<%BANNER%>

The Effects of Beach Nourishment on Sea Turtle Nesting Densities in Florida

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041087/00001

Material Information

Title: The Effects of Beach Nourishment on Sea Turtle Nesting Densities in Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (153 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Gallaher, Aubree
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: beach, loggerhead, nourishment, turtle
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: 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. 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.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Aubree Gallaher.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Delfino, Joseph J.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0041087:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041087/00001

Material Information

Title: The Effects of Beach Nourishment on Sea Turtle Nesting Densities in Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (153 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Gallaher, Aubree
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: beach, loggerhead, nourishment, turtle
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: 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. 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.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Aubree Gallaher.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Delfino, Joseph J.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0041087:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

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

PAGE 2

2 2009 Aubree Ann Gallaher

PAGE 3

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

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my advisor, Dr. Joseph J. Delfino, and the members of my supervisory co mmittee, Dr. Raymond Carthy, Dr. Robert Dean, and Professor Tom Ankerse n, 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 turt le n esting 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. T hanks 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 t hank my patient and loving husband Brian who has listened to tales of sea turtles for longer than he cares to remember.

PAGE 5

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 nonprofit organizations .......................................32 Critically Eroding Beaches ..............................................................................................32 Discussion ...............................................................................................................................33 3 THE EFFECTS OF BEACH NOURISHMENT ON SEA TURTLE NESTING DENSITIES ............................................................................................................................43

PAGE 6

6 Introduction .............................................................................................................................43 Materials and Method s ...........................................................................................................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 moistur e ......................................................................................................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

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table P age 12 Federal agencies with jurisdictional authority over shoreline protection projects ............25 21 List of the beaches participating in the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ( FFWCC ) Index Nesting Beach Survey ( INBS ) program ............................36 22 List of beach nourishment events on INBS beaches used in this study .............................39 31 Results of Paired t Test for Atlantic Jacksonville INBS Beach for the 1995 nourishment event ..............................................................................................................70 32 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for Atlantic Jacksonville INBS Beach for the 1995 nourishment event. ...................................................................70 33 Results of Paired t Test for Boca Raton INBS Beach for the 1998 nourishment event. ...71 34 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for Boca Raton INBS Beach for the 1998 nourishment event ..............................................................................72 35 Results of Paired t Test for Hutchinson Island INBS Beach for the 1996 nourishment event. ..................................................................................................................................73 36 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for Hutchinson Island INBS Beach for the 1996 nourishment event ....................................................................74 37 Results of Paired t Test for Hutchinson Island INBS Beach for the 2005 nourishment event. ..................................................................................................................................75 38 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for Hutchinson Island INBS Beach for the 2005 nourishment event. ...................................................................76 39 Results of Paired t Test for John U. Lloyd State Park INBS Beach for the 2006 nourishment event. .............................................................................................................77 310 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the John U. Lloyd State Park INBS Beach for the 2006 nourishment event. ..................................................78 311 Results of the Paired t Test for the Juno Beach INBS Beach for the 2001 nourishment event. .............................................................................................................79 312 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Juno Beach INBS Beach for the 2001 nourishment event ..............................................................................80 313 Results of the Paired t Test for the Jupiter Island INBS Beach for the 1999 nourishment event. .............................................................................................................81

PAGE 8

8 314 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Jupiter Island INBS Beach for the 1999 nourishment event. ...................................................................82 315 Results of the Paired t Test for the Patrick Air Force Base INBS Beach for the 2001 nourishment event ..............................................................................................................83 316 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Patrick Air Force Base INBS Beach for the 2001 nourishment event. ..........................................................83 317 Results of the Paired t Test for the Sebastian Inlet INBS Beach for the 2003 nourishment event. .............................................................................................................84 318 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Sebastian Inlet INBS Beach for the 2003 nourishment event. ...................................................................85 319 Results of the Paired t Test for the St. Joe Peninsula State Park INBS Beach for the 2005 nourishment event. ....................................................................................................86 320 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the St. Joe Peninsula State Park INBS Beach for the 2005 nourishment event ...................................................87 321 Results of the Paired t Test for the Wiggins Pass INBS Beach for the 1996 nourishment event.. ............................................................................................................88 322 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Wiggins Pass INBS Beach for loggerhead turtles for the 1996 nourishment event .................................89 323 Results of the Paired t Test for the Wiggins Pass INBS Beach for the 2006 nourishment event. .............................................................................................................90 324 Results of the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for the Wiggins Pass INBS Beach for the 2006 nourishment event. ...................................................................91 325 Table showing the percentages which loggerhead turtle nests increased or decreased for a particular comparison. ...............................................................................................92

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure P age 21 The locations of the 32 beaches surveyed as part of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissions (FFWCC) Index Nesting Beach Survey ( INBS ) program ..............................................................................................................................35 22 The shapefile of the beach nourishment activities created from the Florida Department of Environmental Protections ( FDEP) Strategic Beach Management Plan ( SBMP ) ......................................................................................................................37 23 The seven geographical regions of the FDEPs SBMP .....................................................38 24 Locations of eroded Florida shoreline. ..............................................................................40 25 Locations of each of the INBS beaches identified for use in analyzing effects of beach nourishment on sea turtle nesting densities. ............................................................41 26 Example of survey zones that were removed from the a nalysis. .......................................42 31 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the AtlanticJacksonville Beaches study beach ...............................................56 32 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Boca Raton study beach for the 1997 nourishment event. ........................56 33 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Boca Raton study beach for the 1998 nourishment event.. .......................57 34 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densitie s between nourished and control beaches on the Hutchinson Island study beach f or the 1996 nourishment event. ..............57 35 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Hutchinson Island study beach for the 2005 nourishment event ...............58 36 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the John U. Lloyd State Park. ..........................................................................58 37 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Juno Beach. ...............................................................................................59 38 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Jupiter Beach. ............................................................................................59 39 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on Patrick Air Force Base. ...................................................................................60

