turtle nest surveys of the beach are conducted starting May 1 and continue through the end of the sea turtle nesting season, October 31, or until all nests are excavated. All nests laid within an active project area are relocated. est relocation is required to be completed no later than 9 a.m. of the morning following deposition. All nests, in situ or relocated, are to be marked and the actual location of the clutch determined. Other conditions may apply depending upon the requirements in a specific permit and timing of a nourishment projects (whether during or outside of nesting season). All nesting surveys, nest relocations, nest caging activities, and nest success evaluations are to be conducted by persons with prior experience and training in these activities and duly authorized to conduct such activities through FWC Marine Turtle Permits #048 and #155, current and valid permits issued by FWC, Imperiled Species Management, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62R-l. Monitoring of nesting activity following construction was to include daily surveys and any additional measures authorized by the FWC. The required report included nesting success rates, hatch success of all in situ and relocated nests, and names of all personnel involved in nest surveys and relocation activities. These data were to be reported separately for filled areas and non-filled areas. Permit Conditions require sea turtle monitoring and reporting of the initial nesting season following completion of the beach MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

11 placement of maintenance-dredged material and for a minimum of three additional nesting seasons. This report summarizes the data collected in The report is submitted to the Sarasota County Environmental Services Department, the FWC Imperiled Species Management Division, FDEP, the USFWS, and archived in the offices of the MML STCRP. SEA TURTLE MOITORIG Project Location Casey Key is located in Sarasota County on the central Gulf coast of Florida and is the second most important nesting beach for loggerhead turtles in the Gulf of Mexico. The surveyed shoreline contains 11.8 km (7.3 mi) of sea turtle nesting habitat. Casey Key is continuous to the north with Siesta Key since the closure of Midnight Pass and is bounded to the south by the Venice Inlet. The sandy beach extends from FDEP monument R-77 in Palmer Point Park south to R-114 near the north Venice jetty. The shoreline has not been restored or nourished to date and represents the only beach in Sarasota County and west Central Florida without critical erosion (Moreton and Peterson 2003). The shoreline is characterized by high density residential development of both single and multifamily structures along Casey Key Road that runs parallel to the beach. Procedures Daily monitoring of Casey Key shoreline began on May 1. Monitoring continued until the final nest excavation on ovember 1 to fulfill the FWC guidelines for sea turtle protection. This monitoring effort was conducted by MML STCRP personnel, interns, and volunteers authorized under FWC Marine Turtle Permits #048 issued to Mr. Ryan Welsh. Personnel monitored for turtle nesting activity by walking the shoreline at dawn above the mean high water line. Upon discovery of an emergence, permitted personnel determined visually whether the emergence was a nest or a non-nesting emergence (also known as a false crawl). A nest was defined as a turtle emergence that resulted in the turtle successfully depositing eggs. A non-nesting emergence (E) was defined as an emergence that did not result in egg deposition. Signs of an E can include an abandoned body pit or nest chamber. A body pit refers to the sandy depression cleared by a sea turtle' s front flippers prior to digging a nest chamber. A nest chamber is a vase-shaped hole excavated by a turtle' s rear flippers. The following are examples ofes: 1) a turtle that emerged on the beach but did not body pit or excavate a nest chamber and returned to the water, 2) a turtle that emerged and made one or more body pits but did not excavate a nest chamber, or 3) a turtle that emerged, created a body pit and excavated a nest chamber but did not deposit any eggs (often these aborted nest excavations are left uncovered by the turtle). Figure 2 illustrates a E and a nest. During the survey along the beach, Es and nests were recorded on MML est Data Forms (see Appendix A). esting success is defined as the proportion of nesting attempts by a sea turtle (emergences onto the beach) that resulted in eggs being deposited. MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measuresfor Casey Key

12 esting success = (# nests) / (# nests + # Es) In previous years, nests laid close to the water line were immediately relocated. However, in order to document the effects of beach nourishment on nest site selection, FWC Guidelines (2007) state that eggs were not to be relocated until they were uncovered by high tides and documented washing out. If relocated, eggs were placed in a bucket lined with sand and were transported higher on the beach into an artificially produced nest chamber closely resembling the original nest chamber in shape, size, and depth All nests were marked by two to four wooden stakes connected with flagging tape and signage identifying the site as a protected sea turtle nest (Figure 3). Each nest was additionally marked with the date the nest was laid and the original location of the nest. est location was documented by three methods. In the field, monitoring personnel located nests by (1) relative position to the inland street address, building, or other landmark and by (2) global positioning system (GPS) coordinates. In the STCRP office, these descriptions were checked against annotated aerial photographs to associate the locations to (3) the nearest FDEP monuments. Hatching Surveys and est Evaluations During incubation, nests were monitored in the early morning and occasionally again in the evening. Observance of one or more of the following was used to determine the first day of hatch to calculate incubation periods: 1) A hatchling or hatchlings present at the surface, 2) A hatchling crawl or crawls in the sand leading out from the nest area, and/or a depression or emergence hole directly over the nest. Each nest was excavated three days after the initial hatch to enumerate the contents for a hatch success calculation. The delayed nest excavation allowed the majority of hatchlings to emerge from the nest on their own. est excavations were recorded on MML est Data Forms (see Appendix A). Upon excavation, the contents of the nest were sorted and counted into the following categories: (1) Hatched eggs referred to empty or hatched eggshells (fragments were not included in the tally); (2) Pipped eggs referred to either live or dead hatchlings that punctured the eggshell but had not fully emerged from the egg; (3) Unhatched eggs referred to unopened eggs remaining in the nest at excavation. Hatch success was defined as the proportion of eggs in a nest that produced live hatchlings. Hatch Success = # hatched eggs # total clutch size Emergence success was used to adjust for within nest mortality of hatchlings and to evaluate the number of hatchlings that left the nest. Emergence success represents the number of hatchlings that emerged independently from the nest prior to nest excavation: MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measuresfor Casey Key

13 Emergence Success = # hatched eggs - (live hatched + dead hatched in nest chamber) # total clutch size Any live hatchling(s) within a nest were either released immediately or were transferred to a bucket containing moist sand. These buckets of hatchlings were kept in a warm, darkened location until their release on the beach the following evening. est excavations and hatchling releases were conducted according to FWC Marine Turtle Conservation Guidelines (2007). Sea Turtle Protection Measures Sea turtle protection measures were implemented during the 2009 season that followed protocols dictated by FWC Marine Turtle Conservation Guidelines (2007) and included: Relocating endangered nests placed in immediate threat of washing out Caging nests with self-releasing or restraining cages when nests were threatened by predators or lighting Placing an FWC approved fire ant control (Amdro) around nests when fire ants (Soienopsis invicta) were observed Communicating with the Sarasota County Code Enforcement regarding artificial illumination of the beach and hatchling disorientation events due to non-compliant lighting Data Analysis Sea turtle emergence and hatching data were compiled in a Microsoft Access database. Figures and tables were created in Microsoft Access, Excel, or Word. Statistical analyses were conducted using Access or Excel with the PopTools add-in or with S-Plus 8. Maps were prepared with ArcGIS 9.3 using 2005 aerial photography. These data are also available upon request as an ArcMap 9.2 layer using aerial photography with 12" resolution and flown in January 2007 (Spatial references were FL State Plane W AD 83). ESTIG SUCCESS Turtle Emergences (ests and on-esting Emergences) turtles accounted for 98.2% of sea turtle activity on Casey Key in 2009, green turtles accounted for 1.5%, and Kemp's ridley turtles accounted for the remaining 0.3%. nesting occurred between May 10 and August 23, green nesting occurred between June 24 and August 15, and the two Kemp' s ridley nests were laid on April 25 and May 12 (Figure 4). Beach monitoring efforts documented 410 loggerhead nests, 367 loggerhead Es, seven green turtle nests, five green turtle Es, two Kemp' s ridley nests, and zero Kemp' s ridley Es (Appendix A). This is a decrease from the number ofloggerhead nests (n = 461) and an increase from the number of loggerhead Es (n = 334) documented in There were 388 in situ and 31 relocated nests. est relocation was conducted due to the imminent threat of MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measuresfor Casey Key

14 washing out, proximity to the mean high water line, depredation, for experimental research (Marine Turtle Permit o. 173), and removing a nest from an outfall. All nest locations were documented using a handheld GPS and are mapped on Figure 5. Historically, nesting densities of sea turtles on Casey Key range from 28.0 to 90.0 nestslkm ( nests/mi) (Table 1). esting density, including loggerhead, green, and Kemp' s ridley nests, was 35.5 nestslkm (57.2 nests/mi) for the entire island, with 34.7 nestslkm (55.9 nests/mi) for loggerheads, 0.6 nestslkm (1.0 nests/mi) for green turtles, and 0.2 nestslkm (0.3 nests/mi) for Kemp' s ridley turtles. esting success on Casey Key was 53.0% (Table 1). nesting success was 52.8% (410 nests: 367 Es). Green turtle nesting success was 58.3% (7 nests: 5 Es). Kemp' s ridleys nesting success was 100% (2 nests: 0 Es). The 2009 nesting data for the Casey Key shoreline indicate a 11.1 % decrease in loggerhead nest numbers from the 2008 season (Figure 6). Since 1999, Casey Key loggerhead nesting numbers have shown a downward trend, except for a brief upturn in the 2008 season (Table 1, Figure 6). The decline in Casey Key loggerhead nesting reflected a general downward trend in loggerhead nesting documented throughout the southeastern U.S. (FWC 2008, Witherington et al. 2009) and mirrored the trend in Sarasota County which hosts the densest loggerhead nesting in the Gulf of Mexico (Appendix C). The 2009 decrease in sea turtle nesting on Casey Key is also mirrored by other beaches within Sarasota County, and by nesting beaches statewide. Possible causes for the decade-long declining trend in loggerhead nesting numbers include incidental fisheries bycatch (long1ines, gill nets, shrimp trawling, artisanal), coastal development, and beach armoring (MFS/uSFWS 2009, Witherington et al. 2009). According to the FWC, a nest with no subsequent evidence of hatching is termed a mystery nest. Seven of the 419 nests (1.7%) were mystery nests. Without independent evidence, it can only be presumed that a nest was inaccurately classified, inundated, or poached. Mystery nests are included in calculations of nesting success, but are omitted from calculations for hatch success and emergence success. Categorization of on-esting Emergences (Es) Sea turtles searching the shoreline for a suitable nesting site may abandon a nesting attempt and return to the water without depositing a clutch. on-nesting emergences (Es) can be categorized by the stage at which the turtle abandoned or terminated nesting (Table 2). The 370 Es on Casey Key were categorized as: 1) 272 emergences with no digging; 2) 83 emergences with one or more body pits but no nest chamber; and 3) 15 emergences with a minimum of one abandoned nest chamber. The 2009 data are consistent with those from 2008, with most Es categorized as emergences without digging a body pit or nest chamber. Based on FWC data collected throughout Florida's nesting beaches, the proportions of nests to Es should be relatively similar and the balance between the two serves as an indicator of a beach' s nesting suitability. When numbers of Es substantially exceed that of nests, it MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measuresfor Casey Key

15 typically indicates that some combination of factors deters the turtles from nesting. The skewed ratio of nests:es can be associated with natural causes (e.g., escarpments, beach compactness, or flooding) or human-related factors (e.g., beach lighting, beach annoring structures, beach furniture, or physical harassment). The first E on May 7 occurred 3 days before the first loggerheard nest was laid. In 2009, 47% of turtle emergences were classified as Es The distribution of E events along the length of Casey Key identified specific problem areas (Figure 7). In relation to the FDEP monuments, the relative number of nests and Es along Casey Key highlight specific zones for elevated Es. Troublesome areas with many Es should be reviewed to flag the problem sources (e.g., unshielded lights) and beachfront property owners should be advised of more ' turtle-friendly' solutions. Using this proactive approach could potentially reduce the number of Es during the 2010 nesting season. Regions with lower nesting success were FDEP monuments R-88 (2 nests: 7 Es) and R-96 to R-I03 (67 nests: 119 Es). These areas are dominated by multiple forms of coastal construction rock revetments, stepped revetments, and seawalls. FDEP monuments R-90 to R- 97 have historically had low nesting success due to the placement of these barriers. At R-98, the location of the 2008 ESP, nesting success rose to 31.4% after declining to 0% in 2008, 47% in 2007, and 51.6% in Regions with highest nesting success were adjacent to FDEP monument R-82 (13 nests: 3 Es), R-91 (16 nests: 1 Es), and R-114 (5 nests: 1 Es). These areas are characterized by single family residences and undeveloped stretches of beach with little lighting. Visual Assessment of Obstructions to esting Turtles accessing the Casey Key shoreline encountered obstacles on 462 emergences, representing 58.4% of all activities (Figure 8). Of these emergences, 49.1 % (227/462) resulted in Es. Turtles were obstructed by escarpments (413), rocks (31), walkovers (13), roads (8), seawalls (6), beach furniture (6), beach debris (5), old deck pilings (4), stepped revetment (2), vegetation (2), a boat (1), holes dug by humans (l), sandbags (1), sandcastles (2), and a volleyball net (1). Some turtles encountered multiple obstacles. In 2009, turtles on Casey Key encountered escarpments on 52.2% of all emergences (413/791), compared to 28.1 % of all emergences (224/796) in Of all escarpment encounters, 46.7% ( ) resulted in Es. A low level offumiture related obstructions (0.8% or 6/791 activities) may signify a successful outcome following the 2005 Beach Furniture Amendment to the Sarasota County Sea Turtle Protection Ordinance (o ) that requires the nightly removal of beach furniture and other temporary structures. Casey Key residents believed that little response was needed except at hotels and condominiums. Regardless, overall compliance on Casey Key is high compared to other Sarasota County beaches (Figure 8). Low levels of beach furniture-related obstructions reflect both the assistance of the Casey Key residents and the high density of single family MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures f or Casey Key

16 residences contributing less beach furniture than other Sarasota beaches with high densities of hotels and condominiums. On the other hand, compliance may be more difficult to enforce across multiple single family residences than at hotels and condominiums where a single grounds keeper is responsible for clearing furniture from the beach nightly. est Site Selection Monitoring personnel measured the beach width on the morning after nest deposition. Measurements were taken from the nest to the closest upland vegetation or barrier and from the nest to the day' s mean high water line. By dividing the available beach into thirds, turtle preferences for nest site selection on the upper, middle, or lower third of the beach could be determined, regardless of beach width. ests which lacked distance measurements (n = 11) were omitted from the analysis. Of the nests on Casey Key, 59.6% (243/408) were in the upper third of the beach, 30.6% (125/408) were in the middle third, and 9.8% (40/408) were in the lower third. These data are useful indicators because studies suggest that nesting sea turtles have limited energy resources to utilize when ascending a beach (Brock et al. 2009, Crain et al. 1995, Wood and Bjorndal 2000). These energetic constraints are thought to create a pattern of nest site selection closer to the high water line on recently nourished beaches that are broader and flatter than on more steeply profiled beaches. Because the entire Casey Key shoreline is not presently nourished, it remains an important benchmark or control to measure the impacts for other Sarasota beaches where nourishment projects are already in progress or pending. est Chamber Characteristics est chamber measurements were tabulated for nests on Casey Key (Table 3a and 3b). Sea turtles dig their nest chambers using only their rear flippers. ests that were determined to be laid by turtles with rear flipper deformities were excluded from this analysis because the focus is on differing sand characteristics between native and non-native beaches and not sea turtle morphometrics. nests averaged 41.3 cm in depth (range cm), 23.1 cm in width (range cm), and 25.5 cm from the sand surface to the top of the clutch (range 5-45 cm). The green turtle nests averaged 59.7 cm in depth (range cm), 31.8 cm in width (range cm), and 47.0 cm from the sand surface to the top ofthe clutch (range cm). The Kemp's ridley nests averaged 42.5 cm in depth (range 35-50), 20 cm in width (range 20), and 30.0 cm from the sand surface to the top of the clutch (range cm). ests Lost to Erosion or Inundation There were no hurricanes or named storms contributing to coastal erosion and/or sand accretion for the 2009 nesting season. Tidal activity caused inundation of 30.8% (129/419) of nests on Casey Key (Table 4), 54 of which washed out. Inundations during 2009 impacted Casey Key to a lesser extent than in 2008 when 53.9% (249/462) of nests were inundated by storms. MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measuresfor Casey Key

