1

THE EFFECTS OF BEACH NOURISHMENT ON SEA TURTLE NESTING DENSITIES IN FLORIDA

By

AUBREE ANN GALLAHER

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2009

2

© 2009 Aubree Ann Gallaher

3

To my parents, who nurtured my intellectual curiosity, academic interests, and sense of scholarship throughout my lifetime, making this milestone possible

4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my advisor, Dr. Joseph J. Delfino, and the members of my supervisory

committee, Dr. Raymond Carthy, Dr. Robert Dean, and Professor Tom Ankersen, for their

mentoring. I thank Dr. Blair Witherington and Beth Brost of the Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission for their advice and assistance in providing the sea turtle nesting data

used in this study. I give many thanks to Jim Grimes for sharing his knowledge of sea turtle

nesting in Sarasota County and for taking me to witness my first nesting sea turtles. I thank

Jennifer Burns of the Beaches Sea Turtle Patrol for providing me with Duval County sea turtle

nesting data and for letting me tag along on her sea turtle nest survey adventures. Dr. Terry

Sincich of the University of South Florida was an invaluable resource for statistical advice, and

Chapter 3 would not be what it is without his assistance. Thanks go to Dr. Emily Hall for putting

up with my questions and providing me with a sounding board. Marnee Bailey, my wonderful

sister who is a much more gifted writer than me, provided excellent editorial services and caught

many grammatical mistakes. I greatly appreciate the support I received from my family, both the

Gallahers and the Hershorins. Without their unfailing belief in my abilities, I would not have

been motivated to complete this study. Finally, I thank my patient and loving husband Brian,

who has listened to tales of sea turtles for longer than he cares to remember.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4

LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7

LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................11

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................13

Background .............................................................................................................................13 Sea Turtle Biology ...........................................................................................................14

Sea turtle life cycle ...................................................................................................14 Nesting behavior ......................................................................................................14 Natal homing ............................................................................................................15 Sea turtle population trends ......................................................................................15

Beach Nourishment in Florida .........................................................................................17 Government Jurisdictional Authority ..............................................................................19

Sea turtles .................................................................................................................19 Beaches .....................................................................................................................19

Previous Studies ..............................................................................................................20 Study Region ..........................................................................................................................21 Objectives ...............................................................................................................................22

2 IDENTIFYING FLORIDA BEACHES FOR EVALUATING THE EFFECT OF BEACH NOURISHMENT ON SEA TURTLE NESTING ...................................................26

Introduction .............................................................................................................................26 Materials and Methods ...........................................................................................................27

Geospatial Data ...............................................................................................................27 Beach Nourishment Data .................................................................................................29

Criteria for selecting study beaches .........................................................................30 Unique beaches ........................................................................................................31

Sea Turtle Nesting Data ...................................................................................................31 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) Index Nesting

Beach Survey (INBS) data ....................................................................................31 Local government agencies and non-profit organizations .......................................32

Critically Eroding Beaches ..............................................................................................32 Discussion ...............................................................................................................................33

3 THE EFFECTS OF BEACH NOURISHMENT ON SEA TURTLE NESTING DENSITIES ............................................................................................................................43

6

Introduction .............................................................................................................................43 Materials and Methods ...........................................................................................................47

Study Sites .......................................................................................................................47 Data Preparation ..............................................................................................................48 Statistical Analyses ..........................................................................................................49

Results .....................................................................................................................................50 Discussion ...............................................................................................................................53 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................54

4 BEACH NOURISHMENT AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IN FLORIDA: MANAGING BEACHES FOR SEA TURTLES ...................................................................94

Introduction .............................................................................................................................94 Current Regulations and Policies on Beach Nourishment in Florida .....................................96 Management Considerations ..................................................................................................99

Protecting the Shoreline ..................................................................................................99 Sand temperature ....................................................................................................101 Clutch moisture ......................................................................................................102 Sand Compaction ...................................................................................................102

Accommodating Changing Shorelines ..........................................................................102 Policy of Retreat ............................................................................................................103

Construction setbacks .............................................................................................103 Rolling easements ..................................................................................................104

Discussion .............................................................................................................................105

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ..109

Summary ...............................................................................................................................109 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................112 Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................................113

APPENDIX

A FLORIDA SEA TURTLE NESTING DATA ......................................................................114

LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................146

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................153

7

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1-2 Federal agencies with jurisdictional authority over shoreline protection projects ............25

2-1 List of the beaches participating in the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) Index Nesting Beach Survey (INBS) program ............................36

2-2 List of beach nourishment events on INBS beaches used in this study .............................39

3-1 Results of Paired t-Test for Atlantic-Jacksonville INBS Beach for the 1995 nourishment event ..............................................................................................................70

3-2 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for Atlantic-Jacksonville INBS Beach for the 1995 nourishment event. ...................................................................70

3-3 Results of Paired t-Test for Boca Raton INBS Beach for the 1998 nourishment event. ...71

3-4 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for Boca Raton INBS Beach for the 1998 nourishment event ..............................................................................72

3-5 Results of Paired t-Test for Hutchinson Island INBS Beach for the 1996 nourishment event. ..................................................................................................................................73

3-6 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for Hutchinson Island INBS Beach for the 1996 nourishment event ....................................................................74

3-7 Results of Paired t-Test for Hutchinson Island INBS Beach for the 2005 nourishment event. ..................................................................................................................................75

3-8 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for Hutchinson Island INBS Beach for the 2005 nourishment event. ...................................................................76

3-9 Results of Paired t-Test for John U. Lloyd State Park INBS Beach for the 2006 nourishment event. .............................................................................................................77

3-10 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the John U. Lloyd State Park INBS Beach for the 2006 nourishment event. ..................................................78

3-11 Results of the Paired t-Test for the Juno Beach INBS Beach for the 2001 nourishment event. .............................................................................................................79

3-12 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Juno Beach INBS Beach for the 2001 nourishment event ..............................................................................80

3-13 Results of the Paired t-Test for the Jupiter Island INBS Beach for the 1999 nourishment event. .............................................................................................................81

8

3-14 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Jupiter Island INBS Beach for the 1999 nourishment event. ...................................................................82

3-15 Results of the Paired t-Test for the Patrick Air Force Base INBS Beach for the 2001 nourishment event ..............................................................................................................83

3-16 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Patrick Air Force Base INBS Beach for the 2001 nourishment event. ..........................................................83

3-17 Results of the Paired t-Test for the Sebastian Inlet INBS Beach for the 2003 nourishment event. .............................................................................................................84

3-18 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Sebastian Inlet INBS Beach for the 2003 nourishment event. ...................................................................85

3-19 Results of the Paired t-Test for the St. Joe Peninsula State Park INBS Beach for the 2005 nourishment event. ....................................................................................................86

3-20 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the St. Joe Peninsula State Park INBS Beach for the 2005 nourishment event ...................................................87

3-21 Results of the Paired t-Test for the Wiggins Pass INBS Beach for the 1996 nourishment event.. ............................................................................................................88

3-22 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Wiggins Pass INBS Beach for loggerhead turtles for the 1996 nourishment event .................................89

3-23 Results of the Paired t-Test for the Wiggins Pass INBS Beach for the 2006 nourishment event. .............................................................................................................90

3-24 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Wiggins Pass INBS Beach for the 2006 nourishment event. ...................................................................91

3-25 Table showing the percentages which loggerhead turtle nests increased or decreased for a particular comparison. ...............................................................................................92

9

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 2-1 The locations of the 32 beaches surveyed as part of the Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission’s (FFWCC) Index Nesting Beach Survey (INBS) program ..............................................................................................................................35

2-2 The shapefile of the beach nourishment activities created from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) Strategic Beach Management Plan (SBMP) ......................................................................................................................37

2-3 The seven geographical regions of the FDEP’s SBMP .....................................................38

2-4 Locations of eroded Florida shoreline. ..............................................................................40

2-5 Locations of each of the INBS beaches identified for use in analyzing effects of beach nourishment on sea turtle nesting densities. ............................................................41

2-6 Example of survey zones that were removed from the analysis. .......................................42

3-1 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Atlantic-Jacksonville Beaches study beach ...............................................56

3-2 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Boca Raton study beach for the 1997 nourishment event. ........................56

3-3 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Boca Raton study beach for the 1998 nourishment event.. .......................57

3-4 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Hutchinson Island study beach for the 1996 nourishment event. ..............57

3-5 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Hutchinson Island study beach for the 2005 nourishment event ...............58

3-6 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the John U. Lloyd State Park. ..........................................................................58

3-7 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Juno Beach. ...............................................................................................59

3-8 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Jupiter Beach. ............................................................................................59

3-9 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on Patrick Air Force Base. ...................................................................................60

10

3-10 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Sebastian Inlet INBS beach. .............................................................................60

3-11 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at St. Joe Peninsula State Park INBS beach .........................................................61

3-12 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Wiggins Pass INBS beach for the 1996 nourishment event.. ...........................61

3-13 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Wiggins Pass INBS beach for the 2006 nourishment event.. ...........................62

3-14 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between the nourished and the control beaches for all of the 13 nourishment events. .......................................................62

3-15 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Boca Raton INBS beach for the 1997 nourishment event.. ...........................................63

3-16 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Boca Raton INBS beach for the 1998 nourishment event.. ...........................................63

3-17 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Hutchinson Island INBS beach for the 1996 nourishment event. ..................................64

3-18 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Hutchinson Island INBS beach for the 2005 nourishment event.. .................................64

3-19 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at John U. Lloyd State Park INBS beach for the 2006 nourishment event.. ......................65

3-20 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Juno Beach INBS beach for the 2001 nourishment event. ............................................65

3-21 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Jupiter Beach INBS beach for the 1999 nourishment event. .........................................66

3-22 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Patrick Air Force Base INBS beach for the 2001 nourishment event.. .........................66

3-23 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Sebastian Inlet INBS beach for the 2003 nourishment event. .......................................67

3-24 Histograms of differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities at study beaches with more than one survey zone in the nourished or control portions of the beach ..................69

11

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE EFFECTS OF BEACH NOURISHMENT ON SEA TURTLE NESTING DENSITIES IN FLORIDA

By

Aubree Ann Gallaher

December 2009 Chair: Joseph J. Delfino Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology

The increasing use of beach nourishment as a method of shoreline stabilization has led to

concerns within the sea turtle community about the potential effects of nourishment on sea turtle

nesting habitat. Various publications have discussed characteristics of beach nourishment

projects that could potentially have an effect on sea turtle nesting habitat, specifically addressing

declines in sea turtle nesting on nourished beaches the first year following nourishment. Nesting

densities more closely approximate control beach densities by the second year post nourishment,

and no significant difference is discernable by the third year post nourishment.

This study hypothesized that nourishment activities generally cause a short-term decline

in nesting densities, but that the decline is present for no more than two years. It identified

Florida beaches with available, comprehensive beach nourishment and sea turtle nesting data for

the past twenty years. Using these data, the study analyzed sea turtle nesting at a regional scale

to determine correlations in nesting densities for three years prior and three years following 13

beach nourishment events on ten Florida beaches. This information provided a basis for

recommending policies for minimizing declines in sea turtle nesting following beach

nourishment projects in the state of Florida.

12

The analysis of the nesting data showed that approximately six of the nourishment events

experienced declines in the first year or two post-nourishment, supporting the hypothesis. The

remaining seven beaches did not support the hypothesis. Five of the nourishment events that did

not support the hypothesis showed no difference in nesting densities compared to the control

beaches, and the remaining two nourishment events experienced increases in nesting when

compared to the control beach.

The analysis of these 13 nourishment events indicates that the nesting sea turtles’

responses to nourishment vary based on site-specific conditions. When data are available,

nourishment projects should evaluate nesting trends following past nourishments at their

particular beach to assist in developing an appropriate strategy for preventing declines in nesting.

Due to the potential declines in sea turtle densities that may occur following nourishment, coastal

managers should consider methods such as retreat to avoid the need for shoreline stabilization

projects.

13

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Background

Of the seven species of sea turtles, there are five species that nest on Florida beaches in

some capacity (Ruckdeschel & Shoop 2006). The loggerhead (Caretta caretta), the green turtle

(Chelonia mydas), and the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) regularly nest on Florida beaches

(Brock et al., 2009). Two other species, the hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and the Kemp’s

ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) nest there infrequently. The olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea)

utilizes the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, but does not nest on Florida beaches. The only sea

turtle species not utilizing the waters of the United States is the flatback sea turtle (Natator

depressa), which is found in the northern coastal area of Australia and in the Gulf of Papua, New

Guinea. Four of the seven species of sea turtles, including the green turtle, the hawksbill, the

olive ridley, and the Kemp’s ridley, are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

The loggerhead turtle has a threatened status under the Endangered Species Act (Ruckdeschel &

Shoop 2006).

Although an increasing amount of research is being conducted about sea turtles, humans

continue to be the largest threat to sea turtle populations (Witherington & Frazer 2003). The

literature suggests a number of threats to sea turtle populations (Table 1-1). The migratory life

cycle of sea turtles makes international cooperation vital to the success of protection measures.

Because sea turtles disregard political boundaries, the conservation efforts of one country could

be jeopardized by practices occurring in another country.

At the federal level in the United States, the Endangered Species Act prohibits the

“taking,” or harassing, killing, and disturbing, of turtles and their nests [16 U.S.C. § 1531

(1973)]; however, secondary sources may still cause sea turtle populations to decline. These

14

sources continue to be researched extensively in the United States to determine additional

methods for protecting these species. Recent studies have discussed beach nourishment as a

potential secondary cause for the decline of sea turtle populations (Rumbold et al. 2001).

Sea Turtle Biology

Sea turtle life cycle

Following their emergence from the nest, hatchlings immediately scurry to the ocean and

remain in the pelagic zone for five or more years. Juvenile sea turtles recruit to nearshore neritic

zones where they forage for more than ten years prior to making their first reproductive

migration. Males will return to foraging areas after breeding, while females typically migrate to

shallow waters and eventually sandy beaches to nest. Female loggerheads lay between one and

seven clutches in one season spaced approximately two weeks apart, nesting once every two to

four years (Schroeder et al. 2003). DNA analyses indicate that sea turtles have a high incidence

of multiple paternity within clutches (Moore & Ball 2002; Hoekert et al. 2002; Ireland et al.

2003). Sea turtles utilize the Earth’s magnetic field to guide them from their foraging areas to

nesting sites; however, they most likely use nonmagnetic cues to locate their ultimate goal when

they reach the general vicinity of their preferred nesting location (Lohmann et al. 2008).

Nesting behavior

Gravid females use a number of indicators to determine if a prospective beach will

provide suitable habitat for nesting. Potential beach characteristics that could influence nest site

selection include sand temperature, salinity, slope of the beach face, soil moisture, nest site

elevation, width, and sand type (Wood & Bjorndal 2000; Lamont & Carthy 2007). In a study of

temperature, salinity, slope, and moisture, Wood and Bjorndal found the greatest correlation

between nest site selection and beach slope (2000). Other studies also indicate the preference of

15

nesting loggerheads toward steeply sloped beach profiles, perhaps because they are able to

expend less effort to access a suitable nest site (Brock 2009; Lamont & Carthy 2007).

Natal homing

Studies from the 1950s and 1960s indicated that nesting females of all species of sea

turtles habitually return to the same nesting beaches to nest. Archie Carr originally postulated

that nesting female sea turtles migrate to the beaches on which they hatched years earlier (1967).

This characteristic is referred to as “natal homing.” Natal homing is difficult to confirm with

tagging efforts due to long generational periods; however, studies of mitochondrial DNA

(mtDNA) enable researchers to test theories on natal philopatry (Bowen & Karl 2007).

If nesting females return to their natal beach, they should exhibit similar genetic

structures in their mtDNA. Other theories postulate the observed nest site fidelity could be

explained by social facilitation of young breeding females following breeders that are more

experienced. To distinguish between nest site fidelity due to natal homing or to social

facilitation, genetic samples from populations that share foraging habitats are analyzed.

Researchers summarized mtDNA-based tests for each of the six species that comingle with other

species during foraging periods: loggerhead, green, leatherback, hawksbill, olive ridley, and

flatback. They concluded that natal homing is the dominant paradigm for sea turtle migrations,

but that the geographic specificity of natal homing can be between 100 and thousands of

kilometers depending on the species (Bowen & Karl 2007; Bowen et al. 1993).

Sea turtle population trends

Recovery periods for sea turtle populations are quite long due to their longer juvenile

stage, complicating conservation efforts (Aiken et al. 2001). Although the global distribution of

sea turtle species suggests that population trends should be determined at the global scale, studies

show both increases and declines of subpopulations of the green turtle at the regional scale

16

(Broderick et al. 2006). Accordingly, some researchers have recommended that evaluating the

status of sea turtle populations should be done at the regional scale to more accurately manage

the species (Broderick et al. 2006; Seminoff 2004). The nesting trends of the three species that

regularly nest on Florida beaches are discussed below.

Loggerhead sea turtle: Surveys at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station found a

significant increasing trend in loggerhead nesting during the study period between 1986 and

1998 (Alicea et al. 2000). Canaveral National Seashore, located just north of Cape Canaveral

Air Force Station, experienced slight increases in the number of loggerhead nests during the

period of 1985 to 2003 (Antworth et al. 2006). A longer study of Florida loggerhead nesting

trends from 1989 to 2006 found increasing nesting from 1989 to 1998, and then a steep decline

in nesting rates from 1999 to 2006 (Witherington et al. 2009).

Green turtle: Green turtles are nesting more frequently in regions of the Atlantic Ocean

that experienced exploitation of sea turtles in the last several centuries, but it is uncertain if

populations are increasing at a rate that will enable the continuation of this population (Aiken et

al. 2001; Bjorndal et al. 1999). Surveys at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station found an

increase in green turtle nesting of 46 percent from 1992 to 1998; however, green turtle nesting

rates are highly variable between years in this area and the increase was not found to be

statistically significant (Alicea et al. 2000). Just north of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,

Canaveral National Seashore also experienced increases in green turtle nests between the years

1985 and 2003 (Antworth et al. 2006). Costa Rican green turtle nesting increased 417 percent

from 1971 to 2003, likely attributed to conservation efforts put in place in 1955 (Troëng &

Rankin 2005; Bjorndal et al. 1999). In the Pacific Ocean, Hawaiian green turtle nesting

increased during the last thirty years (Balazs & Chaloupka 2004).

17

Leatherback sea turtle: Canaveral National Seashore experienced increasing numbers

of leatherback sea turtle nests deposited between the years 1985 and 2003 (Antworth et al. 2006).

However, leatherback populations nesting in Florida represent a small proportion of the total

nesting numbers globally. The Caribbean Costa Rica and Panama leatherback turtle rookery, the

fourth largest worldwide, experienced a slight decline from 1995 to 2003 (Troeng et al. 2004).

In St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, leatherback nesting rates increased by approximately 13

percent from 1994 to 2001 (Dutton et al. 2005).

Beach Nourishment in Florida

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is tasked by Sections

161.101 and 161.161, Florida Statutes, to identify eroding beaches in the state and to maintain a

long-term management plan to restore them (FDEP 2008b). The FDEP’s Bureau of Beaches and

Coastal Systems (BBCS) publishes reports periodically that assess Florida’s beaches. The BBCS

utilizes the following definition to identify critically eroded areas:

Critically eroded area is a segment of the shoreline where natural processes or human activity have caused or contributed to erosion and recession of the beach or dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources are threatened or lost. Critically eroded areas may also include peripheral segments or gaps between identified critically eroded areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects (FDEP 2008b).

As of 2008, the BBCS estimated that 394.6 miles of Florida’s 825 miles of sandy beaches are

considered to be critically eroded. Another 95.5 miles of sandy beach are considered to be

noncritically eroded (FDEP 2008b).

Although sea level rise due to global temperature rise is increasingly discussed as a cause

of beach erosion, anthropogenic activities remove sand from the sand sharing system and prevent

coastal systems from maintaining equilibrium. This typically occurs when inlets, docks, and

18

harbors are dredged and the dredged materials are placed in an upland site. Jetties are designed

to block sediment transport along the shoreline, redirecting sand to deeper water away from the

inlet. In some instances, developers remove dunes to prepare a site for upland structures. These

activities all play a role in removing sand from the sand sharing system and hastening shoreline

erosion (Montague 2006).

The emerging field of sand rights discusses the rights of those downdrift from sand

sources and the obligation of those utilizing sand resources to ensure the continued movement of

sand to the downdrift users. Armoring shorelines, damming streams that historically transport

sediments, and mining sand all remove sand from the sand sharing system (Montague 2008).

When decreased quantities of sand enter the system due to these activities, mitigation through the

placement of sand on the adjacent beach may be appropriate (Dean & Dalrymple 2002).

The desire to manage eroding beaches while maintaining natural-looking beaches for

recreational purposes has led to the use of beach nourishment as a popular beach stabilization

method. Beach nourishment establishes a more natural shoreline while providing hurricane

protection to the structures located along the coast. It is generally utilized in areas with high

population densities, since its cost can be prohibitive for smaller municipalities (Peterson &

Bishop 2005; Curtis et al. 2007). The increasing popularity of beach nourishment has lead to

some concern about its potential impact on sea turtle nesting habitat (Peterson & Bishop 2005).

However, the literature notes a scarcity of published, long-term nesting datasets from disturbed

beaches along the Atlantic coast for use in comparing nesting trends (Antworth et al. 2006).

Although concern exists that beach nourishment may be detrimental to the value of the beach as

sea turtle habitat, many cite it as a possible solution to the problem of decreasing nesting habitat

19

resulting from eroded beaches (Crain et al. 1995; Steinitz et al. 1998; Greene 2002; Montague

2006).

Government Jurisdictional Authority

Sea turtles

At the state level, sea turtles are protected under the Marine Turtle Protection Act

(Florida Statutes 2008). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) has

jurisdiction over sea turtles at the state level, and it implements the Marine Turtle Protection Act

under Chapter 68B of the Florida Administrative Code. The FFWCC developed a model

lighting ordinance to guide local governments in creating their own laws to protect hatchlings

from light pollution. Under a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS), the FFWCC issues permits pursuant to Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act for

activities involving sea turtles in Florida. Activities such as nest relocations, tagging, or any

other action that could result in a take of the species requires a permit, and the activity must be

authorized under subsection 370.12(1), Florida Statutes (FFWCC 2009).

Sea turtles are protected at the federal level by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (4

U.S.C. 1973). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) shares jurisdiction with the USFWS over sea turtles. NMFS

has lead responsibility for sea turtles in the marine environment, while the USFWS provides

protection and oversight for sea turtles on nesting beaches (National Marine Fisheries Service

2009).

Beaches

A number of federal agencies are responsible for shoreline protection, including the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Minerals

20

Management Service (MMS), the USFWS, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). Table 1-2 lists each federal agency involved in the beach nourishment process along

with their purpose for involvement.

Chapter 161, Florida Statutes includes Florida’s laws regarding beaches and shoreline

preservation. This law is promulgated in Chapter 62B of the Florida Administrative Code, which

includes regulations for Florida’s Coastal Construction Control Line and associated permits

(Sections 26, 33, 34, and 41), the Beach Management Assistance Program (Section 36),

proprietary authorizations for use of sovereign submerged lands (Section 49), and fines

associated with these activities (Section 54). The BBCS is tasked with administering these

regulations under Chapter 161 of the Florida Statutes.

Previous Studies

Previous studies analyzed loggerhead nesting success on nourished beaches at the

localized scale (Crain et al. 1995; Steinitz et al. 1998; Rumbold et al. 2001), and at least one

study has analyzed green turtles (Brock et al. 2009). As noted by Brock et al. (2009), statewide

loggerhead nest production is declining annually. However, green turtle nest production is

increasing slightly in Florida. Therefore, decreases in nest production on nourished beaches are

more likely attributed to the nourishment activity than to declines in the species as a whole

(Brock et al. 2009).

Rumbold et al. (2001) documented a Before-After-Control-Impact Paired Series approach

to assessing the effects of a beach nourishment project in Palm Beach County, Florida. They

used two natural beaches near the impacted beach as controls, and they surveyed all three

beaches for three years prior and two years following the nourishment activity. During the

survey, they recorded the species, whether a nest was laid or it was a false crawl, and the

condition of the nest (as applicable). A “false crawl” was determined to occur when a gravid

21

turtle ascended the beach, identified by tracks in the sand, but returned to the ocean without

nesting. They found that nesting declined and false crawls increased on the nourished beach

during the first year following nourishment, but differences in nesting densities and false crawls

between the nourished and natural beaches were greatly reduced by the second year following

nourishment (Rumbold et al. 2009).

Similarly, the study conducted by Brock et al. (2009) evaluated nesting success, defined

as the ratio of nesting emergences to false crawls, for both loggerhead and green turtles on a

nourished beach located in the central Atlantic coast of Florida. Their study beach was a high

energy shoreline nourished in spring 2002. They found that loggerhead hatchling disorientation

increased significantly post-nourishment. Similar to previous studies (Crain et al. 1995; Steinitz

et al. 1998), Brock et al. (2009) noted a return of loggerhead nesting success to pre-nourishment

rates two seasons post-nourishment.

Study Region

My study focused on the State of Florida, United States. Florida is an ideal location to

study the effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles for several reasons. Florida has the longest

coastline in the continental U.S., and Florida’s shoreline includes eroding, accreting, and stable

beaches (Finkl 2005). Southern Florida and Masireh, Oman have the two largest assemblages of

nesting loggerhead females (Witherington et al. 2009), and the extent of sea turtle nesting on

Florida beaches has been well-documented since 1979 by the FFWCC (Witherington & Koeppel

2000; Witherington et al. 2009).

Beach nourishment has been utilized by coastal zone managers in Florida to protect and

restore eroding beaches since the mid-1900s. The FDEP has detailed historical information

regarding beach nourishment projects throughout the state dating back to the mid-1980s. The

extent of beach nourishment, the prevalence of sea turtle nesting, and the availability of data

22

suggests Florida as a natural location to study the effects of beach nourishment on sea turtle

nesting.

Objectives

The central hypotheses of my study are that loggerhead sea turtle nesting densities return

to pre-nourishment rates within three years of beach nourishment, and that this observation holds

true at a regional scale. The Rumbold et al. (2001) and Brock et al. (2009) studies analyzed

nesting success rates for the first and second years post-nourishment at individual beaches.

Rumbold et al. (2001) continued to find decreased nesting success during the second year post-

nourishment for loggerheads for a study beach located in Palm Beach County. Brock et al.

(2009) studied both loggerheads and greens at a five kilometer stretch of beach near the Archie

Carr National Wildlife Refuge on the southeastern coast of Florida, and found decreased nesting

success during the second year post-nourishment in green turtles. By including the third year

post-nourishment, my study identified whether decreased nesting densities were observed during

the third year. This information provides a basis for identifying the appropriate amount of

monitoring and management necessary to ensure that beach nourishment projects do not

adversely impact sea turtle nesting.

Using data obtained from the FDEP’s Strategic Beach Management Plan to identify the

locations and dates of nourishment activities for which sea turtle nesting data is collected through

the Florida Index Nesting Beach Survey (INBS) program, my study compared nesting densities

with nourishment activities to test these hypotheses throughout Florida. The goal of my study

was to establish and provide nesting trends on nourished beaches to regulatory officials to assist

in adopting laws and policies that reduce impacts to nesting turtles during and following a

nourishment event. Objectives for meeting this goal are outlined below.

23

Establish study beaches for which reliable sea turtle nesting data and beach nourishment data are available.

Although several studies have analyzed the effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles at

the localized scale (Rumbold et al. 2001; Brock et al. 2009; Steinitz et al. 1998), my study

analyzed the potential effect of beach nourishment at the regional scale over a longer time scale.

The experimental design of the data analysis included both a nourished area and a control area

for each study beach. My study analyzed nesting data for the study beach over a period

including three years prior to and three years following a nourishment event that were not

nourished more than once over that six year period.

Determine whether nesting densities are associated with beach nourishment activities.