PAGE 10

10 310 Compariso n of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Sebastian Inlet INBS beach. .............................................................................60 311 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at St. Joe Peninsula State Park INBS beach .........................................................61 312 Compa rison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Wiggins Pass INBS beach for the 1996 nourishment event.. ...........................61 313 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Wiggins Pass INBS beach for the 2006 nourishment event.. ...........................62 314 Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between the nourished and the control beaches for all of the 13 nourishment events. .......................................................62 315 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Boca Raton INBS beach f or the 1997 nourishment event.. ...........................................63 316 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Boca Raton INBS beach for the 1998 nourishment event.. ...........................................63 317 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Hutchinson Island INBS beach for the 1996 nourishment event. ..................................64 318 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Hutchinson Island INBS beach for the 2005 nourishment event.. .................................64 319 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at John U. Lloyd Sta te Park INBS beach for the 2006 nourishment event.. ......................65 320 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Juno Beach INBS beach for the 2001 nourishment event. ............................................65 321 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities betwee n nourished and control beaches at Jupiter Beach INBS beach for the 1999 nourishment event. .........................................66 322 Comparison of green turtle nest ing densities between nourished and control beaches at Patrick Air Force Base INBS beach for the 2001 nourishment event.. .........................66 323 Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Sebastian Inlet INBS beach for the 2003 nourishment event. .......................................67 324 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

PAGE 11

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 turt le 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 addr essing 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 th ird year post nourishment This study hypothesize d 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 identifie d 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 provide d a basis for recommending policies for minimizing declines in sea turtle nesting following beach nourishment projects in the state of Florida.

PAGE 12

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 nourishm ent 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 assis t 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.

PAGE 13

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 Kemps 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 (Nat ator 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 Kemps 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 a n 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 pro tection 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

PAGE 14

14 sources continue to be researched extensively in the U nited Sta tes 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 Fol lowing 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 approxim ately 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 tur tles utilize the Earths 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 si te 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

PAGE 15

15 nesting loggerheads toward steeply sloped beach profiles perhaps because they are able to expend less effort to access a suitab le 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, studi es 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 observ ed 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 populatio ns 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 concl uded 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 popul ation 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

PAGE 16

16 (Broderick et al. 2006). Accordingly, s ome 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: Su rveys 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 Statio n, 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 (Trong & Rankin 2005; Bjorndal et al. 1999). In the Pacific Ocean, Hawaiian green turtle nesting increased during the last thirty years (Balazs & Chaloupka 2004).

PAGE 17

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 rooker y, 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 Nourishm ent 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 longterm management plan to restore them (FDEP 2008b). The FD EPs Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (BBCS) publishes reports periodically that assess Floridas beaches. The BBCS utilizes the following definition to identify critically eroded areas: Critically eroded area is a segment of the shoreline where natu ral 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. Crit ically 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 Floridas 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 2008 b) 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 maintainin g equilibrium. This typically occurs when inlets, dock s and

PAGE 18

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, mitigat ion 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 l ed 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, longterm nesting datasets from distur bed 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

PAGE 19

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 W ildlife 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 activi ties 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 Managem ent Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Minerals

PAGE 20

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 Floridas laws regarding beaches and shoreline preservation. This law is promulgated in Chapter 62B of the Florida Administrative Code, which incl udes regulations for Floridas 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 f ines 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 analyze d loggerhead nesting success on nourished beaches at the locali zed 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 BeforeAfter Control Impact Paired Series approach to assessing the effects of a beach nourishment project in Palm Beach County, Florid a. 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

PAGE 21

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) not ed a return of loggerhead nesting success to pre nourishment rates two seasons post nourishment. Study Region My study focused on the S tate 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 Floridas 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 t he 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 beac h nourishment projects throughout the state dating back to the mid1980s. The extent of beach nourishment, the prevalence of sea turtle nesting, and the availability of data

PAGE 22

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 R umbold 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 Archi e Carr National Wildlife Refuge on the southeastern coast of Florida, and found decreased nesting success during the second year post nourishment in green turtle s. 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 compare d nesti ng densities with nourishment activities to test the s e hypothese s 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.

PAGE 23

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 M y 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 prenourishment densities by t he second year post nourishment and if there was any significant difference i n nesting densities during the third year post nourishment Paired t tests and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test were applied to the data to dete rmine statistical significance, and a summary of the results are included in Chapter 3. Review coastal zone polic ies to apply findings from my study to maximize the value of nourished beaches to sea turtle s 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 sugge sted for implementation following beach nourishment projects to ensure the most appropriate conditions for sea turtle nesting.

PAGE 24

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 nourishment a X Artificial lighting on beaches b X Beach erosion a X Vehicle use on nesting beaches b X Coastal armoring c X Beach furniture and other recreational equipment X Beach armoring X Other Potential Threats Fibropapillomatosis c X Harvesting (eggs and mature turtles) c X Predation c X Bycatch c X Climate change e X Ingestion of tar and plastics d X Vessel strikes X a F rom 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 9:304310. b F rom Antworth, R.L., D.A. Pike, and J.C. Stiner. 2006. Nesting ecology, current status, and conservation of sea tu rtles on an uninhabited beach in Florida, USA. Biological Conservation 1301:1015. 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 140:843853. e From Hawkes, L.A., A. C. Brode rick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J Godley. 2007. Investigating the potential impacts of climate change on a marine turtle population. Global Change Biology 13: 923932.

PAGE 25

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 P rotection 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 S urvey 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

PAGE 26

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 (Floridas Coast 2007) The bulk of the states population resides in the coastal counties of Florida. In addition, Floridas population increased at twice the rate of the national average between the years 1990 and 2005 (U nited S tates Census Bureau 2006) However, the Bureau of Ec onomic and Business Research at the University of Florida analyzed U nited 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, seventyfive percent of the states population lives in coastal counties. Approximately $1.9 trillion, or 79 percent of the insured property value, is insured in coastal counties (Floridas 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 prov ide 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 bi llion (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

PAGE 27

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 disserta tion research for which standardized information is available Materials and Method s Geospatial Data The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ( FFWCC ) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS ) work in cooperation to document the total dist ribution, 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 21) The data associated with the INBS program are maintained by the F FWC C 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 FFWCCs 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.