17 Historically, portions of the Casey Key shoreline have already been hardened against erosion by rock revetments and seawalls. Sections of native beach on Casey that remained adjacent to the nourishment project on Siesta Key were more subject to erosion and high waters. est Damage by Depredation or Invasion Predators affected 74 loggerhead and one green nests (75/4l9)(Figure 9). The depredation incidents involved raccoons (59), roots (12), ghost crabs (3), domestic dogs (3), nesting turtles (2), human poaching (1), and unknown predators (7) (Tables Sa and 5b). Some nests were affected by multiple predation events. The percentage of depredated nests increased from 16.0% (74/462) in Recent trends for major predators from (Figure 9) indicate that raccoon predations on Casey Key nests in 2009 were the second highest of that period, with 2008 being higher. The majority of the raccoon depredation (62.7% 37/59) is occurring between FDEP monuments R-78 to R-90 (Palmer Point Park). This mirrors similar trends seen in A trap-removal program for raccoons was initiated in 2005 by Sarasota County along Caspersen/Brohard Beach but no current program exists for Casey Key. It is recommended that such a program be implemented in the Palmer Point Park area for future nesting seasons. A 2-fe self-releasing cage or 4_ft2 self-releasing screen of2" x 4" wire mesh was placed over 142 nests that were either depredated or in danger of depredation. The exact location of the clutch was determined before placement to avoid damaging the clutch. ests were treated with an FWC approved fire ant control (Amdro) when fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) were observed in or near the nests. In 2009, no nests were affected by fire ants. Trends in fire ant depredation from show that ant depredation in 2009 is still very low and reflects the trend of decreasing fire ant predation since 2003 observed on other Sarasota County Beaches (Appendix C). Fox and armadillo predations on Casey Key have continued to decline since F our incidents of nest vandalism occurred in Stakes were broken from a nest at 208 South Casey key Road on 6115 and from a nest at 513 Casey Key Road on 7/26. Stakes were removed from a nest at 512 South Casey Key Road on 6/8. On 8/6 there were footprints and digging inside a marked off nest at 609 Casey Key Road. STCRP personnel noted the problems and replaced stakes. To help prevent similar circumstances in the future, educational information about sea turtles should be distributed to hotels and condominiums in the area. Educational signage posted by Sarasota County already exists at each of the beach access points and STCRP marks each nest with a sign (Figure 3). Incidents of human disturbance on Casey Key beaches rose in 2009 compared to 2008 when one nest was vandalized. One nest was poached in 2009 compared to zero poaching events in On 6/7, a nest at 915 orth Casey Key Road (FDEP monument R84) was poached. This incident was reported to the Sarasota Police Department and FWC. See Appendix E for more details. MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

18 REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS Incubation period Calculations of mean incubation period only included nests for which both the date laid and date hatched were known (n = 316). Several inter-related factors such as nest location on the beach, amount of rainfall, substrate color, and environmental temperature contribute to the complex variations in incubation temperature that in turn dictate incubation period. The average incubation period ofloggerhead nests on Casey Key (n = 308) was 52.9 days with a range of days (Table 6a). The average incubation period for in situ loggerhead nests (n = 286) was 52.8 days with a range of days. The incubation period for relocated loggerhead nests (n = 22) was 54.6 days with a range of days (Table 6a). The first loggerhead nest hatched on July 11 and the last nest hatched on October 5. The average incubation period for green turtle nests on Casey Key (n = 7, all in situ, Table 6b) was 50.1 days with a range of days. The first green turtle nest hatched on August 10 and the last nest hatched on October 5. Of the Kemp' s ridley nests (n=2, all in situ) only one had a recorded hatch date. The Kemp's ridley nest that did hatch incubated for 61 days and hatched on July 12. When hatches are not observed, nests are inventoried at 70 days from the date laid and are therefore included in calculations of hatch success and emergence success. Hatch Success Hatch success was calculated for 254 in situ nests and eight relocated nests for which complete excavation data were documented. These nests were separated into inundated and non-inundated categories (Table 7). ests were excavated and inventoried with contents sorted into categories of hatched eggs, unhatched eggs, live or dead pipped hatchlings, and live or dead hatchlings. Statistics were compiled from the results pooled for all individual nests. ests that were washing out were not included in the hatch or emergence success calculations. The hatch success for both in situ and relocated loggerhead nests (n = 256 nests and 24,937 eggs) was 77.7% with 20.5% unhatched eggs and 1.8% pipped eggs. The hatch success for in situ loggerhead nests (n = 248) was 78.5% with 19.9% unhatched eggs and l.6% pipped eggs. The relocated loggerhead nests (n = 8) had a hatch success of 52.4% with 40.8% unhatched eggs and 6.4% pipped eggs. The hatch success for in situ loggerhead nests is higher than in 2008 (72.8%, n = 273). The hatch success for relocated nests is lower than in 2008 (53.2%, n = 3), but the small sample size precludes a rigorous comparison across years. Hatch success was 70.3% for inundated loggerhead nests (n = 60) and 79.9% for non-inundated nests (n = 196). The hatch success for green turtle nests (n = 5 nests and 768 eggs) was 85.2% with 14.2% unhatched eggs and 0.7% pipped eggs. The hatch success for green turtle nests is higher than in 2008 (2.5%, n = 1), but the small sample size precludes a rigorous comparison across years. All green turtle nests were in situ and none were inundated in Of the Kemp' s ridley nests (n = 2, all in situ and non-inundated), one was excavated early and was omitted from analysis. The MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

19 remaining Kemp's ridley nest (75 eggs) had a hatch success of 72.0% with 22.7% unhatched eggs and 5.3% pipped eggs. Emergence Success Emergence success was calculated for nests for which complete excavation data were documented. The emergence success for all loggerhead nests (n = 254) was 76.1 %. The emergence success of in situ loggerhead nests (n = 248) was 76.8%. The six relocated loggerhead nests had an emergence success of 44.6%. The emergence success for in situ loggerhead nests is higher than in 2008 (69.8%, n = 274). The emergence success for the relocated nests is higher than in 2008 (20.1 %, n = 3), but the small sample size precludes a rigorous comparison across years. Inundated nests (n = 58) had a 68.6% emergence success while non-inundated nests (n = 196) had 78.2% emergence success. The emergence success for all green turtle nests (n = 5) was 76.4%. The emergence success for green turtle nests is higher than in 2008 (2.5%, n = 1), but the small sample size precludes a rigorous comparison across years All green turtle nests were in situ and none were inundated in Of the Kemp's ridley nests (n = 2, all in situ and non-inundated), one was excavated before emergence and was omitted from analysis. The emergence success for the remaining Kemp' s ridley nest was 70.7%. Excavations of loggerhead nests for which complete excavation data were documented (in situ: n = 248; relocated: n = 6) revealed that 24,765 hatchlings emerged independently prior to nest excavation. In addition, at excavation, a total of275 live hatchlings were found remaining in those nests (Table 8). Excavations of the in situ green turtle nests (n = 5) revealed 587 hatchlings emerged independently prior to nest excavation. At nest excavation, 59 live hatchlings were found remaining in those nests. Excavations of the in situ Kemp' s ridley nest revealed 53 hatchlings emerged independently prior to nest excavation and one live hatchling was found remaining in the nest. ests with incomplete excavation data (i.e., nests that were excavated early, depredated nests or partial washouts) produced an additional 4,594 live loggerhead (n = 125), 248 live green (n = 2), and 73 live Kemp' s ridley (n = 1) hatchlings. A total of 25,040 (24, ) live loggerhead hatchlings emerged independently from Casey Key nests. A total of 646 ( ) live green hatchlings emerged independently from Casey Key nests. A total of 127 (53 + 1) live Kemp' s ridley hatchlings emerged independently from Casey Key nests. Hatchling Disorientation Events Zero adult turtle and 14 hatchling disorientation events were documented, resulting in a minimum of 328 disoriented hatchlings (Table 9, Appendix 8). Using only viable nests (i.e., those from which hatchlings emerged) a disorientation rate of 4.5% was observed for viable nests compared to 2.1 % in 2008 (Figure 10). The disorientation rate of all nests, both viable and nonviable (i.e., zero emergence) was 3.6% compared to 1. 7% in 2008 (Figure 10). MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

20 Although the percentages have historically been low, disorientations reached a high in 2009 (Figure 10). When compared to other Sarasota beaches, Casey Key disorientations have been consistently low (Appendix C). Disorientations were related to single family residences (13), sky glow (11), hotels or condominiums (8), and flashlights on the beach (1). In some events, there was more than one cause for disorientation (Table 9, Figure 11). Given the large number of nests on Casey Key, a 3.6% (14/419) disorientation rate is relatively minor and represents the lowest rate of disorientation in Sarasota County (excluding Manasota Key, for which we do not have data). This is a positive indication that Casey Key beaches are suitably dark for turtles and also reflects diligent efforts by Sarasota County Environmental Services to encourage lighting compliance. In each incident STCRP personnel communicated with owners or property managers at the disorientation event locations to rectify non-compliant lighting issues. STCRP also communicated frequently with Sarasota County Code Enforcement about artificial illumination of the beach and hatchling disorientation events due to non-compliant lighting. To maintain the low levels of disorientations in future years, the Sarasota County Sea Turtle Ordinance must be regularly encouraged and enforced in Frequent nocturnal lighting inspections should begin early in the sea turtle nesting season and continue until the last nest has hatched. AOWLEDGMETS We acknowledge the assistance of volunteers and interns who contributed 2748 hours (estimated $55,647 of in kind support) to the Casey Key efforts in The community based conservation effort on Casey Key included Mote Staff(T. Tucker, K. Mazzarella, R. Welsh, K. Garrett, S. Hirsch, J. Cormany, L. Flynn, E. Ranalli), college interns (Y. Fernandez, J. Jones, L. Reifel, D. Schaefer, C. Hulsey, E. McCullough, and A. Ortiz), permitted volunteers on Marine Turtle Permit 048 (R. Welsh, K. Garrett, D. Bracy, B. Fulks, MJ. Perkins, S. Seery-Lester, M. Snyder, R. Kellam, E. McCullough, J. Jones, Y. Fernandez, L. Reifel). and other beach walkers under an FWC Letter of Authorization (F. Baxter, S. Baxter, B. Black, M. Black, A. Burnette, J. Cowgill, S. Gutek, S. Kellam, C. Kinder, G. elson, L. A. Slack, M. Welch, B. Camardo, C. White, D. Carnes, D. Millett, G. Holman, H. West, H. Cowan, J. Riley, J. Kratz, 1. Hall, K. Cowan, L. Lucas, M. Jacobs, M. Harris, M. D'Orazio, P. King, R. Romanowski). Mote volunteers Maureen Snyder, Mary Jo Perkins, and Suzie Seerey-Lester distributed preseason lighting information to beachfront properties. Additional thanks go to Keri Ferenc elson of Sarasota County Environmental Services who conducted multiple lighting inspections. Jay Midkiff of Sarasota Parks and Recreation arranged for A TV storage and vehicle parking in the county lockup at okomis Public Beach. Members of both orth Casey Key and Casey Key Homeowners Association allowed parking and access to the beach. MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measuresfor Casey Key

21 Satellite tracking efforts on Casey Key in 2009 was partly supported by SEA TURTLE.ORG, Virginia Miller, Chris Lener of Wooster School, Chantal Detlefs of ew Canaan Country School, Jeniam Foundation, Penelope Kingman, Longboat Key Turtle Watch, ASA Signals of Spring, Sarasota County Environmental Services, and the Sea Turtle Grants Program. Lindsey Flynn and Elizabeth Ranalli coordinated the nocturnal tagging patrols. LITERATURE CITED Brock, KA, JS Reece, and LM Ehrhart The effects of artificial beach nourishment on marine turtles: differences between loggerhead and green turtles. Restoration Ecology 17: Bush, OM, J Longo, WJ eal, LS Esteves, OH Pilkey, OF Pilkey, and CA Webb Living on the edge of the Gulf: the west Florida and Alabama coast. Duke University Press, Durham,. C. Crain, DA, AB Bolten, and KA Bjorndal Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles: review and research Initiatives. Restoration Ecology 3 : Davis, RA, MV Fitzgerald, and J Terry Turtle nesting on adjacent beaches with different construction styles: Pinellas County, Florida. J. Coastal Research 15: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission nest survey results do not change turtle nesting trends. URL:research.myfwc.comlfeatures/view _ article.asp?id= Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Sea turtle conservation guidelines. URL: Florida State University Beaches and shores resource center. URL: beach 1 O.beaches.fsu.edu Morton, RA and RL Peterson Coastal classification atlas. West-central Florida coastal classification maps - Anclote Key to Venice Inlet. USGS Open File Report , Version 1.1. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. URL: pubs. usgs.gov/ofl2003/0fd3-227 l index.html ational Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery plan for northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). URL: ational Marine Fisheries Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. 67 pp. URL: Peterson, CH and MJ Bishop Assessing the environmental impacts of beach nourishment. Bioscience 55 : Rumbold, DG, PW Davis, and C Perretta Estimating the effect of beach nourishment on Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) nesting. Restoration Ecology 9: SWOT State of the world' s sea turtles, Vol. 2. URL: Witherington, B, P Kubilis, B Brost, and A Meylan Decreasing annual nest counts in a globally important loggerhead sea turtle population. Ecol. Appl. 19: Wood, 0, and K Bjomdal Relation of temperature, moisture, salinity and slope to nest site selection in loggerhead sea turtles. Copeia 2000: MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key

22 Table 1. est and non-nesting emergence (E) numbers and nesting success for sea turtles nesting on Casey Key, Activity Year ests E est Success Km est density density Grey areas illustrate years before monitoring was standardized for effort in MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

23 Table 2. Categories of non-nesting emergences (Es) for Casey Key, # Emergence-no digging 272 # With preliminary body pit 83 # With abandoned egg chamber 15 Total # Es 370 Table 3a. turtle nest chamber measurements for Casey Key, Values are means followed in parenthesis by sample size, one standard deviation, and range. Values exclude measurements from females with rear flipper injuries. Surface to top of clutch (cm) 25.5 (259, 8.1, 5-45) est chamber depth (cm) 41.3 (259,9.5, 15-71) est chamber width (cm) 23.1 (279,4.4, Table 3b. Green turtle nest chamber measurements for Casey Key, Values are means followed in parenthesis by sample size, one standard deviation, and range. Values exclude measurements from females with rear flipper injuries. Surface to top of clutch (cm) 47.0 (6, 18.5,21-75) est chamber depth (cm) 59.7 (6, 15.5,38-83) est chamber width (cm) 31.8 (5, 3.3, 29-37) Table 4. Sea turtle nests affected by tidal activity on Casey Key, Storm Event Inundation Wash Out Total Un-named events Totals MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measuresfor Casey Key

24 Table Sa. est damage and preventative measures taken due to predation or invasion on Casey Key, Total nests on beach ests affected * % ests affected 21.6% 16.0% 17.9% Total predation events* ests caged before predation % Caged before predation 19.2% 28.1% 29.4% ests caged after predation % Caged after predation 7.3% 8.4% 4.5% * Total predation events include all instances of predation on a given nest, i.e. a nest predated by a ghost crab, fire ants, and a raccoon equals three predation events but only one nest affected. Table Sb. Identified nest predators on Casey Key, est predators Armadillo Bobcat Coyote Domestic Dog Fire ants Fox Ghost crab Hog Human Raccoon Roots Turtle Unknown Total predation events MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

25 Table 6a. Total incubation period of relocated and in situ loggerhead nests that experienced hatch on Casey Key, Relocated In situ Total # of ests A verage Incubation fdays) Range of Incubation Ifdays) Table 6b. Total incubation period of relocated and in situ green nests that experienced hatch on Casey Key, Relocated In situ Total # of ests Average Incubation I{days) /A Range of Incubation I(days) /A MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

26 Table 7. Hatch Success for relocated and in situ loggerhead nests on Casey Key, ests ot Inundated ests Inundated In situ Relocated Total In situ Relocated Total Overall Total # of ests # Hatched # Live Pipped # Dead Pipped # Destroyed # Unhatched Total Eggs Hatch Success 80.7% 50.4% 79.9% 70.7% 58.7% 70.3% 77.7% Table 8. Hatchlin Emergence Success for relocated and in situ loggerhead nests on Casey Key, ests ot Inundated ests Inundated In situ Relocated Total In situ Relocated Total Overall Total # of ests # Hatched # Live in est # Dead in nest # Hatchlings emerged Total Eggs Emergence 79.2% 44.6% 78.2% 68.6% % 76.1% Success MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring. est Evaluation. and Protection Measures for Casey Key