My study analyzed nesting densities at the regional scale to determine if nesting densities

decrease on nourished beaches during the first year following nourishment activities, if they

more closely match the densities on the control beaches or the pre-nourishment densities by the

second year post-nourishment, and if there was any significant difference in nesting densities

during the third year post-nourishment. Paired t-tests and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test were

applied to the data to determine statistical significance, and a summary of the results are included

in Chapter 3.

Review coastal zone policies to apply findings from my study to maximize the value of nourished beaches to sea turtles as nesting habitat.

State and federal agencies require that coastal zone managers implement a number of

management techniques to make nourished beaches more suitable for wildlife habitat. A review

of the current recommendations for optimizing the habitat value of newly nourished beaches was

conducted to determine the practices currently in place. Based on the current practices, best

management practices are suggested for implementation following beach nourishment projects to

ensure the most appropriate conditions for sea turtle nesting.

24

Table 1-1. Potential primary and secondary causes of sea turtle decline throughout the world.

Cause Primary Secondary Potential Threats to Nesting Habitat Beach nourishmenta X Artificial lighting on beachesb X Beach erosiona X Vehicle use on nesting beachesb X Coastal armoringc X Beach furniture and other recreational equipment X Beach armoring X Other Potential Threats Fibropapillomatosisc X Harvesting (eggs and mature turtles)c X Predationc X Bycatchc X Climate changee X Ingestion of tar and plasticsd X Vessel strikes X

a From Rumbold, D.G., P.W. Davis, and C. Perretta. 2001. Estimating the effect of beach nourishment on Caretta caretta loggerhead sea turtle nesting. Restoration Ecology 9:304-310. b From Antworth, R.L., D.A. Pike, and J.C. Stiner. 2006. Nesting ecology, current status, and conservation of sea turtles on an uninhabited beach in Florida, USA. Biological Conservation 1301:10-15. c From Caribbean Conservation Corporation. 2009. Threats to sea turtles. Retrieved on November 30, 2009 from http://www.cccturtle.org/seaturtleinformation.php?page=threats. d From Witherington, B.E. 2002. Ecology of neonate loggerhead turtles inhabiting lines of downwelling near a Gulf Stream front. Marine Biology 140:843-853. e From Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2007. Investigating the potential impacts of climate change on a marine turtle population. Global Change Biology 13:923-932.

Table 1-2. Federal agencies with jurisdictional authority over shoreline protection projects (Bach et al. 2007). Federal agency Jurisdictional authority U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Administers the shoreline protection program Federal Emergency Management Agency Protection of coastal property subject to damage from storm-related

flooding National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Supports state coastal zone management activities and involved with

the protection of marine life resources U.S. Geological Survey Conducts studies on geological and coastal resources Minerals Management Service Conducts studies for sand sources for use in beach nourishment

activities in federal waters U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Monitors sedimentation in coastal wetlands and shorelines;

management authority for coastal species impacted on shore U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Monitors for impacts to water and sediment quality, and to the marine

habitat 25

26

CHAPTER 2 IDENTIFYING FLORIDA BEACHES FOR EVALUATING THE EFFECT OF BEACH

NOURISHMENT ON SEA TURTLE NESTING

Introduction

Florida has 1,350 miles of coastline, and no point in Florida is more than 80 miles from

either the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico (Florida’s Coast 2007). The bulk of the state’s

population resides in the coastal counties of Florida. In addition, Florida’s population increased

at twice the rate of the national average between the years 1990 and 2005 (United States Census

Bureau 2006). However, the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of

Florida analyzed United States census data from July 2007 to July 2008 and found a net loss in

domestic residents attributed to the recent economic downturn (Bureau of Economic and

Business Research 2009). Currently, seventy-five percent of the state’s population lives in

coastal counties. Approximately $1.9 trillion, or 79 percent of the insured property value, is

insured in coastal counties (Florida’s Coast 2007).

The steadily growing Floridian coastal population pressures policy makers to establish

programs for regular beach nourishment in high density coastal areas to maintain beaches that

protect coastal structures and provide recreational opportunities. While beach nourishment

projects generally provide increased tax revenue for the local and state economies, they are also

extremely expensive. One study on the economic costs of beach nourishment found that the

expected decadal expenditures for nourishment projects in Florida are approximately $1.9 billion

(Trembanis et al. 1999).

Sea level rise, the increasing pressure from development, and the removal of sand from

the sand-sharing system could be contributing to increasing erosion along Florida beaches (Fish

et al. 2005; Montague 2006). As beach nourishment becomes the favored method of shoreline

stabilization, nourishment projects must be managed to ensure that sea turtle nesting densities

27

approximate pre-nourishment rates to the greatest extent possible. With coastal regions

increasingly turning to beach nourishment to repair their eroded shorelines, the importance of

understanding how nourishment projects affect wildlife habitat is crucial. The methodology

outlined below accomplishes Objective 1 by identifying study areas for use in this dissertation

research for which standardized information is available.

Materials and Methods

Geospatial Data

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) work in cooperation to document the total distribution, abundance,

and seasonality of sea turtle nesting in Florida through the Statewide Nesting Beach Survey

(SNBS) and the Index Nesting Beach Survey (INBS). The SNBS program was developed in

1979, and the INBS program began in 1989. Over 190 Florida beaches participate in the SNBS,

and 32 of these beaches also participate in the INBS (FFWCC/FWRI 2007b; Meylan et al. 1995;

see Figure 2-1 and Table 2-1).

The data associated with the INBS program are maintained by the FFWCC’s Fish and

Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI). Each INBS beach is divided into shorter survey zones that

are typically between 0.6 and 0.9 kilometer in length. The sea turtle nesting data collected by

surveyors are identified based on the survey zone in which they are located.

The FFWCC’s Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) provides a spatial

representation of the beaches that participate in the INBS on their website through the Marine

Resources Geographic Information System (FFWCC/FWRI 2007a). Embedded into the

shapefiles obtained from the FWRI are tables of information that include the INBS beach name,

the beach code used by the FWRI to refer to each INBS beach, the extents of the survey zones

within each INBS beach, and the coordinates for these areas.

28

Using ArcGIS version 9.3 to conduct the spatial analysis (ArcGIS 9.3 2009), my study

overlaid spatial information from the INBS program with the locations of beach nourishment

projects in Florida. Using the Florida Strategic Beach Management Plan (SBMP) adopted by the

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in May 2008, a shapefile was created

of the beach nourishment activities in Florida since 1989 that were located on beaches surveyed

as part of the FFWCC’s INBS program (Figure 2-2). The SBMP was developed by the FDEP’s

Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (BBCS) and is implemented by the Long Range Budget

Plan to provide all-over direction to the state program. The SBMP describes the critically eroded

areas in Florida and provides strategies for addressing the erosion.

The beach nourishment activity shapefile was compared to the shapefile of the beaches

within the INBS program to create a comprehensive list of beaches that were both part of the

INBS program and that had been nourished since 1989. Finally, this list was limited to include

only those beaches with both nourished and non-nourished survey zones, and which had at least

three years pre- and post-nourishment, uncompromised data. A year of nesting data was

considered to be uncompromised if the year did not overlap with a separate beach nourishment

event due to frequent nourishment activities on a particular beach.

A variety of geographic data is available through a number of state and federal websites,

including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the FDEP, the FFWCC, and the University of

Florida. To locate the data required to determine which nourished beaches are adjacent to

beaches monitored as part of Florida’s INBS program, the websites of all of these organizations

were consulted. The three primary data layers that were utilized to locate suitable beaches for

use in my study were the data layer of the extents of the FFWCC’s INBS program

(FFWCC/FWRI 2007a), the FDEP’s data layer that includes the locations of the range

29

monuments in each county within Florida (BBCS 2005), and the layer created as part of this

research of the beach nourishment activity in Florida from 1985 through 2008. The beach

nourishment activity layer was created using data obtained from the BBCS. In the SBMP, BBCS

divided Florida into seven regions and outlined the recent history of the management activities

that have taken place in each region. The information provided in the SBMP includes the

locations of the management activities referenced to the local range monuments.

Beach Nourishment Data

The FDEP’s SBMP is divided into separate reports on seven Florida regions: Northeast

Atlantic Coast, Central Atlantic Coast, Southeast Atlantic Coast, Florida Keys, Southwest Gulf

Coast, Big Bend Gulf Coast, and Panhandle Gulf Coast (Figure 2-3). Since there are no INBS

beaches in the Florida Keys, the report for that region was not consulted. Each report provides

historical beach nourishment, inlet dredging, and coastal armoring information on all sandy

beaches in that region. The descriptions of the activities include locational information based on

the FDEP’s range monument system (FDEP 2000). The FDEP established range monuments

along the entire Florida coastline, and they provide shapefiles with the coordinates of each

monument for use in ArcGIS software (FDEP 2005).

The shapefile of the beach nourishment activities in Florida was created by consulting the

SBMP for each region, locating the activity described in the SBMP by range monument in

ArcGIS version 9.3, and adding linear features to an initially blank shapefile to compile the

nourishment activities in a graphical format. The details of each activity were embedded into the

shapefile using the “attribute tables” associated with shapefiles in ArcGIS, and the information

added included the date, county, project name, cubic yards of sand deposited, and relevant notes.

Using this information, a shapefile was created using ArcGIS 9.2 software to document

the locations of beach nourishment activities that occurred on or adjacent to beaches monitored

30

as part of FFWCC’s INBS program. When evaluating beaches for use in my study, the entire

beach length was required to be a participant in the FDEP’s INBS program. Within these areas,

nourished beaches were identified that included at least a one-mile stretch surveyed as part of the

INBS that was not part of the nourishment project.

Many critically eroding shorelines in Florida are regularly nourished to protect upland

structures. The frequency of nourishment on more highly developed shorelines prevented the

use of many INBS beaches, since data for one or more years overlapped with a previous or

subsequent nourishment activity on either the same beach or an adjacent beach intended for use

as a control beach (FDEP 2000). Another factor excluding certain beach nourishment events

from use was the lack of a control beach. Since nests are grouped by INBS survey zone, it is

impossible to determine spatially where a nest was deposited along the survey zone length.

Therefore, the survey zones in which a beach nourishment event began or ended were removed

from use in my study.

Criteria for selecting study beaches

Although more than 40 beach nourishment events occurred between 1989 and 2008 on

INBS beaches, the final number of beach nourishment events used in my study was narrowed to

13 events. Table 2-2 lists the beaches that were selected for use in my study. A number of

factors were considered when evaluating beaches for inclusion. To ensure that the INBS data

were not compromised by nourishment activities other than the one analyzed, beaches that had

overlap in the three years prior to or following the nourishment activity were removed. This

criterion eliminated many beaches that experience frequent nourishment activity.

Another factor involved the methods in which the INBS data are collected. INBS

beaches are divided into survey zones measuring 0.6 to 0.9 kilometer in length. Surveyors note

the location of the nests surveyed to these survey zones. Therefore, the exact locations of each

31

nest are not available. Since the SBMP indicates the range monuments between which beaches

are nourished, survey zones that were only partially nourished were removed from my study

(Figure 2-6). In some instances, the entire INBS beach was nourished and no portion of the

beach remained for use as a control beach.

Unique beaches

In Gulf County, St. Joe Peninsula State Park INBS beach is located along the northern

portion of the St. Joe Peninsula (14.5 kilometers). This portion of the peninsula was restored in

2005 with a protective berm and dune restoration using funds from the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA). Because this nourishment event did not include the complete

beach face, its study is useful to indicate potential effects from a dune-only restoration event.

Sea Turtle Nesting Data

FFWCC INBS data

As previously mentioned, the FFWCC’s INBS program collects and maintains the data

related to sea turtle nesting in Florida utilized as part of this research. The FFWCC issues

permits to individuals who administer the INBS program in their local community, and these

permit holders are tasked with collecting the sea turtle nesting data according to the INBS

protocol and providing the data to the FFWCC at the end of the nesting season. Although

specific location information including latitude and longitude data would have been useful to this

research, the protocol developed for the INBS program was designed prior to the ubiquitous use

of global positioning units.

To provide location information for each sea turtle nest that is more precise than the

limits of the entire INBS beach, each INBS beach is divided into survey zones measuring 0.6 to

0.9 kilometer. The INBS protocol requires permit holders to collect information related to the

zone in which a sea turtle emerged, whether or not the emergence resulted in nesting activity.

32

Since no specific latitude and longitude data are available for each nest, a single point in the

center of each INBS zone was used as the location for all nests within that particular zone.

The FFWCC provides data related to their INBS program to citizens through their

website. Included with these data are shapefiles of the INBS beaches, with associated attribute

tables that include the INBS beach name, survey zones, and latitude/longitude coordinates. By

overlaying this shapefile with the previously created beach nourishment activity shapefile, it was

possible to identify beach nourishment activities that occurred on INBS beaches. The attribute

tables of both shapefiles were combined using Microsoft Excel to create one table that included

the INBS beach name, the county, the survey zones associated with the nourishment activity, and

the date of the nourishment activity (Table 2-2).

Local government agencies and non-profit organizations

Although the FFWCC’s SNBS and INBS programs provide the most comprehensive,

state-wide sea turtle nesting data available for Florida, they are not the sole source of nesting

data in the state. Local government agencies and non-profit organizations (including academic

institutions) also collect data to comply with permit conditions, to aid in policy-making

decisions, or for educational purposes. These data may be more detailed than the information

collected by the FFWCC programs, but they can be difficult to compile and collect. In contrast,

the data collected by FFWCC is public information, and Florida law requires that state agencies

provide them to citizens who file public records requests under Florida’s Freedom of Information

Act (FOIA). Only sea turtle nesting data collected as part of the FFWCC’s INBS program were

used in my study to ensure the consistency of survey effort for all study beaches.

Critically Eroding Beaches

Many factors could potentially affect the distribution and quantity of sea turtle nests laid

in a given year in a geographical region. In addition to beach nourishment, one factor that can be

33

geographical analyzed at the regional scale is beaches determined by FDEP to be “critically

eroding.” The FDEP created a shapefile of the locations of critically eroding beaches in Florida,

and it is made available to the public via the Florida Geographic Data Library. Figure 2-4 shows

the locations of critically eroding beaches in Florida.

Discussion

Using the methodologies described above, a list of beaches appropriate for use in

studying the densities of sea turtle nesting for three years prior to and three years post

nourishment was developed. The nesting densities of these beaches can be analyzed to identify

any variations between the recently nourished beaches and those that have not been nourished.

Several factors caused certain nourishment events to be eliminated from my study. The

INBS program was developed in 1989; therefore, any nourishment activities that took place prior

to the spring of 1992 were not suitable due to the lack of three years of nesting data prior to the

nourishment activity. Similarly, nourishment activities that took place after the spring of 2006

were deemed unsuitable due to the lack of three years of nesting data subsequent to the

nourishment activity. Another factor preventing the use of a particular INBS beach in my study

was the lack of a “control” beach. In some instances, no control beach was available because the

entire INBS beach had been nourished during the year in question. Other times, the portion of

the INBS beach not nourished in the year in question had been nourished during one of the three

years prior to or following the nourishment year in question. Although beach nourishment is

becoming increasingly prevalent, these factors narrowed the original list of almost 40

nourishment events on the 32 INBS beaches down to 13 nourishment events on ten INBS

beaches with the appropriate data available for densities analyses (Figure 2-5).

The rigorous suitability criteria used to select the beaches for this research eliminated

some variables that may affect the validity of nesting data due to previous and subsequent

34

nourishment activities; however, control beaches provide an additional measure with which to

compare the nesting densities following nourishment activities. Both the Rumbold et al. (2001)

and the Brock et al. (2009) studies also used control beaches to compare the nesting densities of

the nourished beach. Although many nourishment events were eliminated from use in my study

because either the control or the nourished beaches overlapped with other nourishment activities,

the analysis of the selected beaches will be more robust.

Numerous variables could potentially cause changes in nesting densities following

nourishment activities. In terms of choosing beaches for a regional study, it is important to

remove as many variables as possible. However, beach nourishment is extremely prevalent, and

it is difficult to ensure that a non-nourished portion of beach used as the control was not

influenced by a separate nourishment event, shoreline stabilization project, or severe erosion.

Any of these variables could influence a gravid turtle’s choice of one particular beach over

another. It is also possible that nesting females tend to congregate on beaches adjacent to those

recently nourished, artificially increasing the number of nests located on control beaches.

The issue of beach nourishment and its affect on sea turtles and their nesting habitats is

extremely complex. When designing studies at a macro scale, it is difficult to locate consistent

data to enable comparisons over a large geographical region. Government agencies are

continually adding to the variety of geographic data already available to the public. By utilizing

the capabilities of geographic information systems, currently available data can be combined to

allow for the study of regionally significant environmental issues.

35

Figure 2-1. The locations of the 32 beaches surveyed as part of the FFWCC’s INBS program, also listed in Table 2-1. Data obtained from the FFWCC.

36

Table 2-1. List of the beaches participating in the FFWCC INBS program, shown in Figure 2-1. Data obtained from the FFWCC.

Beach name County Length (kilometers)

Amelia Island Nassau 20.30 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach Duval 12.80 Boca Raton Palm Beach 8.00 Canaveral National Seashore Volusia/Brevard 38.00 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Brevard 21.00 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Recreation Area Collier 6.40 Egmont Key Hillsborough 6.44 Flagler Beach State Park Volusia/Flagler 5.60 Fort Clinch State Park Nassau 3.68 Fort Matanzas National Monument St. Johns 7.70 Ft. Pierce Inlet State Park St. Lucie 9.60 Guana River Tolomato Matanzas NERR St. Johns 6.70 Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge Martin 5.60 Hutchinson Island St. Lucie/Martin 36.50 J.D. MacArthur State Park Palm Beach 2.90 John U. Lloyd State Park Broward 3.40 Juno Beach Palm Beach 8.40 Jupiter Island Martin 12.00 Keewaydin Island Collier 6.90 Little Talbot Island State Park Duval 12.80 Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Brevard 9.90 Miami Beaches Miami-Dade 20.00 Panama City Bay 29.00 Patrick Air Force Base Brevard 7.00 Sanibel Island Lee 5.60 Santa Rosa Island Santa Rosa/Okaloosa 19.30 Sebastian Inlet State Park Indian River/Brevard 4.80 Siesta Key Sarasota 3.26 South Brevard County Brevard 40.50 St. Joe Penninsula State Park Gulf 14.50 St. Lucie Inlet State Park Martin 4.30 Wabasso Beach Indian River 8.00

37

Figure 2-2. The shapefile of the beach nourishment activities created from the FDEP’s SBMP. The nourishment activities are represented by the tan lines. Only beach nourishment activities located on a beach included in the FFWCC’s INBS program were included in this shapefile.

38

Figure 2-3. The seven geographical regions of the FDEP’s SBMP.

Table 2-2. List of beach nourishment events on INBS beaches used in this study, shown in Figure 2-4.

Beach name County Survey zones nourished

Year of nourishment event

Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach Duval 1-9 1995 Boca Raton Palm Beach 9 1996 Boca Raton Palm Beach 1-4 1998 Hutchinson Island St. Lucie/Martin 4-12 1996 Hutchinson Island St. Lucie/Martin 4, 8-12 2005 John U. Lloyd State Park Broward 1-3 2006 Juno Beach Palm Beach 2-7 2001 Jupiter Island Palm Beach 6-7 1999 Patrick Air Force Base Brevard 2-7 2001 Sebastian Inlet State Park Indian River 4-6 2003 St. Joe Peninsula State Park Gulf 31-35 2005 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park Collier 3-4 1996 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park Collier 2-5 2006 Note: When the placement of sand began or ended further than 100 meters from the edge of particular survey zone, the zone was eliminated from use in the study.

39

40

Figure 2-4. Locations of eroded Florida shoreline. Orange areas identify critically eroded

beaches, and blue areas identify noncritically eroded beaches. Data obtained as a shapefile produced by the FDEP (FDEP 2008a).

41

Figure 2-5. Locations of each of the INBS beaches identified for use in analyzing effects of beach nourishment on sea turtle nesting densities.

42

Figure 2-6. Example of survey zones that were removed from the analysis. Notice that the beach nourishment activities end in the middle of survey zones 2002 and 2007. For Juno Beach, survey zones 2003 through 2006 were considered the nourished beach, while survey zones 2001 and 2008 through 2011 were considered the control beach.

43

CHAPTER 3 THE EFFECTS OF BEACH NOURISHMENT ON SEA TURTLE NESTING DENSITIES

Introduction

The number of people living and recreating in coastal regions continues to rise, putting

pressure on other species that use these resources. Sea turtles are only one of many species that

utilize the dunes, beach, and near-shore environments associated with coastal habitats. When

based on nesting data, sea turtle population trends cited in the literature differ depending upon

the location and the species. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration’s (NOAA) Office of Protected Species, loggerhead nesting rates have declined in

all parts of the southeastern United States. The information available for the loggerhead in other

parts of the world also shows a decline in nesting (Florida’s Coast 2007). In contrast, green

turtle populations appear to be increasing globally (Balazs & Chaloupka 2004; Troëng & Rankin

2005; Bjorndal et al. 1999).

If relying solely on sea turtles located in the water, it is difficult to determine reliable

population trends. Sea turtles are broadly distributed, genetically mixed, and difficult to count

while present in the water (Witherington et al. 2009). Therefore, researchers typically rely on

observations made at nesting sites for population-size assessments. Antworth et al. (2006)

observed localized increases of sea turtle nesting densities at an uninhabited beach over a 19-year

period for all species identified, and they attributed the increase to added protection of nests or to

the conservation efforts by the fishing industry in sea turtle foraging grounds. Witherington and

Koeppel (2000) also concluded stable or increasing nesting populations of green and loggerhead

turtles in Florida and significantly increasing leatherback turtle nesting in Florida. Since 1998,

loggerhead nesting has declined on Florida beaches (Witherington et al. 2009).

44

Several studies have suggested beach nourishment could be an essential tool for ensuring

nesting habitat for sea turtles in a time of increased beach erosion along Florida’s coasts Lebuff

& Haverfield 1992; Witham 1990). However, recent studies show concern that beaches do not

provide suitable nesting habitat for the first few seasons following nourishment (Rumbold et al.

2001). Beach nourishment can alter many aspects of the beach, including sand density, shear

resistance, moisture content, slope, sand color, grain size, sand shape, and sand mineral content

(Nelson & Dickerson 1988). Changes to these factors can affect nest site selection, digging

behavior, clutch viability, and hatchling emergence (Crain et al. 1995). Studies have discussed

the possibility that nesting turtles will simply choose another more appropriate nesting site if

they are prevented from nesting at their natal beach; however, Rumbold et al. (2001) point out

that evidence shows a decline in total nesting habitat.

Studies of expected rates of sea level change over the next 100 years suggest that the

percentage of nesting beach available to sea turtles may decrease by approximately 14 percent to

50 percent, based on a sea level rise of 0.2 meter to 0.9 meter (Fish et al. 2005). In these cases,

beach nourishment may be essential for restoring the nesting habitat of sea turtles. Although

beach nourishment may have detrimental effects on the abiotic and biotic characteristics of the

nesting beach in the short term, these effects may diminish over time to create a greater rate of

nesting success than if the beach had remained eroded (Brock 2005).

The literature points to an absence of data on the effects of beach nourishment on sea

turtle nesting habitat and densities. Developing a dataset of sea turtle nesting densities on

Florida beaches that includes comprehensive beach nourishment data for the state will allow for

extensive analyses of nourishment projects and the varying factors involved with the projects

that potentially influence nesting habitat (Antworth et al. 2006). My study utilizes the dataset

45

discussed in Chapter 1 to determine trends in nesting densities on nourished beaches, specifically

during the three years pre- and post-nourishment.

In general, loggerhead sea turtle populations in Florida exhibit consistent spatial

distribution from one year to the next (Witherington et al. 2009). However, loggerhead nesting

densities vary widely throughout Florida. While all sandy beaches in Florida provide nesting

habitat for sea turtles, nesting densities are highest along the southeastern coast and second

highest on the Gulf Coast of Florida. The southeastern coast of Florida has the second highest

density of loggerhead nesting in the world next to the coasts of Oman.

As previously mentioned, sea turtles sometimes may move to an adjacent beach if they

encounter predators or humans on the beach, or for other reasons that are not fully understood by

researchers. Studies suggest that light sources on the beach, highly compact sand, the slope of

the beach face, and obstacles placed on the beach (e.g., beach furniture, boats, etc.) may all

influence a nesting sea turtle’s decision to abandon a nesting attempt (Rumbold et al. 2001).

Undisturbed beaches are increasingly important to sea turtle nesting due to a possible tendency

of nesting turtles to move from heavily developed beaches to darker and less disturbed beaches

(Witherington & Koeppel 2000). Alicea et al. (2000) report a significant increasing trend in

loggerhead nesting activity, and an increasing trend in green turtle nesting activity along the

eastern shore of Florida. For the southeastern U.S., approximately 50 percent of emergences are

typically non-nesting (Weishampel et al. 2003).

Mortimer (1990) studied the relationship between sand characteristics and clutch

mortality in green turtles. Mortimer’s studies indicated that green turtles nest in sands that vary

greatly and that other factors may be as important to nesting turtles in selecting their nesting site.

This conclusion suggests variations in sand characteristics for a particular nesting beach may not

46

affect the viability of clutches on that beach. However, nesting females tended to dig more trial

pits at beaches with coarser sands and to emerge several consecutive nights prior to depositing

eggs. Mortimer’s study (1990) also found a correlation between sand diameter and hatchling

success; specifically, that higher rates of hatchling mortality were found on beaches with a mean

particle diameter greater than 0.75 mm. The correlation between coarse sands and increased

mortality may be due to physiological stress from desiccation or to collapse of the clutch cavity.

Although her research was conducted at Ascension Island in the South Atlantic Ocean and

Aldabra Atoll, Tanzania, the results of her research are applicable to nesting beaches throughout

the world and can likely be extrapolated to other species of sea turtles.

At least one study analyzed the relation of slope, temperature, moisture and salinity to

nest site selection in loggerhead turtles. The study conducted by Wood and Bjorndal (2000)

found the strongest correlation between slope and nest site selection, with temperature variations

along the same slope of beach not appearing to act as a cue to initiate nest excavation. Soil

moisture and salinity vary in response to rainfall and changes in the water table, and are probably

not as influential in the nest site selection process (Wood & Bjorndal 2000).

Rumbold et al. (2001) utilized a “Before-After-Control-Impact Paired Series (BACIPS)”

approach to assessing the nesting activity of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in Palm Beach

County, Florida. Their research results infer that nesting turtles may have shifted to an adjacent

beach if their preferred beach did not exhibit the characteristics they had expected. My study

utilized a similar method to assess the effects of beach nourishment projects on nesting turtles

utilizing the nesting data collected as part of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission’s (FFWCC) Index Nesting Beach Survey (INBS) program and the beaches

identified in Chapter 2.

47

Materials and Methods

Study Sites

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the study sites include a number of Florida beaches

that were nourished between 1990 and 2008. The sites were limited to those surveyed as part of

the FFWCC’s INBS program effort. Focusing on the beaches identified in Chapter 2, this

chapter identifies trends in nesting densities for both nourished beaches and adjacent, non-

nourished beaches. The quantities and characteristics of the sand placed on each beach during

the nourishment events varied by beach. Typically, the sand used for nourishment is dredged

either from a nearby inlet or from an offshore borrow area. The sand is placed on the beach and

manipulated with bulldozers to form a berm, with the ultimate goal of extending the mean high

water line seaward a specified number of feet.

The systematic nature of the surveys conducted by FFWCC between the years of 1980

and 2008 allowed for the identification of annual fluctuations in nesting densities. Although

other studies (Brock et al. 2009; Rumbold et al. 2001) included more specific nesting data related

to nesting success in their analyses (e.g., false crawls, nest height relative to the mean high water

line, hatching success, emergence success, reproductive output), these characteristics were not

assessed in my study due to the larger geographical range analyzed. The densities for both the

nourished and non-nourished beaches were compared for the three years pre- and post-

nourishment to identify any significant differences in nesting densities. Where significant

differences occurred, possible reasons for the disparities are discussed.