PAGE 28

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 (Figu re 2 2). The SBMP was developed by the FDEPs 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 nonnourished survey zones, and which had at least three years preand 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 t he 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 monitor ed as part of Floridas INBS program the websites of all of these organi zations 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 FFWCCs INBS program ( FFWCC/ FWRI 2007a ) the FDEPs data layer that includes the locations of the range

PAGE 29

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 in cludes the locations of the management activities referenced to the local range monuments. Beach Nourishment Data The FDEPs 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 FDEPs 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 200 5). 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 shape file 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

PAGE 30

30 as part of FFW CCs INBS program. When evaluating beaches for use in my study, the entire beach length was required to be a participant in the FDEPs 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 m any 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 nourishm ent 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 ev ent 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 na rrowed to 13 events. Table 22 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 t he 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

PAGE 31

31 nest are not available. Sin ce 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 protect ive 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 duneonly restoration event. Sea Turtle Nesting Data FFWCC INBS d ata As previously mentioned, the FFWCCs 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 th e 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 inform ation 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 nes t 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.

PAGE 32

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 coor dinates. 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 Mi crosoft 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 FFWCCs SNBS and INBS programs provide the most comprehensive, statewide sea turtle nesting data available for Florida, they are not the sole source of nesting data in the state. Local government agencies and nonprofit organizations (including aca demic 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 Floridas Freed om of Information Act (FOIA). Only sea turtle nesting data collected as part of the FFWCCs 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

PAGE 33

33 geographical analyzed at the regional scale is beaches determined by FDEP to be critically eroding. The FDEP created a shapefile of the locati ons of critically eroding beaches in Florida, and it is made available to the public via the Florida Geographic Data Library. Figure 24 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 T he 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 s pring 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 s pring of 2006 were deemed unsuitable due to the lack of three years of nesting d ata 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 dur ing 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 inc reasingly 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 s uitability 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

PAGE 34

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 wer e 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 turt les 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 nour ishment 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 cont inually 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 issu es.

PAGE 35

35 Figure 21. The locations of the 32 beaches surveyed as part of the FFWCCs INBS program, also listed in Table 2 1. Data obtained from the FFWCC.

PAGE 36

36 Table 2 1. List of the beaches participating in the FFWCC INBS program, shown in Figure 21. Data o btained from the FFWCC. Beach n ame 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

PAGE 37

37 Figure 22. The shapefile of the beach nourishment activities created from the FDEPs SBMP The nourishment activities are represented by the tan lines. Only beach nourishment activities located on a beach included in the FFWCCs INBS program were included in this shapefile.

PAGE 38

38 Figure 23. The seven geographical regions of the FDEPs SBMP

PAGE 39

Table 2 2. List of beach nourishment events on INBS beaches used in this study, shown in Figure 24. 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

PAGE 40

40 Figure 24. Locations of eroded Florida shoreline. Orange areas identify critically eroded beaches, and blue areas identify noncrit ically eroded beaches. Data obtained as a shapefile produced by the FDEP (FDEP 2008a ).

PAGE 41

41 Figure 25. Locations of each of the INBS beaches identified for use in analyzing effects of beach nourishment on sea turtle nesting densities.

PAGE 42

42 Figure 26. 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.

PAGE 43

43 CHAPTER 3 THE EFFECTS OF BEACH NOURISHMENT ON SEA T URTLE NESTING DENSIT IES 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 Administrations (NOAA) Office of Protected Species, loggerhead nesting rates have declined in all parts of the southeastern United States. The information available f or the loggerhead in other parts of the world also shows a decline in nesting (Floridas Coast 2007) In contrast, green turtle populations appear to be increasing globally (Balazs & Chaloupka 2004; Trong & Rankin 2005; Bjorndal et al. 1999). If relyin g 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, resear chers typically rely on observations made at nesting sites for populationsize 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) als o concluded stable or increasing nesting populations of green and logge rhead turtles in Florida and significantly increasing leatherback turtle nesting in Florida Since 1998, loggerhead nesting has declined on Florida beaches (Witherington et al. 2009)

PAGE 44

44 Several studies have suggested beach nourishment could be an essentia l tool for ensuring nesting habitat for sea turtles in a time of increased beach erosion along Floridas coasts Lebuff & Haverfield 1992; Witham 1990) However, recent studies show concern that bea ches 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, mo isture 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; how ever, 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 appr oximately 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 bioti c 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 utilize s the dataset

PAGE 45

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, nes ting 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 turtles decision to abandon a nesting attempt (Rumbold et al. 2001) U ndisturbed beaches are increasingly important to sea turtle n esting 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 nonnesting (Weishampel et al. 2003). Mortimer (1990) studied the relationship betw een sand characteristics and clutch mortality in green turtles. Mortimers 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 s ite. This conclusion suggests variation s in sand characteristics for a particular nesting beach may not

PAGE 46

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 nigh ts prior to depositing eggs. Mortimers 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 Th e 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, Tanz ania, 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 nes t excavation. Soil moisture and salinity vary in response to rainfall and changes in the water table, and are probably not as influential in th e nest site selection process ( Wood & Bjorndal 2000) Rumbold et al. (2001) utilized a BeforeAfter Control Imp act 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 char acteristics they had expected. My study utilize d 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 Com missions ( FFWCC ) Index Nesting Beach Survey ( INBS ) program and the beaches identified in Chapter 2.