27 Table 9. Sea turtle disorientations on Casey Key, Minimum # Date est location Hatchlings attracted to Disoriented Probable light type R Directly orth and South 6 SFH (Exterior), Skyglow SFH (Interior & Exterior), Condominium (Exterior), 7/26 657'S R-78 Directly orth and South 31 Skyglow SFH (Interior & Exterior), Condominium (Exterior), 7/26 600' S R-78 Directly orth and South 11 Skyglow SFH (Interior & Exterior), R orth towards SFH 21 Skyglow orth Public Beach, South towards Jetty Park SFH (Interior & Exterior), 8114 Volleyball Area and orth towards SFH 95 Skyglow SFH (Interior & Exterior), 317 R, 309 R, 305 Condominium 8/ R R, and 221 R 12 Interior & Exterior) SFH (Interior & Exterior), 205 R, 209 R, 213 Condominium R, 217 R, 221 (Interior & Exterior), R R, and 305 R 40 Skyglow SFH (Interior & Exterior), Condominium (Interior & Exterior), Skyglow, People on the 8/ R Directly South UK beach with flashlights Directly orth, South, R and East 50 SFH (Interior & Exterior) SFH (Interior & Exterior), 205 R, 129 R, 121 Condominium (Interior & 8/ R R, and 117 R 30 Exterior), Skyglow 8/ R 561 R 7 SFH (Interior & Exterior) SFH (Interior & Exterior), Condominium (Interior & Exterior), R 105 R and 113 R 13 Skyglow 8/ R Directly orth 1 Skyglow SFH (Interior & Exterior), Condominium (Interior & Exterior), 9/26 370'S R-78 Directly orth 11 Skyglow R= orth Casey Key Road, R= Casey Key Road, SFH=Single Family Residence MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Proteclion Measures/or Casey Key

28 Figure 1a. The northern end of Casey Key is a control site (Casey Key Control) for comparison to the Siesta Key Beach ourishment Project. MOTEMUUUELABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

29 Figure lb. Casey Key Emergency Sand Placement MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

30 Figure 2. A non-nesting emergence evident by the abandoned nest chamber (top) and a successful loggerhead nest (bottom). Species is confirmed by the alternating flipper tracks, and nest is confirmed by the thrown sand during body pitting and nest covering. MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measuresfor Casey Key

31 00 OT DISTURB SEA TURTLE EST VIOLATORS SUBJECT TO FIES AD IMPRISOME s:, r;;;= I I ".,...;: I' I - -- J- o Figure 3. Sea turtle nest sign used to identify nests on Sarasota County beaches (left) and a marked sea turtle nest (right) ==== L _ G; i _r_ :::I Z r._r_ <0 '"!'!! co a '"! '" '" '" II? <n <n <n 'f d, J, '" 6,..!. 'f <n..t... <n '" (0 - <n <n '" a 'f (0... ::!: <0 r-;- ;::: 'f <0 J, (1) '" ;::: ;:::... co Week (1) '" ro '" "i' ro ro m '" - ii5 en J, 6 (0 ;::: ro '" ro ro ro '" Figure 4. umber of sea turtle nests and non-nesting emergences (Es) on Casey Key by week in (1) m,}, m MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measuresfor Casey Key

32 * * Green Turtle est tt est FDEP Monument Figure 5. Casey Key nest locations for MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

33 M Lt) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)... 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) o M o #E #ests Figure 6. Casey Key sea turtle nesting and non-nesting emergence (E) data from Pre-1991 data was not standardized to length of beach and so should not be included in crossyear compansons. Lt) o... o 0) o est. E Q).Q E z o I I M co '" co I'- co I '" co I I M '" Monument '" M a '" a I'- '" I' a '" a I Figure 7. Distribution of nests and non-nesting emergences on Casey Key in 2009 by FDEP monument. MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

34 Beach Debris Beach Furniture DEscarpment Dourishment Pipe Outfall Basin DRoad Rocks Seawall DStepped Revetment.Vegetation DWalkover Other 500 r-============================================================ "g f S c: o w III CII III,g o '0 200 j 150 -r-->-_r-- ---, z Year Figure 8. A comparison of the number and type of nesting obstructions encountered by sea turtles on Casey Key from MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

35 300 ICAnnad ilio. Bobcat D Coyote o Domestic Dog Fire Ants CFox Ghost Crab o Hog esting Turtle. Raccoon CRoots c unknown l ;--,r w c o ;;.., '" c o.q E :i Year Figure 9. A comparison of the number and type of depredation events on Casey Key from % 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0 Casey Key % of nests disoriented - all nests - viable nests M it) CD, co 0) Figure 10. Trends in hatchling disorientation events on Casey Key from MOTE MARIE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

36 D Condominiums Dune crossover D Oth... C Parking lot [] Restaurant/bar Sign C SingH! Family Residences. Skyglow. Streetl;ghts o Unknown 13 Figure 11. Sources of disorientation events on Casey Key, MOTE MUUUE LABORATORY Sea Turtle Monitoring, est EvaluGlion. and Protection Measures/or Casey Key

37 ApPEDIX A ESTS AD O-ESTIG EMERGECES

38 MOTE MARIE LABORATORY SEA TURTLE PROGRAM For questions call: Please return all datasheets via or fax: DATA FORM Date: Observer: est/fc 10#: (date laid, original address, observer) FDEP Monument Address: Condo ame: Key: Zone: to the ORTH: Use # ft S of FDEP Monument (e.g., 50S130), Species: 0 (Cc) v c for Zones L 1, SK 6B, 1, V4, V5, V6 r- ("' D Green (Cm),.. '"...,, GPS: Lat: 27. Long: -82. D Other: e -(r r e if 'Green' or 'Other' please contact Mote ACTIVITY DETAILS IF RELOCATED D E (False Crawl)* D Unmarked est (UM)*** Date: "Record original nest cavity measurments in est Cavity section D ot Verified est* (found at later date) ew Address: D Verified est** Dist. to top of eggs cm Lat: 27. Long: -82. D Triangulated? Stake A ft # eggs relocated: Upland barrier: ft Stake B ft Reason for relocation: Stake C ft D Mean high water D Construction/ourishment # of abandonded body pits: Draw in diagram ( ) D Predation D Research/Study Project # of abandoned egg chambers: Draw in diagram ( ) 0 Washing out LOCATIO OTES EST LOCATIO: OBSTACLES ECOUTERED: CAGE IFORMATIO: D D EST TREATMET D Sloped D Vertical DATE: CAGE TYPE: WHE CAGED? Open beach Escarpment Escarpment o Before depredation In / At vegetation Crawled over? Y DB Os DR DAfter depredation Height: ft o Before depredation BEACH MEASUREMETS: DB Os DR DAfter deredation Length: ft o Before depredation D Dist. to MHW: ft DB Os DR DAfter depredation D Furniture (take pictures) CAGE TYPES: D Upland barrier: ft Self Releasinq Box (8), Self Releasinq Screen (S), Restraininq (R) (vegetation line, seawall, etc.) D Other: Mote Only; Initial Treatment Final Treatment COMMETS: CRAWL DIAGRAM (please include permanent inland buildings or markers) TAG #s (Casey Key) E/ot Verified est: Activity Details, Location otes, and Crawl Diagram Verified est: Activity Details, Location otes, Crawl Diagram, est Treatment - RFF: LFF: PIT#: Attach copy of Tag Form SAT TAG? D ame: Radar Golfball? D Mote only Water Line Turtle #: UM: Address, GPS, est location, Upland Barrier, Diagram

39 Date:, Observer: est/fe ID#: Key: Zone: FDEP Monument to the ORTH: Address: (date laid, original address, observer) Condo ame: EGGS DESTROYED IUlOU(lnS : Turtle, Racoon, Fox, Crab, Armadillo, Dog, Coyote Predator: # Eggs: Predator: # Eggs: Date: Predator: # Eggs: Date: Predator: # Eggs: Hatch date: Add'i hatch date: Fill out and attach disorientation form with diagram ROOTS: *00 not include in Unhatched Eggs PATROLLER Encased: # Eggs: EST CAVITY DATA situ and nests A B t-..:..w;.:.a..:..t;..;;e;:.;r..:...::;d.:;..;am=a..:..;ge=,_...,..._...,..._- :"_: 4 Surface to Eggs (A): cm ALL dates should be recorded DATE(S): Include Stonn ame if applicable Surface to Bottom (B): cm est Wash Over -1 Cavity Width (C): cm CI C Standing Water Partial Washout ---tsamples Taken Y B Total Washout ---thatsamples? Stake Loss call Mote Vandalized 0 Poached 0 Date: Date: Details:(Signs, Clues, How), Live in nest: Dead in nest: " 00 OT include 'Live in nest' and Dead in nest' in Total Eggs sum " Hatched shells: --I Live pipped: ---I Dead pipped: -I Unhatched: Mote 00 OT add to Total Eggs Yolkless eggs: COMMETS date, comment and

40 LDIH Ad!hIIIDRI Typec... - DIlle Oller _ 1_ DIlle I pp(all PIle HIkII!ed TCICII... [ 8 Koriiji'. ridley o" 25-Apr R ( 82 8 Loggo"'oad FII.o Crl wl 07-May R 109 X Loggo"'oad Olt It).May-O 608 R 85 Box l1 -Ju Loggo"'oad o.t It).May-O R 104 1S-Ju9 rn 7 Loggo"'ol d _ FII.o Crawi It).Ma R 106 I 5 Loggo"'oad FalloCrawi It).Mov.O 2110R 99 2 Loggo"'old FII.e Crawl It).May-O 1400 R 80 4 Loggo"'oad FII.o Crawl I t).may-o 2309 R 98 8 Lo o"'oad Fal.o Crawl l1-may R 108 K 8 LOJlllo"'_o!d_ F.oC1'II'1 Jl,MO 121 R Box 93 9s Ju """i4o """i4e 110 I Ju [ 3 Logge"'old OIt 14-May R 93 IS-Ju9 B 3 Loggo"'old FII" Crawl 14-MlY R 94 X Loggo"'old o" I 5-Mav-O 526 R 86 Y So.-Roloa.lng Box Raccoon 5/ Loggo"'oad FII.. Crawl IS-Mav-O 213 R Loggo"'oad Fal.o Crawl IS-Mav-O 2100R 99 -':;- _ I Loggo"'ead e" 17-MIY-O "18 5 Loggo"'ead est 17-MO 2116 R 99 9 Loggo"'oad o" 17-May-O 502 SR XS Logge"'oad o., 17-May R 6 Logge"'ead ost 17-May-O 1608 R 5 Loggorhoad Fal.o Crawl 17-May-O 2016 R 6 Loggorhoad FII.o Crawl 17-Mav R.. False Crawl 17-May R La erhaad False Crawl 18-Ma R Lo o"'ead False Crawl 1S-Ma R L o"'ead Fllse Crawl 1S-Ma R Lo o"'ead e" I&.Ma R o., I &.Ma R 3909R 1600R r 7 Loggerhoad o" 2t).M&y: Ci<R- I X Loggerhoad o. t 2t).May R 3 Loggorhoad Fal.o Crawl 2t).May R X Loggorhoad Fal.o Crawl 2t).May R X Loggorhoad Fal.o Crawl 2t).MlY R 4 Loggorhoad FII.. Crawl 2t).May,O 2209 R X Loggorhoad o" 21-MlY R 2 Loggo"'oad OIt 21-May R X Loggo"'oad Fal.. Crawl 21-MlY R X Loggo"'oad FII.e Crawl 21 - May- 748 R Loggo"'oad Fal.. Crawl 21 -Mav R Loggo"'oad FalsoCrawl 21 -May R Loggo"'oad o" 22-May-O 502 SR Loggo"'oad o" 22-May-O 715 R Loggo"'oad o., 22-Mav-O 915 R I Loggorhoad o" 22-Mav-O 1600 R 8 Loggo"'oad Fllso Crawl 22-May-O 521 R 3 Loggo"'oad Falso Crawl 22-May-O 3009 R 2 Loggo"'oad o" 23-Ml Y R 3 Log.o"'old o" 23-MlY R Lo o"'old o" 23-Ma R Lo o"'oad 1208 R Lo o"'oad Lo o"'old 3201 R 2 Loggo"'oad o" 24-Mav R 6 Logge"'oad osl 24-May R 9 Lo o"'oad Oli 24-May-0 JB 3 Loggo"'oad o" 24-May R X Loggo"'oad Fllso Crawl 24-May R 634 R 4027 R ""ioo W3 9a s W s Ts ge T l T2 Ta Y I&: I Box I Box I Box I Box IRaccoon, Ghost Crab 15/24, 6/26 I I Box I BoxRl ccoon I Box 151l -. 'R. c!lon 15/23 IEnc.. od Eggs 15-Ju9 17-Ju9 IS-Ju9 15-Ju9 I&.Ju9 1S-Ju9 1&.Ju9 7-Ju9 15-Ju9 1S-Ju9 2t).Ju09 1S-Ju9 1&.Ju09 11-JUi:09 40 Sa Ts To T lts Ts 95 9: l" 10 9a JlO 119 _9

41 - - IMY 1- I*e DiiiA DIIIIr_ 6 est 25oMlv R JuH) X est 25oMlv R 83 Y SeW-Releaslna Box 2l-JuH)9 98 1Q.4 X loggerhead est 25oMav-0 316R 87 Y Self-Releasing Box Y 3 Lo erhead est 25oMay R 96 Y 24-Ju False Crawl 25oMly R 98 2 False Crawl 25oMav R 82 XS loggerhead est 2fl..Ma, R 90 Y Self-Rel.astn Box 25oJuH) X est 25-May R 87 Y SeW-Rele.. lng Box 24-Ju Lo erhead est 2fl..May R 94 25oJuH) Loggerheld elt 25-MI' R 107 Y Restralnlna Clae 21-JuH) Loaaerhead False Crawl 25-MI' R Fals. Crawt 25-Ma, R 94 4 Lo erhead Fals. Crawt 25-Mly R 98 5 False Crawl 2fl..MI, R 99 4 Loaaerhead False Crawl 2fl..Ma, R 96 X False Crawl 25-Ma, R 87 7 Lo erhead est 27-MlY R 10S 11l-JuH) est 27-MlY R 104 Y Restralnina Caae X Loaaerhead est 27-MI' R 84 Y Self-Releasln Box Domestic OoalRaccoon 5/27 04-Au,," XS esl 27-Mav R 92 Y 2l-Ju False Crawl 27-May-0 PB False Crawl 27-May R False Crawl 27-Ma,-0! 819 R 10S 8 False Crawl 27-Ma, R Loggem8ad est 28-May SR 113 Y Restraining Cage 24-Ju est 28-MlY-0 PBS 110 Y 6 est 28-MI' R 102 Y Restrainina Caae 22-Ju esl 28-MI, R 10S Y Restraining CaQ8 2l-Ju est 28-May R 95 2l-JuH) Loggemead est 21l-May R 80 Y Self Releaslna Box Raccoon 5/29 25oJu est 2Il-Ma, R 10S Y 11l-Ju Loggemead est 2Il-Ma, R 10S Y 2()'JuH) Loggemead est 21l-May R 103 Y Restraining Cage 24-JuH) XC Loggemead False Crawl 21l-May R 89 2 Loggemead False Crawl 21l-Mly R 81 1 Loaaerh.ad False Crawl 2Il-MI'-0 899S False Crawl 21l-Mav R 80 3 Loggemead False Crawl 2Il-May-Q'i 2901 R 95 XS Loggemead False Crawl 21l-May R 92 X Loaoemead False Crawl 2Il-MI' R 87 7 Loggemead est 3()'Mav R 104 Y Restraining Cage 25-Ju Loggemead est 3().May R 107 Y 1 elt 3()'Ma,-0 944S78 78 Y Self Releaslna Box 24-Ju Logaemead est 3()'MI, R 80 Y Self Releaslna Box Raccoon 5/30 Y 05-Au,," XC est 3().May R 88 Y SeW-Releasing Box 24-Ju Loggemead est 3().MlY R 82 Y Self Releaslna Box Invaded Eggs 11l-JuH) False Crawl 3().Ma,-0 805R 10S 7 Loggemead False Crawl 3()'Mlv R Loggemead False Crawl 3().May R Loggemead False Crawl 3().May R 102 XS est 31-Mlv R JuH) Loaaerhead est 31-Mav R 94 Y 25oJu S 7 Loggemead est 31-Mav R 105 Y Y 2l-JuH) Loggemead False Crawl 31-May R 10S 7 Loggemead est 01-Jun R 107 Y X est 01 -Jun R 87Y Y Self-Releasina Box Y 57 4 est 01-Jun R 96 Y X est 02-Jun R 84 Y Y Self R.leasing Box Raccoon. Raccoon 6/24, 8/1 Y X est 02-Jun R 94 Y Self Releaslna Box Y 21l-Ju Loggerheld est 02-Jun R 104 Y 8 est 02-Jun R oJuH) est 02-Jun R 107Y Y 26-JuH) est 02-Jun R 95 Y 25oJuH) XS Loggemead est 02-Jun R JuH) XS Loagemead est 02-Jun R 92 Y 21l-Ju est 02 Jun R 10S 22-JuH) Loggemead est 02-Jun R 103 Y Restrainina Caae Raccoon 7/ est 02-Jun R 105 Y 7 Loagerhead est 02-Jun R 104 Y 2l-JuH) X False Crawl 02-Jun R 84 X est 0l-Jun R 87 Y Self Releasina Box 78 83