The FFWCC conducted systematic sea turtle nesting surveys at each of the study beaches

each year since 1990, allowing for the assessment of pre- and post-nourishment comparisons

between the portions of the study beaches that were nourished and the adjacent non-nourished

beaches. The lengths of the nourished and non-nourished beaches vary by beach. To

48

accomplish the second Objective identified in Chapter 1, this chapter uses statistical analyses to

determine whether nesting distribution is associated with beach nourishment activities.

Previous studies observed that nesting densities decreased on nourished beaches during

the first year following nourishment activities, but they more closely matched the densities on

the control beaches by the second or third year post-nourishment (Brock et al. 2009; Rumbold et

al. 2001; Steinitz et al. 1998). Using the study beaches identified, I analyzed the distributions of

sea turtle nests on the nourished and the control beaches by year and species to determine if the

findings of these previous studies could be extrapolated over a larger geographical region.

Data Preparation

FFWCC provided the INBS nesting data, which included the number of sea turtle nests

per survey zone at each beach for each nesting year. The INBS program aims to be consistent in

effort, if not in seasonal and geographic coverage. The INBS data are more resolved than the

complementary program, the FFWCC’s SNBS program (Witherington et al. 2009).

Overlaying the locations of the INBS beaches with the previously created shapefile of the

beach nourishment locations allowed for the determination of the survey zones that could be

utilized for statistical analysis. When survey zones were split by the edge of the beach

nourishment zone, they were eliminated from consideration from the study (Figure 2-6). This

caused several of the study beaches to have small sample sizes, since the number of survey zones

able to be used as the “nourished” and the “control” beaches was typically less than five. Several

study beaches had only one survey zone for either the nourished or the control portions of the

beach. The nesting data were graphed for these beaches, but they could not be analyzed

statistically (see Figures 3-2 and 3-14).

49

Statistical Analyses

The loggerhead nesting data were analyzed using statistical methods to determine the

significance of any observed change in nesting densities following nourishment. Since green

turtles nest infrequently and inconsistently in Florida, the green turtle nesting data were

insufficient to conduct a similarly thorough analysis at a regional scale. The green turtle nesting

data were graphed using moving averages to visually represent trends in nesting following the

nourishment activities (Figures 3-13 to 3-22), and the percentages of increase or decrease in

nesting are summarized in Table 3-26.

Two related variables are used in my study: beach nourishment activities (or the absence

thereof) and nesting densities (measured as nests per linear meter). The alternative hypothesis

states that there is a decrease in sea turtle nesting densities for the first two years following

nourishment activities. The null hypotheses for both the nourished and the control beaches are

that no differences exist between the pre- and post-nourishment nesting densities.

A limitation in the analyses for all of the study beaches was that the sample sizes (i.e., the

number of survey zones nourished or not nourished) were small (see the sample sizes provided

with the results of the statistical analyses of the loggerhead nesting in Tables 3-1 through 3-26).

Small sample sizes decrease the variability present around the means. Statistical analyses could

not be conducted on study beaches that had only one survey zone available for analysis at either

the nourished or the control beach. For these beaches, visual interpretation of the change in

nesting densities can be observed in the graphs of these data (Figures 3-1 through 3-13). The

three years prior to the beach nourishment project were averaged for the purposes of graphing

the data. The percentages of increase or decrease in loggerhead turtle nesting are provided in

Tables 3-25 and 3-26.

50

To determine if a difference existed between the loggerhead nesting densities at the

nourished and the control beaches, paired t-tests were conducted for each beach listed in Table 2-

2. Paired t-tests are used to compare the difference of the means of two paired samples. This

type of test is appropriate for the comparison of before-after datasets, as is the case with the pre-

and post-nourishment loggerhead nesting densities.

The paired t-test relies on the assumption that the data follow a normal distribution.

Although the t-test yields valued inferences for data that do not follow a strict normal

distribution, the validity of the t-test may be suspect if the data are highly skewed. If the data are

skewed, a nonparametric test such as the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test is applied. The Wilcoxon

Signed Ranks test does not rely on assumptions regarding the distribution of the data, because

the test relies on a system of ranks rather than the actual data.

The loggerhead nesting densities for the study beaches varied with regard to whether or

not they followed a normal distribution. For this reason, both the paired t-test and the Wilcoxon

Signed Ranks test were applied to each study beach. If the results of the two tests disagreed, the

histograms of the data were consulted to determine whether they followed a normal distribution.

Where the data were normally distributed, the paired t-test results were used. Where the data

were highly skewed, more merit was given to the results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed

Ranks test. Histograms of the loggerhead nesting densities are shown in Figure 3-24(A-L).

Results

Both a paired t-test and the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed ranks test were conducted for

each of the INBS beaches. The differences between the data were graphed in histograms to

determine normality. With the exception of the 2006 nourishment event of Wiggins Pass INBS

beach, the data were all relatively normal. Based on the normality of the data, the paired t-test

results were applied over the results of the nonparametric test.

51

Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach. The Atlantic-Jacksonville INBS beach found a significant

increase in sea turtle nesting densities between the first year prior to nourishment and the first

year post nourishment using the paired t-test. The differences between the data are normal, as

shown by the histogram (Figure 3-24A). The results of the Wilcoxon signed ranks test correlated

with the results of the paired t-test. The Wilcoxon signed ranks test found a significant increases

in nesting densities between both the first and second years pre-nourishment and the first and

second years post-nourishment.

Boca Raton. The results of the paired t-test for the 1998 nourishment of Boca Raton

INBS beach found significant decreases in sea turtle nesting densities for three of the

comparisons at the nourished beach. Significant increases in sea turtle nesting densities were

observed at the control beach, as shown by a two-tailed p-value less than 0.05. The results of the

paired t-test and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test differed. Since the histogram of the data showed

it to be relatively normal, the results of the paired t-test were used for the analysis (Figure 3-

24B).

Hutchinson Island (1996). The 1996 nourishment event at Hutchinson Island INBS

beach had a significant decrease in the nesting density at between the third year pre-nourishment

and the second year post-nourishment, and between the third year pre-nourishment and the

second year post-nourishment at the control beach based on the results of the paired t-test.

Hutchinson Island (2005). The results of the paired t-test for the 2005 nourishment

event at the Hutchinson Island INBS beach found significant decreases in nesting densities for

one of the comparisons at the nourished beach, and for all of the comparisons for the second and

third years post-nourishment at the control beach. The data for this nourishment event were

52

normal, indicating that the results of the paired t-test were reliable. However, the results of the

paired t-test and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test correlated well for this beach.

John U. Lloyd State Park. None of the comparisons between the pre- and post-

nourishment events for the 1996 nourishment of John U. Lloyd State Park INBS beach was

determined to be significantly different. Both the paired t-test and the nonparametric Wilcoxon

signed ranks test gave similar results, strengthening the basis for this conclusion.

Juno Beach. The Juno Beach INBS beach had significant decreases in nesting densities

for the five of the nine comparisons for the nourished portion of the study area. The control

beach had a significant increase in nesting densities for one comparison and a significant

decrease in nesting densities for one comparison.

Jupiter Island. For the 1999 nourishment event at the Jupiter Island INBS beach, no

significant differences were observed for the nourished portion of the study area in either the

paired t-test or the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed ranks test. An analysis of the control portion

of the study area found significant decreases in nesting densities for two of the comparisons.

The paired t-test and the Wilcoxon signed ranks correlated with respect to their results.

Patrick Air Force Base. The nourished portion of the Patrick Air Force Base INBS

beach had significant decreases in the sea turtle nesting densities for all but two of the

comparisons. The two comparisons that were not significantly different were between the

second and third years pre-nourishment and the third year post-nourishment. These results were

reinforced due to the correlation between both statistical analyses of the data. Since the control

portion of the study area only included one survey zone, there were not enough data for the

control beach to analyze it.

53

Sebastian Inlet State Park. The 2003 nourishment event at the Sebastian Inlet INBS

beach had significant decreases in nesting densities for two comparisons at the nourished portion

of the INBS beach and for five comparisons at the control beach. The nonparametric Wilcoxon

signed ranks test did not indicate any significant differences in the comparisons between the pre-

and post-nourishment nesting densities for either the nourished or the control portions of the

study beach. Although the results of the paired t-test and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test varied

considerably for this study beach, the differences in the data followed a normal distribution.

Therefore, this study will rely on the results of the more robust paired t-test.

St. Joe Peninsula State Park. For the St. Joe Peninsula State Park INBS beach 2005

nourishment event, the results of both the paired t-test and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test

indicate a significant decrease in nesting densities between two of the comparisons at the

nourished portion of the beach and two of the comparisons at the control portion of the beach.

Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park (1996). The 1996 nourishment event at Delnor-

Wiggins Pass State Park INBS beach had a significant decrease in sea turtle nesting densities for

two of the nine comparisons at the nourished portion of the beach based on the paired t-test.

Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park (2006). The 2006 nourishment event at Delnor-

Wiggins Pass State Park did not have any significant differences at the nourished portion of the

INBS beach. Two comparisons at the control portion of the beach had significantly decreased

nesting densities, which was observed using both types of statistical tests.

Discussion

The results of the statistical analyses found that five of the twelve nourishment events

studied provided evidence supporting the hypothesis that nesting densities decreased for the first

two years post-nourishment. In addition, one beach experienced no difference and one beach

experienced an increase in loggerhead nesting following nourishment for the nourished portion

54

of the study area. For the control portions of each study beach, five beaches experienced no

significant differences in nesting densities, two beaches experienced one increase and one

decrease, three beaches experienced two decreases, and the remaining three beaches experienced

five or more decreases in nesting densities. Table 3-25 shows the frequency with which

significant differences in loggerhead nesting densities occurred for each of the comparisons at all

of the study beaches.

Conclusions

As shown in Table 3-25, the most significant decreases in loggerhead nesting were

observed between the year just prior to nourishment and the first and second years following

nourishment. However, variations in this trend occurred. Four study beaches (John U. Lloyd

State Park, Juno Beach, Patrick Air Force Base, and the 1996 nourishment at Delnor-Wiggins

Pass State Park) experienced decreases in loggerhead nesting densities over the two-year period

following nourishment activities. These four nourishment events supported the hypothesis that a

decrease in loggerhead nesting would occur for two years following nourishment, but would

return to pre-nourishment densities by the third year post-nourishment. In addition, two of the

nourishment events analyzed (the 1998 nourishment at Boca Raton and the 1996 nourishment at

Hutchinson Island) generally supported the hypothesis based on a decrease in loggerhead turtle

nesting densities the first year following nourishment. Figure 3-14 plots a summary of the

loggerhead turtle nesting densities for all 13 nourishment events.

The remaining seven nourishment events analyzed did not fully agree with the study

hypothesis. Five nourishment events (Boca Raton – 1997, Jupiter Island, Sebastian Inlet, St. Joe

Peninsula State Park, and Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park – 2006) did not exhibit any observed

trend in nesting patterns following nourishment activities. Two nourishment events (Atlantic-

Jacksonville Beach and Hutchinson Island – 2005) exhibited an increase in nesting at the

55

nourished portion of the study beach, suggesting nourishment activities may have had a positive

influence on nesting activities at these beaches.

An increase in loggerhead nesting at a control beach could be due to gravid females

preferring the non-nourished beach over the nourished beach; however, this explanation is more

plausible for beaches with significant decreases at the nourished beach for the same year. In a

similar manner, a decrease in nesting females at the control beach could be explained by stating

that the nourished beach provided preferable habitat for nesting females if the control beach

became eroded or scarped. The increase in nesting densities at the nourished portion of Atlantic-

Jacksonville Beach could be due the improvement of the nesting habitat following nourishment.

The results of this study indicate that beach nourishment has the most impact on nesting

loggerhead sea turtles during the first two years following construction. However, variations in

this trend may occur based on the habitat available prior to nourishment, changes to the physical

characteristics of the beach following nourishment, or natural variation in nesting trends.

Coastal zone managers should focus on minimizing risk to nesting sea turtles during the two

years in which nesting is known to be vulnerable.

56

Figure 3-1. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Atlantic-Jacksonville Beaches study beach. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities.

Figure 3-2. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Boca Raton study beach for the 1997 nourishment event. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities.

57

Figure 3-3. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Boca Raton study beach for the 1998 nourishment event. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities.

Figure 3-4. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Hutchinson Island study beach for the 1996 nourishment event. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities.

58

Figure 3-5. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Hutchinson Island study beach for the 2005 nourishment event. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities.

Figure 3-6. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the John U. Lloyd State Park. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities.

59

Figure 3-7. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Juno Beach. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities.

Figure 3-8. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Jupiter Beach. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities.

60

Figure 3-9. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on Patrick Air Force Base. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities.

Figure 3-10. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Sebastian Inlet INBS beach. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities.

61

Figure 3-11. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at St. Joe Peninsula State Park INBS beach. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities.

Figure 3-12. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Wiggins Pass INBS beach for the 1996 nourishment event. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities.

62

Figure 3-13. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Wiggins Pass INBS beach for the 2006 nourishment event. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities.

Figure 3-14. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between the nourished and the control beaches for all of the 13 nourishment events. The nesting densities were weighted based on the number of nests at the individual beaches. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities. Note the decrease in nesting densities the first year post-nourishment. Significant decreases for this comparison were observed for six of the 13 nourishment events.

63

Figure 3-15. Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Boca Raton INBS beach for the 1997 nourishment event. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities. Moving averages are included based on the tendency of extremes in nesting greens on alternating years.

Figure 3-16. Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Boca Raton INBS beach for the 1998 nourishment event. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities. Moving averages are included based on the tendency of extremes in nesting greens on alternating years.

64

Figure 3-17. Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Hutchinson Island INBS beach for the 1996 nourishment event. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities. Moving averages are included based on the tendency of extremes in nesting greens on alternating years.

Figure 3-18. Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Hutchinson Island INBS beach for the 2005 nourishment event. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities. Moving averages are included based on the tendency of extremes in nesting greens on alternating years.

65

Figure 3-19. Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at John U. Lloyd State Park INBS beach for the 2006 nourishment event. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities. Moving averages are included based on the tendency of extremes in nesting greens on alternating years.

Figure 3-20. Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Juno Beach INBS beach for the 2001 nourishment event. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities. Moving averages are included based on the tendency of extremes in nesting greens on alternating years.

66

Figure 3-21. Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Jupiter Beach INBS beach for the 1999 nourishment event. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities. Moving averages are included based on the tendency of extremes in nesting greens on alternating years.

Figure 3-22. Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Patrick Air Force Base INBS beach for the 2001 nourishment event. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities. Moving averages are included based on the tendency of extremes in nesting greens on alternating years.

67

Figure 3-23. Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Sebastian Inlet INBS beach for the 2003 nourishment event. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities. Moving averages are included based on the tendency of extremes in nesting greens on alternating years.

68

69

Figure 3-24. Histograms of differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities at study beaches with more than one survey zone in the nourished or control portions of the beach. A) Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach, 1995 Nourishment Event (nourished beach only). B) Boca Raton, 1998 Nourishment Event. C) Hutchinson Island, 1996 Nourishment Event. D) Hutchinson Island, 2005 Nourishment Event. E) John U. Lloyd State Park, 2006 Nourishment Event. F) Juno Beach, 2001 Nourishment Event. G) Jupiter Island, 1999 Nourishment Event. H) Patrick Air Force Base, 2001 Nourishment Event (nourished beach only). I) Sebastian Inlet, 2003 Nourishment Event. J) St. Joe Peninsula State Park, 2005 Nourishment Event. K) Wiggins Pass, 1996 Nourishment Event. L) Wiggins Pass, 2006 Nourishment Event.

70

Table 3-1. Results of Paired t-Test for Atlantic-Jacksonville INBS Beach for the 1995 nourishment event. Shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05; none present).

Comparison CI (Lower) CI (Upper) n t Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -.0038070 -.0002280 8 -2.666 0.032 0.984 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -.0058940 .0002723 8 -2.156 0.068 0.966 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -.0047905 .0007809 8 -1.702 0.133 0.934 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -.0027960 .0000041 8 -2.358 0.051 0.975 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -.0048285 .0004499 8 -1.962 0.091 0.955 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -.0037480 .0009814 8 -1.383 0.209 0.895 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -.0003894 .0019727 8 1.585 0.157 0.078 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -.0017699 .0017664 8 -.002 0.998 0.501 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -.0004286 .0020371 8 1.543 0.167 0.083

Table 3-2. Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for Atlantic-Jacksonville INBS Beach for the 1995 nourishment event. The shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison Z-Value n Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -2.197a 8 0.028 0.986 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -2.201a 8 0.028 0.986 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -1.461a 8 0.144 0.928 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -1.992a 8 0.046 0.977 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -2.023a 8 0.043 0.978 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -1.352a 8 0.176 0.912 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -1.483b 8 0.138 0.069 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -.105a 8 0.917 0.542 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -1.490b 8 0.136 0.068

a Based on positive ranks. b Based on negative ranks.

71

Table 3-3. Results of Paired t-Test for Boca Raton INBS Beach for the 1998 nourishment event.

Shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison CI (Lower) CI (Upper) n t Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 .016396339 .118270400 2 16.796 0.038 0.019 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -.144700710 .175150599 2 1.210 0.440 0.220 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -.038582227 .102452336 2 5.754 0.110 0.055 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 .042747483 .112697221 2 28.236 0.023 0.011 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -.048399828 .099627682 2 4.397 0.142 0.071 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 .026929420 .057718655 2 34.933 0.018 0.009 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -.072782835 .133904351 2 3.757 0.166 0.083 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -.233879885 .190784550 2 -1.289 0.420 0.790 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -.127761401 .118086287 2 -.500 0.705 0.648 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -.037537386 .059913013 4 .731 0.518 0.259 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -.014175846 .084918879 4 2.272 0.108 0.054 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -.003012326 .077197713 4 2.943 0.060 0.030 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -.035103391 .018072464 4 -1.019 0.383 0.808 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -.015046776 .046383254 4 1.623 0.203 0.101 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -.012250166 .047028999 4 1.867 0.159 0.079 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -.092528255 -.023483338 4 -5.347 0.013 0.994 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -.062521380 -.005122806 4 -3.751 0.033 0.983 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -.054317781 -.009884052 4 -4.598 0.019 0.990

72

Table 3-4. Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for Boca Raton INBS

Beach for the 1998 nourishment event. The shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison Z-Value n Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -1.342b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -.447b 2 0.655 0.673 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -.730a 4 0.465 0.233 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -1.461a 4 0.144 0.072 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -1.826a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -1.095b 4 0.273 0.863 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -1.461a 4 0.144 0.072 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -1.604a 4 0.109 0.054 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -1.826b 4 0.068 0.966 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -1.826b 4 0.068 0.966 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -1.826b 4 0.068 0.966

a Based on positive ranks. b Based on negative ranks.

73

Table 3-5. Results of Paired t-Test for Hutchinson Island INBS Beach for the 1996 nourishment event. Shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison CI (Lower) CI (Upper) n t Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -.040974779 .036660117 5 -.154 0.885 0.558 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -.016172284 .056312497 5 1.538 0.199 0.099 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -.004559174 .020763776 5 1.777 0.150 0.075 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -.085133023 .093882025 5 .136 0.899 0.449 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -.028185147 .081389024 5 1.348 0.249 0.124 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -.045836807 .075105073 5 .672 0.538 0.269 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -.035559347 .109193536 5 1.412 0.231 0.115 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 .011482009 .106607055 5 3.447 0.026 0.013 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -.003961946 .098115400 5 2.561 0.063 0.031 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -.110354004 -.034891801 6 -4.948 0.004 0.998 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -.020300673 .050784516 6 1.102 0.321 0.160 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -.026240366 -.003721137 6 -3.420 0.019 0.991 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -.107460336 -.032269993 6 -4.777 0.005 0.998 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -.016447043 .052446363 6 1.343 0.237 0.118 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -.038630469 .014184443 6 -1.190 0.288 0.856 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -.049624553 .063588006 6 .317 0.764 0.382 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 .048511070 .141182032 6 5.262 0.003 0.002 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -.000599440 .129847196 6 2.547 0.051 0.026

74

Table 3-6. Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for Hutchinson Island INBS Beach for the 1996 nourishment event. The shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison Z-Value n Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -.135a 5 0.893 0.554 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -1.214b 5 0.225 0.112 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -1.483b 5 0.138 0.069 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -.674b 5 0.500 0.250 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -1.214b 5 0.225 0.112 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -.674b 5 0.500 0.250 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -1.214b 5 0.225 0.112 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -2.023b 5 0.043 0.022 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -1.753b 5 0.080 0.040 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -2.201a 6 0.028 0.986 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -.734b 6 0.463 0.232 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -2.023a 6 0.043 0.978 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -2.201a 6 0.028 0.986 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -.943b 6 0.345 0.173 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -1.214a 6 0.225 0.888 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -.314b 6 0.753 0.377 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -2.201b 6 0.028 0.014 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -1.992b 6 0.046 0.023

a Based on negative ranks. b Based on positive ranks.

75

Table 3-7. Results of Paired t-Test for Hutchinson Island INBS Beach for the 2005 nourishment event. Shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison CI (Lower) CI (Upper) n t Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -.011151560 .060249181 2 8.737 0.073 0.036 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -.152193756 .266258758 2 3.464 0.179 0.089 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -.164279911 .311129398 2 3.925 0.159 0.079 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -.022087179 .025860764 2 1.000 0.500 0.250 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -.186582173 .255323139 2 1.977 0.298 0.149 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -.198668328 .300193778 2 2.586 0.235 0.117 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -.214293810 .134048488 2 -2.927 0.210 0.895 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -.078394448 .063116508 2 -1.372 0.401 0.799 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -.090480604 .107987147 2 1.121 0.464 0.232 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -.010875525 .052072405 24 1.354 0.189 0.094 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 .033864013 .075447071 24 5.438 0.000 0.000 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 .023649376 .070651611 24 4.150 0.000 0.000 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -.024375306 .038703164 24 .470 0.643 0.321 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 .024404475 .058037588 24 5.071 0.000 0.000 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 .015247644 .052184321 24 3.777 0.001 0.000 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -.029236241 .025906895 24 -.125 0.902 0.549 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 .014437829 .050347030 24 3.732 0.001 0.001 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 .007951330 .041823432 24 3.040 0.006 0.003

76

Table 3-8. Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for Hutchinson Island INBS Beach for the 2005 nourishment event. The shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison Z-Value n Two-Tailed P-Value One-Tailed P-Value Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -1.000a 2 0.317 0.159 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -1.342b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -1.342b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -1.971a 24 0.049 0.024 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -4.057a 24 0.000 0.000 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -3.629a 24 0.000 0.000 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -.914a 24 0.361 0.180 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -3.629a 24 0.000 0.000 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -3.229a 24 0.001 0.001 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -.400a 24 0.689 0.345 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -2.943a 24 0.003 0.002 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -2.571a 24 0.010 0.005

a Based on positive ranks. b

Based on negative ranks.

77

Table 3-9. Results of Paired t-Test for John U. Lloyd State Park INBS Beach for the 2006 nourishment event. Based on the one-tailed p-value which tested for a significant decrease in loggerhead turtle nesting densities before and after nourishment activities, decreases were observed between the year just prior to nourishment and the two years following nourishment (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison CI (Lower) CI (Upper) n t

Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -.308932101 .407443428 2 1.747 0.331 0.165 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -.297342832 .372353944 2 1.423 0.390 0.195 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -.372153020 .443805275 2 1.116 0.465 0.233 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -.160530428 .220237273 2 1.992 0.296 0.148 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -.148941160 .185147789 2 1.377 0.400 0.200 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -.223751348 .256599120 2 0.869 0.545 0.272 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -.015225953 .060867688 2 7.621 0.083 0.042 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -.003636684 .025778204 2 9.564 0.066 0.033 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -.078446872 .097229535 2 1.358 0.404 0.202 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -.175035087 .162581716 2 -0.469 0.721 0.640 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -.169149331 .166279890 2 -0.109 0.931 0.534 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -.148156571 .099404778 2 -2.502 0.242 0.879 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -.131718578 .090685579 2 -2.344 0.257 0.872 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -.125832822 .094383754 2 -1.815 0.321 0.840 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -.220052707 .142721287 2 -2.709 0.225 0.887 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -.086517297 .069530210 2 -1.383 0.399 0.801 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -.080631541 .073228384 2 -0.611 0.651 0.675 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -.241208077 .187922568 2 -1.578 0.360 0.820

78

Table 3-10. Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the John U. Lloyd State Park INBS Beach for the 2006 nourishment event. None of the comparisons of loggerhead turtle nesting densities from this test were statistically significant (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison Z-Value n Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -.447a 2 0.655 0.327 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -.447b 2 0.655 0.673 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -.447b 2 0.655 0.673 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -1.342b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -1.342b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -1.342b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -1.342b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -1.342b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -.447b 2 0.655 0.673 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -1.342b 2 0.180 0.910

a Based on positive ranks. b

Based on negative ranks.

79

Table 3-11. Results of the Paired t-Test for the Juno Beach INBS Beach for the 2001 nourishment event. Shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison CI (Lower) CI (Upper) n t Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -.052353808 .331127653 4 2.313 0.104 0.052 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 .127569805 .269657477 4 8.897 0.003 0.001 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -.050251615 .251167146 4 2.121 0.124 0.062 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -.096683306 .451852085 4 2.061 0.131 0.066 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -.023568179 .497190395 4 2.894 0.063 0.031 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -.249888424 .527198889 4 1.136 0.339 0.169 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 .023511207 .332074649 4 3.667 0.035 0.018 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 .164967864 .309071428 4 10.469 0.002 0.001 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -.045476294 .323203835 4 2.397 0.096 0.048 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -.224715352 -.014009974 5 -3.146 0.035 0.983 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -.111883588 .067147111 5 -.694 0.526 0.737 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -.383739112 .538216239 5 .465 0.666 0.333 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -.236113779 .023808672 5 -2.268 0.086 0.957 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -.142260354 .123944097 5 -.191 0.858 0.571 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -.362907545 .543804892 5 .554 0.609 0.305 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -.151759745 .019154653 5 -2.154 0.098 0.951 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -.008388145 .069771902 5 2.181 0.095 0.047 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -.336730833 .597328194 5 .775 0.482 0.241

80

Table 3-12. Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Juno Beach INBS Beach for the 2001 nourishment event. Shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison Z-Value n Two-Tailed P-Value One-Tailed P-Value Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -1.604a 4 0.109 0.054 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -1.826a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -1.461a 4 0.144 0.072 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -1.826a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -1.826a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -1.095a 4 0.273 0.137 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -1.826a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -1.826a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -1.826a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -2.023b 5 0.043 0.978 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -.135b 5 0.893 0.554 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -.674a 5 0.500 0.250 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -2.023b 5 0.043 0.978 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -.405a 5 0.686 0.343 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -.674a 5 0.500 0.250 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -1.753b 5 0.080 0.960 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -1.753a 5 0.080 0.040 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -.674a 5 0.500 0.250

a Based on positive ranks. b

Based on negative ranks.

81

Table 3-13. Results of the Paired t-Test for the Jupiter Island INBS Beach for the 1999 nourishment event. Shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison CI (Lower) CI (Upper) n t Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -.424448196 .468125197 2 .622 0.646 0.323 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -1.172620369 .963961407 2 -1.241 0.432 0.784 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -.195169835 .176078537 2 -.653 0.632 0.684 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -.277402384 .180597517 2 -2.686 0.227 0.887 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -1.025574557 .676433727 2 -2.606 0.233 0.883 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -.111449143 -.048124024 2 -32.018 0.020 0.990 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -.326197214 .610004467 2 3.852 0.162 0.081 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -.138167706 .169638996 2 1.299 0.418 0.209 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -.618243874 .839282827 2 1.927 0.305 0.152 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -.087710130 .073325199 11 -.199 0.846 0.577 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -.078908442 .049458866 11 -.511 0.620 0.690 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -.002968723 .131738672 11 2.130 0.059 0.030 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -.200033397 .032204859 11 -1.610 0.138 0.931 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -.198997194 .016104010 11 -1.895 0.087 0.956 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -.113432576 .088758917 11 -.272 0.791 0.604 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -.039370862 .142212161 11 1.262 0.236 0.118 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -.023174627 .110951281 11 1.458 0.175 0.088 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 .055624805 .190371374 11 4.068 0.002 0.001

82

Table 3-14. Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Jupiter Island INBS Beach for the 1999 nourishment event. Shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison Z-Value n Two-Tailed P-Value One-Tailed P-Value Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -.447a 2 0.655 0.327 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -1.342b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -.447b 2 0.655 0.673 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -1.342b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -1.342b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -1.342b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -.089a 11 0.929 0.465 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -.622b 11 0.534 0.733 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -1.956a 11 0.050 0.025 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -1.867b 11 0.062 0.969 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -1.956b 11 0.050 0.975 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -1.511b 11 0.131 0.935 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -.889a 11 0.374 0.187 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -1.423a 11 0.155 0.077 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -2.756a 11 0.006 0.003

a Based on positive ranks. b

Based on negative ranks.