PAGE 47

47 Materials and Method s 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 F FWC C s INBS program effort. Focusing on the beaches identified i n Chapter 2, this chapter identifies trends in nesting densities for both nourished beaches and adjacent, nonnourished 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 sp ecified number of feet. The systematic nature of the surveys conducted by F F WC C 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 nonnourished beaches were compared for the three years preand post nour ishment to identify any significant differences in nesting densities. Where significant differences occurred, possible reasons for the disparities are discussed. The FF W C C conducted systematic sea turtle nesting surveys at each of the study beaches each y ear 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 nonnourished beaches. The lengths of the nourished and nonnourished beaches vary by beach. To

PAGE 48

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 n ourished 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 t hese 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 aim s to be consistent in effort, if not in seasonal and geographic coverage. The INBS data are more resolved than the complementary program, the FFWCCs SNBS program (Witherington et al. 2009). Overlaying the locations of the INBS beaches with the previous ly 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 co nsideration 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 beache s had only one survey zone for either the nourished or the control portions of the beach. T he nesting data were graphed for these beaches, but they could not be analyzed statistically (see Figure s 32 and 314 ).

PAGE 49

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 turtle s nest infrequently and inconsistently in Florida, the green turtle nest ing 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 activitie s (Figures 3 13 to 322), and the percentages of increase or decrease in nesting are summarized in Table 3 26. T wo related variables are used in my study : beach nourishment activities (or the absen ce thereof) and nesting densities (measured as nests per linear meter) The alternat ive 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 preand 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 statis tical analyses of the loggerhead nesting in Tables 31 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 d ata (Figures 3 1 through 313). The three years prior to the beach nourishment project were averaged for the purposes of graphing the data. T he percentages of increase or decrease in loggerhead turtle nesting are provided in Tables 3 25 and 3 26.

PAGE 50

50 To determine if a difference existed between the loggerhead nesting densities at the nourished and t he 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 preand post nourishment loggerhead nesting densities. T he paired t test relies on the assumption that the data fo llow 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, bot h 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 no rmally distributed, the paired ttest 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 324(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 e vent 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.

PAGE 51

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 ttest. 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 increa ses in sea turtle nesting densities were observed at the control beach, as shown by a twotailed 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 relativ ely normal, the results of the paired t test were u sed 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 preno urishment 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

PAGE 52

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 nonpa rametric 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 we re 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 s urvey zone, there were not enough data for the control beach to analyze it.

PAGE 53

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 nourishe d 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 re ly 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 decre ase 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 Pa rk 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 te sts. 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

PAGE 54

54 of the study area. For the control portions of each study beach, five beaches experienced no significant differences in n esting 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 significan t differences in loggerhead nesting densities occurred for each of the comparisons at all of the study beaches. Conclusions As shown in Table 325, 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 re turn 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 decr ease in loggerhead turtle nesting densities the f irst year following nourishment. Figure 314 plots a summary of the loggerhead turtle nesting densities for all 13 nourishment events. The remaining seven nourishment events analyzed did not fully agree w ith 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 ac tivities. Two nourishment events (Atlantic Jacksonville Beach and Hutchinson Island 2005) exhibited an increase in nesting at the

PAGE 55

55 nourished portion of the study beach, suggesting nourishment activities may have had a positive influence on nesting activi ties at these beaches. An increase in loggerhead nesting at a control beach could be due to gravid females preferring the nonnourished beach over the nourished beach; however, this explanation is more plausible for beaches with significant decreases at t he 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 scar ped. 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 nes ting 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.

PAGE 56

56 Figure 31. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the AtlanticJacksonville Beaches study beach. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities. Figure 32. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesti ng densities between nourished and control beaches on the Boca Raton study beach for the 1997 nourishment event The a rrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities.

PAGE 57

57 F igure 33. 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. F igure 34. 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.

PAGE 58

58 F igure 35. Comp arison 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 36. 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.

PAGE 59

59 Figure 37. 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 38. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches on the Jupiter Beach The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities.

PAGE 60

60 Figure 39. 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 310. 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.

PAGE 61

61 Figure 311. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at St. Joe Peninsula S tate Park INBS beach The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities. Figure 312. 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.

PAGE 62

62 Figure 313. Comparison of loggerhead turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Wiggins Pass INBS beach for the 2006 nourishment event The arrow indicat es the first season following nourishment activities. Figure 314. 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 n umber of nests at the individual beaches. The arrow indicates the first season following nourishment activities. Note the decrease in nesting densities t he first year postnourishment. Significant decreases for this comparison were observed for six of t he 13 nourishment events.

PAGE 63

63 Figure 315. 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. M oving averages are included based on the tendency of extremes in nesting greens on alternating years. Figure 316. 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.

PAGE 64

64 Figure 317. Com parison 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 t he tendency of extremes in nesting greens on alternating years. Figure 318. 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.

PAGE 65

65 Figure 319. 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 320. 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 t endency of extremes in nesting greens on alternating years.

PAGE 66

66 Figure 321. 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 seaso n following nourishment activities. Moving averages are included based on the tendency of extremes in nesting greens on alternating years. Figure 322. Comparison of green turtle nesting densities between nourished and control beaches at Patrick Air F orce 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.

PAGE 67

67 Figure 323. 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.

PAGE 68

68

PAGE 69

69 Figure 324. Histograms of differences in loggerhead turtle nesting densities at study beaches wi th 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) S ebastian 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.

PAGE 70

70 Table 3 1. Results of Paired t T est 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 Tai led 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 2.197 a 8 0.028 0.986 Pre N1 Post N2 2.201 a 8 0.028 0.986 Pre N1 Post N3 1.461 a 8 0.144 0.928 Pre N2 Post N1 1.992 a 8 0.046 0.977 Pre N2 Post N2 2.023 a 8 0.043 0.978 Pre N2 Post N3 1.352 a 8 0.176 0.912 Pre N3 Post N1 1.483 b 8 0.138 0.069 Pre N3 Post N2 .105 a 8 0.917 0.542 Pre N3 Post N3 1.490 b 8 0.136 0.068 a Based on positive ranks. b Based on negative ranks.