42 z- 2 Lo.rhlld X Lo,m.ad X Lo erh.ad 8 Lo 'rhead 7 Loggerhad_ I 4 Loggerheld 9 XS I I 6 2 Loggerheld 3 Lo em.ad La emead La erh.ad loggerhead XC Lo erhead 7 Lo erhead :K :K 2 2 loggerheac 1 Logperhlae I XC 7 XS XS X ::::K 5 :K I 8 X XS 3 L"lIllerhead Loggerh"d. Clr Lo erhead 9gg!ead_ 16 I 16 I Lo erhead 15 I cl< La.rhead Lo 8rhead La.rhead loggerhead La erhead 18 ILogQerhead 2 La,mead 16 ILogglSrhead_ - est est est est est. est est est False Crawl est est est est est est jest jest jest 'II.e Crawl ".,al Crawl FIlse Crawl False Crawl est est eat est est est eat est Fal.e Crawl False Crawl False Crawl False Crawl Fa'se Crawl F'iiii"CriWI est 01 est est est!t L.!.St Ieif False Crawl -- OS-Jun-OS 1310 R 0S-Jun R :KR R ir ir 06-Jun-091 I 002 R IR!SR ;KR ;KR _, 12 R 81, R 81 1 R 84 ISR ir 106 ;KR SI!SR """'"C"i<R 93 R ir JR R R R R R ISR 7-Jun R 07-Jun R FII.e Crawl 07-Jun R Fel.e Crlwl 07-Jun R I.e Crawl] 07-Jun R I.e Crawl I 07-Jun R Ise Crawl Ise Crawl B-Jun R 08-Jun R lr False Crawl est est [eif [est riit reif IFII,'-Crawl False Crawl Fllae Crawl 08--Jun-09 R 17R ----ckr R R 1()'JUn-OS 1()'Jun R ().Jun R 1()'Jun-OS 1350 R 1()'Jun CISfi. 1().Jun R ().Jun-091"2' R R 104 8ci _ ""io To ii To? ii 9'i 105 "Toe ii roo S8 "Toe W7 "i"oii S8 "i"oii 101 B I A Box R_stlllining Cage I I Box 9 Box Restraining Cage I Box I Box IRestralnlng Cage I Box, Box I Box I Box Restr.inl" Ca... t(.'nlnq Caqe 80x 180x IRestraining Cage Box IRestralning Cage IRestralning Cage Box 80"_ IRaccoon IRaccoon IRlccoon.ccoon IUnknown.CCQ 16/3 18/1 lz@. [8)2 i/13 Ik_e. Broke j ISlakes Removed 16/8 IPoached ISIIkes Broken Iinvaded Egg"- ' S-JuI-OS 31-Ju1-OS 26-JuI-OS 24-JuI-OS 11-JuOS 2S-JuI-OS 26-Ju JuOS 3()'JuOS 26-JuI-OS 01-Au\l-OS 01-AU\l Ju1-09 Jl-Au\l-OS 31-Ju1-OS 04-Aug-OS 26-JuI-OS 01-Aug-OS 2B-JuI-OS 31-Ju1-OS 3()'Ju1-09 l2-aug-os 3()'JuI-OS 26-Ju JuI-OS 02-Aug-OS OS-Aul/"OS 31-JuOS 29-JuOS 26-JuOS J2-Au\l-OS J2-Aug-OS Jl-Au\l-OS 31 JuJ..Q 31-JuOS l2-au\l-os l-au\l-os IS 'i T9 85 S « S ill ill 'i 93 12S 94 S

43 Lo em.ad Lo.th.. d logoerh.. d [c:ill7 ILoggerh.ad :K 17 ILoggerh.ad :K 15 ILoggerh.ad I 17 ILoggerh.ld I 16 ILogg.rh.ld :K 19 ILogg.rh.ad I 9 Logg.rh.ad XS XS Logg.rh.ad XS Logg.rh.ad 7 Logg.rh.ad 1 K. X Logg.rh.ad 2 Logg.rhead 5 Logg.rh.ad XS Logoerhud XS Logg.rh.ad I Loggerh.ad 2 Lggerh.ad 4.. X Loggerh.ad 8 Lmerh.ad 9 loggerhead 4 Lo _rhead,ci<_ 3_ Logg.rh.ad Logg.rh.ad Logg.rh.ad Logg.rhead Logg.rh.ad l!5.. IX Logg.rhead IX Loggerh.ld LogO rh.. d cklx Loggerh.ad Ci(JX!>.Qgrd _ X Loggem.. d LX.. l!5.. Logg.rh.ad Loggerhud Ixs Logg.rh.ld Logg.rhead l!5.. l!5.. I I XS XS I Ixc Logg.rhed Logg.rhead Logg.rhead Loggerhe.d - IF.lle Crawl Iesl iiir eit.est eat est e.t Fal.1 Crawl FilII Crawl est Ut e.t air e.t eit DIlle _ I Dft I!!on!!m!r!! I ;R 8S II-Jun-09 5 R 8S 8l los II-Jun R 106 II-Jun R II-Jun R II-Jun R II-Jun Ci(R. -Jun SR 12-Jun SR I R i'c"kr i"c"kr R i6 I U CI<B 84 Fal Crawl 12-Jun R 80 I 13-Jun R 99 I 13-Jun R 90 I 13-Jun R 91 esl 13-Jun S78 78 I Box IRe.tra lning Clge - --"!IML 1IIIt. OIbIrIiWI'P Iestlng Female i/ )1 DIIe HIIIGhecII. HIIIIhM 1 ToIII EaIe 01 -Ault 9 02-Aug Ault 9 03-Au1t09 31-Ju09 04-Au1t09 02-Ault 9 31-Ju9 02-Ault 9 0S-Ault 9 04-Au1t ""iii !l Au Box IRaccoon 1813 I 13-Jun R 81 Tv TS'-R'loa,'n.Box,B T T Tv T T 1 T 06-AuIt09!" I 13-Jun R 98 V 04-Ault osl 13-Jun R 97 V 12-Auo osl 13-Jun R 85 o 18/2. esl 13-Jun R 107 Box 04-Ault I 13-Jun SR 06-Ault 9.6Q 6,7 FII Crlwl 13-Jun R 97 Fal Crawl 13-Jun R 96 Fal.. Crawl 13-Jun R 80 False Crawl 13-Jun R 98,.. '"." FilM Crawl 13-Jun R ' "'-, I 14-Jun SR 112 I 14-Jun SR 113 I 14-Jun-09197S78 78 I 14-Jun R 87 osl 14-Jun R 82 I 14-Jun R 94.st 14-Jun R 87 osl 14-Jun R 103 FII Crawl 14-Jun R Box ibox'" osl I S-Jun R 108 V R lralnln C. I IS-Jun R 83 V S.-R.I.a.ln Box 0S-Ault 9 I ().Ault09 0S-Ault 9 06-Ault 9 04-Ault OS-AuItO "'TIS !!! 123 TI 'ITO..i I 04-Au I 06-Au1t I S-Jun R II>-Jun R II>-Jun R II>-Jun R IFal Crawl I II>-Jun-09IPBP II>-Jun R II>-Jun R B To ""'fi2 93 "" IRestraining Cage I Box ;Restraining Cage 14-Au Au Ault 9 II-Ault09 07-Ault Oi-Ault 07-Ault 9 OS-AuItO 0S-Ault 9 II-Ault gr To'i Be 94 94

44 - DR 1 MIl 1- MI o.te AdIh 1-c.M'I rwec.. DIM 1_1 OIIIerE_ e-o. 3 Faist Crawl 16-Jun R 93 X loggerhead FII.I Crawl 16-Jun R 84 oa.c. 'o.te_ rolli_ -- 4 LOGaerhead False Crawl 16-Jun R 97 X LOGoerhead est 17-Jun R 85 Y Setf-Releaalng Box 09-Aug Loogerheid est 17-Jun R Aug Loogerhe.d est 17-Jun R l06 0S-Aug Loggerheld est 17-Jun R A Loooerhead e st 17-Jun R 80 Raccoon 8/ est 17-Jun R 80 Raccoon 7/27 1 False Crawl 17-Jun S Fal.e Crawl 17-Jun R 96 X Loaaerhead False Crawl 17-Jun R 87 X False Crawl 17-Jun R 84 1 Fal.I Crawl 17-Jun S fal.e Crawl 17-Jun R 79 1 Loogerhead False Crawl 17-Jun-09 9«S Loaoerhead FalSI Crawl 17-Jun R 95 XS Loogerhe.d est 18-Jun R Aug Footprint and Digging in nest 8 Loogerhe.d est 18-Jun R 107 are. 8/6 06-A9-_09 68 n 8 tst 18-Jun R Aug est 18-Jun R 104 Y Re straining Cage lg-aug XC Lo,rhead False Crawt 18-Jun R 88 X fal Crawl 18-Jun R 87 3 Loaaerhead Fal.e Crawl 18-Jun R 96 7 loggerhead Fal Crawl 18-Jun R Lo erh.ad Fal.e Crawl 18-Jun R 98 8 False Crawl 18-Jun-09 PBS no 9 loaaerhead False Crawl 18-Jun SR Logoerhead False Crawl 18-Jun R Fal Crawl 18-Jun R loo 9 False Crawl 18-Jun SR Loggerheld est 19-Jun R Au9-_ est 19-Jun S78 78 Y Self-Releasing Box Y 0 7 est 19-Jun R X est 19-Jun R 83 Y Se-Rele ing Box Y 0 93 X est 19-Jun R 83 Y Self-Releasing Box Y 09-Au!l Loaaerhlld est 19-Jun R 107 Y 7 False Crawl 19-Jun R l06 XC False Crawl 19-Jun R 88 1 False Crawl 19-Jun S Loggerhe.d False Crawl 19-Jun S est 20-Jun R 82 Y Self-Releasing Box lg-aug est 2G-Jun R 101 ll-aug est 2G-Jun R 108 Y Y Restraining Cage 13-Aug est 2G-Jun R 80 Y Self-Releasing Box lg-au!l X LOQgerhead est 2G-Jun R 86 Y Self-Releasing Box Y X est 2G-Jun R 87 Y Self-Releasing Box 12-Aug XS False Crawl 2G-Jun R 90 X False Crawl 2G-Jun R 85 X Loggerhe.d Fal.e Crawl 2G-Jun R 87 5 LOGgerhead False Crawl 20-Jun R 101 XS Loogerhe.d Faile Crawl 20-Jun R 93 X Loogerhead False Crawl 20-Jun R 87 3 False Crawl 2G-Jun R 84 3 LOGgerhead False Crawl 20-Jun R 84 6 False Crawl 20-Jun R est 21-Jun R 101 ll-aug est 21-Jun R 104 ll-aug Loa.erhead est 21-Jun R 102 Y Restraining Cage 1S-Aug e st 21-Jun R 99 Y 6 est 21-Jun R 103 Y Restraining Cage 12-Aug est 21-Jun R 109 Y Y 8/15 1S-Aug est 21-Jun R 109 Y 09-Au!l False Crawl 21-Jun R 80 1 False Crawl 21-Jun R 79 4 False Crawl 21-Jun R 98 X False Crawl 21-Jun R 87 X LOGQerhead False Crawl 21-Jun R 84 8 False Crawl 21-Jun R 109

45 -- IT I 1_ eil.!!!!it.r. '*t_ I_g-..II!!*--,.} I1IItH*hH.H*hH 8 FalsI Crawl 21-Jun R 107 X logg.rhead FalsI Crawl 21-Jun R 85 XC Logoerheid FilII Crawl 21-Jun R 88 XC Lo.rhead Fal.1 Crawl 21-Jun R 88 XC loggerhead Fal.e Crawl 21-Jun R 88 XC LOGQerhead Fal.e Crawl 21-Jun R 88 8 LOQgerhead False Crawl 21 -Jun R Fal Crawl 21-Jun R 99 7 est 22-Jun R Au\l est 22-Jun R 99 5 est 22-Jun R loo Y S.If-R..sin Box 12-Au\l llc X e.t 22-Jun R 84 Unknown Loggerh.. d est 22-Jun-09 PBVL AU\I est 22-Jun SR Au\l-09 91!Hi 9 Logoerhead Fal Crawl 22-Jun R loggerhead False Crawl 22-Jun R 107 X False Crawl 22-Jun R 85 2 False Crawl 22-Jun R 81 8 Logoerhead False Crawl 22-Jun R False Crawt 22-Jun R Fals, Crawl 22-Jun R loo 5 loggerhead Faile Crawl 22-Jun R 99 XC LOQgerhead Falll Crawl 22-Jun R 89 3 Fals, Crawl 22-Jun R 94 8 Fal.e Crawl 22-Jun R est 2l--Jun R Au\l est 23-Jun R Auo e.t 23-Jun R 95 9 est 23-Jun SR 112Y Y 12-Au\l loggerhead Fals. Crawl 23-Jun SR Loaaerhead Faile Crawl 23-Jun R 95 6 loggerhead Fal Crawl 23-Jun R loggerhead Fal Crawl 23-Jun R 107 X Fal Crawl 23-Jun R 83 7 Loggerhe.d False Crawl 23-Jun R l06 6 Fal.e Crawl 23-Jun R Gr n ell 24-Jun R 82 Y Self-Releasing Box 1l).Au\l st 24-Jun R 97 Y 12-Au\l Lerhe.d eat 24-Jun R 80 Y 5e-Rele lng Box 14-Au\l XS loggerhead llt 24-Jun R Auo Logo_mud Fal.1 Crawl 24-Jun R loo X loggerhaad Fals. Crawl 24-Jun R 83 2 Fal.e Crawl 24-Jun R 81 6 est 2S-Jun R 102 Y Restraining Cage 14-Au\l e.t 2S-Jun R 106 Y Restraining Cage e.t 2S-Jun R Au\l XS Logaerhead elt 2S-Jun R est 2S-Jun Y Se-Rele.. lng Box 1l).Au\l X ell 2S-Jun R 86 Y Self-Reteaslng Box Y 14-Au\l X loggerhead est 2S-Jun R 84 Y Se-Rele.. lna Box 18-Au\l est 2S-Jun R Au\l X Logaerhead est 2S-Jun R 83 Y Self-Releasing Box 16-Auo est 2S-Jun R S-Au\l est 2S-Jun R l06 1S-Au\l est 25-.Jun R loo Y est 2S-Jun SR Auo est 2S-Jun R Au\l False Crawl 2S-Jun R 81 5 Loggerhe.d False Crawl 2S-Jun R Fal.1 Crawl 2S-Jun R loo 6 Fal Crawl 2S-Jun R Fal.e Crawl 2S-Jun R 80 9 False Crawl 2S-Jun SR Falsa Crawl 2S-Jun R Loggerhaad False Crawl 2S-Jun R Loggerhaad Fal.a Crawl 2S-Jun R 107 X False Crawl 2&-Jun R 86 4 Fllse Crawl 2S-Jun R 98 8 Falsa Crawl 2S-Jun R Fllse Crawl 2S-Jun R Falsa Crawl 25-Jun R 107