83

Table 3-15. Results of the Paired t-Test for the Patrick Air Force Base INBS Beach for the 2001 nourishment event. Shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison CI (Lower) CI (Upper) n t

Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 .049852731 .198722993 5 4.636 0.010 0.005 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 .061429469 .202984726 5 5.186 0.007 0.003 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -.007095434 .146833228 5 2.520 0.065 0.033 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -.001699155 .108080833 5 2.690 0.055 0.027 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -.004077911 .126298060 5 2.603 0.060 0.030 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -.071423762 .068967509 5 -.049 0.964 0.518 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -.006881610 .132449061 5 2.502 0.067 0.033 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -.010889598 .152295518 5 2.406 0.074 0.037 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -.077048852 .093778371 5 .272 0.799 0.400

Table 3-16. Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Patrick Air Force Base INBS Beach for the 2001 nourishment event. Shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison Z-Value n Two-Tailed P-Value One-Tailed P-Value Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -2.023a 5 0.043 0.022 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -2.023a 5 0.043 0.022 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -2.023a 5 0.043 0.022 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -1.753a 5 0.080 0.040 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -2.023a 5 0.043 0.022 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -.135b 5 0.893 0.554 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -2.023a 5 0.043 0.022 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -1.753a 5 0.080 0.040 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -.135b 5 0.893 0.554

a Based on positive ranks. b Based on negative ranks.

84

Table 3-17. Results of the Paired t-Test for the Sebastian Inlet INBS Beach for the 2003

nourishment event. Shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison CI (Lower) CI (Upper) n t Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -.043450255 .174121945 2 7.631 0.083 0.041 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -.248196114 .453608087 2 3.719 0.167 0.084 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -.106222226 .217517547 2 4.368 0.143 0.072 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -.446175338 .449575700 2 .048 0.969 0.485 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 .027257640 .050883003 2 42.026 0.015 0.008 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -.185207537 .169231529 2 -.573 0.669 0.666 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -.113395681 .171984631 2 2.609 0.233 0.117 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -.250333428 .383662660 2 2.672 0.228 0.114 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -.108359540 .147572120 2 1.947 0.302 0.151 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 .002201834 .215305823 3 4.392 0.048 0.024 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -.022001492 .375188654 3 3.826 0.062 0.031 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 .024398692 .126942880 3 6.350 0.024 0.012 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -.082896001 .088127724 3 .132 0.907 0.454 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -.002038678 .142949905 3 4.182 0.053 0.026 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -.169961316 .109026953 3 -.940 0.447 0.777 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -.037072996 .111316164 3 2.153 0.164 0.082 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 .015527779 .194394893 3 5.050 0.037 0.019 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -.089128445 .097205527 3 .187 0.869 0.435

85

Table 3-18. Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Sebastian Inlet INBS Beach for the 2003 nourishment event. None of the comparisons of loggerhead turtle nesting densities from this test were statistically significant (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison Z-Value n Two-Tailed P-Value One-Tailed P-Value Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -.447a 2 0.655 0.327 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -.447b 2 0.655 0.673 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -1.604a 3 0.109 0.054 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -1.604a 3 0.109 0.054 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -1.604a 3 0.109 0.054 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -.535a 3 0.593 0.296 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -1.604a 3 0.109 0.054 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -1.069b 3 0.285 0.857 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -1.604a 3 0.109 0.054 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -1.604a 3 0.109 0.054 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 .000c 3 1.000 0.500

a Based on positive ranks. b Based on negative ranks. c The sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks.

86

Table 3-19. Results of the Paired t-Test for the St. Joe Peninsula State Park INBS Beach for the

2005 nourishment event. Shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison CI (Lower) CI (Upper) n t Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -.003631114 .004135698 4 .207 0.849 0.425 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -.001944091 .007480541 4 1.870 0.158 0.079 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 .001794265 .003526953 4 9.774 0.002 0.001 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -.003034641 .003867341 4 .384 0.727 0.363 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -.002635134 .008499701 4 1.676 0.192 0.096 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 .000686390 .004962945 4 4.204 0.025 0.012 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -.010829250 .004858619 4 -1.211 0.313 0.844 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -.006919406 .005980641 4 -.232 0.832 0.584 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -.007011894 .005857897 4 -.285 0.794 0.603 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -.000474083 .004268236 30 1.636 0.113 0.056 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 .000308868 .004295381 30 2.362 0.025 0.013 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 .000011986 .005488892 30 2.054 0.049 0.025 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -.003971239 .000012500 30 -2.032 0.051 0.974 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -.003211494 .000062850 30 -1.967 0.059 0.971 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -.002979276 .000727261 30 -1.243 0.224 0.888 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -.003527884 .000837856 30 -1.260 0.218 0.891 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -.002658538 .000778605 30 -1.119 0.272 0.864 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -.002690703 .001707400 30 -.457 0.651 0.675

87

Table 3-20. Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the St. Joe Peninsula State Park INBS Beach for the 2005 nourishment event. Shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison Z-Value n Two-Tailed P-Value One-Tailed P-Value Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -.447a 4 0.655 0.327 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -1.604a 4 0.109 0.054 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -1.826a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 .000b 4 1.000 0.500 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -1.342a 4 0.180 0.090 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -1.826a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -1.069c 4 0.285 0.857 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -.535c 4 0.593 0.704 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 .000b 4 1.000 0.500 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -1.640a 30 0.101 0.051 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -2.159a 30 0.031 0.015 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -1.886a 30 0.059 0.030 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -1.867c 30 0.062 0.969 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -1.891c 30 0.059 0.971 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -1.217c 30 0.223 0.888 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -1.029c 30 0.304 0.848 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -.915c 30 0.360 0.820 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -.740c 30 0.459 0.770

a Based on positive ranks. b The sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks. c

Based on negative ranks.

88

Table 3-21. Results of the Paired t-Test for the Wiggins Pass INBS Beach for the 1996 nourishment event. None of the comparisons between loggerhead turtle nesting densities from this test were statistically significant (p-value < 0.05). The comparison of Pre-N1 and Post-N1 could not be computed, because the standard error of the difference was 0.00.

Comparison CI (Lower) CI (Upper) n t Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -.043589141 .040796470 2 -.421 0.747 0.627 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -.064164041 .051233441 2 -1.424 0.390 0.805 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -.055217947 .064651909 2 1.000 0.500 0.250 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -.014421477 .021062768 2 2.378 0.253 0.127 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -.003984505 .000487868 2 -9.934 0.064 0.968 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -.000951416 .038710462 2 12.097 0.053 0.026 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -.004878679 .039845054 2 9.934 0.064 0.032 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -.025453580 .050282025 2 4.165 0.150 0.075 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -.021210950 .007266173 6 -1.259 0.264 0.868 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -.016610734 .016326649 6 -.022 0.983 0.508 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -.017563897 .005526258 6 -1.340 0.238 0.881 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -.036353351 .031616251 6 -.179 0.865 0.568 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -.028852520 .037776111 6 .344 0.745 0.372 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -.033851708 .031021747 6 -.112 0.915 0.542 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -.015797598 .010073444 6 -.569 0.594 0.703 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -.005715760 .013652297 6 1.053 0.340 0.170 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -.014856648 .011039633 6 -.379 0.720 0.640

89

Table 3-22. Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Wiggins Pass INBS Beach for loggerhead turtles for the 1996 nourishment event. None of the comparisons from this test were statistically significant (p-value < 0.05). The comparison of Pre-N1 and Post-N1 could not be computed, because the standard error of the difference was 0.00.

Comparison Z-Value n Two-Tailed P-Value One-Tailed P-Value Pre-N1 - Post-N1 .000a 2 1.000 0.500 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -.447b 2 0.655 0.673 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -1.342b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -1.000c 2 0.317 0.159 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -1.342c 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -1.342b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -1.342c 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -1.342c 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -1.342c 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -1.214b 6 0.225 0.888 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -.105c 6 0.917 0.458 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -1.363b 6 0.173 0.914 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -.943b 6 0.345 0.827 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -.674b 6 0.500 0.750 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -.943b 6 0.345 0.827 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -.524b 6 0.600 0.700 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -.944c 6 0.345 0.173 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -.405b 6 0.686 0.657

a The sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks. b Based on negative ranks. c Based on positive ranks.

90

Table 3-23. Results of the Paired t-Test for the Wiggins Pass INBS Beach for the 2006 nourishment event. Shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison CI (Lower) CI (Upper) n t Two-Tailed P-Value

One-Tailed P-Value

Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -.077866567 .084343465 2 .507 0.701 0.351 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -.056803798 .069921988 2 1.315 0.414 0.207 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -.023502108 .034344004 2 2.381 0.253 0.127 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -.059094590 .062364304 2 .342 0.790 0.395 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -.038031822 .047942827 2 1.465 0.381 0.191 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -.004730131 .012364843 2 5.675 0.111 0.056 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -.062848985 .066760136 2 .383 0.767 0.383 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -.041786217 .052338659 2 1.425 0.390 0.195 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -.008484527 .016760675 2 4.165 0.150 0.075 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -.000453049 .036758026 4 3.105 0.053 0.027 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -.009478093 .042745456 4 2.027 0.136 0.068 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -.005005732 .030297618 4 2.280 0.107 0.053 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 .002215842 .011455188 4 4.709 0.018 0.009 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -.005086771 .015720186 4 1.626 0.202 0.101 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 -.008902295 .011560233 4 .413 0.707 0.354 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -.015010922 .011648712 4 -.401 0.715 0.642 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -.016501575 .010101751 4 -.766 0.500 0.750 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -.018450645 .004075343 4 -2.031 0.135 0.932

91

Table 3-24. Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Wiggins Pass INBS Beach for the 2006 nourishment event. Shaded rows indicate the comparisons for which statistically significant differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities occurred (p-value < 0.05).

Comparison Z-Value n Two-Tailed P-Value One-Tailed P-Value Pre-N1 - Post-N1 -.447a 2 0.655 0.327 Pre-N1 - Post-N2 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N1 - Post-N3 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N2 - Post-N1 -.447a 2 0.655 0.327 Pre-N2 - Post-N2 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N2 - Post-N3 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N3 - Post-N1 -.447a 2 0.655 0.327 Pre-N3 - Post-N2 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-N3 - Post-N3 -1.342a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre-C1 - Post-C1 -1.826a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre-C1 - Post-C2 -1.604a 4 0.109 0.054 Pre-C1 - Post-C3 -1.604a 4 0.109 0.054 Pre-C2 - Post-C1 -1.826a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre-C2 - Post-C2 -1.461a 4 0.144 0.072 Pre-C2 - Post-C3 .000b 4 1.000 0.500 Pre-C3 - Post-C1 -.365c 4 0.715 0.642 Pre-C3 - Post-C2 -.365c 4 0.715 0.642 Pre-C3 - Post-C3 -1.461c 4 0.144 0.928

a Based on positive ranks. b The sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks. c Based on negative ranks.

Table 3-25. Table showing the percentages which loggerhead turtle nests increased or decreased for a particular comparison. Pre-N1 indicates the third year prior to nourishment at the nourished portion of the study beach, Pre-N2 indicates the second year prior to nourishment, Pre-N3 the first year prior to nourishment. Post-N1 indicates the first year following nourishment, Post-N2 indicates the second year following nourishment, and Post-N3 indicates the third year after nourishment. The nine columns at the right indicate the same years for the control portion of the study beach (referenced with the level “C”). Positive percentages indicate an increase in nesting densities between the years indicated, while a negative number indicates a decrease in nesting densities. The shaded cells indicate values that are statistically significant based on either the paired t-test or the Wilcoxon signed ranks test, as referenced in the text.

Beach name

Year of Nourishment event

Pre-N1 - Post- N1

Pre-N2 - Post- N1

Pre-N3 - Post- N1

Pre-N1 - Post- N2

Pre-N2 - Post- N2

Pre-N3 - Post- N2

Pre-N1 - Post- N3

Pre-N2 - Post- N3

Pre-N3 - Post- N3

Pre-C1 - Post- C1

Pre-C2 - Post- C1

Pre-C3 - Post- C1

Pre-C1 - Post- C2

Pre-C2 - Post- C2

Pre-C3 - Post- C2

Pre-C1 - Post- C3

Pre-C2 - Post- C3

Pre-C3 - Post- C3

Atlantic- Jacksonville Beach 1995 76.2 52.4 -27.6 65.5 65.5 0.0 76.2 52.4 -27.6 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 -75.0 -50.0 -75.0 Boca Raton 1997 -42.5 -43.8 -29.6 7.3 7.3 26.0 18.7 16.8 33.6 -11.5 -46.5 -45.2 -25.6 -55.0 -54.0 12.4 -31.0 -29.4 Boca Raton 1998 -81.1 -83.1 -66.2 -31.1 -27.7 30.8 -38.6 -45.3 8.6 -7.6 7.6 48.8 -26.4 -13.9 35.6 -28.2 -15.9 34.0 Hutchinson Island 1996 1.5 -1.9 -19.4 -18.1 -17.5 -32.2 -5.8 -8.9 -25.2 34.7 33.0 -7.8 -3.4 -5.8 -41.8 10.5 8.2 -32.7 Hutchinson Island 2005 -11.5 9.5 40.6 -10.6 -13.3 24.4 -29.2 -11.6 25.8 -4.5 4.7 16.2 -28.5 -21.4 -10.6 -22.4 -14.8 -3.0 John U. Lloyd State Park 2006 -67.9 -56.3 -50.0 -24.8 -33.8 -24.3 -48.6 -30.0 -20.0 -5.6 47.1 14.7 -19.4 37.9 0.0 47.1 73.5 57.4 Juno Beach 2001 -25.8 -29.7 -31.1 -43.6 -41.3 -42.5 -18.4 -22.6 -24.1 16.7 15.0 11.1 1.6 -0.5 -4.8 -27.7 -29.2 -32.3 Jupiter Island 1999 -6.6 16.5 -32.5 41.5 41.5 -3.5 3.0 24.3 -25.5 2.3 25.8 -10.8 4.0 27.1 -9.2 -16.7 8.8 -27.4 Patrick Air Force Base 2001 -46.9 -25.4 -28.1 -19.3 -27.2 -29.8 -24.6 5.6 2.1 -13.3 -16.7 -1.7 -54.2 -56.0 -48.1 -42.5 -44.7 -34.8 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2003 -30.0 -2.0 -16.3 -17.8 -25.0 -35.9 -25.2 4.5 -10.5 -39.4 -4.2 -19.6 -63.2 -41.8 -51.2 -28.0 12.2 -4.4 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 -6.7 -6.7 35.7 -33.3 -33.3 10.0 -33.3 -33.3 10.0 -21.4 32.5 24.7 -27.6 26.8 18.3 -32.7 21.2 12.1 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1996 0.0 -20.0 -62.5 -25.0 -20.0 -62.5 29.4 11.8 -46.9 31.9 30.1 10.8 11.0 8.7 -14.2 28.5 26.6 6.3 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2006 -38.2 -27.6 -30.0 -41.2 -48.3 -50.0 -41.2 -31.0 -33.3 -65.1 -39.3 -2.6 -59.4 -29.5 11.6 -41.5 1.6 38.7

93

Table 3-26. The percentage of increase or decrease in green turtle nesting for a particular comparison. Moving averages were used for the green turtle nesting analysis due to the biennial variation in nesting. Therefore, no change in nesting can be shown for the third year prior to nesting. Pre-N2 indicates the average of the third and second year prior to nourishment, Pre-N3 indicates the average of the second and first year prior to nourishment. Similarly, Post-N1 indicates the average of the first year prior to nourishment and the first year following nourishment, Post-N2 indicates the average of the first year following nourishment and the second year following nourishment, and Post-N3 indicates average between the second and third years after nourishment. The six columns at the right indicate the same years for the control portion of the study beach (referenced with the level “C”). Positive percentages indicate an increase in nesting densities between the years indicated, while a negative number indicates a decrease in nesting densities. The shaded cells indicate beaches at which no green turtles nested during the six year study period.

Beach name

Year of nourishment event

Pre-N2 – Post-N1

Pre-N3 – Post-N1

Pre-N2 – Post-N2

Pre-N3 – Post-N2

Pre-N2 – Post-N3

Pre-N3 – Post-N3

Pre-C2 – Post-C1

Pre-C3 – Post-C1

Pre-C2 – Post-C2

Pre-C3 – Post-C2

Pre-C2 – Post-C3

Pre-C3 – Post-C3

Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1995 Boca Raton 1997 -14.29 0.00 -14.29 0.00 22.22 33.33 0.00 -30.00 -71.43 -80.00 -71.43 -80.00

Boca Raton 1998 -100.00 -100.00 -100.00 -100.00 12.50 12.50 30.43 26.09 27.27 22.73 49.47 46.32 Hutchinson Island 1996 -45.83 -39.53 -45.83 -39.53 -27.08 -18.60 -24.14 -15.38 -6.90 3.70 21.62 29.73 Hutchinson Island 2005 -61.90 -11.11 -73.81 -38.89 -30.95 37.93 -5.49 52.51 8.81 59.07 14.98 61.84 John U. Lloyd State Park 2006 -11.11 -46.67 -44.44 -66.67 -55.56 -73.33 50.00 -7.69 45.45 -15.38 70.00 35.00 Juno Beach 2001 36.69 -2.31 18.32 -24.28 28.19 -13.87 38.65 -2.82 66.71 44.17 72.27 53.49 Jupiter Island 1999 31.82 -24.14 69.39 40.82 70.59 43.14 22.27 -14.57 38.81 7.84 38.35 7.14 Patrick Air Force Base 2001 29.41 0.00 29.41 0.00 53.75 34.48 31.58 0.00 38.10 9.52 43.48 17.39 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2003 -7.89 17.14 0.00 23.68 25.49 43.14 -5.93 0.00 -50.85 -47.75 44.86 48.13 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005

Delnor-Wiggins Pass S.P. 1996 Delnor-Wiggins Pass S.P. 2006

94

94

CHAPTER 4 BEACH NOURISHMENT AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IN FLORIDA:

MANAGING BEACHES FOR SEA TURTLES

Introduction

Florida’s beaches are extremely important to the state’s economy. They accounted for

approximately $39 billion in revenue to the state in 2002 and 2003, and approximately $19.1

billion of this revenue was from out-of-state beach tourists. More than one-third of out-of-state

tourists visiting Florida make a trip to Florida’s beaches during their stay, which account for

about 27.2 million trips to Florida’s beaches each year. In addition, Florida’s beaches are

important to the protection of adjacent upland developments from storm surge. During the active

2004 hurricane season, federal shoreline protection projects prevented an estimated $54 million

in damage to adjacent upland structures (FDEP 2005).

The State of Florida is acutely aware of the importance of maintaining quality beaches to

support tourism. In 2000, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) adopted

a “Strategic Beach Management Plan (SBMP)” for the State of Florida that set the following

principles as its strategy for maintaining Florida’s beaches at the statewide level (FDEP 2000):

• Encourage regional approaches to ensure the geographic coordination and sequencing of prioritized projects;

• Reduce equipment mobilization and demobilization costs;

• Maximize the infusion of beach-quality sand into the system;

• Extend the life of beach nourishment projects and reduce the frequency of nourishment;

• Promote inlet sand bypassing to replicate the natural flow of sand interrupted by improved, modified or altered inlets and ports; and

• Implement those projects that contribute most significantly to addressing the state’s beach erosion problems.

95

According to the SBMP, about 328 miles of Florida’s sandy beaches are designated as critically

eroded. “Critically eroded” is defined by the FDEP as “a condition where previous or continuing

erosion threatens private or public development and infrastructure, or significant cultural or

environmental resources.” The mileage of sandy beaches designated as critically eroded is not

stable; over 435 miles of the 825 miles of sandy beaches in Florida have experienced erosion at

some time since these statistics began to be recorded. Currently, 42.2 percent of the Florida’s

critically eroding shores are actively managed by FDEP (FDEP 2000).

The natural response of beaches to sea level rise is to migrate landward (Dean 1991).

However, development along Florida’s shorelines has prevented beaches from migrating

naturally in response to sea level rise. The inability of beaches to migrate naturally may

exacerbate Florida’s beach erosion problem in response to sea level rise over the next several

decades. According to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC), sea level will rise between 0.18 and 0.59 meter by the period 2090-2099. They

based this estimate on six scenarios of global climate change, which estimated an increase in

global temperatures of between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius for the same six scenarios by the

decade 2090-2099 (IPCC 2007).

Sea level rise due to global warming will have a significant impact on sea turtle habitat.

With respect to the projected sea level rise by the years 2090-2099, the corresponding global loss

of sea turtle nesting habitat is expected to be between 16 and 60 percent (Fish et al. 2005;

Mazaris et al. 2009; Fish et al. 2008). The vulnerability of a particular beach to sea level rise

depends on a number of factors, with the most important being the land use adjacent to the beach

(Fish et al. 2005). Depending upon the extent of sea level rise and the ability of the shoreline to

96

retreat natural in response, sea level rise could substantially decrease the amount of sea turtle

nesting habitat (Mazaris et al. 2009; Fish et al. 2008).

Maintaining natural beach habitats for recreational purposes or for the protection of

adjacent upland properties is also beneficial to species that rely on beaches for all or portions of

their life cycles. Species that may benefit from soft stabilization methods of shoreline protection

(beach nourishment) rather than hard stabilization methods (seawalls and rock revetments)

include sea turtles, beach mice, shorebirds, and other small mammals and invertebrates. Sea

turtles utilize beach habitats for nesting during the summer months, and coastal zone managers

regard beach nourishment as a viable option for restoring nesting habitat that would otherwise be

vulnerable to erosion. Although beach nourishment appears to provide a win-win situation by

both protecting valuable structures and restoring beach habitats for wildlife, it is important to

ensure that any potential adverse impacts to species utilizing these habitats are minimized to the

extent practicable.

Current Regulations and Policies on Beach Nourishment in Florida

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was established by Congress on

March 16, 1802, and they were primarily responsible for running a military academy at West

Point to educate engineers. Until the early 20th century, the USACE resisted broad involvement

in shoreline protection. Both Congress and the USACE agreed that public funds should not be

used to protect private property. Following several studies in the mid-1920s, groups began to

advocate the use of federal participation in shoreline protection to preserve public recreational

beaches (Pilkey & Dixon 1996). Today, the USACE is involved at some level in the majority of

beach nourishment projects undertaken in Florida. In some circumstances, these projects may

include beaches adjacent to private property.

97

There are a number of regulations and policies to which beach nourishment projects in

Florida must adhere. If the project is not constructed by the USACE, the sponsor must obtain

permits from both the FDEP and the USACE prior to construction. Since the USACE does not

issue permits to itself, it is only required to obtain water quality certification under Section 404

of the Clean Water Act from the FDEP. The USACE must also comply with several other

federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species

Act (ESA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006.

The federal agency responsible for compliance with each of these environmental laws

varies based on the location and the nature of the action. Any federal agency conducting an

action that could have a significant effect on the surrounding environment is required to comply

with the provisions of NEPA. The effort exerted for the purpose of documenting compliance

with NEPA is dependent on the anticipated extent of the environmental impact. If the action is

not located in a designated critical habitat area or an area with extensive natural resources, NEPA

documentation may be limited to a categorical exclusion or an Environmental Assessment (EA)

with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). If the anticipated effects on the surrounding

environment are more extensive, a thorough Environmental Impact Statement is required.

The procedures for ensuring NEPA compliance include consultation with the appropriate

federal agencies under Section 7 of the ESA. For sea turtles, the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over nesting sea turtles on beaches. The USFWS shares

jurisdiction over sea turtles with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s

Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), which regulates sea turtles while they are located in the

water column. NOAA Fisheries currently has established recovery plans for each species, and

98

the loggerhead turtle recovery plan for the Atlantic Ocean and the Kemp’s ridley turtle recovery

plan are under revision.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) is a comprehensive law that protects

endangered species and the ecosystems on which they depend. This law includes multiple

components put in place to provide protection for species. For instance, federal agencies must

consult with the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries prior to authorizing, funding or carrying out

actions that might alter critical habitats. All five species of sea turtles utilizing the waters of the

United States are listed as either threatened or endangered under the ESA, making this law an

important consideration for coastal zone managers and sea turtle conservationists. NOAA

Fisheries designated critical habitats for the leatherback, green, and hawksbill turtles. The

coastal waters surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico were designated as critical habitat for the

green turtle, and the coastal waters surrounding Mona and Monito Islands, Puerto Rico were

designated as critical habitat for the Hawksbill turtle in 1998. NOAA Fisheries designated a

portion of the coastal waters of St. Croix Island, United States Virgin Islands as critical habitat

for the leatherback turtle in 1979 [50 C.F.R. § 226.207-209 (2008)].

At the state level, the FDEP’s Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (BBCS)

administers a comprehensive beach management planning program known as the Florida Beach

Erosion Control Program (BECP). The BECP is authorized by Section 161.101, Florida

Statutes, and the rules related to this law are found in Chapter 62B-36, Florida Administration

Code. The BECP was established in 1964, and involves the cooperation of local, state, and

federal governments to ensure the protection, preservation, and restoration of Florida’s beaches.

Through this program, FDEP is able to provide up to 50 percent of the funding costs for beach

nourishment projects across the state. The SBMP, adopted by FDEP in May 2008, outlines the

99

multi-year repair and maintenance strategy for carrying out the goals of the BECP (FDEP 2009;

Ruppert 2008).

Management Considerations

The strategies used to respond to sea level rise depend on the physical characteristics of

the affected area; however, the response strategies can generally be divided into three broad

categories. The three strategies typically considered in response to sea level rise are protection,

accommodation, and retreat (IPCC 1990). Beach nourishment, a form of protection, is the most

often used method of shoreline protection in Florida. Several management techniques are

utilized by coastal zone managers to minimize the effect of the nourishment activity on the

species that utilize the beach habitat. With respect to sea turtles, fewer turtles nest on a

nourished beach in the first year, when beaches are wide, than after the beach is reworked and

narrowed by erosion, implying that smaller fill volumes would be less likely to interfere with

nest site selection (Rumbold et al. 2001).

Landry et al. (2003) conducted an economic analysis of three of these management

strategies for eroding shorelines: nourishment with some armoring; nourishment without

armoring; and retreat. Their analysis, while dependent on numerous volatile variables, indicated

that nourishment with armoring or managed retreat were the least economically feasible options.

Protecting the Shoreline

The IPCC considers shoreline protection to be any defensive measures used to protect

areas from inundation, the effects of waves on structures, beach erosion, salinity intrusion, and

the loss of natural resources (1990). Protection methods are often divided into two types: hard

stabilization methods and soft stabilization methods. Hard stabilization methods include more

permanent structures such as seawalls, revetments, bulkheads, groins, and breakwaters. Soft

stabilization methods are less permanent and often need to be replaced over time. Soft

100

stabilization methods include beach nourishment, dune construction, and wetland creation (IPCC

1990).

As coastal managers became more aware of the disadvantages to hard stabilization

methods, most began to prefer soft stabilization methods. Beach nourishment is the most often

utilized soft stabilization method, but others include dune construction, vegetative plantings, and

coir fiber logs. An important benefit of beach nourishment is that it can assist with replacing the

sand supply along the shoreline, which the stabilization of navigational inlets often disrupts.