PAGE 71

71 Table 3 3. Results of Paired t T est 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

PAGE 72

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 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N1 Post N2 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N1 Post N3 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N2 Post N1 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N2 Post N2 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N2 Post N3 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N3 Post N1 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N3 Post N2 1.342 b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre N3 Post N3 .447 b 2 0.655 0.673 Pre C1 Post C1 .730 a 4 0.465 0.233 Pre C1 Post C2 1.461 a 4 0.144 0.072 Pre C1 Post C3 1.826 a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre C2 Post C1 1.095 b 4 0.273 0.863 Pre C2 Post C2 1.461 a 4 0.144 0.072 Pre C2 Post C3 1.604 a 4 0.109 0.054 Pre C3 Post C1 1.826 b 4 0.068 0.966 Pre C3 Post C2 1.826 b 4 0.068 0.966 Pre C3 Post C3 1.826 b 4 0.068 0.966 a Based on positive ranks. b Based on negative ranks.

PAGE 73

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 (pvalue < 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

PAGE 74

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 dens ities occurred (p value < 0.05). Comparison Z Value n Two Tailed P Value One Tailed P Value Pre N1 Post N1 .135 a 5 0.893 0.554 Pre N1 Post N2 1.214 b 5 0.225 0.112 Pre N1 Post N3 1.483 b 5 0.138 0.069 Pre N2 Post N1 .674 b 5 0.500 0.250 Pre N2 Post N2 1.214 b 5 0.225 0.112 Pre N2 Post N3 .674 b 5 0.500 0.250 Pre N3 Post N1 1.214 b 5 0.225 0.112 Pre N3 Post N2 2.023 b 5 0.043 0.022 Pre N3 Post N3 1.753 b 5 0.080 0.040 Pre C1 Post C1 2.201 a 6 0.028 0.986 Pre C1 Post C2 .734 b 6 0.463 0.232 Pre C1 Post C3 2.023 a 6 0.043 0.978 Pre C2 Post C1 2.201 a 6 0.028 0.986 Pre C2 Post C2 .943 b 6 0.345 0.173 Pre C2 Post C3 1.214 a 6 0.225 0.888 Pre C3 Post C1 .314 b 6 0.753 0.377 Pre C3 Post C2 2.201 b 6 0.028 0.014 Pre C3 Post C3 1.992 b 6 0.046 0.023 a Based on negative ranks. b Based on positive ranks.

PAGE 75

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 (pvalue < 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

PAGE 76

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 dens ities occurred (p value < 0.05). Comparison Z Value n Two Tailed P Value One Tailed P Value Pre N1 Post N1 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N1 Post N2 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N1 Post N3 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N2 Post N1 1.000 a 2 0.317 0.159 Pre N2 Post N2 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N2 Post N3 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N3 Post N1 1.342 b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre N3 Post N2 1.342 b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre N3 Post N3 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre C1 Post C1 1.971 a 24 0.049 0.024 Pre C1 Post C2 4.057 a 24 0.000 0.000 Pre C1 Post C3 3.629 a 24 0.000 0.000 Pre C2 Post C1 .914 a 24 0.361 0.180 Pre C2 Post C2 3.629 a 24 0.000 0.000 Pre C2 Post C3 3.229 a 24 0.001 0.001 Pre C3 Post C1 .400 a 24 0.689 0.345 Pre C3 Post C2 2.943 a 24 0.003 0.002 Pre C3 Post C3 2.571 a 24 0.010 0.005 a Based on positive ranks. b Based on negative ranks.

PAGE 77

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 activi ties, decreases were observed between the year just prior to nourishment and the two years following nourishment (pvalue < 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

PAGE 78

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 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N1 Post N2 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N1 Post N3 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N2 Post N1 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N2 Post N2 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N2 Post N3 .447 a 2 0.655 0.327 Pre N3 Post N1 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N3 Post N2 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N3 Post N3 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre C1 Post C1 .447 b 2 0.655 0.673 Pre C1 Post C2 .447 b 2 0.655 0.673 Pre C1 Post C3 1.342 b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre C2 Post C1 1.342 b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre C2 Post C2 1.342 b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre C2 Post C3 1.342 b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre C3 Post C1 1.342 b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre C3 Post C2 .447 b 2 0.655 0.673 Pre C3 Post C3 1.342 b 2 0.180 0.910 a Based on positive ranks. b Based on negative ranks.

PAGE 79

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

PAGE 80

80 Table 312. 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 occur red (p value < 0.05). Comparison Z Value n Two Tailed P Value One Tailed P Value Pre N1 Post N1 1.604 a 4 0.109 0.054 Pre N1 Post N2 1.826 a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre N1 Post N3 1.461 a 4 0.144 0.072 Pre N2 Post N1 1.826 a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre N2 Post N2 1.826 a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre N2 Post N3 1.095 a 4 0.273 0.137 Pre N3 Post N1 1.826 a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre N3 Post N2 1.826 a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre N3 Post N3 1.826 a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre C1 Post C1 2.023 b 5 0.043 0.978 Pre C1 Post C2 .135 b 5 0.893 0.554 Pre C1 Post C3 .674 a 5 0.500 0.250 Pre C2 Post C1 2.023 b 5 0.043 0.978 Pre C2 Post C2 .405 a 5 0.686 0.343 Pre C2 Post C3 .674 a 5 0.500 0.250 Pre C3 Post C1 1.753 b 5 0.080 0.960 Pre C3 Post C2 1.753 a 5 0.080 0.040 Pre C3 Post C3 .674 a 5 0.500 0.250 a Based on positive ranks. b Based on negative ranks.

PAGE 81

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

PAGE 82

82 Table 314. 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 .447 a 2 0.655 0.327 Pre N1 Post N2 1.342 b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre N1 Post N3 .447 b 2 0.655 0.673 Pre N2 Post N1 1.342 b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre N2 Post N2 1.342 b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre N2 Post N3 1.342 b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre N3 Post N1 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N3 Post N2 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N3 Post N3 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre C1 Post C1 .089 a 11 0.929 0.465 Pre C1 Post C2 .622 b 11 0.534 0.733 Pre C1 Post C3 1.956 a 11 0.050 0.025 Pre C2 Post C1 1.867 b 11 0.062 0.969 Pre C2 Post C2 1.956 b 11 0.050 0.975 Pre C2 Post C3 1.511 b 11 0.131 0.935 Pre C3 Post C1 .889 a 11 0.374 0.187 Pre C3 Post C2 1.423 a 11 0.155 0.077 Pre C3 Post C3 2.756 a 11 0.006 0.003 a Based on positive ranks. b Based on negative ranks.