46 IKlYlJqMl_,..!lD I 1 3 ILerhead XSL erhud Lo em.ad Lo emead Lgg.rh-.!d _ I 1 9 I :K 1 I 17 I I.16 1lIlIerhead [ 16 I.oggerhead < I :K 5K g CR Ixs.. t. LOAperhead [ lorgerhead Xli rhe.d Loggerh.. d Loggerh.. d Lopgerhead loggerhead loggerhead < I [ 1!5.. : K (XC :K [ [ IXS :K :K I IXS LOjjgerhead Logperhead Loggerhl!lId Loggerheld Loggerheld Igerhead Igerheld ell._l 26-Jun R 26-Jun R _26-Jun R DI!J 9< loe False Crawl Fall. Crawl Fal.e Crawl I 26-Jun R I 104 IFall!..Crawi r=ze;jun R -I 103 IFal.e Crawl I 26-Jun R I 102 I.e Crawl I 26-Jun R I 101 I.e Crawl 99 Ise Crawl 89 lsi Crawl 84 FilII Crawl 81 Fal'e Crawl 78 F al.e Crawl 96 False Crawl 104 Ie. t loe I Fal.e Crawl 27 Jun R 105 Fal.. Crawl 27 Jun R 96 ell 211-Jun R 95 e.t 211-Jun R 97 e.t 211-Jun R 84 ell 211-Jun R 85 ell 211-Jun R 80 ell 211-Jun R 82 ell 211-Jun R 82 ell 211-Jun R 82 ell 211-Jun R 95 ell 211-Jun R 10 IFal.e Crawl I 2I1-Jun-09IJB 114 [Fal.e Crawl I 211-Jun SR IFal.e Crawl I 2I1-Jun R IFal.e Crawl I 211-Jun R IFal.e Crawl I 211-Jun R_ rfal.. Crawl 211-Jun R ell 2&-Jun R e.t 2&-Jun R ell 2&-Jun R,e.t 2&-Jun SR ell eit est est FiiUCiiW FiiUCiiW FiiUCiiW FiiUCiiW 113 R 2&-Jun R IR : KR ir I.e Crawl I 2&-Jun R ell 3()"Jun R ell 3Q..Jun R ell 3()..Jun R ell 3()"Jun R Fal.e Crawl 3()"Jun R Fal.e Crawl 3()"Jun R Ie.t I 01 Ju R Itlt _1 01 JuI R To T7 93 l06i I Box [Restraining Caae Q I Box iiiox I Box I Box i"box ibox IRol1ralnlng Cage I Box I Box I Box IRaccoon - Raccoon Raccoon, Raccoon Raccoon Rlccoon Raccoon Raccoon IUnknown Dole....!ti.. '6/28 :115 16/28. 8/18 8/14 6/30 6/30 18/25 0IIIIr IiWII!I I_I 18/14 l&-auii-o 14-AuII-0 XS )(C XC XS 14-AuII- 17 AuII-09 2()"AuII-0 1S-AuII-09 ll1-auli-o 16-AuII AuII AuII-0 ls-auii-o 22 AuII-09 1&-AuII-09 ll1-auli-o 1&-AuII Aug Aug Aug-09 l11-au,,"09 1&-Aug-09 l11-aug Ault 9 1&-Aug Aug AuII-09 _ 22 Aug AuII I1-AUg: Aug AuII-09 2()..AuII Aug Sa 70 Ta Wo Sa 94 T i Sa Ts Sa T4 Sa 10, 8i.B 115 m fJ1 25

47 :K IX I- :K Ixs :K I I XC XS XS :K :K IfK I!S: :K XC 4 X X X :K : K IX :K I IX : K X 7 :K XS :K I I_ K XC I SK :K :K Ixs l!5..ix :K l!5..,k, I : K Loqgerhead Loggerh.. d Logpemead ILOgserh, ead Green Loggerh.. d loggerhead loggerhead Loggerh.. d loggemead I Gr n loggerhead loggerhead 19arhead loggerhead loggerhead est est est Iest [est!f.'se Crawl if.,se Crawl IFal.. Crawl lie Crawl Is. Crawl lie Crawl Ise Crawl False Crawl FalSI Crawl FIiUCriWi" est eit Fls8 Crawl Falll Crawl False Crawl FIiUCriWi" False Crawl IFalse Craw False Craw False Craw False Craw Faile Craw eat Iest Iest li'i!st... est est est est False Crawl False Crawl IFalse Crawl [Fa I.e Crawl False Crawl False Crawl FIiUCriWi" False Crawl Faile Crawl False Crawl False Crawl IFal.e Crawl I False Crawl :KR )JuI R IR : KR )Ju R )JuI R 0Ju R_ 03-JuI-0911'05 R R 0Ju SR C :78 )Ju R R 03-Ju R lju0911' 05 R R R IR R O-I-JuI-091,,02 R 13R ISR C'KR R R IR 'R I R I R I R 0&-Ju R 0&-Ju R 0&-Ju R 0&-Ju R -0&-Ju0911'0' R :KR 06-Ju R 06-Ju R!R :KR 06-Ju R R_ :KR 06-Ju R 06-Ju R R IR 06-Ju R R -Ju R 7-Jul,O R -JuI R -Ju R -Ju R 7-Ju1, R 07-Ju R l7-ju R R 7-Ju R_ 07-Ju R :KR -Ju09[1600 R.R I R l7-ju R 7 -Ju R 7-Ju091"3 R :KR R 11oIonumInI. I it ' T 9T ill 9g g Ts 9s i02 9g _ T T9 9T Ts 1Q.1 99 i i T_c.e IX_ I Bo) I Bo) I Box '!i_x_ I Box IRestraining Cage IRestrainlng C I Box I Box PrMIIIor esti" Femal. Raccoon [Raccoon accoon [Raccoo-n,-Racc-o-on Unknown Ghost Crab 1m I8ti 0. 17/3, 8/13 1i.. ', 8/ ,8/28 [1tf' 18/25 othir Ewnli 1 Event < IEncased Eggs 18/24 18/25 11lI 5_ 1 DtPI'1 1 DtII HlllChldI To4IIEMt 2AU Au 09 7!1-Au Ault09 22-Au09 2&-Ault 9 22-Ault Ault 9 22-Au09 22-Au09 27-Ault09 2S-Au09 2&-Au Au Au Au09 27-Ault 9 2&-Ault09 26-Au09 2&-Aug Au09 2S-Ault09 26-Au09.3 T9 m 75 9s ;-J To Ts g m i To;

48 1 Zone XS XS :1( XS :K xc XC 5 X Ixs XS XS X IX yk emead Logge_rhad _,rheld "hlad,mead Loggerh c Loqgerhl.c Loggerhe.c Loggerhea, Loggerheld IVlrhead LORperhead Loggerheld loggerhead LOggerhead ' Loggerhea Lo erhead IXC I 18 ILogrhd I 1 8 I 7 5 Lo emeld 3_ 12 ILoggerhea, Lo emeae Lo emele Lo emead :K X Lo emead 7 Lo emead 6 Lo emead :K Lo emead :K Loggemead Lo erhead Lo emead :K Lo emead Lo erhead Lo erhead 14 ILoggerheld HIlI eat eat eat eat I.e CraWl I 08-. Is, Craw lsi Craw Ise Craw IFllse Craw I.e Craw IFII.e Craw lie Crawt lae Crawt IFII. e CraWl FII.e CraWl F al.e CraWl Fal.e CraWl FII.e CraWl F al.e CraWl eat eat eat est est est eat 0.. AIIdrMI I DR , R R R i'"c"kif 08-JuI-OSI1822 R KR 129 I --K-R KR S7 08-Ju R 08-Ju R 08-Ju R 08-Jul-Q R 08-Ju R 08-J R 08-Ju R 08-Ju R 09-JuI-OS 602 SR 09-Ju R 09-Ju R 09-JuI-OS 1015 R 09-Ju R 09-Ju R 09-JuI-OS 3203 R 09-Ju R eat 09-Ju R eat 09-JuI-OS 3521 R e.t 09-JuI-OS 316 R Fal.e CraWl 09-JuOS 1424 R FII.e CraWl 09-JuOS 2557 R IFal.e CraWl I 09-JuOSI610 R eat IG-Jul-OS 2613 R eat IG-Jul-OS 1224 R.'lIa...'.WI :lls. Crawl.st 93 ]} 9S 8i Toe ""'ioi 9i 109 9il ""i i1i 9< ii T9 T To'i 79 ;as is 9J 9J 9i 93 9i T7 ""'foj 96 8S C!pd?1 Type cw Box [Re.tralning CaQe Restrainl" Ca e Self Releasln Box Restraining Cage I Box Box accoon IUnknown Raccoon Raccoon Raccoon accoon Unknown IRaccoon Raccoon Raccoon PrMIIo! 7/8 19/16 DIM 1/28 IillI 1/18 1/28 OIIIerE_ IEnca.ed Eaas IEncased Eggs o.ie!ll 02 Se., Au1I"09 28-Au1I"09 2&-Au!!-O 27 AuII"OS 25-Au1I"09 29-Au1I"0 28-Au1I"0 31 Au1I"0 08-Se.,.0 27 AuII"OS II AuII"O 27 Au1I"0 27.AulI"0 3G-Au1I"09 est 106I IY IReatralnlng Clge I 29-Au1I" est 96 Ieat II.JuI R Se., IRlccoon OSep-O 89 I Box 28-Au1I"0 91 Iest I II JuI-OSI4015R I 29-Au1I"0 IFalCra_... 1 Lll.Yul-OSI503 R 108 tt-l Au1I" Ju1-OS IS06 R 100 [Rlcc_oon 9/2 02 Sep Ju1-OS 2613 R 96 I S0_9 _63 eat 110 I OI Se.,.O 62 :alse Craw1 S4 'al.e CraWl I 12.Ju R I 81 --t est 84 False Craw1 106 False Craw1 102 FII.e Craw '03 Fal.e CraWl 14-Ju09 9<11 R Fal.e Crawl 14-Ju R FII.e CraWl 14-Ju R IFII.e CraWl I 14-Ju091230S R S, 10 """"ioi 98 S8 I Box IRestrainina Caae IRlccoon '/13 I 04-Se.,.OS 06-Sep-OS 90 6s ; ill 99!.iII!J 96 S3 ToO los 126 8; _ '1

49 - - - IIW HIlI IItIa I_' 1- rwec IItIa I!- 1_1ItIa DIIe_ Total_ X Loggomo.d est 1Ju R 84 Raccoon 7/ Loaaerhead est 1Ju SR S0I> llc 5 Fa' Crawl 1Ju R 99 6 a.t 16-Jul R So1> est 16-Jul R 104 Raccoon 9/ ast 16-Ju R 96 Raccoon So1>-09 2 est 16-Jul R 80 Y S.tfR.I.asing Box 0S'1> loggerhead est 16-Jul R 104 Y Restraining Cage 0S'1> Green e.t 16-Jul S78 78 Y Sett-Rele.. ing Box 31-Aug Loggomoad est 16-Jul R 107 Y 04-So1> e 8 est 16-Jul R 107 Y 04-So1> Logoarheid False Crawl 16-Ju09 PBATV 111 X loggerhead Fal Crawl 16-Ju R 83 8 False Crawl 16-Ju09 117R logaerhead Fals. Crawl 16-Ju R loo 6 Fa' Crawl 16-Ju R 103 X Fal Crawl 16-Ju R 87 X Fa' Crawl 16-Ju R 84 8 LoaGerhead False Crawl 16--Ju"," R Fa' Crawl 16-Ju R 108 XS False Crawl 16-Jul R 92 XS e.t 17-Ju R 90 Y Salf-Releasing Sera.n 09-So1> est 17-Ju R So1> X est 17-Ju R 87 Y Salf-Releaslng Box 07-S0I> ast 17-Ju1-09 SJB So1> Fals. Crawl 17-Ju R 97 X Lomoad False Crawl 17-Ju R 86 4 False Crawl 17-Ju R 96 9 Fa,se Crawl 17-Ju SR est 18-Ju R So1> Loggomo.d est 18-Ju R 108 Y Restralnina Caae 07-So1> Domestic Dog, Domestic 3 est 18-Ju R 95 Y Solf-Reloaslng Box Dog 8/4, 8/5 11-So XS est 18-Ju R So1> Loggerho.d False Crawl 18-Ju R 94 7 Fal.. Crawl 18-Ju R loo 8 Fal.. Crawl 18-Ju R False Crawl 18-Ju09 815R loo 7 Loggomo.d False Crawl 18-Ju R False Crawl 18-Ju09 937R loo 7 est 19-Ju R Sop est 19-Ju R 94 Y 09-So1> XS est 19-Ju R 91 Y So-Rol... lng Box 12-So1> est 19-Ju R 98 Y Restraining Cage Invaded Eggs 07-S0I> Loggomold False Crawl 19-Ju R Fal.e Crawl 19-Ju R 94 3 Fal.e Crawl 19-Ju R 95 4 False Crawl 19-Ju R 98 5 False Crawl 19-Ju R 99 6 False Crawl 19-Ju R 103 X Loggomood est 2G-Ju R 85 Raccoon 9/ o1>-09 8 est 2G-Ju R 109 Y 11-S0I> XS est 2G-Ju R 90 Y Self-Releaslng Box Unknown 8/16 lg-soo est 2G-Ju R 105 Y 09-So1> est 2G-Ju R 95 lg-so1> est 2G-Ju SR 113 Y 13-So1> XS Loggomold est 2G-Ju R 92 Y Self-Releasing Box 12-S0I> XC Fa's. Crawl 2G-Ju R 89 XC Fals. Crawl 2G-Ju09 4oo9R 89 3 Loggom.. d Fal" Crawl 2G-Ju R 94 2 False Crawt 2G-Ju R 80 2 est 21 -Ju R 80 Y SelfReleaslng Box 09-So1> est 21-Ju R 82 Y Self-Rel.asing Box Ghost Crab 8/1 12-So1> Loggerho.d est 21 -Ju S77 77 Y Self Releaslng Box Loggerh.ad est 21 -Ju S77 77 Y Self Releaslng Box 06-So1>: Green.st 22-JuI R 82 Y Self Rel slng Box Raccoon 8/26 12-So1> Logsomood est 22-JuI SR 113 Y 12-So1> False Crawl 22-JuI R 93 5 False Crawl 22-Ju R 99 5 False Crawl 22-Ju R loo 4 Fals. Crawl 22-Ju R 98

50 - -.. R MII...- D8Io 1_1 OIIIore... EwrtD8lo IMIII.' U.HIIaIId.H*hocI 7 logoerhead ell 2Ju R Sep logoerhead ell 2Ju R Se., Fals. Crawl 2Ju09 715R ell 24-Ju R Sep Lggerhead ell 24-Ju R loo Y 1&-Sep n 7 Loaaerhead est 24-Ju R S 6 est 24-Ju R 102 Invaded Eggs 11-Se., S XS False Crawl 24-Ju R 92 4 Fal.e Crawl 24-Ju R 97 5 False Crawl 24-Ju R False Crawl 24-Ju R Gr n False Crawl 24-Ju R 80 2 est 2!;-Ju R 81 Raccoon XC loggerhead ell 2!;-Ju R 89 Y Sett Releaslng Scr n 17-SeI> Gr n Fllse Crawl 2!;-Ju R 82 6 Logoerhead False Crawl 2&-Ju R False Crawl 2&-Ju R 98 5 loggerhead Fal.e Crawl 2&-Ju R loo 4 FalHer.wi 2&-Ju R 98 8 Loaaerhead Fal,e Crawl 2&-Ju09 PBP loggerhead Fal.e Crawl 2&-Ju R loggerhead False Crawl 2&-Ju R False Crawl 2&-Ju R Fal Crawl 2&-Ju R Gr n est 27-Ju R 81 Y Self-Releasing Box 1&-Se., C 1 est 27-Ju Y Self-Releasln Box est 27-Ju R 96 Raccoon 9124 Y 7 est 27-Ju R 104 Raccoon Sep LOQQerhe.d ell 27-Ju SR 112 Y Gr n False Crawl 27-Ju R 80 XS False Crawl 27-Ju R 93 5 False Crawl 27-Ju R False Crawl 27-Ju R 102 X est 26-Ju R 86 Y Setf-Releaslng Box Y est 26-Ju R 98 Y 3 est 26-Ju R 94 Y Loagerhead False Crawl 26-Ju09 510SR False Crawl 26-Ju R False Crawl 26-Ju R 98 6 False Crawl 26-Ju R False Crawl 26-Ju R False Crawl 26-Ju R est 2Ju R Sep X est 2Ju R 85 Y Setf-Releaslng Box 2G-Se., False Crawl 211-Ju R loo 8 False Crawl 2Ju R 108 XC est 3G-Ju R 89 Y Setf-Releasing Screen 2G-Sep XS est 3G-Ju R 93 Y Setf-Releaslng Box 22-Se., est 3Q..Ju R 102 Y 17-Se., est 3G-Ju R 81 Y Setf-Releaslng Box Raccoon Loaaerhead est 3G-Ju R 82 Y Setf-Releasing Box Encased Eggs 22-Sep X False Crawl 3G-Ju R 84 X False Crawl 3G-Ju R 83 X False Crawl 3G-Ju R 87 X est 31-Ju R 94 Y Se-Rel lng Box Y 22-Sep Loaaerhead ell 31-Ju SR 112 Y 22-Sep ell 31 -Ju SR 113 Y False Crawl 31-Ju R loo 1 False Crawl 31 -Ju False Crawl 31-Ju R 101 X False Crawl 31-Ju09 915R 84 3 ell 01-Aug R 95 Y 21-Se., est 01-Aug R 95 Y 22-Se1> XS ell 01-Aua R 90 XS False Crawl 01-Aug R 90 XS ell 02-Aug R 90 Y Self-Releasing Box 2&-Se., XC False Crawl 02-Aug R 89 XS False Crawl 0Au!C R Logaerhead ell 04-Aug SR 113 2:1-Sep X est 04-Aug R 84 Y Se-Rele.. lng Box 2Se., est 0!;-Aug R 98 Y 26-Se., T