Florida began integrating beach nourishment projects with the maintenance dredging of

navigational inlets earlier than many other states, and enacted law stating a preference for using

dredged materials on the downdrift shoreline to more closely approximate natural processes

(USDOC/NOAA 2000; Greene 2002). Due to the popularity of beach nourishment as a shore

protection method, it is important to ensure that differences between the sand used for

nourishment and the natural sand do not cause adverse impacts to nesting sea turtles.

Monitoring studies are typically required as conditions for permits for beach nourishment

activities, but they do not include a standardized design that allows for reliable analysis of

potential biological impacts due to the nourishment activity (Peterson & Bishop 2005). Several

characteristics of beach nourishment projects that are typically monitored to ensure minimal

impacts to sea turtles include sand temperature, available moisture to the clutch, and compaction

levels of the new sand. These characteristics vary depending on the source of the sand used for

the nourishment project.

Nelson et al. (1987) conducted a study on the effects of a beach nourishment project’s

physical attributes on sea turtle nesting in the late 1980s. They relocated nests at the nourished

beach to a hatchery, dividing the nests between three sand types: aragonite sand (calcium

101

carbonate), the sand from study beach after it had been nourished, and sand from a natural beach.

The nests incubated in the sand from the natural beach hatched in significantly fewer days that

those incubated in the aragonite, but no significant difference was found in any of the other

indicators studied. The study concluded that the eggs and hatchlings were not affected by the

nourishment activities. However, the shape of the nest and the dig time of the clutch may be

affected by sand consistency. The study also found that the number of nests per emergence

declined following nourishment, and the formation of scarps on nourished beaches may block

some sea turtles from nesting.

Sand temperature

The temperature of the sand during the incubation period of the clutch determines the sex

of the hatchlings. Specifically, higher incubation temperatures lead to a higher proportion of

female hatchlings, while lower incubation temperatures result in a higher proportion of male

hatchlings. Studies document a pivotal temperature, or the constant temperature that results in

half male and half female hatchlings, of between 28 and 30 degrees Celsius (Baptistotte et al.

1999; Mrosovsky et al. 2002).

Sea turtle eggs require constant temperatures greater than 24 degrees and less than 33

degrees Celsius during their incubation. If incubation temperatures fall outside these limits for

an extended period of time, the eggs will seldom hatch. In some locations already at the extreme

range of tolerance for optimal incubation, an increase in sand temperature could prevent a clutch

from hatching (Matsuzawa et al. 2002). Although Florida’s latitude typically provides sand

temperatures within the optimal range, a change in sand color affecting the temperature of the

incubating clutches may affect the sex ratio of the resulting hatchlings (Milton et al. 2002).

102

Clutch moisture

Beaches often retain more water following a nourishment activity than they did prior to

nourishment, possibly due to a change in sediment type or size. However, the water potential of

the beach sediment is more indicative of its ability to affect the moisture availability to the egg

than the absolute moisture content (Crain et al. 1995). A survey of 15 nourished beaches in

Florida found water potentials of nourished and non-nourished beaches to be similar (Ackerman

et al. 1992).

Sand Compaction

Coastal zone managers require regular monitoring of newly nourished beaches to address

and mitigate for increased sand compaction. In most cases, sand sizes are naturally sorted with

the coarser sands remaining higher in the beach profile and the finer grains located in the

seaward direction (Dean 1991). One study of three adjacent beaches on the Gulf Coast of

Florida found that highly compacted beaches did not inhibit sea turtle nesting, although the study

noticed a significant increase in nesting densities between the first and second years post-

nourishment (Davis et al. 1999). Another study of a beach in southeastern Florida found a

positive correlation between false crawls and greater surface hardness following a nourishment

event (Steinitz et al. 1998). A third study conducted by the USACE compared the nesting times

of loggerheads at beaches with various compactness levels. The study found that sea turtles took

significantly longer to cover nests on beaches with cone index values above 600. However, the

sample size of hard beaches was too small to provide a maximum tolerance level for hardness

from this study (Nelson & Dickerson 1989).

Accommodating Changing Shorelines

The strategy of accommodation is considered by the IPCC to be the continued occupancy

of vulnerable areas. Accommodating shoreline changes requires advanced planning by

103

regulatory entities. It involves actions such as elevating buildings on pilings, establishing

building codes that require minimum elevations for ground floors, and requiring sufficient

private insurance coverage to repair damages and compensate victims of storms. Most other

responses to shoreline change categorized as accommodation are more appropriate for non-sandy

shorelines (IPCC 1990).

Policy of Retreat

There are three general options for retreat identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC), including:

1. The prevention of development in coastal areas;

2. The allowance of development with the understanding that it will be abandoned as shorelines move; or

3. The removal of government subsidies that encourage coastal development, and providing educational information about the associated risks of coastal development (IPCC 1990).

Government involvement is necessary to prevent development in coastal areas. The most

common methods for preventing development are through land acquisition, land use restrictions,

restrictions on re-construction following storm damage, and removal of incentives that might

promote development in vulnerable areas (IPCC 1990). In Florida, land use restrictions in the

form of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) program are used as methods for

preventing storm damage to coastal structures.

Construction setbacks

One method of retreat that does not involve the actual relocation of buildings involves

imposing construction setback requirements for new structures. One study modeled three sea

level rise scenarios with five difference setback requirements and measured the effects on the

adjacent beach widths at 11 study beaches in Barbados. The sea level rise scenarios included

estimates of 0.1, 0.5, and 0.9 meter rises in mean sea level by the year 2090-2099, and five

104

different setback requirements were considered: 10, 30, 50, 70, and 90 meters from the current

high water mark. Using the setback distances, the study assumed an immovable structure was

located at that distance and measured the width of beach lost for each of the sea level rise

scenarios. The study concluded that the 90 meter setback requirement was the only distance that

did not result in at least some loss of nesting habitat, based on the typical Hawksbill nesting

elevations of between 0.3 and 1.8 meter above mean sea level. The study concluded that

minimal nesting habitat losses would occur with setback requirements of more than 50 meters

(Fish et al. 2008).

Although construction setbacks may prevent the need for other methods of shoreline

protection, coastal building regulations have been found to decrease property values. Dehring

(2006) examined the values of vacant land in counties following the reestablishment of the

CCCL, after the county implemented a Coastal Building Zone, and in response to the county’s

participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. The study found that land values

decreased in response to each of these types of coastal building regulatory regimes; however,

landowners may not fully understand the benefits of these programs and the protection they

provide from storm damage (Dehring 2006).

Rolling easements

An alternative to construction setbacks that limits the liability of governments to takings

claims is a “rolling easement.” Rolling easements allow property owners to perform any activity

or use on their portion of the land, but the easement automatically rolls landward in response to

landward migrations of the sea. Rolling easements differ from construction setbacks by allowing

property owners to build anywhere on their property. However, property owners are prohibited

from constructing any armoring to protect their structures (USDOC/NOAA-OCRM 2007).

105

One benefit of rolling easements is that they generally protect the interests of the public

by ensuring that they have lateral access to the shoreline. When shorelines are armored with

structures such as seawalls, the public would lose access to the shoreline if the beach in front of

the structure erodes away. Rolling easements step over the seawall as the mean high water line

progresses landward, allowing the public access to property that would otherwise have been

private property (USDOC/NOAA-OCRM 2007).

There are several drawbacks to rolling easements. On developed shorelines, property

owners would likely be unwilling to place an easement over their property that could potentially

decrease the size of it in the future. In addition, property boundaries are not typically continuous

along a shoreline. If shorelines were not uniformly protected, erosion rates on adjacent

shorelines may be exacerbated. Finally, this type of easement is often difficult to enforce

(USDOC/NOAA-OCRM 2007).

Discussion

Coastal zone management requires the availability of accurate scientific data on

management strategies and the education of managers on the costs and benefits these strategies.

Although considerable effort is expended in collecting data on sea turtle nesting and on beach

nourishment projects, these data are often not available to regional managers.

Coastal zone managers must be provided with information on the options available to

them for combating beach erosion to enable them to make the best decisions for their local

beaches. Regulatory authorities and resource agencies charged with constructing beach

nourishment projects or issuing permits for their construction must also be apprised of

opportunities by which they can ensure protection of wildlife habitat. This could potentially be

done through modifications to the project design or by conditioning permits to ensure

appropriate management techniques are implemented at the project site.

106

As more studies on beach nourishment and its relationship to sea turtles are conducted,

coastal zone managers will have the opportunity to adjust beach management techniques to

ensure minimal impacts from nourishment to sea turtles. Increased availability of data to coastal

zone managers would be beneficial in providing managers with the opportunity to quickly adapt

their management techniques to field observations. One possible option of making data more

readily accessible to managers would be to create an interactive, online database of the statewide

sea turtle nesting data and the results of beach nourishment monitoring surveys. If these data

were available online, local coastal zone managers and sea turtle permit holders could update

data collected in monitoring studies in real-time. This would allow managers to view and

respond to changes in nesting densities more quickly, and enable them to make immediate

changes in management strategies to temporally limit impacts to nesting turtles. However, this

type of project requires funding and resources from state resource agencies, which are often

limited.

This type of database has been termed a “data commons,” which are intended to assemble

global, geo-referenced data for marine species that includes absolute counts and standardized

metrics of relative abundance, standardized metadata, and species profiles. Duke University, in

cooperation with a consortium of international partners, initiated this type of database in 2002,

called the Ocean Biogeographic Information System Spatial Ecological Analysis of

Megavertebrate Animal Populations (OBIS-SEAMAP). The database enrolls data providers

under three categories: data management, value added, and community development. The

success of the database relies upon the cooperation of numerous data providers to provide

accurate and timely data, and the usefulness of the database is dependent upon wide participation

by marine resource managers (Halpin et al. 2006). Florida interests could choose to participate

107

in an established database such as OBIS-SEAMAP, or facilitate the creation of a new database

that would be specific to Florida.

NOAA’s Coastal Services Center provides a guide to local government officials about

beach nourishment (Bach et al. 2007). This online document provides currently provides or

intends to provide information about coastal geology, coastal, human dimensions of beach

nourishment, and engineering considerations. The use of beach nourishment from a wildlife

management perspective was not included in the three sections currently available online, but

this would be an ideal forum to discuss the advantages and limitations of beach nourishment as

habitat restoration with coastal zone managers.

Prior to undertaking a beach nourishment project, coastal zone managers must obtain

permits from state and federal governments. In accordance with the ESA, the USACE must

consult with the USFWS prior to authorizing beach nourishment projects. The USACE created

the Shore Protection and Sea Turtle Management System (SPSTMS) to serve as an online

resource that will store sea turtle nesting data and shore protection data (USACE 2007). This

system currently focuses on beach nourishment projects within the State of Florida, and

specifically on the loggerhead turtle species. Since the database cross-references data from the

two historical nesting databases managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission’s Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (the SNBS and the INBS programs), it also

includes their historical nesting beach data dating from 1979. However, the SPSTMS data for

beach nourishment projects is limited to six counties in southeastern Florida with high nesting

densities, including Flagler, Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, and Martin Counties

(USACE 2007). The USACE intends to expand the program to include additional states and sea

108

turtle species in the future, which will allow for a more regional, comprehensive approach to

assessing the effects of beach nourishment on sea turtle nesting.

The population of the United States continues to migrate to the coastal regions. With

increased pressures on coastal communities to protect valuable shoreline structures, coastal zone

managers will need to choose between various shoreline stabilization methods. They will rely on

the academic community to provide information that will help them decide on the best choices

for their community. Providing access to data on sea turtle nesting and beach nourishment

projects, educating managers on the use of shore protection projects for wildlife management,

and incorporating sound science into future beach nourishment projects may establish beach

nourishment as a viable option for restoring degraded sea turtle nesting habitat.

109

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

Summary

Geographical information systems (GIS) provide a unique opportunity to quickly

evaluate environmental issues at a regional scale. Using the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) Strategic Beach Management Plan (SBMP) and GIS, a

shapefile was created that included the nourishment information associated with beaches that

were also part of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FFWCC) Index

Nesting Beach Survey (INBS) program. By combining these two datasets, a list of beaches

appropriate for use in studying the densities of sea turtle nesting for three years prior to and three

years post nourishment was developed.

Although the majority of Florida’s beaches have been nourished, the primary reason for

exclusion from the study was the frequency of nourishment events. For beaches nourished more

than once in the six-year study period event (three years prior and three years post-nourishment),

the second nourishment event would interfere with observations made for the first nourishment.

Should efforts to establish a statewide dataset of beach nourishment and sea turtle nesting be

undertaken, it may be difficult to establish beaches that have not been impacted by beach

nourishment in the recent past.

The issue of beach nourishment and its effect on sea turtles and their nesting habitats is

extremely complex. When designing studies at a macro scale, it is difficult to locate consistent

data to enable comparisons over a large geographical region. Government agencies are

continually adding to the variety of geographic data already available to the public. By utilizing

the capabilities of geographic information systems, currently available data can be combined to

allow for the study of regionally significant environmental issues.

110

Loggerhead turtle nesting densities significantly declined at six of the 13 nourishment

events at the ten nesting beaches studied. Two of these nourishment events had decreased

loggerhead turtle nesting during only the first year post-nourishment, and four of them had

decreased nesting for two years post-nourishment. Of the remaining seven nourishment events

studied, five events had no difference in loggerhead turtle nesting densities between the

nourished beach and the control beach. Two nourishment events had increases in loggerhead

turtle nesting densities following construction.

The decreases in nesting densities observed on nourished beaches for the first two years

following nourishment activities are most likely due to changes in the beach characteristics. The

literature points to a number of potentially influential changes, including changes in slope, sand

grain size, compactness, sand color, sand temperature, moisture content, and sand composition.

In recent years, state and federal governments have become more cautious in ensuring limiting

variability in the beach characteristics prior to and following nourishment. Sand sources are

surveyed prior to dredging activities to identify the sand characteristics of the placement

materials to ensure they are similar to the native beach sand of the placement area.

The most plausible explanation for the increases in loggerhead turtle nesting identified

for two of the nourishment events is that the control beach became eroded during the time since

the nourishment activities occurred on the adjacent beach. At the same time, the nourished

beach probably remained wide and provided preferable habitat for nesting females. Additional

research on the specific beaches that observed this phenomenon is necessary to confirm this

theory.

The ongoing nature of the datasets utilized in this dissertation allows future studies to

build on the information provided. GIS are increasingly utilized to overlay land uses, soil types,

111

wildlife habitats, and other environmental criteria to develop models for land use managers.

Updating the information provided for the identified beaches through the years will provide

managers with a continued understanding of beach nourishment project performance in terms of

sea turtle nesting habitat, and allow for the use of adaptive management techniques for revising

regulations as necessary. GIS enabled the overlaying of multiple datasets to locate study beaches

for which reliable sea turtle nesting data and beach nourishment data were available.

Most of the published literature addressing the effects of beach nourishment on sea turtle

nesting discusses the possible causes of declines in nesting densities. This dissertation discussed

the observation of declines in nesting densities on control beaches located adjacent to nourished

beaches. A long-term analysis of nesting trends at the regional scale that includes information on

the frequency and timing of nourishment events would allow for the monitoring of the effects of

beach nourishment on sea turtle nesting at that scale. This could be accomplished through a

web-based, interactive design that allowed sea turtle permit holders to upload nesting data onto

the website. The personnel required to conduct the monitoring studies of the nourished beaches

could add the information on beach nourishment projects to the database. This idea is mentioned

by Montague (2006), and it is confirmed in this dissertation.

Although Florida has an excellent record of sea turtle nesting on its beaches for the last

20 years, it would be beneficial to future research for the nesting data to be more spatially

accurate. The INBS beaches are divided into approximately half-mile survey zones, and each

nest located on the INBS beach is documented according to the survey zone in which it is

located. With the increased availability of global positioning systems, it might be possible to

obtain the coordinates of each nest to within a few meters of its precise location. The

coordinates could be converted to a shapefile that could be utilized in a publicly-available

112

dataset, such as the one described above, for use in ongoing regional studies of sea turtle nesting

in Florida. This additional information would assist researchers in identifying more subtle

changes in beach characteristics and determine if subsequent variations in nesting occurred as a

result.

As sea levels rise, coastal systems typically migrate landward. However, development

along coastlines typically precludes this natural process from occurring. Managed retreat

strategies using policies such as construction setbacks and rolling easements are ideal for low to

moderately developed shorelines. For heavily developed shorelines, beach nourishment is a

viable option for maintaining a sandy beach for recreational use and for use by wildlife.

Conclusions

• GIS is an effective tool for establishing regional study sites for spatial and temporal research.

• Sea turtle nesting on Florida’s beaches is well-documented over a long period of time, which makes Florida an ideal location to study sea turtle nesting at the regional-scale.

• While sea turtle nesting is well-documented in the State of Florida, only the loggerhead species (Caretta caretta) nests at adequate densities statewide to conduct statistical analyses that can be compared to beaches throughout the State.

• Beach nourishment has the greatest impact on sea turtle nesting densities during the first two years after nourishment activities. By the third year post-nourishment, sea turtles nest in numbers similar to pre-nourishment densities and to non-nourished portions of the same beach.

• Sea turtles choosing not to nest on a nourished beach occasionally appeared to move to an adjacent, non-nourished beach to nest, observed as significant increases at the control beach sites for two study beaches that experienced significant decreases in nesting at the nourished beach.

• Beach nourishment does not always result in decreases in loggerhead turtle nesting, as observed at five of the study beaches which did not support the hypothesis that loggerhead turtle nesting decreases during the first two years following the construction of a beach nourishment project.

113

• For some beaches, beach nourishment enhances the nesting habitat available to sea turtles. This was observed as significant increases in loggerhead turtle nesting densities for two study beaches.

Recommendations for Future Research

The following recommendations are made to further the extent of knowledge relating to

the effects of beach nourishment on loggerhead and green turtle nesting in Florida:

• Loggerhead and green turtle nesting trends at the regional scale that include the timing and frequency of nourishment events would be useful in identifying the effects of beach nourishment regionally.

• FFWCC should enhance the INBS program to provide more spatially accurate data using global positioning systems. This would allow for a more detailed analysis of the effects of beach nourishment projects.

• Research on the cumulative effect of one- to two-year declines in nesting densities at nourished beaches on global sea turtle populations.

• Future studies should analyze the effects of beach nourishment on both hatchling success and the incidence of false crawls.

• Beaches identified as having declines in nesting densities following previous nourishment activities should be given funding priority for the development of techniques to minimize these impacts.

114

APPENDIX A FLORIDA SEA TURTLE NESTING DATA

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

Green (Chelonia mydas)

Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) Longitude Latitude

Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1992 401 0 0 0 -81.3818 30.2591 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1992 402 1 0 0 -81.3839 30.2683 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1992 403 0 0 0 -81.3856 30.2753 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1992 404 3 0 0 -81.3873 30.2840 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1992 405 0 0 0 -81.3895 30.2947 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1992 406 0 0 0 -81.3915 30.3058 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1992 407 1 0 0 -81.3933 30.3175 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1992 408 0 0 0 -81.3949 30.3295 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1992 409 2 0 0 -81.3958 30.3377 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1992 410 4 0 0 -81.3970 30.3507 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1993 401 2 0 0 -81.3818 30.2591 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1993 402 2 0 0 -81.3839 30.2683 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1993 403 1 0 0 -81.3856 30.2753 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1993 404 2 0 0 -81.3873 30.2840 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1993 405 1 0 0 -81.3895 30.2947 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1993 406 1 0 0 -81.3915 30.3058 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1993 407 0 0 0 -81.3933 30.3175 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1993 408 1 0 0 -81.3949 30.3295 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1993 409 0 0 0 -81.3958 30.3377 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1993 410 2 0 0 -81.3970 30.3507 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1994 401 10 0 0 -81.3818 30.2591 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1994 402 5 0 0 -81.3839 30.2683 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1994 403 4 0 0 -81.3856 30.2753 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1994 404 6 0 0 -81.3873 30.2840 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1994 405 3 0 0 -81.3895 30.2947 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1994 406 0 0 0 -81.3915 30.3058 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1994 407 1 0 0 -81.3933 30.3175 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1994 408 0 0 0 -81.3949 30.3295 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1994 409 1 0 0 -81.3958 30.3377 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1994 410 4 0 0 -81.3970 30.3507 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1995 401 5 0 0 -81.3818 30.2591 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1995 402 5 0 0 -81.3839 30.2683 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1995 403 3 0 0 -81.3856 30.2753 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1995 404 4 0 0 -81.3873 30.2840 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1995 405 3 0 0 -81.3895 30.2947

115

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1995 406 1 0 0 -81.3915 30.3058 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1995 407 0 0 0 -81.3933 30.3175 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1995 408 0 0 0 -81.3949 30.3295 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1995 409 1 0 0 -81.3958 30.3377 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1995 410 4 0 0 -81.3970 30.3507 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1996 401 12 0 0 -81.3818 30.2591 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1996 402 7 0 0 -81.3839 30.2683 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1996 403 1 0 0 -81.3856 30.2753 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1996 404 3 0 0 -81.3873 30.2840 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1996 405 3 0 0 -81.3895 30.2947 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1996 406 1 0 0 -81.3915 30.3058 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1996 407 1 0 0 -81.3933 30.3175 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1996 408 1 0 0 -81.3949 30.3295 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1996 409 5 0 0 -81.3958 30.3377 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1996 410 4 0 0 -81.3970 30.3507 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1997 401 10 0 0 -81.3818 30.2591 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1997 402 6 0 0 -81.3839 30.2683 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1997 403 2 0 0 -81.3856 30.2753 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1997 404 3 0 0 -81.3873 30.2840 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1997 405 0 0 0 -81.3895 30.2947 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1997 406 0 0 0 -81.3915 30.3058 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1997 407 0 0 0 -81.3933 30.3175 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1997 408 0 0 0 -81.3949 30.3295 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1997 409 0 0 0 -81.3958 30.3377 Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach 1997 410 1 0 0 -81.3970 30.3507 Boca Raton 1994 2101 23 0 0 -80.0665 26.3878 Boca Raton 1994 2102 47 2 0 -80.0669 26.3814 Boca Raton 1994 2103 31 5 0 -80.0673 26.3743 Boca Raton 1994 2104 87 3 0 -80.0681 26.3670 Boca Raton 1994 2105 57 6 0 -80.0688 26.3599 Boca Raton 1994 2106 102 11 1 -80.0692 26.3529 Boca Raton 1994 2107 60 10 0 -80.0697 26.3458 Boca Raton 1994 2108 120 9 0 -80.0704 26.3392 Boca Raton 1994 2109 87 3 1 -80.0728 26.3317 Boca Raton 1994 2110 78 3 0 -80.0741 26.3245 Boca Raton 1995 2101 36 0 0 -80.0665 26.3878 Boca Raton 1995 2101 36 2 0 -80.0665 26.3878 Boca Raton 1995 2102 64 0 0 -80.0669 26.3814

116

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Boca Raton 1995 2103 68 0 1 -80.0673 26.3743 Boca Raton 1995 2104 115 0 0 -80.0681 26.3670 Boca Raton 1995 2105 66 0 1 -80.0688 26.3599 Boca Raton 1995 2106 110 1 3 -80.0692 26.3529 Boca Raton 1995 2107 95 3 0 -80.0697 26.3458 Boca Raton 1995 2108 126 0 1 -80.0704 26.3392 Boca Raton 1995 2109 89 4 0 -80.0728 26.3317 Boca Raton 1995 2110 129 4 0 -80.0741 26.3245 Boca Raton 1996 2102 77 3 0 -80.0669 26.3814 Boca Raton 1996 2103 71 4 0 -80.0673 26.3743 Boca Raton 1996 2104 134 19 0 -80.0681 26.3670 Boca Raton 1996 2105 61 13 0 -80.0688 26.3599 Boca Raton 1996 2106 102 6 0 -80.0692 26.3529 Boca Raton 1996 2107 75 16 1 -80.0697 26.3458 Boca Raton 1996 2108 101 9 1 -80.0704 26.3392 Boca Raton 1996 2109 71 2 0 -80.0728 26.3317 Boca Raton 1996 2110 126 6 0 -80.0741 26.3245 Boca Raton 1997 2101 18 0 0 -80.0665 26.3878 Boca Raton 1997 2102 33 0 0 -80.0669 26.3814 Boca Raton 1997 2103 41 0 1 -80.0673 26.3743 Boca Raton 1997 2104 49 0 1 -80.0681 26.3670 Boca Raton 1997 2105 28 1 1 -80.0688 26.3599 Boca Raton 1997 2106 54 2 0 -80.0692 26.3529 Boca Raton 1997 2107 34 4 0 -80.0697 26.3458 Boca Raton 1997 2108 72 0 0 -80.0704 26.3392 Boca Raton 1997 2109 50 4 0 -80.0728 26.3317 Boca Raton 1997 2110 69 1 0 -80.0741 26.3245 Boca Raton 1998 2101 11 0 0 -80.0665 26.3878 Boca Raton 1998 2102 16 0 1 -80.0669 26.3814 Boca Raton 1998 2103 9 0 0 -80.0673 26.3743 Boca Raton 1998 2104 173 22 1 -80.0681 26.3670 Boca Raton 1998 2105 77 19 0 -80.0688 26.3599 Boca Raton 1998 2106 121 11 0 -80.0692 26.3529 Boca Raton 1998 2107 76 24 0 -80.0697 26.3458 Boca Raton 1998 2108 93 8 2 -80.0704 26.3392 Boca Raton 1998 2109 96 2 0 -80.0728 26.3317 Boca Raton 1998 2110 58 1 0 -80.0741 26.3245 Boca Raton 1999 2101 19 0 0 -80.0665 26.3878

117

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Boca Raton 1999 2102 62 0 0 -80.0669 26.3814 Boca Raton 1999 2103 45 0 1 -80.0673 26.3743 Boca Raton 1999 2104 121 0 0 -80.0681 26.3670 Boca Raton 1999 2105 69 0 0 -80.0688 26.3599 Boca Raton 1999 2106 90 4 1 -80.0692 26.3529 Boca Raton 1999 2107 48 0 0 -80.0697 26.3458 Boca Raton 1999 2108 85 0 0 -80.0704 26.3392 Boca Raton 1999 2109 107 7 0 -80.0728 26.3317 Boca Raton 1999 2110 89 1 1 -80.0741 26.3245 Boca Raton 2000 2101 18 2 0 -80.0665 26.3878 Boca Raton 2000 2102 44 3 0 -80.0669 26.3814 Boca Raton 2000 2103 37 5 0 -80.0673 26.3743 Boca Raton 2000 2104 109 16 0 -80.0681 26.3670 Boca Raton 2000 2105 61 27 0 -80.0688 26.3599 Boca Raton 2000 2106 84 19 1 -80.0692 26.3529 Boca Raton 2000 2107 43 16 1 -80.0697 26.3458 Boca Raton 2000 2108 97 29 0 -80.0704 26.3392 Boca Raton 2000 2109 85 1 0 -80.0728 26.3317 Boca Raton 2000 2110 70 9 0 -80.0741 26.3245 Hutchinson Island 1993 1601 12 0 0 -80.2899 27.4662 Hutchinson Island 1993 1602 33 0 0 -80.2866 27.4577 Hutchinson Island 1993 1603 22 0 0 -80.2832 27.4492 Hutchinson Island 1993 1604 58 0 0 -80.2797 27.4402 Hutchinson Island 1993 1605 105 0 0 -80.2762 27.4308 Hutchinson Island 1993 1606 62 0 0 -80.2729 27.4225 Hutchinson Island 1993 1607 79 0 0 -80.2698 27.4145 Hutchinson Island 1993 1608 128 0 0 -80.2663 27.4054 Hutchinson Island 1993 1609 141 0 0 -80.2627 27.3973 Hutchinson Island 1993 1610 195 0 0 -80.2591 27.3895 Hutchinson Island 1993 1611 144 0 0 -80.2548 27.3812 Hutchinson Island 1993 1612 186 2 0 -80.2504 27.3729 Hutchinson Island 1993 1613 208 2 1 -80.2458 27.3646 Hutchinson Island 1993 1614 237 0 0 -80.2415 27.3562 Hutchinson Island 1993 1615 235 0 0 -80.2369 27.3475 Hutchinson Island 1993 1616 166 0 0 -80.2330 27.3383 Hutchinson Island 1993 1617 243 0 0 -80.2296 27.3303 Hutchinson Island 1993 1618 182 1 0 -80.2266 27.3220 Hutchinson Island 1993 1619 257 2 1 -80.2227 27.3132