PAGE 83

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 val ue < 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 316. 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 2.023 a 5 0.043 0.022 Pre N1 Post N2 2.023 a 5 0.043 0.022 Pre N1 Post N3 2.023 a 5 0.043 0.022 Pre N2 Post N1 1.753 a 5 0.080 0.040 Pre N2 Post N2 2.023 a 5 0.043 0.022 Pre N2 Post N3 .135 b 5 0.893 0.554 Pre N3 Post N1 2.023 a 5 0.043 0.022 Pre N3 Post N2 1.753 a 5 0.080 0.040 Pre N3 Post N3 .135 b 5 0.893 0.554 a Based on positive ranks. b Based on negative ranks.

PAGE 84

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

PAGE 85

85 Table 318. 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 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N1 Post N2 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N1 Post N3 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N2 Post N1 .447 a 2 0.655 0.327 Pre N2 Post N2 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N2 Post N3 .447 b 2 0.655 0.673 Pre N3 Post N1 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N3 Post N2 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N3 Post N3 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre C1 Post C1 1.604 a 3 0.109 0.054 Pre C1 Post C2 1.604 a 3 0.109 0.054 Pre C1 Post C3 1.604 a 3 0.109 0.054 Pre C2 Post C1 .535 a 3 0.593 0.296 Pre C2 Post C2 1.604 a 3 0.109 0.054 Pre C2 Post C3 1.069 b 3 0.285 0.857 Pre C3 Post C1 1.604 a 3 0.109 0.054 Pre C3 Post C2 1.604 a 3 0.109 0.054 Pre C3 Post C3 .000 c 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.

PAGE 86

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

PAGE 87

87 Table 320. 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 nesti ng densities occurred (p value < 0.05). Comparison Z Value n Two Tailed P Value One Tailed P Value Pre N1 Post N1 .447 a 4 0.655 0.327 Pre N1 Post N2 1.604 a 4 0.109 0.054 Pre N1 Post N3 1.826 a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre N2 Post N1 .000 b 4 1.000 0.500 Pre N2 Post N2 1.342 a 4 0.180 0.090 Pre N2 Post N3 1.826 a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre N3 Post N1 1.069 c 4 0.285 0.857 Pre N3 Post N2 .535 c 4 0.593 0.704 Pre N3 Post N3 .000 b 4 1.000 0.500 Pre C1 Post C1 1.640 a 30 0.101 0.051 Pre C1 Post C2 2.159 a 30 0.031 0.015 Pre C1 Post C3 1.886 a 30 0.059 0.030 Pre C2 Post C1 1.867 c 30 0.062 0.969 Pre C2 Post C2 1.891 c 30 0.059 0.971 Pre C2 Post C3 1.217 c 30 0.223 0.888 Pre C3 Post C1 1.029 c 30 0.304 0.848 Pre C3 Post C2 .915 c 30 0.360 0.820 Pre C3 Post C3 .740 c 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.

PAGE 88

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

PAGE 89

89 Table 322. 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 .000 a 2 1.000 0.500 Pre N1 Post N2 .447 b 2 0.655 0.673 Pre N1 Post N3 1.342 b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre N2 Post N1 1.000 c 2 0.317 0.159 Pre N2 Post N2 1.342 c 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N2 Post N3 1.342 b 2 0.180 0.910 Pre N3 Post N1 1.342 c 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N3 Post N2 1.342 c 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N3 Post N3 1.342 c 2 0.180 0.090 Pre C1 Post C1 1.214 b 6 0.225 0.888 Pre C1 Post C2 .105 c 6 0.917 0.458 Pre C1 Post C3 1.363 b 6 0.173 0.914 Pre C2 Post C1 .943 b 6 0.345 0.827 Pre C2 Post C2 .674 b 6 0.500 0.750 Pre C2 Post C3 .943 b 6 0.345 0.827 Pre C3 Post C1 .524 b 6 0.600 0.700 Pre C3 Post C2 .944 c 6 0.345 0.173 Pre C3 Post C3 .405 b 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.

PAGE 90

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

PAGE 91

91 Table 324. 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 occ urred (pvalue < 0.05). Comparison Z Value n Two Tailed P Value One Tailed P Value Pre N1 Post N1 .447 a 2 0.655 0.327 Pre N1 Post N2 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N1 Post N3 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N2 Post N1 .447 a 2 0.655 0.327 Pre N2 Post N2 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N2 Post N3 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N3 Post N1 .447 a 2 0.655 0.327 Pre N3 Post N2 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre N3 Post N3 1.342 a 2 0.180 0.090 Pre C1 Post C1 1.826 a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre C1 Post C2 1.604 a 4 0.109 0.054 Pre C1 Post C3 1.604 a 4 0.109 0.054 Pre C2 Post C1 1.826 a 4 0.068 0.034 Pre C2 Post C2 1.461 a 4 0.144 0.072 Pre C2 Post C3 .000 b 4 1.000 0.500 Pre C3 Post C1 .365 c 4 0.715 0.642 Pre C3 Post C2 .365 c 4 0.715 0.642 Pre C3 Post C3 1.461 c 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.