51 -- ni Dole IDRI DIU,-.HIIohId n..._ 1 Gr.en est OSoAuo Y Setf.-Rel llng Box 9/ p Logo mead Fe'M Crawl 07.Auo R 94 5 est 0S-Au1r R > Loggerho.d est lg-auo R 97 Y 8 Loggerhlld est 11 Auo R 110 Y 4 eat 11 Au1r R 98 Y 2 est 13-Au1r R 81 Y Self-Releasing Box OSOOC Loggorho.d False Crawl 13-Au1r R 81 1 Gr n est 1 SoAuo Y Self-Releasing Box OSOOC1-ll Gr n False Crawl 1 SoAuo est 16-Au1r R X est 23-Aug R 85 Y Self-Releasing Box Y est Unknown PBVL 111 Y Y 09-Au1r09 25

52 ApPEDIXC SARASOTA COUTY TREDS 2009 Sarasota County- loggerhead nesting trends -ests - Es en -en - - M en '" en en en en M en -en en en 0 0 '" o o... o en o Longboat-S 0 Lido 0 Siesta. Casey 0 Venice. Manasota CI) 3500 J:I E ::::s 3000 t: -0 CI) 2500 t: "C cu 2000 CI).s::::: 1500 CI) C) C) 0...J r ii iii iii II i i I.. -o o M o I ii at) o I I... o I i I.. en o Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix C - 1

53 Sarasota County - loggerhead nesting density (monitoring standardized in 1991) - Longboat-S - Lido Siesta - Casey - Venice - Manasota E - S (/) CI) c :a: CO') en en en en It)... en... CO') en en en 0 0 en en en It) en 0 0 (/) ns 0 CI) (/) ns L1. S (/) CI) z r- e") Q) Q) Q) Q) or- or- Sarasota County- loggerheads ratios of nests : false crawls Lt')... Q) 0r- e") Lt')... Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) or- or- or- - Longboat-S - Lido Siesta - Casey - Venice - Manasota- Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix C - 2

54 45% 40% 35% - 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% - Longboat Key - Lido Key Siesta Key - Casey Key - Venice Disorientations as % all nests on Sarasota Islands Sarasota County: esting Success I I &I) en en -o o M o &I) o... o en o Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix C - 3

55 30 Sarasota County - green turtle nests !!! z II) 15 Q) o CIO CIO en... o en en... n en en... 'I:t en en... n 1.0 en en... n n, CIO en en... o -, o - n 'I:t o r- - n 1.0 o - r- CIO o Sarasota Co. (Longboat, Lido, Siesta, Casey, and Venice) sources of depredations on sea turtle nests OArmadilio. Bobcat DCoyote D Domestic Dog. Fire Ants DFox. Ghost Crab DHog esting Turtle Raccoon DRoots DUnknown 400, , 350 2l c GO 300 > 250..,., GO Q. 200 GO o o :;;.<> E z " Year 2009 Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix C - 4

56 - Florida SBS -Sarasota SBS 100,000, , 4,500 OO 80,000 3,500 70,000 3,000 60,000 2,500 50,000 40,000 2,000 30,000 1,500 20,000 1,000 10, O +--'-'--r-'--.-'-.--'-'--'-'--'-'--r-'--.'-.--+ O... M II) 10,... CIOenc... M II) 10 CIO en en en en en en en en en en c C C en en en en en en en en en c c c c c C C C c 'III""" r ,... c C Florida IBS -Sarasota / CI) c: CI) c: CI) CI) SOOO CI UJ m 4000 z "i' CIS 3000 't:i ";: u: /1-1/1 CI) c: CI) 20 -c: CI) CI) CI 0 u 10 CIS -0 1/1 CIS... 5 CIS UJ 0 en... CIO en... en... en M II),... en... M en en en en... en... en... en... en c c II) c... c en c 0 Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix C - 5

57 ApPEDIXD SEA TURTLE COSERVATIO AD RESEARCH PROGRAM RESEARCH PROGRESS 2009 Tony Tucker, Ph.D. -Staff Scientist, Program Manager Kristen Mazzarella, M.S.- Senior Biologist Kendra Garrett, M.S. - Biologist Ryan Welsh, B.S. - Biologist Sarah Hirsh, B.S. - Biologist, seasonal Jenna Cormany, B.S.- Biologist, seasonal Publications by staff or students 1) Tucker, T Turtle Gaze. pp In: Courting the Wild: Love Affairs with Reptiles and Amphibians (ed. J. K. Reaser). Hiraeth Press 2) Tucker, A. D Book review: Biology of Turtles. Turtle and Tortoise ewsletter 13: ) Girard, c., A. D. Tucker, and B. Calmettes Post-nesting migrations of loggerhead sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico: dispersal in highly dynamic conditions. Marine Biology 156: DOl: /s z. 4) g, T. F. F., C. Manire, K. Borrowman, T. Langer, L. Ehrhart, and M. Breitbart Discovery of a novel single-stranded DA virus from a sea turtle fibropapilloma by using viral metagenomics. Journal of Virology 83 : ) Tucker, A. D Eight nests recorded for a loggerhead turtle within one season. Marine Turtle ewsletter 124: ) Welsh, R. and A. D. Tucker Shifting patterns of nocturnal emergence events of nesting loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta). Marine Turtle ewsletter 125: 10-l2. 7) Tucker, A. D est site fidelity and clutch frequency ofloggerhead turtles are better elucidated by satellite telemetry than by nocturnal tagging efforts: implications for stock estimation. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology in press. DOl: /j.jembe ) Bordwardt C and Tucker, A. D. in press. Book Chapter-Florida's sea turtles and light. Pp. xx-xx in T. Posch (ed). The Dark Side of Light. J. Wiley. 9) Thomson, S., R. Kennett,.. Fitzsimmons, E. A. Alacs, A. D. Tucker, and A. Georges. submitted. Chelodina burrungandjii. Thomson, Kennett, and Georges Sandstone snake-necked turtle. Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises. Chelonian Research Monographs 5. 10) Tucker, A. D The correct name to be applied to the Australian freshwater crocodile, Crocody lus johnstoni [Krefft 1873]. Australian Zoologist. In press. 11) Tucker, A. D., T. Wibbels, and J. E. Layton. submitted. Radar golf balls as a recovery aid for field studies. Marine Turtle ewsletter. 12) Garrett, K., B.P. Wallace, la. Gamer, and F.P.V. Paladino. submitted. Intrabeach variation in leatherback turtle nest environment: implications for nest relocation strategies. Endangered Species Research. Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix D - 1

58 13) Shamblin, B. M., M. G. Dodd, D. A. Bagley, L. M. Ehrhart, A. D. Tucker, C. Johnson, R. R. Carthy, R. A. Scarpino, E. McMichael, D. S. Addison, K. L.Williams, M. G. Frick, S. Ouellette, A.B. Meylan, M. H. Godfrey, S. R. Murphy, C. J. airn. submitted. Genetic structure of the southeastern United States loggerhead turtle nesting aggregation: evidence of additional structure within the peninsular Florida recovery unit. Marine Biology 14) Garrett, K Intrabeach variation in leatherback turtle nest environment: implications for nest relocation strategies. M. S. Thesis, Purdue Univ. Published Abstracts 1) Guertin, J., C. Mott, M. Salmon, and T. Tucker Geographic differences in migratory activity by hatchling loggerheads (Caretta caretta): what is the cause? Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 2) Tucker, A. D Eight nests recorded for a loggerhead turtle within a season. Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 3) Tucker, Abernathy, and Marshall Surfacing behavior ofloggerhead turtles in the internesting period: insights from animal borne imaging systems. Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 4) Mazzarella, K., J. Beggs, and T. Tucker Epoxy used in satellite transmitter attachment: too hot, too cold, or just right? Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 5) Welsh, R., T. Tucker, J. Beggs, K. Mazzarella, K. Leonard, J. Grimes, W. Katz, Z. Bass, and C. Leonard Evaluation of habanero pepper powder as a deterrent against mammalian predators. Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 6) Martin, K., D. Mann, and T. Tucker Monitoring the acoustic environment of post-nesting loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Proc.29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 7) Merrill, M., M. Salmon, and T. Tucker Regional magnetic fields and orientation by hatchling loggerheads from Florida' s west coast. ). Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 8) Shamblin, B. M., D. A. Bagley, L. M. Ehrhart, R. E. Martin,. Desjardin, L. Wright, and C. J. airn Genetic population structure within the Florida green turtle (Chelonia mydas) rookery. Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 9) FitzSimmons,. F., A. D. Tucker, D. J. Limpus, and C. J. Limpus Estimating nesting success at a high-density green turtle rookery on Raine Island, Queensland, using distance sampling and line transects. Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix D - 2

59 10) Layton, 1. E., T. Wibbels, A. Tucker, J. Wyneken, L. Ehrhart, R. Carthy, R. E. Martin, R. Ernest, M. Bressett, C. Johnson, S. Fournier, 1. Schmid, B. Drye, K. Watson, and A. Bryant Long-tenn evaluation ofloggerhead sea turtle nesting beach temperatures in the southeastern U.S. : implications of global climate change on sea turtle conservation. Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 11) Layton, J. E., T. Wibbels, T. Tucker, J. Wyneken, L. Ehrhart, R. Carthy, E. R. Martin R. Ernest, M. Bressett, C. Johnson, S. Fournier, and J. Schmid Developing a Comprehensive Long-tenn Database on esting Beach Temperatures of the Sea Turtle in the Southeastern U.S: Applications and Implications for Global Climate Change. Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology. Univ. Boston, Mass. 1/6/09. 12) FitzSimmons,.., A. D. Tucker, E. Alacs, A. Georges, and G. Kuchling Comparative phylogeography of two freshwater turtles in the Kimberley Plateau, Western Australia. Proceedings: Biology and Conservation of Australasian Freshwater Turtles- Brisbane 2009, p ) FitzSimmons,.., A D. Tucker, and P. Featherston Population structure and ecology of Emydura victoriae and Chelodina burrungandjii in the Kimberley Plateau, Western Australia prior to the arrival of invasive cane toads. Proceedings: Biology and Conservation of Australasian Freshwater Turtles Brisbane 2009, p.l O. Technical Reports 1) Tucker, A. D., R. Welsh, K. Mazzarella, J. Beggs, and P. Clark Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation & Protection Measures for Longboat Key Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report ) Tucker, A. D., K. Mazzarella, J. Beggs, R. Welsh, and P. Clark Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation & Protection Measures for Lido Key Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report ) Tucker, A. D., R. Welsh, K. Mazzarella, and J. Beggs Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation & Protection Measures for Siesta Key Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report ) Tucker, A. D., R. Welsh, K. Mazzarella, and J. Beggs Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation & Protection Measures for Casey Key Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report ) Tucker, A. D., R. Welsh, K. Mazzarella, J. Beggs, and J. Grimes Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation & Protection Measures for the City of Venice Venice-Beach Renourishment Project Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report ) Tucker, A. D., R. Welsh, K. Mazzarella, and J. Beggs Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation & Protection Measures for the Casey Key Emergency Sand Placement Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report 1315 Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix D - 3

60 Symposia/ConferenceslW orkshops 1) Guertin, 1., C. Mott, M. Salmon, and T. Tucker Geographic differences in migratory activity by hatchling loggerheads (Caretta caretta): what is the cause? Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 2) Tucker, A. D Eight nests recorded for a loggerhead turtle within a season. Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 3) Tucker, Abernathy, and Marshall Surfacing behavior ofloggerhead turtles in the internesting period: insights from animal borne imaging systems. Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 4) Beggs, 1., K. Mazzarella, and T. Tucker Epoxy used in satellite transmitter attachment: too hot, too cold, or just right? Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 5) Welsh, R., T. Tucker, J. Beggs, K. Mazzarella, K. Leonard, J. Grimes, W. Katz, Z. Bass, and C. Leonard Evaluation ofhabafiero pepper powder as a deterrent against mammalian predators. Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 6) Martin, K., D. Mann, and T. Tucker Monitoring the Acoustic Environment of Post-esting Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta). Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 7) Merrill, M., M. Salmon, and T. Tucker Regional magnetic fields and orientation by hatchling loggerheads from Florida' s west coast. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia. 8) Shamblin, B. M., D. A. Bagley, L. M. Ehrhart, R. E. Martin,. Desjardin, L. Wright, and C. J. airn Genetic population structure within the Florida green turtle (Chelonia mydas) rookery. Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 9) FitzSimmons,. F., A. D. Tucker, D. J. Limpus, and C. J. Limpus Estimating nesting success at a high-density green turtle rookery on Raine Island, Queensland, using distance sampling and line transects. Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 10) 1. E. Layton, T. Wibbels, A. Tucker, J. Wyneken, L. Ehrhart, R. Carthy, R. E. Martin, R. Ernest, M. Bressett, C. Johnson, S. Fournier, J. Schmid, B. Drye, K. Watson, and A. Bryant Long-term evaluation ofloggerhead sea turtle nesting beach temperatures in the southeastern U.S.: implications of global climate change on sea turtle conservation. Proc. 29th Annual Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 11) FitzSimmons,.., A. D. Tucker, E. Alacs, A. Georges, and G. Kuchling Comparative phylogeography of two freshwaters turtles in the Kimberley Plateau, Western Australia. Biology and Conservation of Australasian Freshwater Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix D - 4