118

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Hutchinson Island 1993 1620 273 3 0 -80.2187 27.3049 Hutchinson Island 1993 1621 278 5 0 -80.2150 27.2960 Hutchinson Island 1993 1622 256 1 0 -80.2112 27.2876 Hutchinson Island 1993 1623 215 1 0 -80.2074 27.2794 Hutchinson Island 1993 1624 147 0 1 -80.2034 27.2708 Hutchinson Island 1993 1625 175 0 2 -80.1994 27.2621 Hutchinson Island 1993 1626 136 0 0 -80.1953 27.2533 Hutchinson Island 1993 1627 158 3 0 -80.1908 27.2451 Hutchinson Island 1993 1628 147 0 0 -80.1865 27.2372 Hutchinson Island 1993 1629 156 3 0 -80.1820 27.2290 Hutchinson Island 1993 1630 128 3 0 -80.1775 27.2208 Hutchinson Island 1993 1631 164 1 0 -80.1729 27.2128 Hutchinson Island 1993 1632 149 2 0 -80.1679 27.2044 Hutchinson Island 1993 1633 188 1 0 -80.1636 27.1963 Hutchinson Island 1993 1634 106 0 0 -80.1601 27.1879 Hutchinson Island 1993 1635 159 0 0 -80.1576 27.1791 Hutchinson Island 1993 1636 125 1 0 -80.1547 27.1730 Hutchinson Island 1993 1637 14 0 0 -80.1534 27.1704 Hutchinson Island 1994 1601 14 0 0 -80.2899 27.4662 Hutchinson Island 1994 1602 34 0 1 -80.2866 27.4577 Hutchinson Island 1994 1603 54 0 0 -80.2832 27.4492 Hutchinson Island 1994 1604 52 1 0 -80.2797 27.4402 Hutchinson Island 1994 1605 110 1 0 -80.2762 27.4308 Hutchinson Island 1994 1606 138 0 1 -80.2729 27.4225 Hutchinson Island 1994 1607 126 3 0 -80.2698 27.4145 Hutchinson Island 1994 1608 182 8 0 -80.2663 27.4054 Hutchinson Island 1994 1609 166 1 0 -80.2627 27.3973 Hutchinson Island 1994 1610 154 2 0 -80.2591 27.3895 Hutchinson Island 1994 1611 146 2 0 -80.2548 27.3812 Hutchinson Island 1994 1612 158 4 0 -80.2504 27.3729 Hutchinson Island 1994 1613 222 2 1 -80.2458 27.3646 Hutchinson Island 1994 1614 248 1 0 -80.2415 27.3562 Hutchinson Island 1994 1615 248 5 1 -80.2369 27.3475 Hutchinson Island 1994 1616 173 4 0 -80.2330 27.3383 Hutchinson Island 1994 1617 241 5 0 -80.2296 27.3303 Hutchinson Island 1994 1618 183 6 0 -80.2266 27.3220 Hutchinson Island 1994 1619 179 16 0 -80.2227 27.3132 Hutchinson Island 1994 1620 338 17 0 -80.2187 27.3049

119

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Hutchinson Island 1994 1621 313 16 1 -80.2150 27.2960 Hutchinson Island 1994 1622 316 10 0 -80.2112 27.2876 Hutchinson Island 1994 1623 245 1 0 -80.2074 27.2794 Hutchinson Island 1994 1624 202 3 0 -80.2034 27.2708 Hutchinson Island 1994 1625 194 2 0 -80.1994 27.2621 Hutchinson Island 1994 1626 162 3 0 -80.1953 27.2533 Hutchinson Island 1994 1627 191 12 3 -80.1908 27.2451 Hutchinson Island 1994 1628 187 11 1 -80.1865 27.2372 Hutchinson Island 1994 1629 67 5 0 -80.1820 27.2290 Hutchinson Island 1994 1630 143 8 0 -80.1775 27.2208 Hutchinson Island 1994 1631 199 4 2 -80.1729 27.2128 Hutchinson Island 1994 1632 142 5 3 -80.1679 27.2044 Hutchinson Island 1994 1633 220 15 1 -80.1636 27.1963 Hutchinson Island 1994 1634 135 4 0 -80.1601 27.1879 Hutchinson Island 1994 1635 124 0 0 -80.1576 27.1791 Hutchinson Island 1994 1636 125 1 0 -80.1547 27.1730 Hutchinson Island 1994 1637 14 0 0 -80.1534 27.1704 Hutchinson Island 1995 1601 21 0 0 -80.2899 27.4662 Hutchinson Island 1995 1602 48 0 0 -80.2866 27.4577 Hutchinson Island 1995 1603 55 0 0 -80.2832 27.4492 Hutchinson Island 1995 1604 53 0 0 -80.2797 27.4402 Hutchinson Island 1995 1605 122 0 0 -80.2762 27.4308 Hutchinson Island 1995 1606 133 0 0 -80.2729 27.4225 Hutchinson Island 1995 1607 111 0 0 -80.2698 27.4145 Hutchinson Island 1995 1608 180 0 0 -80.2663 27.4054 Hutchinson Island 1995 1609 210 0 0 -80.2627 27.3973 Hutchinson Island 1995 1610 159 0 1 -80.2591 27.3895 Hutchinson Island 1995 1611 223 0 0 -80.2548 27.3812 Hutchinson Island 1995 1612 220 0 0 -80.2504 27.3729 Hutchinson Island 1995 1613 282 0 1 -80.2458 27.3646 Hutchinson Island 1995 1614 281 0 0 -80.2415 27.3562 Hutchinson Island 1995 1615 362 0 0 -80.2369 27.3475 Hutchinson Island 1995 1616 230 0 0 -80.2330 27.3383 Hutchinson Island 1995 1617 378 0 0 -80.2296 27.3303 Hutchinson Island 1995 1618 216 1 2 -80.2266 27.3220 Hutchinson Island 1995 1619 337 3 0 -80.2227 27.3132 Hutchinson Island 1995 1620 328 1 0 -80.2187 27.3049 Hutchinson Island 1995 1621 383 4 0 -80.2150 27.2960

120

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Hutchinson Island 1995 1622 317 0 0 -80.2112 27.2876 Hutchinson Island 1995 1623 260 0 0 -80.2074 27.2794 Hutchinson Island 1995 1624 175 1 1 -80.2034 27.2708 Hutchinson Island 1995 1625 295 0 1 -80.1994 27.2621 Hutchinson Island 1995 1626 170 1 0 -80.1953 27.2533 Hutchinson Island 1995 1627 232 1 0 -80.1908 27.2451 Hutchinson Island 1995 1628 170 1 0 -80.1865 27.2372 Hutchinson Island 1995 1629 137 1 0 -80.1820 27.2290 Hutchinson Island 1995 1630 204 0 1 -80.1775 27.2208 Hutchinson Island 1995 1631 268 1 2 -80.1729 27.2128 Hutchinson Island 1995 1632 245 0 2 -80.1679 27.2044 Hutchinson Island 1995 1633 298 0 1 -80.1636 27.1963 Hutchinson Island 1995 1634 222 0 1 -80.1601 27.1879 Hutchinson Island 1995 1635 288 1 0 -80.1576 27.1791 Hutchinson Island 1995 1636 170 0 0 -80.1547 27.1730 Hutchinson Island 1995 1637 8 0 0 -80.1534 27.1704 Hutchinson Island 1996 1601 19 0 0 -80.2899 27.4662 Hutchinson Island 1996 1602 55 1 0 -80.2866 27.4577 Hutchinson Island 1996 1603 54 2 0 -80.2832 27.4492 Hutchinson Island 1996 1604 74 0 0 -80.2797 27.4402 Hutchinson Island 1996 1605 130 2 0 -80.2762 27.4308 Hutchinson Island 1996 1606 127 3 1 -80.2729 27.4225 Hutchinson Island 1996 1607 118 7 0 -80.2698 27.4145 Hutchinson Island 1996 1608 183 5 2 -80.2663 27.4054 Hutchinson Island 1996 1609 198 3 0 -80.2627 27.3973 Hutchinson Island 1996 1610 175 4 0 -80.2591 27.3895 Hutchinson Island 1996 1611 220 9 0 -80.2548 27.3812 Hutchinson Island 1996 1612 207 1 0 -80.2504 27.3729 Hutchinson Island 1996 1613 271 3 1 -80.2458 27.3646 Hutchinson Island 1996 1614 342 1 0 -80.2415 27.3562 Hutchinson Island 1996 1615 327 3 0 -80.2369 27.3475 Hutchinson Island 1996 1616 238 4 0 -80.2330 27.3383 Hutchinson Island 1996 1617 280 1 0 -80.2296 27.3303 Hutchinson Island 1996 1618 263 11 0 -80.2266 27.3220 Hutchinson Island 1996 1619 334 13 0 -80.2227 27.3132 Hutchinson Island 1996 1620 255 22 0 -80.2187 27.3049 Hutchinson Island 1996 1621 344 12 2 -80.2150 27.2960 Hutchinson Island 1996 1622 408 5 1 -80.2112 27.2876

121

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Hutchinson Island 1996 1623 363 1 0 -80.2074 27.2794 Hutchinson Island 1996 1624 257 2 1 -80.2034 27.2708 Hutchinson Island 1996 1625 248 2 1 -80.1994 27.2621 Hutchinson Island 1996 1626 95 1 1 -80.1953 27.2533 Hutchinson Island 1996 1627 185 3 4 -80.1908 27.2451 Hutchinson Island 1996 1628 150 2 0 -80.1865 27.2372 Hutchinson Island 1996 1629 195 9 0 -80.1820 27.2290 Hutchinson Island 1996 1630 111 7 2 -80.1775 27.2208 Hutchinson Island 1996 1631 222 3 4 -80.1729 27.2128 Hutchinson Island 1996 1632 273 8 5 -80.1679 27.2044 Hutchinson Island 1996 1633 282 7 2 -80.1636 27.1963 Hutchinson Island 1996 1634 198 6 3 -80.1601 27.1879 Hutchinson Island 1996 1635 208 0 1 -80.1576 27.1791 Hutchinson Island 1996 1636 158 0 0 -80.1547 27.1730 Hutchinson Island 1996 1637 16 0 0 -80.1534 27.1704 Hutchinson Island 1997 1601 13 0 0 -80.2899 27.4662 Hutchinson Island 1997 1602 40 0 0 -80.2866 27.4577 Hutchinson Island 1997 1603 58 0 0 -80.2832 27.4492 Hutchinson Island 1997 1604 44 0 0 -80.2797 27.4402 Hutchinson Island 1997 1605 74 0 1 -80.2762 27.4308 Hutchinson Island 1997 1606 107 0 0 -80.2729 27.4225 Hutchinson Island 1997 1607 77 0 0 -80.2698 27.4145 Hutchinson Island 1997 1608 98 0 0 -80.2663 27.4054 Hutchinson Island 1997 1609 130 0 1 -80.2627 27.3973 Hutchinson Island 1997 1610 95 1 0 -80.2591 27.3895 Hutchinson Island 1997 1611 134 2 0 -80.2548 27.3812 Hutchinson Island 1997 1612 147 0 0 -80.2504 27.3729 Hutchinson Island 1997 1613 123 0 1 -80.2458 27.3646 Hutchinson Island 1997 1614 145 1 0 -80.2415 27.3562 Hutchinson Island 1997 1615 258 2 0 -80.2369 27.3475 Hutchinson Island 1997 1616 186 0 0 -80.2330 27.3383 Hutchinson Island 1997 1617 226 1 0 -80.2296 27.3303 Hutchinson Island 1997 1618 222 0 0 -80.2266 27.3220 Hutchinson Island 1997 1619 314 4 0 -80.2227 27.3132 Hutchinson Island 1997 1620 275 7 0 -80.2187 27.3049 Hutchinson Island 1997 1621 297 6 1 -80.2150 27.2960 Hutchinson Island 1997 1622 291 2 1 -80.2112 27.2876 Hutchinson Island 1997 1623 234 0 2 -80.2074 27.2794

122

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Hutchinson Island 1997 1624 131 1 1 -80.2034 27.2708 Hutchinson Island 1997 1625 223 0 0 -80.1994 27.2621 Hutchinson Island 1997 1626 93 0 0 -80.1953 27.2533 Hutchinson Island 1997 1627 124 0 2 -80.1908 27.2451 Hutchinson Island 1997 1628 156 1 1 -80.1865 27.2372 Hutchinson Island 1997 1629 105 3 1 -80.1820 27.2290 Hutchinson Island 1997 1630 141 0 1 -80.1775 27.2208 Hutchinson Island 1997 1631 179 0 4 -80.1729 27.2128 Hutchinson Island 1997 1632 121 1 0 -80.1679 27.2044 Hutchinson Island 1997 1633 204 2 0 -80.1636 27.1963 Hutchinson Island 1997 1634 114 2 0 -80.1601 27.1879 Hutchinson Island 1997 1635 144 1 0 -80.1576 27.1791 Hutchinson Island 1997 1636 127 0 0 -80.1547 27.1730 Hutchinson Island 1997 1637 6 0 0 -80.1534 27.1704 Hutchinson Island 1998 1601 43 0 0 -80.2899 27.4662 Hutchinson Island 1998 1602 67 0 1 -80.2866 27.4577 Hutchinson Island 1998 1603 57 0 1 -80.2832 27.4492 Hutchinson Island 1998 1604 112 0 1 -80.2797 27.4402 Hutchinson Island 1998 1605 128 3 0 -80.2762 27.4308 Hutchinson Island 1998 1606 147 0 2 -80.2729 27.4225 Hutchinson Island 1998 1607 107 2 2 -80.2698 27.4145 Hutchinson Island 1998 1608 215 6 1 -80.2663 27.4054 Hutchinson Island 1998 1609 225 8 1 -80.2627 27.3973 Hutchinson Island 1998 1610 200 8 2 -80.2591 27.3895 Hutchinson Island 1998 1611 235 6 0 -80.2548 27.3812 Hutchinson Island 1998 1612 204 2 1 -80.2504 27.3729 Hutchinson Island 1998 1613 227 2 3 -80.2458 27.3646 Hutchinson Island 1998 1614 284 6 1 -80.2415 27.3562 Hutchinson Island 1998 1615 364 13 1 -80.2369 27.3475 Hutchinson Island 1998 1616 269 4 0 -80.2330 27.3383 Hutchinson Island 1998 1617 392 4 0 -80.2296 27.3303 Hutchinson Island 1998 1618 365 5 0 -80.2266 27.3220 Hutchinson Island 1998 1619 404 5 1 -80.2227 27.3132 Hutchinson Island 1998 1620 438 24 0 -80.2187 27.3049 Hutchinson Island 1998 1621 468 35 1 -80.2150 27.2960 Hutchinson Island 1998 1622 382 20 0 -80.2112 27.2876 Hutchinson Island 1998 1623 300 16 1 -80.2074 27.2794 Hutchinson Island 1998 1624 225 11 0 -80.2034 27.2708

123

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Hutchinson Island 1998 1625 200 3 0 -80.1994 27.2621 Hutchinson Island 1998 1626 114 2 0 -80.1953 27.2533 Hutchinson Island 1998 1627 157 8 2 -80.1908 27.2451 Hutchinson Island 1998 1628 152 9 3 -80.1865 27.2372 Hutchinson Island 1998 1629 144 9 3 -80.1820 27.2290 Hutchinson Island 1998 1630 116 3 4 -80.1775 27.2208 Hutchinson Island 1998 1631 172 6 3 -80.1729 27.2128 Hutchinson Island 1998 1632 169 9 0 -80.1679 27.2044 Hutchinson Island 1998 1633 200 14 1 -80.1636 27.1963 Hutchinson Island 1998 1634 140 8 0 -80.1601 27.1879 Hutchinson Island 1998 1635 175 0 1 -80.1576 27.1791 Hutchinson Island 1998 1636 130 0 0 -80.1547 27.1730 Hutchinson Island 1998 1637 14 0 0 -80.1534 27.1704 Hutchinson Island 2002 1601 25 0 0 -80.2899 27.4662 Hutchinson Island 2002 1602 47 0 0 -80.2866 27.4577 Hutchinson Island 2002 1603 61 0 0 -80.2832 27.4492 Hutchinson Island 2002 1604 55 0 0 -80.2797 27.4402 Hutchinson Island 2002 1605 51 0 1 -80.2762 27.4308 Hutchinson Island 2002 1606 70 3 0 -80.2729 27.4225 Hutchinson Island 2002 1607 63 5 0 -80.2698 27.4145 Hutchinson Island 2002 1608 156 5 1 -80.2663 27.4054 Hutchinson Island 2002 1609 169 15 2 -80.2627 27.3973 Hutchinson Island 2002 1610 148 9 0 -80.2591 27.3895 Hutchinson Island 2002 1611 166 11 4 -80.2548 27.3812 Hutchinson Island 2002 1612 203 15 3 -80.2504 27.3729 Hutchinson Island 2002 1613 231 16 2 -80.2458 27.3646 Hutchinson Island 2002 1614 196 14 1 -80.2415 27.3562 Hutchinson Island 2002 1615 213 5 1 -80.2369 27.3475 Hutchinson Island 2002 1616 159 4 1 -80.2330 27.3383 Hutchinson Island 2002 1617 186 5 2 -80.2296 27.3303 Hutchinson Island 2002 1618 186 13 0 -80.2266 27.3220 Hutchinson Island 2002 1619 306 45 2 -80.2227 27.3132 Hutchinson Island 2002 1620 287 42 2 -80.2187 27.3049 Hutchinson Island 2002 1621 371 86 6 -80.2150 27.2960 Hutchinson Island 2002 1622 301 47 0 -80.2112 27.2876 Hutchinson Island 2002 1623 246 31 3 -80.2074 27.2794 Hutchinson Island 2002 1624 169 18 2 -80.2034 27.2708 Hutchinson Island 2002 1625 217 10 3 -80.1994 27.2621

124

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Hutchinson Island 2002 1626 136 6 2 -80.1953 27.2533 Hutchinson Island 2002 1627 182 18 3 -80.1908 27.2451 Hutchinson Island 2002 1628 97 12 3 -80.1865 27.2372 Hutchinson Island 2002 1629 90 10 1 -80.1820 27.2290 Hutchinson Island 2002 1630 128 15 6 -80.1775 27.2208 Hutchinson Island 2002 1631 146 8 4 -80.1729 27.2128 Hutchinson Island 2002 1632 92 10 1 -80.1679 27.2044 Hutchinson Island 2002 1633 150 12 0 -80.1636 27.1963 Hutchinson Island 2002 1634 94 3 1 -80.1601 27.1879 Hutchinson Island 2002 1635 139 3 0 -80.1576 27.1791 Hutchinson Island 2002 1636 88 0 1 -80.1547 27.1730 Hutchinson Island 2002 1637 15 0 0 -80.1534 27.1704 Hutchinson Island 2003 1601 5 0 0 -80.2899 27.4662 Hutchinson Island 2003 1602 50 1 0 -80.2866 27.4577 Hutchinson Island 2003 1603 46 1 0 -80.2832 27.4492 Hutchinson Island 2003 1604 60 1 0 -80.2797 27.4402 Hutchinson Island 2003 1605 58 0 2 -80.2762 27.4308 Hutchinson Island 2003 1606 90 1 0 -80.2729 27.4225 Hutchinson Island 2003 1607 104 1 0 -80.2698 27.4145 Hutchinson Island 2003 1608 169 1 1 -80.2663 27.4054 Hutchinson Island 2003 1609 160 1 3 -80.2627 27.3973 Hutchinson Island 2003 1610 154 4 2 -80.2591 27.3895 Hutchinson Island 2003 1611 164 2 2 -80.2548 27.3812 Hutchinson Island 2003 1612 181 1 0 -80.2504 27.3729 Hutchinson Island 2003 1613 149 0 5 -80.2458 27.3646 Hutchinson Island 2003 1614 145 2 6 -80.2415 27.3562 Hutchinson Island 2003 1615 193 7 5 -80.2369 27.3475 Hutchinson Island 2003 1616 144 6 1 -80.2330 27.3383 Hutchinson Island 2003 1617 187 10 1 -80.2296 27.3303 Hutchinson Island 2003 1618 188 7 1 -80.2266 27.3220 Hutchinson Island 2003 1619 273 8 5 -80.2227 27.3132 Hutchinson Island 2003 1620 248 8 0 -80.2187 27.3049 Hutchinson Island 2003 1621 292 13 3 -80.2150 27.2960 Hutchinson Island 2003 1622 273 4 4 -80.2112 27.2876 Hutchinson Island 2003 1623 212 11 5 -80.2074 27.2794 Hutchinson Island 2003 1624 188 3 3 -80.2034 27.2708 Hutchinson Island 2003 1625 177 2 4 -80.1994 27.2621 Hutchinson Island 2003 1626 111 0 2 -80.1953 27.2533

125

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Hutchinson Island 2003 1627 161 5 9 -80.1908 27.2451 Hutchinson Island 2003 1628 119 2 6 -80.1865 27.2372 Hutchinson Island 2003 1629 109 3 4 -80.1820 27.2290 Hutchinson Island 2003 1630 90 8 13 -80.1775 27.2208 Hutchinson Island 2003 1631 108 5 8 -80.1729 27.2128 Hutchinson Island 2003 1632 85 6 2 -80.1679 27.2044 Hutchinson Island 2003 1633 125 7 0 -80.1636 27.1963 Hutchinson Island 2003 1634 67 2 2 -80.1601 27.1879 Hutchinson Island 2003 1635 134 3 0 -80.1576 27.1791 Hutchinson Island 2003 1636 104 0 2 -80.1547 27.1730 Hutchinson Island 2003 1637 5 0 0 -80.1534 27.1704 Hutchinson Island 2004 1601 4 0 0 -80.2899 27.4662 Hutchinson Island 2004 1602 39 0 0 -80.2866 27.4577 Hutchinson Island 2004 1603 43 0 3 -80.2832 27.4492 Hutchinson Island 2004 1604 66 1 2 -80.2797 27.4402 Hutchinson Island 2004 1605 52 1 1 -80.2762 27.4308 Hutchinson Island 2004 1606 67 1 0 -80.2729 27.4225 Hutchinson Island 2004 1607 71 0 0 -80.2698 27.4145 Hutchinson Island 2004 1608 170 2 0 -80.2663 27.4054 Hutchinson Island 2004 1609 178 1 1 -80.2627 27.3973 Hutchinson Island 2004 1610 163 6 3 -80.2591 27.3895 Hutchinson Island 2004 1611 220 3 2 -80.2548 27.3812 Hutchinson Island 2004 1612 163 3 4 -80.2504 27.3729 Hutchinson Island 2004 1613 181 7 5 -80.2458 27.3646 Hutchinson Island 2004 1614 160 7 5 -80.2415 27.3562 Hutchinson Island 2004 1615 164 7 4 -80.2369 27.3475 Hutchinson Island 2004 1616 135 8 0 -80.2330 27.3383 Hutchinson Island 2004 1617 213 1 0 -80.2296 27.3303 Hutchinson Island 2004 1618 198 5 2 -80.2266 27.3220 Hutchinson Island 2004 1619 234 5 3 -80.2227 27.3132 Hutchinson Island 2004 1620 214 13 1 -80.2187 27.3049 Hutchinson Island 2004 1621 249 10 2 -80.2150 27.2960 Hutchinson Island 2004 1622 193 15 4 -80.2112 27.2876 Hutchinson Island 2004 1623 197 4 4 -80.2074 27.2794 Hutchinson Island 2004 1624 136 3 0 -80.2034 27.2708 Hutchinson Island 2004 1625 95 4 2 -80.1994 27.2621 Hutchinson Island 2004 1626 79 1 0 -80.1953 27.2533 Hutchinson Island 2004 1627 109 4 2 -80.1908 27.2451

126

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Hutchinson Island 2004 1628 68 3 0 -80.1865 27.2372 Hutchinson Island 2004 1629 59 4 2 -80.1820 27.2290 Hutchinson Island 2004 1630 53 3 2 -80.1775 27.2208 Hutchinson Island 2004 1631 66 3 7 -80.1729 27.2128 Hutchinson Island 2004 1632 63 12 0 -80.1679 27.2044 Hutchinson Island 2004 1633 116 6 0 -80.1636 27.1963 Hutchinson Island 2004 1634 45 2 0 -80.1601 27.1879 Hutchinson Island 2004 1635 96 2 0 -80.1576 27.1791 Hutchinson Island 2004 1636 83 1 0 -80.1547 27.1730 Hutchinson Island 2004 1637 10 0 0 -80.1534 27.1704 Hutchinson Island 2005 1601 9 0 0 -80.2899 27.4662 Hutchinson Island 2005 1602 29 0 0 -80.2866 27.4577 Hutchinson Island 2005 1603 32 1 0 -80.2832 27.4492 Hutchinson Island 2005 1604 52 0 2 -80.2797 27.4402 Hutchinson Island 2005 1605 35 1 1 -80.2762 27.4308 Hutchinson Island 2005 1606 32 1 2 -80.2729 27.4225 Hutchinson Island 2005 1607 44 4 0 -80.2698 27.4145 Hutchinson Island 2005 1608 136 9 0 -80.2663 27.4054 Hutchinson Island 2005 1609 142 5 5 -80.2627 27.3973 Hutchinson Island 2005 1610 121 2 4 -80.2591 27.3895 Hutchinson Island 2005 1611 163 8 4 -80.2548 27.3812 Hutchinson Island 2005 1612 144 6 3 -80.2504 27.3729 Hutchinson Island 2005 1613 258 18 3 -80.2458 27.3646 Hutchinson Island 2005 1614 202 13 6 -80.2415 27.3562 Hutchinson Island 2005 1615 195 14 1 -80.2369 27.3475 Hutchinson Island 2005 1616 172 18 0 -80.2330 27.3383 Hutchinson Island 2005 1617 334 20 1 -80.2296 27.3303 Hutchinson Island 2005 1618 253 38 2 -80.2266 27.3220 Hutchinson Island 2005 1619 397 70 10 -80.2227 27.3132 Hutchinson Island 2005 1620 270 40 2 -80.2187 27.3049 Hutchinson Island 2005 1621 184 51 2 -80.2150 27.2960 Hutchinson Island 2005 1622 197 15 0 -80.2112 27.2876 Hutchinson Island 2005 1623 68 11 1 -80.2074 27.2794 Hutchinson Island 2005 1624 65 3 0 -80.2034 27.2708 Hutchinson Island 2005 1625 162 11 6 -80.1994 27.2621 Hutchinson Island 2005 1626 107 5 8 -80.1953 27.2533 Hutchinson Island 2005 1627 161 1 7 -80.1908 27.2451 Hutchinson Island 2005 1628 170 5 3 -80.1865 27.2372