PAGE 92

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. PostN1 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 th e 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 densiti es. The s haded 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 N ourishment 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 S tate P ark 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

PAGE 93

Table 3 26. The percent age 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, Pos t 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 turtle s nested during the six year study period. Beach name Year of nourishment event Pre N2 Pos t 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

PAGE 94

94 CHAPTER 4 BEACH NOURISHMENT AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IN FLORIDA: MANAGING BEACHES FOR SEA TURTLES Introduction Floridas beaches are extremely important to the states 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 onet hird of out of state tourists visiting Florida make a trip to Floridas beaches during their stay, which account for about 27.2 million trips to Floridas beaches each year. In addition, Floridas 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 importanc e of maintaining quality beaches to support tourism. In 2000, t he Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) adopted a Strategic Beach Management Plan ( SBMP ) for the S tate of Florida that set the following principles as its strategy for maintaining Floridas 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 beac h 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 significantl y to addressing the state s beach erosion problems

PAGE 95

95 According to the SBMP about 328 miles of Floridas sandy beaches are designated as critically eroded. Critically eroded is defined by the FDEP as a condition where previous or continuing erosion thre atens 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 exper ienced erosion at some time since these statistics began to be recorded. Currently, 42.2 percent of the Floridas 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 Floridas shorelines has prevented beaches from migrating naturally in response to sea level rise. The inability of beaches to migrate naturally may exacerbate Floridas beach erosion problem in response to sea lev el 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 20902099. They based this estimate on six scenarios o f 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 be ach 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

PAGE 96

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). M aintaining natural beach habitats for recreational purposes or for the protectio n 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 res toring nesting habitat that would otherwise be vulnerable to erosion. Although beach nourishment appears to provide a winwin 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 Congre ss and the USACE agreed that public funds should not be used to protect private property. Following several studies in the mid1920s, 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.

PAGE 97

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 U SACE 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 Polic y 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 environment al law s 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 limite d 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 pr ocedures 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 US FWS shares jurisdiction over sea turtles with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations 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

PAGE 98

98 the loggerhead turtle recovery plan for the Atlantic Ocean and the Kemps r idley 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, f ederal agencies must consult with the US FWS 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, U nited States Virgin Islands as critical habitat for the l eatherback turtle in 1979 [ 50 C.F.R. 226.207209 ( 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. T he BECP was established in 1964, and in volves the cooperation of local, state, and federal governments to ensure the protection, preservation, and restoration of Floridas 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 S BMP adopted by FDEP in May 2008, outlines the

PAGE 99

99 multiyear 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 c haracteristics 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). B e ach nourishment a form of protection, is the most often used method of shoreline protection in Florida S everal 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, f ewer 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 w ith 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 metho ds. 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

PAGE 100

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 bi ological 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 projects 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

PAGE 101

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 temperatur es 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 hatchl ings, 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. 200 2). Although Floridas 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)

PAGE 102

102 Clutch mo isture 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 nonnourished beaches to be similar (Ackerman et al. 1992). Sand Compaction Co astal 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 grai ns 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

PAGE 103

103 regulatory entities. It involves actions such as elevating buildings on pilings, esta blishing 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 mo re appropriate for nonsandy 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 allowan ce of development with the understanding that it will be abandoned as shorelines move; or 3. T he 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 20902099, and five

PAGE 104

104 different setback requirem ents 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, c oastal building regulatio ns 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 countys 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 the y 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/NOAAOCRM 2007).

PAGE 105

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 land ward, allowing the public access to property that would otherwise have been private property (USDOC/NOAAOCRM 2007). There are several drawbacks to rolling easements. On developed shorelines, property owners would likely be unwilling to place an easeme nt 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/ NOAAOCRM 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 tec hniques are implemented at the project site.

PAGE 106

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 nour ishment to sea turtles. Increased avail ability 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 turtl e 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 l imit 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 refere nced 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 dat abase 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

PAGE 107

107 in an established database such as OBIS SEAMAP, or facilitate the creation of a new database that would be specific to Florida. NOAAs Coastal Services Center provides a guide to local government officials about bea ch 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 coa stal 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 US FWS 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 F lorida, and specifically on the loggerhead turtle species. Since the database crossreferences data from the two historical nesting databases managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissions Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (the SNBS and the INBS p rograms), 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

PAGE 108

108 turtle species in the future which will allow for a more regional, comprehensive approach to assessing t he 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 choice s for their community. P roviding 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 turt le nesting habitat.

PAGE 109

109 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECO MMENDATIONS 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 Protections (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 Conse rvation Commissions ( F FWC C ) 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 Floridas 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 difficul t to establish beaches that have not been impacted by beach nourishment in the recent past. The issu e of beach nourishment and its e ffect on sea turtles and their nesting habitats is extremely complex. When designing studies at a macro scale, it is diffic ult 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.

PAGE 110

110 Loggerhead turtle nesting densities significantly declined at six of the 13 nourishment events at the ten nesting beaches studied. Two o f 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 di fference 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 nourish ed 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 source s 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 t he 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 prefera ble 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 informat ion provided. GIS are increasingly utilized to overlay land uses, soil types,

PAGE 111

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 cause s of declines in nesting densities. This dissertation discussed the observation of declines in nesting densities on control beaches located adjacent to nourished beaches. A longterm analysis of nesting trends at the regional scale that includes informat ion 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 div ided 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 publiclyavailable

PAGE 112

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 shor elines. For heavily developed shorelines, beach nourishment is a viable option for maintaining a sandy beach for recreational use and for use by wildlife. Conclusions G IS is an effective tool for establishing regional study sites for spatial and tempo ral research. Sea turtle nesting on Floridas 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 d uring 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 nonnourished portions of the same beach. Sea turtles choosing not to nest on a nourished b each occasionally appeared to move to an adjacent, nonnourished 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.

PAGE 113

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 f ollowing 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 an d 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 oneto two year declines in nesting densities at nourished beaches on global sea turtle populations. F uture studies should analyze the effect s 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 m inimize these impacts.