61 Turtles, Queensland Museum, Brisbane, Qld.. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 12) Tucker, A.D,.. FitzSimmons, and P. Featherstone Population structure and function of Emydura and Chelodina in the Kimberley Plateau, Western Australia prior to arrival of invasive cane toads. Biology and Conservation of Australasian Freshwater Turtles, Queensland Museum, Brisbane, Qld. International Sea Turtle Society, Brisbane, Australia 13) Abreau, A., A. D. Tucker, et al Second Workshop on Cuba-MexIco-US Collaboration in Marine Science and Conservation. Veracruz, Mexico. 3/1 8/09. 14) Tucker, A. D. s in Limbo: can ancient mariners survive long lines, speed bumps, sandy shores, and bright lights? 15) Ranalli, E. Uncovering novel viruses from loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) blood using viral metagenomics SF Reseach Experiences for Undergraudates, Mote Marine Laboratory. 16) Tucker, T. Mote Sea Turtle Surveys. Science Forum, Charlotte Harbor ational Estuary Program. 9/9/09. 17) Tucker, T. Mote Sea Turtle Conservation and Research Program- Enhancing collaboration: marine and coastal science and conservation in Cuba and the United States. Mote Marine Laboratory 9/18/09. 18) Tucker, T. Third Workshop on Cuba-Mexico-US Collaboration in Marine Science and Conservation. The Ocean Foundation, Havana Cuba. 10/25-27, ) Tucker, T. Current and future research in Southwest Florida. Gulf Coast Regional Sea Turtle Association. aples, FL 11120/09 Other conferences attended, facilitated, or participated 1) Garrett, Mazzarella, Tucker, Welsh. FWC Marine Turtle Permit Holders Meeting. Melbourne, FL,. 1/9-10/09 2) Mazzarella, Tucker, Welsh. 29th Ann. Symp. on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. Brisbane, Australia. 2/16-19/09 3) Garrett, Mazzarella, Tucker, Welsh. Turtle Volunteer Training Workshop, Sarasota, FL 4/ 11 /09, 4/18/09 4) Garrett, Mazzarella, Tucker, Welsh. Florida Index esting Beaches/ State esting Beaches Training for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Sea Turtle Volunteer Training Workshop, Mote Marine Laboratory., FL. 4/1 5/09 5) Clark, Garrett, Mazzarella, Tucker, Welsh. 4 rd annual Sea Turtle Lighting Workshop- Host and organizer. Mote Marine Laboratory. 4/30/09. 6) FitzSimmons and Tucker. Australian Conservation Volunteers. Dedication of Sea Turtle Interpretive Center, Broom, Western Australia. 6/27/09. 7) Tucker. Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council -Science and Statistical Committee. Tampa, FL 7/29/09. 8) Tucker. Symposium on Land-Sea Interactions in Southwest Florida. Marine Policy Inst, Mote Marine Laboratory. 10/1 2/09 9) Garrett, Hirsh, Mazzarella, Tucker, Welsh. Gulf Coast Regional Sea Turtle Association. Rookery Bay- aples /09. Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix D - 5

62 Extramural Appointments/Advisory/Committee Service ame of group/society/panel. Dates of appointment/service. 1) Mazzarella, Tucker, Welsh - training and supervision of250 Mote volunteers for Sarasota County sea turtle nesting beach coverage for 35 miles over 6 months. 2) Mazzarella, Tucker, Welsh-technical consulting on beach nourishment throughout Sarasota County, Florida Turtle permit holders for Longboat (#27, #54), Lido (#54), Siesta (#70), Casey (#048), Venice (#28), and MML sea turtle research, stranding, and rehabilitation programs (#126, #155). 3) Tucker -IUC Marine Turtle Specialist Group ongoing. 4) Tucker- IUC Crocodile Specialist Group ongoing. 5) Tucker- Diamondback Terrapin Working Group ongoing 6) Tucker - International Sea Turtle Society, Program Chair for 29ISTS in Brisbane Australia. 7) Tucker- Editorial board for journal Endangered Species Research 8) Welsh, Tucker. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Public comment on Coastal Construction Control Permits- impacts on sea turtle nesting habitat. Responses to ST1734, ST1740, ST1674, ST1682, ST1697, ST1699, ST1701, STI727-AR, STI750GT, ST ) Tucker. US Army Corps of Engineers. Planning and budget for FL-GA-SC-C studies on turtle bottom activity in relation to maintenance dredging. 10) Tucker. Pendoley Environmental, Perth Western Australia. Sediment sand sizes for sea turtles and beach nourishment projects 11) Tucker. USF College of Marine Science. Modeling oceanographic conditions affecting sea turtle distribution in the Gulf of Mexico. 12) Tucker. Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council. Spatial distributions of sea turtles on the west Florida Shelf. 13) Tucker. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and ational Marine Fisheries Service. Spatial distributions of sea turtles on the west Florida Shelf. 14) Tucker. City of Venice, Environmental Task Force. Revision of sea turtle lighting ordinance. Student Research Sponsored in Residence at MML-STCRP Student name. Academic institution. Degree level of student. ature of the research. ature of your sponsorship (direct funding, provided facilities, provided expertise, etc.). 1) Jennifer Estes Layton. University of Alabama, Birmingham. PhD. Temperature dependent sex determination on nourished and native beaches. 2) Aaron White. Florida A&M University. PhD. Heavy metal concentrations in loggerhead eggs- identification of sites for uptake of metals in the Gulf of Mexico. 3) Brian Shamblin. University of Georgia. Ph.D. Molecular determination of stock boundaries in sea turtles. 4) Jeff Guertin. Florida Atlantic University. M.S. Behavioral differences in swimming activity between loggerheads from East and West coast of Florida. Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix D - 6

63 5) Maria Merrill. Florida Atlantic University. M.S. Directional orientation of translocated hatchling loggerheads. 6) Kelly Martin. Univ. South Florida. M.S. Bioacoustic exposures in the loggerhead turtle. 7) Lindsey Flynn. Univ. South Florida. M. S. Thennal cues in nest site selection by loggerhead sea turtles. 8) Terry Fei Fan g, Univ. South Florida. M. S. Discovery and characterization of novel pathogenic viruses from sea turtles. 9) Liz Ranalli. Sonoma St. Univ. SF-REU project. Uncovering novel viruses from loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) blood using viral metagenomics Mote Interns- 1) Jennifer Jones 4/2-8/01 Auburn Univ., AL (graduate) 2) Yvette Fernandez 4/6-7/6 Univ. South Florida 3) Lindsey Reifel 4/27-10/6 Michigan State Univ. 4) Liz Ranalli (REU) 5/30-8/6 Sonoma St. Univ., CA 5) Danielle Schaefer 5/18-7/20 Schreiner Univ. 6) Christine Hulsey 6/15-8/16 Clemson Univ. 7) Erin McCullough 6/15-8/17 Stetson Univ. 8) Ashley Ortiz 8/10- Miami Univ.-Ohio 2009 STCRP seasonal staff- 1) Lindsey Flynn 6/ 1/-7/31 Univ. South Florida. (MS student) 2) Sarah Hirsch 4/6-10/6 Wake Forest Univ. (graduate) 3) J enna Conn any 5/25-10/6 East Tennessee State Univ. Work with Schools/Distance Learning/ Educational Outreach Type/topic of activity. Date. Schooliinstitution(s) involved. 1) Duke University- Ocean Biogeographic Infonnation System (OBIS) Sea Map program. < 2) Partner Organization for ESTS, eighbors Ensuring Sea Turtle Survival with Ocean Conservancy. 3) Poolmasters of SW Florida, education on coastal construction setback and lighting requirements for sea turtles. 1/8/09 4) Projecto Carey del Pacifico Oriental, Mexico--ProPeninsula and Groupo Tortuguero. Satellite tracking consulting. 1123/09. 5) Mote Education Dept. Mazzarella. 6) ational Marine Fisheries Service. Requests for images of satellite tags. 7) Darrow High School, Y, satellite data used for examples in trigonometry class. 8) Manatee County, Coquina beach nature trail. 9) Monash Univ, Melbourne Australia. Leatherback nesting success, archival data. 10) First Presbyterian Church, Community meeting hosted by Marine Policy lnst. 5/5/09. Tucker. 11) Florida Marine Science Educators Association. 5/16/09. Tucker. 12) University of Alabama- Birmingham. Sea turtle ecology workshop. 5/29/09. 13) Florida Teachers Workshop, sea turtles in Sarasota County. 6/1 0/09 Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix 0-7

64 14) Conservation Volunteers of Australia, inaugural opening of turtle interpretation center in Broome, Western Australia. 6127/09. Tucker. 15) Coastal Cleanup coordination for participants, 911 9/09. MazzareUa 16) College of Charleston. Sea Turtle Ecology workshop /09 17) STCRP ewsletter 9, May ) STCRP ewsletter 10, ov ) Gulf of Mexico Alliance, Geospatial Assessment of Marine Ecosystems /09. Public Lectures/Speeches/Presentations Group/audience. Date. Title/topic. 1) MML docent training. 1115/09. Research overview. Tucker. 2) STCRP volunteer training. 4/ 11109, 4118/09. Garrett, Mazzarella, Tucker, Welsh. 3) Ritz-Carlton Turtle Walks. (8x) weekly from June through August 4) Longboat Key Hilton Turtle Walks. (8x) Weekly, coordinated by Clark 5) Longboat Key Turtle Watch, turtle walks. (8x) weekly, coordinated by LBKTW 6) MML docent training /09. Sea Turtle 101. Tucker. Media Interviews/Articles/Programs 1) Film documentary- Turtle Talks promotion. Youth Venture Awards. 112/08. 2) TV documentary- European public broadcast network (multiple channels). Dark Side of Light. (in German). 1119/09. 3) Press/website. Sarasota Herald Tribune. Youths picture lands on snack bag ) Radio. WGCU. Gulf Coast Live. 1112/09 5) TV documentary- WGCU. Turtle documentary for SW Florida. 1116/09. 6) TV documentary- WEDU. Gulf Coast Journal. 1128/09 7) TV documentary. Dark Side of Light, screening at International Sea Turtle Symposium /09. 8) Magazine/ webpage. Mote Marine Aquarium Is Having A Turtle Run - Slow Pokes Welcome AZA 9) Press/webpage. Tampa Tribune. When humans race, sea turtles win. 3/8/09. 10) TVIDVD/webpage. WEDU, Gulf Coast Journal. 3/26/09 11) Press/webpage. The Key West Citizen. 3129/09 12) Public Service Announcement. Town of Longboat Key. 3/30/09. 13) TV/webpage. ABC7. ew sea turtle exhibit opens at Mote. 4/5/09. 14) Press/webpage. Bradenton Herald. Turtle nesting season is here: Officials prepare for sea turtle protection effort. 4/9/09. 15) ewsletter. Caribbean Conservation Corporation ewsletter. Study of loggerhead movements in Gulf of Mexico funded by Sea Turtle Grants Program. Velador 2009 (I): 3. 16) Press/web page. Cape Coral Daily Breeze. Rescued loggerhead turtle diverted to Mote Marine. 4/ 16/09. 17) TV / webpage. S 6. Turtle season 18)TV/ webpage. ABC-WFLA Ch. 8. Turtle season Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring. est Evaluation. and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix D - 8

65 19) TV 1 webpage BC-Ch. 10. Turtle season begins. 20) Press 1 webpage. Sarasota Herald Tribune. Turtles returning to local beaches. 4/21 /09 21) Pressl webpage. aples Daily ews. Rescued sea turtle from aples regaining strength. 4125/09 22) Press 1 webpage. Venice Gondolier. 23) Press. Longboat Observer. Turtle nest season returns to the Key. 4/ ) Webpage. Underwatertimes.com. Turtle tagged 21 years ago by Florida lab returns for rehab: 'Vicki Lee' receives fluids. 4/ ) TVI webpage. S6. Lighting workshop and turtle season. 5/ ) Pressl webpage. Sarasota Herald Tribune. Helping turtles, one bulb at a time. 5/ ) Press/webpage. Longboat Observer. First turtle nest of the season found on Longboat. 5/04/09. 28) Press/webpage. Venice Gondolier Sun. Tagged turtle returns after 21 years ) Webpage. Florida Master aturalist Program. Mote Marine has rare Kemp' s ridley sea turtle nests ) Press/webpage. Charlotte Sun. Endangered Kemp' s ridley turtle nests on Casey Key ) TVI webpage. ABC7. Some rare sea creatures spotted on the Suncoast. 5/15/09. 32) Press. Longboat Observer. Turtles stake out spots for nests ) TV/ webpage. ABC-WFLA. Ch. 8. Sea turtle nesting season has begun /09 34) Pressl webpage. Bradenton Herald. Mote Marine Sea Turtle Walks. 5/28/09 35) Press. Longboat Key ews. Birds, turtles take nest on Longboat's shores. 6/ ) Webpage. CaseyKeyrealsestate.blogspot.com. Loggerehead sea turtles nesting on Casey Key, Florida. 6/5/09 37) Press/webpage. Sarasota Herald Tribune. For threatened sea turtles, one more peril: poachers. 6/13/09. 38) Press/webpage. Miami Herald. 4 sea turtle nests destroyed. 6/13 /09. 39) Press/webpage. Sarasota Herald Tribune. Poachers take eggs from four sea turtle nests. 6/12/09. 40) TV/webpage. Tampa Channel 8. Poachers destroy 4 sea turtle nests in Sarasota County ) TV Iwebpage. ABC 7. Poachers destroy sea turtle nests on Sarasota County beaches. 6/12/09. 42) Press/webpage. Charlotte Sun. Poacher plunders turtle nests /09. 43) Press/webpage. Bradenton Herald. Poaching reports concern Anna Maria turtle watch. 6/13/09. 44) Press/webpage. The Ledger.com. Four turtle nests found destroyed. 6113/09. 45) TV/webpage. Tampa Fox 13. Sea turtle eggs stolen. 6112/09 46) Webpage. Allfloridablog.com. Sea Turtle eggs stolen. 6112/09 47) Press/webpage. Orlando Sentinel. Who is stealing sea turtle eggs in Sarasota? 6/15/09. 48) Webpage. Reptielen-Magazine. Poachers take eggs from four sea turtle nests. Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring. est Evaluation. and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix 0-9

66 6/12/09 49) Webpage. ature' s Crusaders. Wanted-endangered loggerhead turtle nappers. 6116/09 50) Press/webpage. Sarasota Herald Tribune. Local nests a good sign for struggling turtle. 7/ ) Press/webpage. Bradenton Herald. Sea turtle swallows balloon, is being treated at Mote. 7/17/09 52). Webpage. Wild shores of Singapore. Discarded balloons can kill sea turtles. 7118/09. 53) Press/ webpage. Longboat observer. Mote treats rare sea turtle that swallowed balloon. 7117/09 54) Press/webpage. Tampa Tribune. Rare sea turtle rescued by Mote after swallowing balloon /09 55) TV/website. Channel 9-Tampa Bay news. Rare sea turtle taken to Mote after swallowing balloon. 7/ 17/09. 56) Press/website. Bradenton Times. Turtles begin hatching season on area beaches. 7/ 17/09. 57) Press. Longboat Key ews. Rare sea turtle taken to Mote after swallowing balloon. 7/24/09. 58) TV/ website. S6. Sea turtle swallows balloon. 7128/09. 59) TV/ website. S6. Lights on beaches make it tough for sea turtles. 8/3/09 60) Press release. MML. Help Solve a Glaring Problem: Keep Beaches Dark for Sea Turtll/e Hatchlings. 8/3/09. 61) Press/website. Sarasota Herald Tribune. Rough year for turtle hatchlings. 8/4/09. 62) Press/website. Lakeland Ledger Street, house lights disorienting turtle hatchlings. 8/4/09. 63) Press/website. Miami Herald. Lights disorient turtle hatchlings in SW Florida. 8/4/09. 64) TV/website. ABC7. County asks visitors and residents to keep beaches dark for sea turtle hatchlings. 8/4/09. 65) TV/website. WPBF- Palm Beach. Lights along coast disorient turtles, hatchlings getting lost on way to sea. 8/4/09. 66) Press/website. AP wire story. Lights along coast disorient turtles, hatchlings getting lost on way to sea. 8/4/09. 67) TV/website. Pensacola Press. Lights along coast disorient turtles, hatchlings getting lost on way to sea. 8/5/09. 68) Press/website. Lakeland Ledger. Lights disorienting turtle hatchlings. 8/4/09. 69) Press/website. Sarasota Herald Tribune. Keep hatchlings in the dark. 8/5/09. 70) Press/website. Ft. Myers ews-press. Lights disorient turtle hatchlings in Sarasota County. 8/4/09. 71) Press/website. Venice Gondolier Sun. Lights disorient turtle hatchlings in SW Florida. 8/4/09. 72) TV/website. Tampa ABC. Lights stymy baby turtles trying to survive. 8/4/09. 73) Press/website. Longboat Observer. Mote reminds visitors: lights out. 8/5/09 74) Press/website. Pelican Press. Public urged to help turtle hatchlings. 8/5/09. Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix 0-10