127

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Hutchinson Island 2005 1629 134 2 1 -80.1820 27.2290 Hutchinson Island 2005 1630 116 3 3 -80.1775 27.2208 Hutchinson Island 2005 1631 136 2 12 -80.1729 27.2128 Hutchinson Island 2005 1632 112 8 3 -80.1679 27.2044 Hutchinson Island 2005 1633 134 12 0 -80.1636 27.1963 Hutchinson Island 2005 1634 88 2 2 -80.1601 27.1879 Hutchinson Island 2005 1635 145 3 0 -80.1576 27.1791 Hutchinson Island 2005 1636 130 0 2 -80.1547 27.1730 Hutchinson Island 2005 1637 10 0 0 -80.1534 27.1704 Hutchinson Island 2006 1601 24 0 0 -80.2899 27.4662 Hutchinson Island 2006 1602 30 0 0 -80.2866 27.4577 Hutchinson Island 2006 1603 35 0 0 -80.2832 27.4492 Hutchinson Island 2006 1604 30 0 2 -80.2797 27.4402 Hutchinson Island 2006 1605 41 0 1 -80.2762 27.4308 Hutchinson Island 2006 1606 24 1 2 -80.2729 27.4225 Hutchinson Island 2006 1607 27 5 0 -80.2698 27.4145 Hutchinson Island 2006 1608 105 6 2 -80.2663 27.4054 Hutchinson Island 2006 1609 99 4 1 -80.2627 27.3973 Hutchinson Island 2006 1610 102 8 0 -80.2591 27.3895 Hutchinson Island 2006 1611 115 6 2 -80.2548 27.3812 Hutchinson Island 2006 1612 92 13 0 -80.2504 27.3729 Hutchinson Island 2006 1613 165 9 1 -80.2458 27.3646 Hutchinson Island 2006 1614 87 4 2 -80.2415 27.3562 Hutchinson Island 2006 1615 137 5 3 -80.2369 27.3475 Hutchinson Island 2006 1616 110 2 0 -80.2330 27.3383 Hutchinson Island 2006 1617 206 9 0 -80.2296 27.3303 Hutchinson Island 2006 1618 116 10 1 -80.2266 27.3220 Hutchinson Island 2006 1619 161 25 3 -80.2227 27.3132 Hutchinson Island 2006 1620 245 31 4 -80.2187 27.3049 Hutchinson Island 2006 1621 155 18 1 -80.2150 27.2960 Hutchinson Island 2006 1622 230 7 0 -80.2112 27.2876 Hutchinson Island 2006 1623 213 3 3 -80.2074 27.2794 Hutchinson Island 2006 1624 172 6 1 -80.2034 27.2708 Hutchinson Island 2006 1625 116 2 4 -80.1994 27.2621 Hutchinson Island 2006 1626 93 2 3 -80.1953 27.2533 Hutchinson Island 2006 1627 111 1 6 -80.1908 27.2451 Hutchinson Island 2006 1628 97 8 3 -80.1865 27.2372 Hutchinson Island 2006 1629 80 8 3 -80.1820 27.2290

128

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Hutchinson Island 2006 1630 102 8 5 -80.1775 27.2208 Hutchinson Island 2006 1631 110 0 7 -80.1729 27.2128 Hutchinson Island 2006 1632 79 15 1 -80.1679 27.2044 Hutchinson Island 2006 1633 61 12 1 -80.1636 27.1963 Hutchinson Island 2006 1634 71 1 0 -80.1601 27.1879 Hutchinson Island 2006 1635 129 3 0 -80.1576 27.1791 Hutchinson Island 2006 1636 103 2 0 -80.1547 27.1730 Hutchinson Island 2006 1637 6 1 0 -80.1534 27.1704 Hutchinson Island 2007 1601 15 0 0 -80.2899 27.4662 Hutchinson Island 2007 1602 32 1 2 -80.2866 27.4577 Hutchinson Island 2007 1603 35 0 0 -80.2832 27.4492 Hutchinson Island 2007 1604 76 1 0 -80.2797 27.4402 Hutchinson Island 2007 1605 61 3 4 -80.2762 27.4308 Hutchinson Island 2007 1606 47 5 0 -80.2729 27.4225 Hutchinson Island 2007 1607 56 3 1 -80.2698 27.4145 Hutchinson Island 2007 1608 110 3 3 -80.2663 27.4054 Hutchinson Island 2007 1609 112 4 2 -80.2627 27.3973 Hutchinson Island 2007 1610 118 13 5 -80.2591 27.3895 Hutchinson Island 2007 1611 121 8 4 -80.2548 27.3812 Hutchinson Island 2007 1612 95 4 3 -80.2504 27.3729 Hutchinson Island 2007 1613 130 11 5 -80.2458 27.3646 Hutchinson Island 2007 1614 139 11 3 -80.2415 27.3562 Hutchinson Island 2007 1615 77 7 2 -80.2369 27.3475 Hutchinson Island 2007 1616 180 8 3 -80.2330 27.3383 Hutchinson Island 2007 1617 203 11 2 -80.2296 27.3303 Hutchinson Island 2007 1618 143 25 1 -80.2266 27.3220 Hutchinson Island 2007 1619 249 43 6 -80.2227 27.3132 Hutchinson Island 2007 1620 261 89 3 -80.2187 27.3049 Hutchinson Island 2007 1621 162 51 7 -80.2150 27.2960 Hutchinson Island 2007 1622 146 24 0 -80.2112 27.2876 Hutchinson Island 2007 1623 195 49 6 -80.2074 27.2794 Hutchinson Island 2007 1624 149 19 14 -80.2034 27.2708 Hutchinson Island 2007 1625 112 12 8 -80.1994 27.2621 Hutchinson Island 2007 1626 78 6 16 -80.1953 27.2533 Hutchinson Island 2007 1627 93 10 11 -80.1908 27.2451 Hutchinson Island 2007 1628 107 20 10 -80.1865 27.2372 Hutchinson Island 2007 1629 124 8 8 -80.1820 27.2290 Hutchinson Island 2007 1630 122 19 10 -80.1775 27.2208

129

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Hutchinson Island 2007 1631 131 10 19 -80.1729 27.2128 Hutchinson Island 2007 1632 82 9 9 -80.1679 27.2044 Hutchinson Island 2007 1633 67 10 0 -80.1636 27.1963 Hutchinson Island 2007 1634 64 1 0 -80.1601 27.1879 Hutchinson Island 2007 1635 146 1 0 -80.1576 27.1791 Hutchinson Island 2007 1636 122 1 0 -80.1547 27.1730 Hutchinson Island 2007 1637 14 0 0 -80.1534 27.1704 John U. Lloyd State Park 2003 2301 72 0 0 -80.1092 26.0881 John U. Lloyd State Park 2003 2302 37 1 0 -80.1097 26.0811 John U. Lloyd State Park 2003 2303 39 0 0 -80.1104 26.0735 John U. Lloyd State Park 2003 2304 34 0 0 -80.1109 26.0657 John U. Lloyd State Park 2003 2305 2 0 0 -80.1114 26.0610 John U. Lloyd State Park 2004 2301 48 3 0 -80.1092 26.0881 John U. Lloyd State Park 2004 2302 32 5 0 -80.1097 26.0811 John U. Lloyd State Park 2004 2303 32 7 0 -80.1104 26.0735 John U. Lloyd State Park 2004 2304 18 5 0 -80.1109 26.0657 John U. Lloyd State Park 2004 2305 0 1 0 -80.1114 26.0610 John U. Lloyd State Park 2005 2301 34 0 0 -80.1092 26.0881 John U. Lloyd State Park 2005 2302 36 7 0 -80.1097 26.0811 John U. Lloyd State Park 2005 2303 26 13 0 -80.1104 26.0735 John U. Lloyd State Park 2005 2304 26 5 0 -80.1109 26.0657 John U. Lloyd State Park 2005 2305 3 2 0 -80.1114 26.0610 John U. Lloyd State Park 2006 2301 15 0 0 -80.1092 26.0881 John U. Lloyd State Park 2006 2302 20 1 0 -80.1097 26.0811 John U. Lloyd State Park 2006 2303 32 3 0 -80.1104 26.0735 John U. Lloyd State Park 2006 2304 28 5 0 -80.1109 26.0657 John U. Lloyd State Park 2006 2305 6 0 0 -80.1114 26.0610 John U. Lloyd State Park 2007 2301 25 2 0 -80.1092 26.0881 John U. Lloyd State Park 2007 2302 28 2 0 -80.1097 26.0811 John U. Lloyd State Park 2007 2303 40 9 0 -80.1104 26.0735 John U. Lloyd State Park 2007 2304 24 6 0 -80.1109 26.0657 John U. Lloyd State Park 2007 2305 5 0 0 -80.1114 26.0610 John U. Lloyd State Park 2008 2301 22 0 0 -80.1092 26.0881 John U. Lloyd State Park 2008 2302 34 0 0 -80.1097 26.0811 John U. Lloyd State Park 2008 2303 30 8 0 -80.1104 26.0735 John U. Lloyd State Park 2008 2304 63 13 0 -80.1109 26.0657 John U. Lloyd State Park 2008 2305 5 1 0 -80.1114 26.0610 Juno Beach 1998 2001 336 18 0 -80.0643 26.9165

130

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Juno Beach 1998 2002 274 16 1 -80.0617 26.9089 Juno Beach 1998 2003 369 29 0 -80.0594 26.9019 Juno Beach 1998 2004 339 20 0 -80.0573 26.8949 Juno Beach 1998 2005 469 27 2 -80.0554 26.8882 Juno Beach 1998 2006 487 24 1 -80.0529 26.8812 Juno Beach 1998 2007 304 20 2 -80.0501 26.8730 Juno Beach 1998 2008 352 36 2 -80.0478 26.8652 Juno Beach 1998 2009 390 26 3 -80.0460 26.8587 Juno Beach 1998 2010 992 116 0 -80.0441 26.8482 Juno Beach 1998 2011 190 24 0 -80.0418 26.8383 Juno Beach 1999 2001 347 0 10 -80.0643 26.9165 Juno Beach 1999 2002 303 0 5 -80.0617 26.9089 Juno Beach 1999 2003 363 3 1 -80.0594 26.9019 Juno Beach 1999 2004 243 2 3 -80.0573 26.8949 Juno Beach 1999 2005 633 0 5 -80.0554 26.8882 Juno Beach 1999 2006 516 2 2 -80.0529 26.8812 Juno Beach 1999 2007 376 4 5 -80.0501 26.8730 Juno Beach 1999 2008 371 4 2 -80.0478 26.8652 Juno Beach 1999 2009 362 5 1 -80.0460 26.8587 Juno Beach 1999 2010 1002 22 3 -80.0441 26.8482 Juno Beach 1999 2011 225 3 0 -80.0418 26.8383 Juno Beach 2000 2001 391 44 3 -80.0643 26.9165 Juno Beach 2000 2002 303 24 4 -80.0617 26.9089 Juno Beach 2000 2003 373 45 2 -80.0594 26.9019 Juno Beach 2000 2004 357 27 2 -80.0573 26.8949 Juno Beach 2000 2005 513 56 2 -80.0554 26.8882 Juno Beach 2000 2006 547 38 3 -80.0529 26.8812 Juno Beach 2000 2007 301 26 1 -80.0501 26.8730 Juno Beach 2000 2008 375 66 0 -80.0478 26.8652 Juno Beach 2000 2009 475 78 1 -80.0460 26.8587 Juno Beach 2000 2010 951 143 2 -80.0441 26.8482 Juno Beach 2000 2011 221 61 0 -80.0418 26.8383 Juno Beach 2001 2001 363 0 6 -80.0643 26.9165 Juno Beach 2001 2002 199 0 4 -80.0617 26.9089 Juno Beach 2001 2003 142 1 9 -80.0594 26.9019 Juno Beach 2001 2004 216 0 8 -80.0573 26.8949 Juno Beach 2001 2005 389 2 11 -80.0554 26.8882 Juno Beach 2001 2006 487 0 5 -80.0529 26.8812

131

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Juno Beach 2001 2007 398 1 5 -80.0501 26.8730 Juno Beach 2001 2008 519 1 12 -80.0478 26.8652 Juno Beach 2001 2009 523 3 5 -80.0460 26.8587 Juno Beach 2001 2010 1057 16 8 -80.0441 26.8482 Juno Beach 2001 2011 251 2 2 -80.0418 26.8383 Juno Beach 2002 2001 363 59 5 -80.0643 26.9165 Juno Beach 2002 2002 172 58 3 -80.0617 26.9089 Juno Beach 2002 2003 210 27 4 -80.0594 26.9019 Juno Beach 2002 2004 150 17 1 -80.0573 26.8949 Juno Beach 2002 2005 313 45 4 -80.0554 26.8882 Juno Beach 2002 2006 357 39 6 -80.0529 26.8812 Juno Beach 2002 2007 223 33 7 -80.0501 26.8730 Juno Beach 2002 2008 338 107 7 -80.0478 26.8652 Juno Beach 2002 2009 479 177 2 -80.0460 26.8587 Juno Beach 2002 2010 932 326 8 -80.0441 26.8482 Juno Beach 2002 2011 184 72 1 -80.0418 26.8383 Juno Beach 2003 2001 163 10 4 -80.0643 26.9165 Juno Beach 2003 2002 130 10 5 -80.0617 26.9089 Juno Beach 2003 2003 299 2 3 -80.0594 26.9019 Juno Beach 2003 2004 344 1 3 -80.0573 26.8949 Juno Beach 2003 2005 318 13 9 -80.0554 26.8882 Juno Beach 2003 2006 397 5 4 -80.0529 26.8812 Juno Beach 2003 2007 414 5 1 -80.0501 26.8730 Juno Beach 2003 2008 839 25 3 -80.0478 26.8652 Juno Beach 2003 2009 272 32 4 -80.0460 26.8587 Juno Beach 2003 2010 225 82 4 -80.0441 26.8482 Juno Beach 2003 2011 135 26 3 -80.0418 26.8383 Jupiter Island 1996 1901 281 2 0 -80.1228 27.0832 Jupiter Island 1996 1902 232 2 0 -80.1193 27.0767 Jupiter Island 1996 1903 156 2 0 -80.1164 27.0700 Jupiter Island 1996 1904 295 3 2 -80.1134 27.0632 Jupiter Island 1996 1905 229 7 1 -80.1100 27.0567 Jupiter Island 1996 1906 237 5 0 -80.1070 27.0498 Jupiter Island 1996 1907 277 3 3 -80.1041 27.0430 Jupiter Island 1996 1908 248 2 0 -80.1012 27.0363 Jupiter Island 1996 1909 154 1 0 -80.0983 27.0295 Jupiter Island 1996 1910 236 5 0 -80.0956 27.0227 Jupiter Island 1996 1911 362 10 2 -80.0931 27.0157

132

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Jupiter Island 1996 1912 440 19 0 -80.0912 27.0088 Jupiter Island 1996 1913 408 20 1 -80.0893 27.0016 Jupiter Island 1996 1914 362 30 0 -80.0882 26.9945 Jupiter Island 1996 1915 304 18 1 -80.0867 26.9889 Jupiter Island 1997 1901 138 2 3 -80.1228 27.0832 Jupiter Island 1997 1902 145 3 2 -80.1193 27.0767 Jupiter Island 1997 1903 105 0 1 -80.1164 27.0700 Jupiter Island 1997 1904 260 3 4 -80.1134 27.0632 Jupiter Island 1997 1905 242 2 5 -80.1100 27.0567 Jupiter Island 1997 1906 193 3 2 -80.1070 27.0498 Jupiter Island 1997 1907 208 4 2 -80.1041 27.0430 Jupiter Island 1997 1908 207 2 2 -80.1012 27.0363 Jupiter Island 1997 1909 195 2 1 -80.0983 27.0295 Jupiter Island 1997 1910 151 2 1 -80.0956 27.0227 Jupiter Island 1997 1911 156 3 1 -80.0931 27.0157 Jupiter Island 1997 1912 287 8 4 -80.0912 27.0088 Jupiter Island 1997 1913 278 4 0 -80.0893 27.0016 Jupiter Island 1997 1914 266 12 0 -80.0882 26.9945 Jupiter Island 1997 1915 472 13 1 -80.0867 26.9889 Jupiter Island 1998 1901 283 11 1 -80.1228 27.0832 Jupiter Island 1998 1902 231 10 1 -80.1193 27.0767 Jupiter Island 1998 1903 185 1 0 -80.1164 27.0700 Jupiter Island 1998 1904 351 15 0 -80.1134 27.0632 Jupiter Island 1998 1905 308 9 3 -80.1100 27.0567 Jupiter Island 1998 1906 396 10 1 -80.1070 27.0498 Jupiter Island 1998 1907 315 12 4 -80.1041 27.0430 Jupiter Island 1998 1908 354 18 2 -80.1012 27.0363 Jupiter Island 1998 1909 251 6 3 -80.0983 27.0295 Jupiter Island 1998 1910 266 11 1 -80.0956 27.0227 Jupiter Island 1998 1911 364 18 1 -80.0931 27.0157 Jupiter Island 1998 1912 427 22 0 -80.0912 27.0088 Jupiter Island 1998 1913 485 30 0 -80.0893 27.0016 Jupiter Island 1998 1914 486 45 2 -80.0882 26.9945 Jupiter Island 1998 1915 376 26 1 -80.0867 26.9889 Jupiter Island 1999 1901 290 1 4 -80.1228 27.0832 Jupiter Island 1999 1902 205 0 1 -80.1193 27.0767 Jupiter Island 1999 1903 184 0 0 -80.1164 27.0700 Jupiter Island 1999 1904 453 0 2 -80.1134 27.0632

133

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Jupiter Island 1999 1905 283 2 2 -80.1100 27.0567 Jupiter Island 1999 1906 248 0 3 -80.1070 27.0498 Jupiter Island 1999 1907 232 0 4 -80.1041 27.0430 Jupiter Island 1999 1908 376 3 2 -80.1012 27.0363 Jupiter Island 1999 1909 318 4 0 -80.0983 27.0295 Jupiter Island 1999 1910 324 0 3 -80.0956 27.0227 Jupiter Island 1999 1911 313 3 2 -80.0931 27.0157 Jupiter Island 1999 1912 395 2 3 -80.0912 27.0088 Jupiter Island 1999 1913 273 4 4 -80.0893 27.0016 Jupiter Island 1999 1914 272 1 1 -80.0882 26.9945 Jupiter Island 1999 1915 279 1 4 -80.0867 26.9889 Jupiter Island 2000 1901 328 22 2 -80.1228 27.0832 Jupiter Island 2000 1902 297 14 0 -80.1193 27.0767 Jupiter Island 2000 1903 182 8 2 -80.1164 27.0700 Jupiter Island 2000 1904 419 22 3 -80.1134 27.0632 Jupiter Island 2000 1905 408 21 5 -80.1100 27.0567 Jupiter Island 2000 1906 393 25 0 -80.1070 27.0498 Jupiter Island 2000 1907 293 24 3 -80.1041 27.0430 Jupiter Island 2000 1908 326 29 4 -80.1012 27.0363 Jupiter Island 2000 1909 222 12 1 -80.0983 27.0295 Jupiter Island 2000 1910 295 20 1 -80.0956 27.0227 Jupiter Island 2000 1911 266 17 1 -80.0931 27.0157 Jupiter Island 2000 1912 322 34 0 -80.0912 27.0088 Jupiter Island 2000 1913 340 42 2 -80.0893 27.0016 Jupiter Island 2000 1914 398 33 0 -80.0882 26.9945 Jupiter Island 2000 1915 294 28 2 -80.0867 26.9889 Jupiter Island 2001 1901 226 3 5 -80.1228 27.0832 Jupiter Island 2001 1902 201 1 2 -80.1193 27.0767 Jupiter Island 2001 1903 132 0 2 -80.1164 27.0700 Jupiter Island 2001 1904 300 0 7 -80.1134 27.0632 Jupiter Island 2001 1905 296 3 2 -80.1100 27.0567 Jupiter Island 2001 1906 257 2 3 -80.1070 27.0498 Jupiter Island 2001 1907 273 0 6 -80.1041 27.0430 Jupiter Island 2001 1908 285 1 8 -80.1012 27.0363 Jupiter Island 2001 1909 282 0 9 -80.0983 27.0295 Jupiter Island 2001 1910 183 1 5 -80.0956 27.0227 Jupiter Island 2001 1911 252 2 0 -80.0931 27.0157 Jupiter Island 2001 1912 254 0 0 -80.0912 27.0088

134

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Jupiter Island 2001 1913 352 5 5 -80.0893 27.0016 Jupiter Island 2001 1914 247 1 5 -80.0882 26.9945 Jupiter Island 2001 1915 261 1 7 -80.0867 26.9889 Patrick Air Force Base 1998 1101 391 13 0 -80.5974 28.2173 Patrick Air Force Base 1998 1102 363 10 0 -80.5989 28.2265 Patrick Air Force Base 1998 1103 440 7 0 -80.6003 28.2356 Patrick Air Force Base 1998 1104 282 3 0 -80.6017 28.2452 Patrick Air Force Base 1998 1105 222 1 0 -80.6033 28.2550 Patrick Air Force Base 1998 1106 164 0 0 -80.6045 28.2636 Patrick Air Force Base 1998 1107 107 1 0 -80.6052 28.2697 Patrick Air Force Base 1999 1101 407 0 0 -80.5974 28.2173 Patrick Air Force Base 1999 1102 328 0 0 -80.5989 28.2265 Patrick Air Force Base 1999 1103 319 0 0 -80.6003 28.2356 Patrick Air Force Base 1999 1104 171 0 0 -80.6017 28.2452 Patrick Air Force Base 1999 1105 161 0 0 -80.6033 28.2550 Patrick Air Force Base 1999 1106 124 0 0 -80.6045 28.2636 Patrick Air Force Base 1999 1107 90 0 0 -80.6052 28.2697 Patrick Air Force Base 2000 1101 345 19 0 -80.5974 28.2173 Patrick Air Force Base 2000 1102 247 6 0 -80.5989 28.2265 Patrick Air Force Base 2000 1103 301 12 0 -80.6003 28.2356 Patrick Air Force Base 2000 1104 226 2 0 -80.6017 28.2452 Patrick Air Force Base 2000 1105 121 2 0 -80.6033 28.2550 Patrick Air Force Base 2000 1106 140 1 0 -80.6045 28.2636 Patrick Air Force Base 2000 1107 109 0 0 -80.6052 28.2697 Patrick Air Force Base 2001 1101 339 0 0 -80.5974 28.2173 Patrick Air Force Base 2001 1102 304 0 0 -80.5989 28.2265 Patrick Air Force Base 2001 1103 234 0 0 -80.6003 28.2356 Patrick Air Force Base 2001 1104 134 0 0 -80.6017 28.2452 Patrick Air Force Base 2001 1105 113 0 0 -80.6033 28.2550 Patrick Air Force Base 2001 1106 128 0 0 -80.6045 28.2636 Patrick Air Force Base 2001 1107 36 0 1 -80.6052 28.2697 Patrick Air Force Base 2002 1101 179 21 0 -80.5974 28.2173 Patrick Air Force Base 2002 1102 167 13 0 -80.5989 28.2265 Patrick Air Force Base 2002 1103 223 15 0 -80.6003 28.2356 Patrick Air Force Base 2002 1104 170 1 0 -80.6017 28.2452 Patrick Air Force Base 2002 1105 137 0 0 -80.6033 28.2550 Patrick Air Force Base 2002 1106 75 1 0 -80.6045 28.2636 Patrick Air Force Base 2002 1107 25 0 0 -80.6052 28.2697

135

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Patrick Air Force Base 2003 1101 225 2 0 -80.5974 28.2173 Patrick Air Force Base 2003 1102 263 0 0 -80.5989 28.2265 Patrick Air Force Base 2003 1103 287 1 0 -80.6003 28.2356 Patrick Air Force Base 2003 1104 231 1 0 -80.6017 28.2452 Patrick Air Force Base 2003 1105 190 0 0 -80.6033 28.2550 Patrick Air Force Base 2003 1106 159 0 0 -80.6045 28.2636 Patrick Air Force Base 2003 1107 49 0 0 -80.6052 28.2697 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2000 1301 272 65 0 -80.4523 27.8711 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2000 1302 194 41 0 -80.4490 27.8652 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2000 1303 135 5 0 -80.4453 27.8564 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2000 1304 243 11 0 -80.4417 27.8496 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2000 1305 179 11 0 -80.4383 27.8432 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2000 1306 174 20 0 -80.4348 27.8367 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2001 1301 165 5 0 -80.4523 27.8711 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2001 1302 111 1 1 -80.4490 27.8652 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2001 1303 104 1 0 -80.4453 27.8564 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2001 1304 123 2 0 -80.4417 27.8496 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2001 1305 109 2 0 -80.4383 27.8432 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2001 1306 143 5 0 -80.4348 27.8367 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2002 1301 199 48 0 -80.4523 27.8711 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2002 1302 171 49 0 -80.4490 27.8652 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2002 1303 83 7 0 -80.4453 27.8564 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2002 1304 164 6 0 -80.4417 27.8496 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2002 1305 149 8 0 -80.4383 27.8432 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2002 1306 146 14 0 -80.4348 27.8367 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2003 1301 183 5 0 -80.4523 27.8711 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2003 1302 109 2 0 -80.4490 27.8652 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2003 1303 72 0 0 -80.4453 27.8564 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2003 1304 111 3 1 -80.4417 27.8496 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2003 1305 135 3 2 -80.4383 27.8432 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2003 1306 112 10 0 -80.4348 27.8367 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2004 1301 119 34 0 -80.4523 27.8711 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2004 1302 78 13 0 -80.4490 27.8652 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2004 1303 24 4 0 -80.4453 27.8564 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2004 1304 76 3 0 -80.4417 27.8496 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2004 1305 78 4 1 -80.4383 27.8432 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2004 1306 111 21 0 -80.4348 27.8367 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2005 1301 216 100 1 -80.4523 27.8711

136

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Sebastian Inlet State Park 2005 1302 132 58 0 -80.4490 27.8652 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2005 1303 85 5 0 -80.4453 27.8564 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2005 1304 132 11 1 -80.4417 27.8496 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2005 1305 126 12 0 -80.4383 27.8432 Sebastian Inlet State Park 2005 1306 138 14 2 -80.4348 27.8367 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3101 0 0 0 -85.3850 29.8776 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3102 0 0 0 -85.3891 29.8770 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3103 0 0 0 -85.3930 29.8753 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3104 0 0 0 -85.3975 29.8736 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3105 0 0 0 -85.4024 29.8710 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3106 1 0 0 -85.4056 29.8682 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3107 2 0 0 -85.4074 29.8662 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3108 2 0 0 -85.4096 29.8631 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3109 1 0 0 -85.4118 29.8591 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3110 2 0 0 -85.4131 29.8554 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3111 3 0 0 -85.4140 29.8518 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3112 2 0 0 -85.4149 29.8477 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3113 1 0 0 -85.4156 29.8438 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3114 3 0 0 -85.4162 29.8402 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3115 5 0 0 -85.4167 29.8366 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3116 2 0 0 -85.4170 29.8329 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3117 2 0 0 -85.4170 29.8290 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3118 7 0 0 -85.4167 29.8248 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3119 9 0 0 -85.4164 29.8207 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3120 7 0 0 -85.4160 29.8172 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3121 7 0 0 -85.4156 29.8139 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3122 5 0 0 -85.4151 29.8098 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3123 2 0 0 -85.4145 29.8060 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3124 8 0 0 -85.4140 29.8026 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3125 4 0 0 -85.4132 29.7990 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3126 6 0 0 -85.4122 29.7952 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3127 3 0 0 -85.4115 29.7916 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3128 3 0 0 -85.4107 29.7879 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3129 4 0 0 -85.4100 29.7840 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3130 7 0 0 -85.4090 29.7805 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3131 6 0 0 -85.4080 29.7769 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3132 2 0 0 -85.4069 29.7733 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3133 4 0 0 -85.4060 29.7696