PAGE 114

114 APPENDIX A FLORIDA SEA TURTLE NESTING D ATA 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

PAGE 115

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

PAGE 116

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

PAGE 117

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

PAGE 118

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

PAGE 119

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

PAGE 120

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

PAGE 121

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

PAGE 122

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

PAGE 123

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

PAGE 124

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

PAGE 125

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

PAGE 126

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

PAGE 127

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

PAGE 128

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

PAGE 129

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

PAGE 130

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

PAGE 131

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

PAGE 132

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

PAGE 133

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

PAGE 134

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

PAGE 135

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

PAGE 136

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

PAGE 137

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

PAGE 138

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

PAGE 139

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

PAGE 140

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

PAGE 141

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

PAGE 142

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

PAGE 143

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

PAGE 144

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

PAGE 145

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 20 08 2702 6 0 0 81.8283 26.2747 Delnor Wiggins Pass State Park 20 08 2703 8 0 0 81.8266 26.2680 Delnor Wiggins Pass State Park 20 08 2704 12 0 0 81.8244 26.2583 Delnor Wiggins Pass State Park 20 08 2705 9 0 0 81.8224 26.2475 Delnor Wiggins Pass State Park 20 08 2706 8 0 0 81.8211 26.2413 Delnor Wiggins Pass State Park 20 08 2707 29 0 0 81.8199 26.2345 Delnor Wiggins Pass State Park 20 08 2708 12 0 0 81.8187 26.2245

PAGE 146

146 LIST OF REFERENCES 16 U.S.C. 1531 (1973). 50 C.F.R. 226.207209 ( 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, a nd 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: 145151. Alicea, A.R., A.L. Chambers, K.M. Herpich, and J.A. Provancha 2000. Nesting activity of marine turtles on Cape Canaveral A ir Station, Florida, 19841998. 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: 1015. ArcGIS 9.3. 2009. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, California. Copyright 19992009 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: 913. Balazs, G.H. and M. Chaloupka. 2004. Thirty year recovery trend in the once depleted Hawaiian green sea turtle stock. Biological Conservation 117: 491498. Bjorndal, K.A., J.A. Wetherall A.B. Bolten, and J.A. Mortimer. 1999. Twentysix years of green turtle nesting at Tortuguero, Costa Rica: An encouraging trend. Conservation Biology 13: 126134. 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. Conserva tion Biology 74: 834844. Bowen, B.W. and S.A. Karl. 2007. Population genetics and phylogeography of sea turtles. Molecular Ecology 16: 48864907.

PAGE 147

147 Brock, K.A. 2005. Effects of a shore protection project on loggerhead and green turtle nesting activity and rep roduction 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: 297307. 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: 2126. 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. Bjornda l 1995. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles: Review and research initiatives. Restoration Ecology 32: 95104 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 be aches with different construction styles: Pinellas County, Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 15: 111120. Dean, R.G. 1991. Equilibrium beach profiles: Characteristics and applications. Journal of Coastal Research, 7: 5384. 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: 513528. 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 longterm nest protection. Biological Conservation 126: 186194. 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. 685697.

PAGE 148

148 Fish, M.R., I.M. Cote, J.A. Gill, A.P. Jones, S. Renshoff, and A.R. Watkinson. 2005. Predicting the impact of sealevel rise on Caribbean sea turtle nesting habitat. Conservation Biology 192: 482491. Fish, M.R., I.M. Cote, J.A. Horrocks, B. Mulligan, A.R. Watkinson, and A.R. Jones. 2008. Const ruction setback regulations and sealevel rise: Mitigating sea turtle nesting beach loss. Ocean & Coastal Management, 51: 330341. Florida's coast: What's at stake. 2007. Retrieved August 30, 2007, from http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=5361andcampaign=486 Florida D epartment of E nvironmental P rotection 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 D epartment of E nvironmental P rotection 2005. E conomics of beach tourism in Florida. Prepared by the Anthony James Cantanese Center for Urban & Environmental Solutions, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL. Florida D epartment of E nvironmental P rotection 2008a Critically eroded beaches in Flor ida. Florida D epartment of E nvironmental P rotection. 2008b. Strategic Beach Management Plan. Retrieved November 1, 2009 from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/ publications/genpub.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.

PAGE 149

149 Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Brode rick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J Godley. 2007. Investigating the potential impacts of climate change on a marine turtle population. Global Change Biology 13: 923932. 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. Intergovernmenta l 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 Asc ension Island, South Atlantic. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 291: 149160. Lam ont, M.M. and R.R. Carthy. 2007. Response of nesting sea turtles to barrier island dynamics. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6: 206212. Lohmann, K.J., P. Luschi, and G.C. Hays. 2008. Goal navigation and islandfinding in sea turtles. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 356: 8395. 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 T urtle Biology a nd 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: 639646. Mazaris, A.D., G. Matsinos, and J.D. Pantis. 2009. Evaluating the impacts of coastal squeeze on sea turtle nesting. Ocean & Coastal Management 52: 139145. Meylan, A.B., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activit y in the state of Florida 19791992. 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: 904915.

PAGE 150

150 Montague, C.L. 2008. Recovering the sand deficit from a century of dredging and jetties along Floridas 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 Floridas 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, Flori da: A microsatellite analysis. Molecular Ecology 11: 281288. Mortimer, J.A. 1990. The influence of beach sand characteristics on the nesting behavior and clutch survival of green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) Copeia 1990: 802817. Mrosovsky, N., S. Kamel, A.F. Rees, and D. Margaritoulis. 2002. Pivotal temperature for lo ggerhead turtles ( Caretta caretta) from Kyparissia Bay, Greece. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 21182124. 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: 887896. 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 coast s 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 longterm prospects for florida's beaches: Florida's Coastal Construction Control Line Program. Sea Grant Law and Policy Journal 1 :6598. Seminoff, J.A. 2004. Sea turtles, red listing, and the need for regional assessments. Marine Turtle Newsletter 106 : 46.

PAGE 151

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. 114124. 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: 10001013. 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: 329340. Trong, S. and E. Rankin. 2005. Longterm conservation efforts contribute to positive green turtle Chelonia mydas nesting trend at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Biological Conservation 121: 111116. 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. 0001. 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: 295303. 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. Withe rington, 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. 9496. 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.

PAGE 152

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: 119128.

PAGE 153

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 com pleting her dissertation, Aubree was employed as an environmental consultant in Jacksonvill e, Florida. After obtaining her doctorate Aubree will work as a biologist with the U nited S tates 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.