67 75) Press/website. Longboat Key ews. Turtles disorienting in droves. 8/7/09 76) Press/website. Venice Gondolier. Sea turtles being led astray. 8/8/09. 77) Press/website. Charlotte Sun. Turtle's life is no walk on the beach /09 78) Press/website. Pelican Press. Sarasota Waters: Cut the lights, Harold and Martha. 8113/09. 79) Press/website. Longboat Observer. Turtle Watch. 8112/09 80) Press/website. The Flint Journal. Turtle Power: family enjoys seeing rare hatchling. 8124/09. 81) Press/website. Sarasota Herald Tribune. Lights out for turtle hatchlings. 8125/09. 82) Press/website. Florida Keys ews. Shark-attacked sea turtle surviving. 8/28/09. 83) Press/website. Florida Keys Keynoter. Satellite tracker is the key to injured turtle's rescue. 8/29/09. 84) Press/website. aples ews. Travelin' turtle tracked by transmitter 1,350 miles from aples. 8128/09. 85) Press/website. Underwatertimes.com. Satellite-tracked sea turtle attacked by shark, rescued: she wasn't swimming well- she was limping. 86) Website. Wham. 8/ ) Press/website. Pelican Press. Sea turtle tagged by Mote treated for shark bites. 9/3/09 88) Website. ational Park Service Digest. Injured Sea Turtle Rescued By Rangers. 9114/09. 89) Press/website. Longboat Observer. Everyone must work together for turtles. 9117/09. 90) Website. TMCET.com. Satellite tracker is the key to injured turtle's rescue. 9117/09. 91) Press/website. Marco Island Sun Times. Keewaydin Island most popular turtle nesting area in county. 9122/09. 92) Press/website. aples Daily ews. Rescued aples sea turtle going back to the wild. 9124/09. 93) Press/website. aples Daily ews. sea turtle release. 9125/09. 94) TV. S6. Sea turtle released from Mote to be satellite tracked. 9124/09 95) Press/website/TV. Sarasota Herald Tribune. Released turtle can phone home. 9126/09 96) TV/website. Tampa Bay ews 9. Sea turtle returns to Gulf after months in rehab. 9127/09. 97) TV/ Press/website. Miami Herald. Lethargic loggerhead nursed back to health. 9128/09. 98) Press/website. Longboat Observer. Mote sets rehabilitated turtle back on track /09 99) Press. Longboat Key ews. Vicki Lee back at sea. 10/2/09 100) Press. Longboat Key ews. Amber LED light may reduce sea turtle disorientation. 10/2/ ) Press. Anna Maria Island Sun. Turtle watch celebrates 2009 nesting season. 9/30/ ) Press/website. Sarasota Herald Tribune. For the loggerhead sea turtle, a worrisome trend /09. Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix 0-11

68 103) Press/website. Observer Group. Mote scientists to attend conservation meetings in Cuba. 10/23/09 104) Press/webstite. Bradenton Herald. Mote scientists to travel to Cuba: local scientists headed for Cuba to discuss environmental problems /09 105) Press/website. Minnpost.com. Can US and Cuba work together to protect shares marine ecosystem? 11 /6/ ) Press/website. Pelican Press. Back from Cuba. 11 /5/09 107) Press/website. AZA Mote Marine Laboratory and Aquarium developing 5 year Caribbean Conservation Plan / ) Press/website. Longboat Key ews. Recovered turtle released in Dry Tortugas / ) Magazine. Mote Magazine. 90 Miles, 47 years: Going the Distance for Ocean Conservation. 12/05/ ) Press/website. Longboat Observer. Turtle Watch. III 19/09 Ill) Press/website. Florida Keys Keysnet. Resilient turtle Wham released in the Dry Tortugas / ) Press/website. Bradenton Herald. Mote scientists help to craft research plan for Cuba, Gulf / ) website. Waterworld. Mote scientists help to craft research plan for Cuba, Gulf /09. Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix D - 12

69 Study of Incubation Conditions on Sarasota County Beaches The detailed outcomes of sea turtle nesting are directly associated with the physical properties of beach sediments. Beach nourishment changes the sediment properties and is widely acknowledged to affect a turtle's choice of nesting beach and hatch success of the nest. ourished sand differs from native sand in many properties such as compactness, shear resistance, grain size, temperature, moisture content, calcium carbonate, and gas diffusion rates. These factors influence incubation conditions and are critical to monitor because the sex of turtle hatchlings is determined during incubation. Four of six Sarasota County beaches are nourished (Longboat Key, Lido Key, Siesta Key, and Venice). To address these concerns, the STCRP conducted pilot studies of thermal profiles on nourished and non-nourished beaches in 2004 as cross comparison of the nourishment projects. Representative nourished and non-nourished sections were selected on five beaches: Longboat Key, Lido Key, Siesta Key, Casey Key, and Venice. Thermal data loggers (1- button 1921 H, Dallas Semiconductors, or Hobo Pendants, Onset Computers) were deployed in a sealed plastic bag and tethered near selected nests, at typical nest depths (40 cm). The loggers were placed adjacent to a nest to monitor ambient beach temperatures, rather than within a nest to track incubation temperature. The intended experimental design was to place a minimum of five data loggers per beach, or if a beach had both nourished and non-nourished sections (Longboat Key, Lido Key, Siesta Key, and Venice), then data loggers apportioned within each beach type. However, inevitable changes in the nourishment schedule and storm-related erosion caused some delays or loss of instruments, which made minor compromises to the planned design. For loggerhead turtles, sex is determined by the thermal conditions in the middle third of incubation around a pivotal temperature of roughly F which theoretically produces equivalent numbers of male and female hatchlings. Warmer conditions produce more females while cooler conditions result in more male offspring. Thermal traces during the middle third of incubation suggested that nests on nourished beaches were likely producing predominantly or exclusively female offspring. This is in contrast to middle incubation conditions on non-nourished beaches, which generally produce incubation conditions approximately 5.4 F cooler on average. We interpret the warmer incubation conditions on nourished sections of beach to be the result of darker sand color, possibly from a mixture of fine clay particles, relative to native beaches, which have high quartz content and overall lighter colored sands. This preliminary report is subject to more thorough evaluation as new data are collected and evaluated. In particular, the nourishment projects on Longboat Key deposited a two layer fill of darker more stable base layers covered by a white sand top layer in some locations. This unique prescription for depositing sand is an attempt to combine beach stability and desirable properties of a clean sand layer. These data are currently being analyzed by Jennifer Estes, Ph.D. student under Dr. Thane Wibbels at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring. est Evaluation. and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix 0-13

70 Sarasota Beach TeJ11)eratures at est Depth 2006 Longboat Key, Casey Key, and Venice, Florida - LB-crth r LB-crth 33 LB-crth LB-crth LB-crth LB-SClJth - LB-SClJth - LB-SClJth - LB-SClJth - LB-SClJth - Casey - Casey 27 - Casey Casey # # # # # # # # # # ",:<:J; ' \",\\# <ij",<:j; <ij"" 'b{y" ti<v o}" 0)#,,,, Date Ven-South Ven-South Ven-South Ven-South Ven-South Summary of the results of the temperatures found on nesting beaches in Results are reported as the average of the 5 data loggers from each location 2005 Florida esting Beach Temperature Study Location. :. Juno. Beach : -. Sanibel Island Cape San Bias Longboat Key Lido Key Siesta Key (South) Siesta Key (orth) Venice (South) Venice (orth) I Overall Averages Deployed Ret rieved Min. T Max. T Avg. T Std. Dev. 05/ / / / /21 / /19/05 08/25/ /19/05 08/26/ / /27/ / /05/ /29/05 10/16/ /28/05 10/16/ /08/05 10/16/ /08/05 10/16/ /08/05 10/16/ / /16/ / /16/ /28/05 10/16/ Std. Err. " -,",- ",",- " - "- "- " -,, " "- " I Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix D - 14

71 ApPEDIXE CASEY KEy PHOTOGRAPHS AD ICIDETAL OTES 2009

72 ApPEDIX El. RACCOO DEPREDATIO: ORTH CASEY KEy/PALMER POIT PARK In 2009, raccoons continued to heavily depredate nests on the north end of Casey Key. Raccoons were responsible for 84% of all depredation events in these zones, totaling 37 depredation events which affected 33 nests. This was the second worst year for raccoon depredations on record despite a concentrated effort to place a self-releasing cage over every nest that was laid the morning it was discovered (Figure El-2). There are two apparent causes for these severe depredations: 1) raccoons are frequently depredating nests the same night the eggs are deposited and before morning patrollers can find and protect the nest. This year 54.5% (18/33) of the nests depredated in this fashion. 2) The nests were depredated after a selfreleasing cage had been applied (n = 15). It appears these are learned behaviors as other areas with high raccoon depredation rates (Casperson Beach, Venice) have seen great success with self-releasing screens and cages. It is due to these circumstances that we recommend a trapremoval program for raccoons in Palmer Point Park, similar to programs that were implemented in 2005 by Sarasota County along Casperson/Brohard Beach. A. B. Figure El-l. Photographs of raccoon depredation that took place on the north end of Casey Key in (A) Depredation of an unprotected nest. (B) est depredated despite being protected by a self-releasing cage. Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix E - 1

73 100% 100 1_ % of depredated nests attributed to raccoons raccoon depredation events I 90% 90 80% 80 70% 70 60% 60 50% 50 40% 40 30% 30 20% 20 10% 10 0% Year Figure El-2. Percentage and number of raccoon depredation events on north Casey Key (Zones 1, 2, and X), The following abstract was posted on both the CTURTLE and HerpDigest Listservs in August of 2009 summarizing a successful trapping program at Hobe Sound ational Wildlife Program on the east coast of Florida. "Reducing Raccoon Predation on Sea Turtle ests at a High-Density esting Beach" On August 7, 2009, a ational Wildlife Research Center (WRC) scientist and the Florida Wildlife Services (WS) state director met with the manager of the Hobe Sound ational Wildlife Refuge (HSWR) on Jupiter Island, FL, and the scientific director of Ecological Associates, a group monitoring sea turtle reproduction at the refuge, to discuss results of a new approach for deterring raccoon predation of sea turtle nests at HSWR. In this new approach, raccoons were removed from the width of the island before turtles began to nest. Removal from only the beach prior to nesting would leave few raccoons vulnerable to control. At the time of the meeting, the turtle nesting season was more than half over and no control had yet been applied to the beach. In past years this would have signaled the destruction of many dozens of nests by raccoons, but only three nests out of many hundreds had been depredated by raccoons. A final analysis of this approach will be conducted at the end of the year after all data have been collected and organized. In the future, it appears that raccoon control across the island in winter may be an effective approach to deterring predation of turtle nests during the spring-summer nesting season, keeping in mind that control should always be available as a contingency during nesting. For further information contact: Dr. Richard M. Engeman, , Richard.M.Engeman@aphis.usda. gov" Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix E - 2

74 ApPEDIX E2. POACHIG EVETS O CASEY KEy BEACHES In 2009, four incidents of sea turtle nest poaching were recorded in Sarasota County, three nests in Venice and one on Casey Key. The dates and locations of all incidents are listed in Table E2-1, followed by details of the nest poaching event on Casey Key. Date Address Key 6/6/ Tarpon Center Drive Venice 617/09 Casperson Beach Venice 617/ Casey Key Road Casey 6/12/09 Sharky' s Resturant and Venice City Pier Venice Table E2-1. Poaching events recorded in Sarasota County in Poaching event #3: 6/7/2009,915 orth Casey Key Road, okomis, FL Figure E2-1. Photo documentation of a nest poached on 617/09 at 915 Casey Key Road. It should be noted that the holes poked into the sand were made by STCRP stakes placed in the sand. Otherwise the rest of the activity is undisturbed. On June 7 th, permitted STCRP volunteer Rick Kellam called in a suspected poaching event. STCRP seasonal technician Jenna Cormany and staff member, Kendra Garrett responded to the activity at separate times. Upon examination of the activity, it was determined that all the eggs from the sea turtle activity had been poached. There was obvious human digging present as well as footprints leading to the walkway at 915 Casey Key Rd. It appeared that the poaching event occurred after the turtle had deposited her eggs and left the beach. It was noted that this property was boarded up at the time and did not appear to have residents. After the nest was confirmed as poached, permit holder Ryan Welsh, the Sarasota Police department, representatives from Sarasota County, and the FWC were notified (report # FWSW090FF004264). Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix E - 3

75 Figure E2-2. Locations of four nests poached in Sarasota County in 2009 (three in Venice, one in Casey Key). Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix E - 4

76 ApPEDIX E3. KEMP'S RIDLEY ESTIG I 2009 Kemp' s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) turtles nested three times in Sarasota County and once in Charlotte County during the 2009 nesting season. This is the first documentation of a Kemp's ridley turtle nesting in Sarasota County since The first Kemp' s ridley nest was laid April 25th on Casey Key, at 121 Casey Key Road (FDEP monument R-llO) (Figure E3-I). The second nest was laid May 12th on Casey Key, at orth Jetty Beach (FDEP monument R-114). The third nest was laid May 20th on Manasota Key, Stump Pass State Park Beach (Charlotte County). The fourth nest was laid June 5th on Venice, at 720 Golden Beach Blvd (FDEP monument R-125). Each turtle emergence was seen and photographed by beachgoers sometime between 3 :OOpm and 4:30pm. Photos of all four emergences allowed Mote Marine Laboratory biologists to positively verify that each sea turtle was a Kemp' s ridley. The turtle that nested at Stump Pass had distinctive notches in the carapace margins to distinguish it from the other three. The intemesting interval and close spatial clustering of nests suggest that the same female laid the three Sarasota County nests and the Charlotte County nest was created by another female. Below is the summary of the Sarasota County Kemp's ridley nests. est chamber measurements were tabulated for Kemp's ridley nests (n = 3). est dimensions averaged 45.7 cm in depth (range cm), 24.3 cm in width (range cm), and 32.0 cm from the sand surface to the top of the clutch (range cm) (Table E3-I). The average incubation time of the nests that emerged (n = 2, all in situ) was 55 days with a range of days (Table E3-2), compared to the Kemp' s ridley nests laid in 1999 (n = 2) that had an average of 54 days with a range of days. Incubation time for the Casey Key nest laid on 4/25 could not be determined due to early excavation. The hatch success for all Kemp's nests (n = 3 and 260 eggs) was 52.7% with 44.2% unhatched eggs and 3.1 % pipped eggs (Table E3-3), compared to the 1999 Kemp' s ridley nests (n = 2 and 211 eggs) that had a hatch success of86.3% with 10.9% unhatched eggs and 2.8% pipped eggs. The hatch success was 9.7% for the inundated Kemp' s ridley nest (n = 1) and 80.9% for the noninundated nest (n =2). The emergence success for all Kemp's ridley nests (n = 2 and 178 eggs) was 35.4% (Table E3-4), compared to the 1999 Kemp' s ridley nests (n = 2 and 211 eggs) that had an 82.9% emergence success. The inundated nest (n = 1) had 9.7% emergence success while the non-inundated nest (n = 1) had 70.7% emergence success. Total hatchling production for all three Sarasota County nests was 137 hatched and three live pipped. Excavation of the Kemp' s ridley nests for which complete excavation data were documented (n = 2), revealed that 63 hatchlings emerged independently prior to nest excavation. At excavation, a total of one live hatchling was found remaining in those nests. The Casey Key nest laid on 4125 was omitted from analysis due to early excavation. Zero adult and one hatchling disorientation event was documented, resulting in a minimum of 15 disoriented hatchlings. The disorientation of the Venice nest was related to interior and exterior lighting from hotels or condominiums and parking lots or street lights. Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix E - 5

77 There were no hurricanes or named storms contributing to coastal erosion and/or sand accretion for the 2009 nesting season. Tidal activity caused inundation of33.3% (1/3) of nests (the Venice nest was inundated on 6/25 and 6128), zero of which washed out. Predators affected none of the nests, two of which were protected with a 2-fe self-releasing cage. one of the nests were vandalized or poached. A c. Figure E3-I. Photographs of nesting Kemp' s ridleys. (A) Kemp' s ridley nesting on April 25th on Casey Key, at 121 Casey Key Road. (B) Kemp' s ridley nesting on May 12th on Casey Key, at orth Jetty Beach. (C) Kemp' s ridley nesting on May 20th on Manasota Key, Stump Pass State Park Beach - note the indented marginal scutes. (D) Kemp's ridley nesting on June 5th on Venice, at 720 Golden Beach Blvd. Table E3-I. Kemp' s ridley turtle nest chamber measurements for Sarasota County, Values are means followed in parenthesis by sample size, one standard deviation, and range. A. 4/25, Casey Key B. 5/12, Casey Key D. 6/5, Venice Overall Total (ot Inundated) (ot Inundated) (Inundated) Surface to top of clutch (cm) (3, 3.6, 29-36) est chamber depth (cm) (3, 9.3, 35-52) est chamber width (cm) (3, 7.5, 20-33) Mote Marine Laboratory Sea Turtle Monitoring, est Evaluation, and Protection Measures for Casey Key 2009 Appendix E - 6