137

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3134 4 0 0 -85.4052 29.7659 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2002 3135 5 0 0 -85.4039 29.7617 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3101 1 0 0 -85.3850 29.8776 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3102 0 0 0 -85.3891 29.8770 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3103 0 0 0 -85.3930 29.8753 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3104 0 0 0 -85.3975 29.8736 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3105 3 0 0 -85.4024 29.8710 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3106 0 0 0 -85.4056 29.8682 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3107 0 0 0 -85.4074 29.8662 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3108 1 0 0 -85.4096 29.8631 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3109 1 0 0 -85.4118 29.8591 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3110 3 0 0 -85.4131 29.8554 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3111 3 0 0 -85.4140 29.8518 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3112 1 0 0 -85.4149 29.8477 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3113 2 0 0 -85.4156 29.8438 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3114 0 0 0 -85.4162 29.8402 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3115 2 0 0 -85.4167 29.8366 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3116 4 0 0 -85.4170 29.8329 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3117 3 0 0 -85.4170 29.8290 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3118 2 0 0 -85.4167 29.8248 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3119 5 0 0 -85.4164 29.8207 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3120 3 0 0 -85.4160 29.8172 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3121 6 0 0 -85.4156 29.8139 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3122 1 0 0 -85.4151 29.8098 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3123 2 0 0 -85.4145 29.8060 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3124 2 0 0 -85.4140 29.8026 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3125 1 0 0 -85.4132 29.7990 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3126 1 0 0 -85.4122 29.7952 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3127 1 0 0 -85.4115 29.7916 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3128 1 0 0 -85.4107 29.7879 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3129 0 0 0 -85.4100 29.7840 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3130 3 0 0 -85.4090 29.7805 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3131 3 0 0 -85.4080 29.7769 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3132 3 0 0 -85.4069 29.7733 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3133 4 0 0 -85.4060 29.7696 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3134 4 0 0 -85.4052 29.7659 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2003 3135 4 0 0 -85.4039 29.7617 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3101 0 0 0 -85.3850 29.8776

138

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3102 1 0 0 -85.3891 29.8770 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3103 0 0 0 -85.3930 29.8753 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3104 1 0 0 -85.3975 29.8736 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3105 1 0 0 -85.4024 29.8710 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3106 2 0 0 -85.4056 29.8682 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3107 1 0 0 -85.4074 29.8662 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3108 3 0 0 -85.4096 29.8631 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3109 3 0 0 -85.4118 29.8591 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3110 2 0 0 -85.4131 29.8554 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3111 0 0 0 -85.4140 29.8518 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3112 1 0 0 -85.4149 29.8477 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3113 3 0 0 -85.4156 29.8438 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3114 4 0 0 -85.4162 29.8402 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3115 4 0 0 -85.4167 29.8366 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3116 4 0 0 -85.4170 29.8329 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3117 1 0 0 -85.4170 29.8290 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3118 2 0 0 -85.4167 29.8248 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3119 2 0 0 -85.4164 29.8207 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3120 4 0 0 -85.4160 29.8172 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3121 3 0 0 -85.4156 29.8139 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3122 4 0 0 -85.4151 29.8098 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3123 1 0 0 -85.4145 29.8060 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3124 2 0 0 -85.4140 29.8026 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3125 3 0 0 -85.4132 29.7990 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3126 3 0 0 -85.4122 29.7952 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3127 1 0 0 -85.4115 29.7916 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3128 0 0 0 -85.4107 29.7879 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3129 1 0 0 -85.4100 29.7840 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3130 1 0 0 -85.4090 29.7805 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3131 4 0 0 -85.4080 29.7769 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3132 3 0 0 -85.4069 29.7733 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3133 1 0 0 -85.4060 29.7696 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3134 2 0 0 -85.4052 29.7659 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2004 3135 3 0 0 -85.4039 29.7617 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3101 1 0 0 -85.3850 29.8776 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3102 0 0 0 -85.3891 29.8770 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3103 0 0 0 -85.3930 29.8753 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3104 0 0 0 -85.3975 29.8736

139

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3105 4 0 0 -85.4024 29.8710 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3106 1 0 0 -85.4056 29.8682 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3107 0 0 0 -85.4074 29.8662 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3108 3 0 0 -85.4096 29.8631 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3109 1 0 0 -85.4118 29.8591 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3110 2 0 0 -85.4131 29.8554 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3111 1 0 0 -85.4140 29.8518 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3112 0 0 0 -85.4149 29.8477 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3113 2 0 0 -85.4156 29.8438 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3114 3 0 0 -85.4162 29.8402 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3115 2 0 0 -85.4167 29.8366 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3116 2 0 0 -85.4170 29.8329 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3117 3 0 0 -85.4170 29.8290 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3118 6 0 0 -85.4167 29.8248 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3119 2 0 0 -85.4164 29.8207 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3120 2 0 0 -85.4160 29.8172 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3121 5 0 0 -85.4156 29.8139 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3122 1 0 0 -85.4151 29.8098 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3123 3 0 0 -85.4145 29.8060 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3124 3 0 0 -85.4140 29.8026 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3125 5 0 0 -85.4132 29.7990 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3126 2 0 0 -85.4122 29.7952 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3127 8 0 0 -85.4115 29.7916 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3128 5 0 0 -85.4107 29.7879 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3129 5 0 0 -85.4100 29.7840 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3130 5 0 0 -85.4090 29.7805 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3131 5 0 0 -85.4080 29.7769 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3132 2 0 0 -85.4069 29.7733 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3133 4 0 0 -85.4060 29.7696 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3134 5 0 0 -85.4052 29.7659 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2005 3135 3 0 0 -85.4039 29.7617 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3101 0 0 0 -85.3850 29.8776 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3102 0 0 0 -85.3891 29.8770 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3103 1 0 0 -85.3930 29.8753 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3104 0 0 0 -85.3975 29.8736 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3105 0 0 0 -85.4024 29.8710 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3106 0 0 0 -85.4056 29.8682 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3107 0 0 0 -85.4074 29.8662

140

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3108 1 0 0 -85.4096 29.8631 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3109 3 0 0 -85.4118 29.8591 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3110 3 0 0 -85.4131 29.8554 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3111 0 0 0 -85.4140 29.8518 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3112 3 0 0 -85.4149 29.8477 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3113 3 0 0 -85.4156 29.8438 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3114 4 0 0 -85.4162 29.8402 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3115 2 0 0 -85.4167 29.8366 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3116 5 0 0 -85.4170 29.8329 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3117 2 0 0 -85.4170 29.8290 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3118 8 0 0 -85.4167 29.8248 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3119 4 0 0 -85.4164 29.8207 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3120 3 0 0 -85.4160 29.8172 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3121 4 0 0 -85.4156 29.8139 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3122 2 0 0 -85.4151 29.8098 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3123 2 0 0 -85.4145 29.8060 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3124 4 0 0 -85.4140 29.8026 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3125 5 0 0 -85.4132 29.7990 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3126 2 0 0 -85.4122 29.7952 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3127 3 0 0 -85.4115 29.7916 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3128 1 0 0 -85.4107 29.7879 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3129 0 0 0 -85.4100 29.7840 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3130 6 0 0 -85.4090 29.7805 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3131 3 0 0 -85.4080 29.7769 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3132 1 0 0 -85.4069 29.7733 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3133 1 0 0 -85.4060 29.7696 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3134 4 0 0 -85.4052 29.7659 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2006 3135 4 0 0 -85.4039 29.7617 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3101 0 0 0 -85.3850 29.8776 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3102 3 0 0 -85.3891 29.8770 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3103 0 0 0 -85.3930 29.8753 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3104 2 0 0 -85.3975 29.8736 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3105 0 0 0 -85.4024 29.8710 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3106 0 0 0 -85.4056 29.8682 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3107 0 0 0 -85.4074 29.8662 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3108 2 0 0 -85.4096 29.8631 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3109 1 0 0 -85.4118 29.8591 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3110 2 0 0 -85.4131 29.8554

141

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3111 1 0 0 -85.4140 29.8518 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3112 1 0 0 -85.4149 29.8477 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3113 5 0 0 -85.4156 29.8438 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3114 0 0 0 -85.4162 29.8402 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3115 3 0 0 -85.4167 29.8366 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3116 6 0 0 -85.4170 29.8329 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3117 3 0 0 -85.4170 29.8290 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3118 4 0 0 -85.4167 29.8248 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3119 4 0 0 -85.4164 29.8207 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3120 0 0 0 -85.4160 29.8172 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3121 2 0 0 -85.4156 29.8139 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3122 1 0 0 -85.4151 29.8098 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3123 4 0 0 -85.4145 29.8060 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3124 1 0 0 -85.4140 29.8026 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3125 2 0 0 -85.4132 29.7990 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3126 5 0 0 -85.4122 29.7952 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3127 3 0 0 -85.4115 29.7916 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3128 2 0 0 -85.4107 29.7879 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3129 1 0 0 -85.4100 29.7840 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3130 8 0 0 -85.4090 29.7805 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3131 1 0 0 -85.4080 29.7769 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3132 1 0 0 -85.4069 29.7733 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3133 3 0 0 -85.4060 29.7696 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3134 3 0 0 -85.4052 29.7659 St. Joe Peninsula State Park 2007 3135 3 0 0 -85.4039 29.7617 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1993 2701 10 0 0 -81.8305 26.2837 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1993 2702 8 0 0 -81.8283 26.2747 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1993 2703 9 0 0 -81.8266 26.2680 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1993 2704 15 0 0 -81.8244 26.2583 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1993 2705 30 0 0 -81.8224 26.2475 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1993 2706 25 0 0 -81.8211 26.2413 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1993 2707 35 0 0 -81.8199 26.2345 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1993 2708 5 0 0 -81.8187 26.2245 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1994 2701 12 0 0 -81.8305 26.2837

142

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1994 2702 10 0 0 -81.8283 26.2747 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1994 2703 15 0 0 -81.8266 26.2680 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1994 2704 15 0 0 -81.8244 26.2583 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1994 2705 13 0 0 -81.8224 26.2475 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1994 2706 48 0 0 -81.8211 26.2413 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1994 2707 22 0 0 -81.8199 26.2345 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1994 2708 11 0 0 -81.8187 26.2245 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1995 2701 34 0 0 -81.8305 26.2837 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1995 2702 18 0 0 -81.8283 26.2747 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1995 2703 22 0 0 -81.8266 26.2680 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1995 2704 42 0 0 -81.8244 26.2583 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1995 2705 21 0 0 -81.8224 26.2475 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1995 2706 20 0 0 -81.8211 26.2413 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1995 2707 29 0 0 -81.8199 26.2345 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1995 2708 26 0 0 -81.8187 26.2245 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1996 2701 15 0 0 -81.8305 26.2837 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1996 2702 16 0 0 -81.8283 26.2747 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1996 2703 9 0 0 -81.8266 26.2680 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1996 2704 15 0 0 -81.8244 26.2583 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1996 2705 30 0 0 -81.8224 26.2475 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1996 2706 19 0 0 -81.8211 26.2413 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1996 2707 50 0 0 -81.8199 26.2345 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1996 2708 36 0 0 -81.8187 26.2245 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1997 2701 12 0 0 -81.8305 26.2837 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1997 2702 13 0 0 -81.8283 26.2747 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1997 2703 12 0 0 -81.8266 26.2680

143

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1997 2704 12 0 0 -81.8244 26.2583 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1997 2705 21 0 0 -81.8224 26.2475 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1997 2706 16 0 0 -81.8211 26.2413 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1997 2707 30 0 0 -81.8199 26.2345 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1997 2708 35 0 0 -81.8187 26.2245 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1998 2701 13 0 0 -81.8305 26.2837 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1998 2702 15 0 0 -81.8283 26.2747 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1998 2703 16 0 0 -81.8266 26.2680 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1998 2704 18 0 0 -81.8244 26.2583 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1998 2705 32 0 0 -81.8224 26.2475 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1998 2706 20 0 0 -81.8211 26.2413 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1998 2707 48 0 0 -81.8199 26.2345 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 1998 2708 30 0 0 -81.8187 26.2245 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2003 2701 13 0 0 -81.8305 26.2837 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2003 2702 11 0 0 -81.8283 26.2747 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2003 2703 10 0 0 -81.8266 26.2680 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2003 2704 24 0 0 -81.8244 26.2583 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2003 2705 29 0 0 -81.8224 26.2475 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2003 2706 17 0 0 -81.8211 26.2413 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2003 2707 56 0 0 -81.8199 26.2345 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2003 2708 20 0 0 -81.8187 26.2245 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2004 2701 9 0 0 -81.8305 26.2837 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2004 2702 4 0 0 -81.8283 26.2747 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2004 2703 10 0 0 -81.8266 26.2680 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2004 2704 19 0 0 -81.8244 26.2583 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2004 2705 7 0 0 -81.8224 26.2475

144

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2004 2706 13 0 0 -81.8211 26.2413 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2004 2707 26 0 0 -81.8199 26.2345 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2004 2708 13 0 0 -81.8187 26.2245 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2005 2701 9 0 0 -81.8305 26.2837 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2005 2702 6 0 0 -81.8283 26.2747 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2005 2703 10 0 0 -81.8266 26.2680 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2005 2704 20 0 0 -81.8244 26.2583 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2005 2705 13 0 0 -81.8224 26.2475 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2005 2706 2 0 0 -81.8211 26.2413 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2005 2707 14 0 0 -81.8199 26.2345 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2005 2708 13 0 0 -81.8187 26.2245 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2006 2701 2 0 0 -81.8305 26.2837 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2006 2702 9 0 0 -81.8283 26.2747 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2006 2703 12 0 0 -81.8266 26.2680 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2006 2704 9 0 0 -81.8244 26.2583 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2006 2705 14 0 0 -81.8224 26.2475 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2006 2706 8 0 0 -81.8211 26.2413 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2006 2707 18 0 0 -81.8199 26.2345 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2006 2708 9 0 0 -81.8187 26.2245 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2007 2701 13 0 0 -81.8305 26.2837 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2007 2702 4 0 0 -81.8283 26.2747 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2007 2703 9 0 0 -81.8266 26.2680 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2007 2704 6 0 0 -81.8244 26.2583 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2007 2705 10 0 0 -81.8224 26.2475 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2007 2706 9 0 0 -81.8211 26.2413 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2007 2707 13 0 0 -81.8199 26.2345

145

INBS Beach Name Year INBS Zone

Caretta caretta

Chelonia mydas

Dermochelys coriacea Longitude Latitude

Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2007 2708 8 0 0 -81.8187 26.2245 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2008 2701 13 0 0 -81.8305 26.2837 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park

2008 2702 6 0 0 -81.8283 26.2747

Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park

2008 2703 8 0 0 -81.8266 26.2680

Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park

2008 2704 12 0 0 -81.8244 26.2583

Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park

2008 2705 9 0 0 -81.8224 26.2475

Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park

2008 2706 8 0 0 -81.8211 26.2413

Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park

2008 2707 29 0 0 -81.8199 26.2345

Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park

2008 2708 12 0 0 -81.8187 26.2245

146

LIST OF REFERENCES

16 U.S.C. § 1531 (1973).

50 C.F.R. § 226.207-209 (2008).

Ackerman, R.A., T. Rimkus, and R. Horton. 1992. Hydric and thermal characteristics of natural and renourished sea turtle nesting beaches along the Atlantic coast of Florida. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, FL.

Aiken, J.J., B.J. Godley, A.C. Broderick, T. Austin, G. Ebanks-Petrie, and G.C. Hays. 2001. Two hundred years after a commercial marine turtle fishery: The current status of marine turtles nesting in the Cayman Islands. Oryx 35:145-151.

Alicea, A.R., A.L. Chambers, K.M. Herpich, and J.A. Provancha. 2000. Nesting activity of marine turtles on Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida, 1984-1998. 19th Annual Sea Turtle Symposium, 1999, South Padre Island, Texas, USA.

Antworth, R.L., D.A. Pike, and J.C. Stiner. 2006. Nesting ecology, current status, and conservation of sea turtles on an uninhabited beach in Florida, USA. Biological Conservation 1301:10-15.

ArcGIS 9.3. 2009. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, California. Copyright © 1999-2009 ESRI.

Bach, S., M. Kirby, and C. Rockett. 2007. Beach nourishment: A guide for local government officials - law and policy. Retrieved from August 27, 2007, from http://www.csc.noaa.gov/beachnourishment/index.htm.

Baptistotte, C., J.T. Scalfoni, and N. Mrosovsky. 1999. Male-producing thermal ecology of a southern loggerhead turtle nesting beach in Brazil: Implications for conservation. Animal Conservation 2:9-13.

Balazs, G.H. and M. Chaloupka. 2004. Thirty-year recovery trend in the once depleted Hawaiian green sea turtle stock. Biological Conservation 117:491-498.

Bjorndal, K.A., J.A. Wetherall, A.B. Bolten, and J.A. Mortimer. 1999. Twenty-six years of green turtle nesting at Tortuguero, Costa Rica: An encouraging trend. Conservation Biology 13:126-134.

Bowen, B., J.C. Avise, J.I. Richardson, A.B. Meylan, D. Margaritoulis, S.R. Hopkins-Murphy. 1993. Population structure of loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Conservation Biology 74:834-844.

Bowen, B.W. and S.A. Karl. 2007. Population genetics and phylogeography of sea turtles. Molecular Ecology 16:4886-4907.

147

Brock, K.A. 2005. Effects of a shore protection project on loggerhead and green turtle nesting activity and reproduction in Brevard County, Florida. Unpublished thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Retrieved on August 27, 2007 from http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0000493/Brock_Kelly_A_200505_MA.pdf.

Brock, K.A., J.S. Reece, and L.M. Ehrhart. 2009. Effects of beach nourishment on marine turtles. Restoration Ecology 172:297-307.

Broderick, A.C., R. Frauenstein, F. Glen, G.C. Hays, A.L. Jackson, T. Pelembe, G.D. Ruxton, and B.J. Godley. 2006. Are green turtles globally endangered? Global Ecology and Biogeography 15:21-26.

Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 2009. Census shows a drop in new Florida residents. University of Florida, Orlando, FL.

Caribbean Conservation Corporation. 2009. Threats to sea turtles. Retrieved on November 30, 2009 from http://www.cccturtle.org/seaturtleinformation.php?page=threats.

Carr, Archie. 1967. So excellent a fishe: A natural history of sea turtles. Scribner, New York .

Crain, D.A., A.B. Bolten, and K.A. Bjorndal. 1995. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles: Review and research initiatives. Restoration Ecology 32:95-104.

Curtis, T., K. Erickson, and R. Moss. 2007. Beach nourishment: A guide for local government officials, social and demographic trends that affect the need for beach nourishment.

Davis, R.A., M.V. FitzGerald, and J. Terry. 1999. Turtle nesting on adjacent nourished beaches with different construction styles: Pinellas County, Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 15:111-120.

Dean, R.G. 1991. Equilibrium beach profiles: Characteristics and applications. Journal of Coastal Research, 7:53-84.

Dean, R.G. and R.A. Dalrymple. 2002. Coastal Processes with Engineering Applications, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Dehring, C.A. 2006. Building codes and land values in high hazard areas. Land Economics, 82:513-528.

Dutton, D.L., P.H. Dutton, M. Chaloupka, and R.H. Boulon. 2005. Increase of a Caribbean leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea nesting population linked to long-term nest protection. Biological Conservation 126:186-194.

Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 1973. Retrieved August 27, 2007 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/16/1531.html.

Finkl, C.W. 2005. Nearshore geomorphological mapping. Encyclopedia of Coastal Science. M.L. Schwartz, Ed. 685-697.

148

Fish, M.R., I.M. Cote, J.A. Gill, A.P. Jones, S. Renshoff, and A.R. Watkinson. 2005. Predicting the impact of sea-level rise on Caribbean sea turtle nesting habitat. Conservation Biology 192:482-491.

Fish, M.R., I.M. Cote, J.A. Horrocks, B. Mulligan, A.R. Watkinson, and A.R. Jones. 2008. Construction setback regulations and sea-level rise: Mitigating sea turtle nesting beach loss. Ocean & Coastal Management, 51:330-341.

Florida's coast: What's at stake. 2007. Retrieved August 30, 2007, from http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=5361andcampaign=486.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. DEPCoastal_Range_Monuments. Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems. Retrieved June 5, 2009 from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/data/gis-data.htm.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. Economics of beach tourism in Florida. Prepared by the Anthony James Cantanese Center for Urban & Environmental Solutions, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2008a. Critically eroded beaches in Florida.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2008b. Strategic Beach Management Plan. Retrieved November 1, 2009 from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/publications/gen-pub.htm#SBMP%20Publications.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2009. Beach Erosion Control Program (BECP). Retrieved November 29, 2009, from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/programs/bcherosn.htm.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Marine Turtle Protection. Retrieved on November 30, 2009 from http://myfwc.com/WILDLIFEHABITATs/Seaturtle_Protection.htm.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 2007a. Marine resources geographic information system. Retrieved December 9, 2007, from http://ocean.floridamarine.org/mrgis/viewer.htm.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 2007b. Sea turtle monitoring the SNBS and INBS programs, from http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=2377.

Greene, K. 2002. Beach nourishment: A review of the biological and physical impacts. ASMFC Habitat Management Series #7.

Halpin, P.N., A.J. Read, B.D. Best, K.D. Hyrenbach, E. Fujioka, M.S. Coyne, L.B. Crowder, S.A. Freeman, and C. Spoerri. 2006. OBIS-SEAMAP: Developing a biogeographic research data commons for the ecological studies of marine mammals, seabirds, and sea turtles. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 316:239-246.

149

Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2007. Investigating the potential impacts of climate change on a marine turtle population. Global Change Biology 13:923-932.

Hoekert, W.E.J., H. Neufeglise, A.D. Schouten, and S.B.J. Menken. 2002. Multiple paternity and female-biased mutation at a microsatellite locus in the olive ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea. Heredity 89:107-113.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and A. Reisinger (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1990. Strategies for adaptation to sea level rise. Report of the Coastal Zone Management Subgroup. Response Strategies Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, the Hague, Netherlands. Retrieved on September 27, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/adaption.pdf.

Ireland, J.S. A.C. Broderick, F. Glen, B.J. Godley, G.C. Hays, P.L.M. Lee, D.O.F. Skibinski. 2003. Multiple paternity assessed using microsatellite markers, in green turtles Chelonia mydas of Ascension Island, South Atlantic. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 291:149-160.

Lamont, M.M. and R.R. Carthy. 2007. Response of nesting sea turtles to barrier island dynamics. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6:206-212.

Lohmann, K.J., P. Luschi, and G.C. Hays. 2008. Goal navigation and island-finding in sea turtles. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 356:83-95.

Lebuff, C.R., and E.M. Haverfield. 1992. Nesting success of the loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta on Captiva Island, Florida – A nourished beach. Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

Matsuzawa, Y., K. Sato, W. Sakamoto, and K.A. Bjorndal. 2002. Seasonal fluctuations in sand temperature: effects on the incubation period and mortality of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) pre-emergent hatchlings in Minabe, Japan. Marine Biology 140:639-646.

Mazaris, A.D., G. Matsinos, and J.D. Pantis. 2009. Evaluating the impacts of coastal squeeze on sea turtle nesting. Ocean & Coastal Management 52:139-145.

Meylan, A.B., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the state of Florida 1979-1992.

Milton, S.L., A.A. Schulman, and P.L. Lutz. 2002. The effect of beach nourishment with aragonite versus silicate sand on beach temperature and loggerhead sea turtle nesting success. Journal of Coastal Research 13:904-915.

150

Montague, C.L. 2008. Recovering the sand deficit from a century of dredging and jetties along Florida’s Atlantic coast: A reevaluation of beach nourishment as an essential tool for ecological conservation. Journal of Coastal Research 24:899-916.

Montague, C.L. 2006. Analysis of beach nourishment data for Florida’s Atlantic coast during the last century, with reference to ecological engineering of sea turtle nesting habitat. National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, Sarasota, Florida.

Moore, M.K. and R.M. Ball. 2002. Multiple paternity in loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta nests on Melbourne Beach, Florida: A microsatellite analysis. Molecular Ecology 11:281-288.

Mortimer, J.A. 1990. The influence of beach sand characteristics on the nesting behavior and clutch survival of green turtles (Chelonia mydas). Copeia 1990:802-817.

Mrosovsky, N., S. Kamel, A.F. Rees, and D. Margaritoulis. 2002. Pivotal temperature for loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) from Kyparissia Bay, Greece. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:2118-2124.

Nelson, D.A., and D.D. Dickerson. 1988. Effects of beach nourishment in sea turtles. Fifth Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology: New Directions in Beach Management.

Nelson, D.A., and D.D. Dickerson. 1989. Comparison of loggerhead sea turtles nesting times on nourished and natural beaches. Report of the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Nelson, D.A., K. Mauck, and J. Fletemeyer. 1987. Physical effects of beach nourishment on sea turtle nesting, Delray Beach, Florida. Technical Report EL-87-15 of the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Peterson, C. H., and M.J. Bishop. 2005. Assessing the environmental impacts of beach nourishment. BioScience 55:887-896.

Pilkey, O.H., and K.L. Dixon. 1996. The Corps and the shore. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Ruckdeschel, C., and C.R. Shoop. 2006. Sea turtles of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States Hoyle, Meg, Photo Ed. The University of Georgia Press, Athens and London.

Rumbold, D.G., P.W. Davis, and C. Perretta. 2001. Estimating the effect of beach nourishment on Caretta caretta loggerhead sea turtle nesting. Restoration Ecology 9:304-310.

Ruppert, Thomas K. 2008. Eroding long-term prospects for florida's beaches: Florida's Coastal Construction Control Line Program. Sea Grant Law and Policy Journal 1:65-98.

Seminoff, J.A. 2004. Sea turtles, red listing, and the need for regional assessments. Marine Turtle Newsletter 106:4-6.

151

Schroeder, B.A., A.M. Foley, and D.A. Bagley. 2003. Nesting patterns, reproductive migrations, and adult foraging areas of loggerhead turtles. In Loggerhead sea turtles, Bolten A.B. and Witherington B.E., Eds. pp. 114-124. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Steinitz, M.J., M. Salmon, and J. Wyneken. 1998. Beach renourishment and loggerhead turtle reproduction: A seven year study at Jupiter Island, Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 14:1000-1013.

Trembanis, A. C., O.H. Pilkey, and H.R. Valverde. 1999. Comparison of beach nourishment along the U.S. Atlantic, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and New England shorelines. Coastal Management 27:329-340.

Troëng, S. and E. Rankin. 2005. Long-term conservation efforts contribute to positive green turtle Chelonia mydas nesting trend at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Biological Conservation 121:111-116.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Florida shore protection and sea turtle management system. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/flshore/.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. 2000. State, territory, and commonwealth beach nourishment programs: A national overview. National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management. Technical Document No. 00-01.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. 2007. Erosion control easements. Retrieved on September 27, 2009 from http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/initiatives/shoreline_ppr_easements.html.

Weishampel, J.F., D.A. Bagley, L.M. Ehrhart, and B.L. Rodenbeck. 2003. Spatiotemporal patterns of annual sea turtle nesting behaviors along an east central Florida beach. Biological Conservation 110:295-303.

Witham, R. 1990. A case report on beach erosion, beach nourishment and sea turtle nesting. Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

Witherington, B.E. 2002. Ecology of neonate loggerhead turtles inhabiting lines of downwelling near a Gulf Stream front. Marine Biology 140:843-853.

Witherington, B.E. and N.B. Frazer. 2003. Social and economic aspects of sea turtle conservation. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, LLC: Boca Raton, Florida.

Witherington, B.E., and C.M. Koeppel. 2000. Sea turtle nesting in Florida, USA, during the decade 1989–1998: An analysis of trends. Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-443. 94-96.

Witherington, B.E., P. Kubilis, B. Brost, and A. Meylan. 2009. Decreasing annual nest counts in a globally important loggerhead sea turtle population. Ecological Applications 19:30-54.

152

Wood, D.W., and K.A. Bjorndal. 2000. Relation of temperature, moisture, salinity, and slope to nest site selection in loggerhead sea turtles. Copeia 2000:119-128.

153

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Aubree Ann Gallaher was born in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and spent her childhood

years playing in the forests and streams of rural western Pennsylvania. She graduated from

Central Cambria High School in 1997, and she earned her Bachelor of Arts degree from Franklin

& Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania in 2001. In the year between undergraduate and

graduate school, Aubree worked as a legal assistant. In August of 2002, she chose to enroll in

the graduate program in Interdisciplinary Ecology in the College of Natural Resources and

Environment at the University of Florida and earned her Master of Science degree in May 2004.

While completing her dissertation, Aubree was employed as an environmental consultant in

Jacksonville, Florida.

After obtaining her doctorate, Aubree will work as a biologist with the United States

Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, in the Planning Division. She has been married

to Brian Hershorin, an attorney with Purcell, Flanagan, and Hay, P.A., for five years. They

reside in Jacksonville with their two lovable mutts, Chloe and Sammy, and their begrudgingly

content cat, Donny.