The impact of coastal armoring structures on sea turtle nesting behavior at three beaches on the east coast of Florida

Citation
The impact of coastal armoring structures on sea turtle nesting behavior at three beaches on the east coast of Florida

Material Information

Title:
The impact of coastal armoring structures on sea turtle nesting behavior at three beaches on the east coast of Florida
Creator:
Mosier, Andrea
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Florida
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 112 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Sea-walls -- Florida ( lcsh )
Sea turtles -- Nests -- Florida ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Marine Science -- Masters -- USF ( FTS )

Notes

General Note:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of South Florida, 1998. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 63-71).

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida
Holding Location:
Universtity of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
025965097 ( ALEPH )
41880562 ( OCLC )
F51-00137 ( USFLDC DOI )
f51.137 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information

Format:
Book

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

THE IMPACT OF COASTAL ARMORING STRUCTURES ON SEA TURTLE NESTING BEHAVIOR AT THREE BEACHES ON THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA by I ANDREA MOSIER A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Marine Science University of South Florida December 1998 Co-Major Professor : Albert C Hine, Ph D Co-Major Professor : Anne B. Meylan Ph. D

PAGE 2

Graduate School University of South Florida Tampa, FL CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Master s Thesis This is to certify that the Master s Thesis of ANDREA MOSIER with a major in Marine Science has been approved by the Examining Committee on September 18 1998 as satisfactory for the thesis requirement for the Master of Science degree Examining Committee : Co-M ajor Professor : Albert C Hine Ph D Professdr: AfKne B Meylan Ph D Member : Pamela Hallock Muller, Ph.D Member : Blair E. Witherington Ph D

PAGE 3

DEDICATION To the sea turtles in Florida. . may they nest in peace.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to John Maynard who helped me in the design of this project and provided extensive field assistance and support throughout. Special thanks to Bill Horton who assisted with beach surveys and Paul Tritaik who provided additional nesting data as well as the many people who took me along on nesting surveys This project would not have been possible without the support of the staff of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Marine Turtle Program Much appreciation goes to Allen Foley for his assistance with design analysis and writing. Thanks also goes to Judy Leiby for editing assistance I would like to thank my committee members Pam Hallock Muller Blair Witherington, and major professors AI Hine and Anne Meylan for sharing expertise in their fields and providing me with the support and confidence necessary to complete this project. I especially thank Barbara Schroeder for init i ally bringing this subject to my attention, and for continuing to be a mentor and friend This project was authorized by the Flor i da Department of Environmental Protection and was funded in part through the Nongame Wildl i fe Program of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (grant number NG92-1 00)

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .......... . ............. ....... . .............. iii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv ABSTRACT .................................................. vii INTRODUCTION ....... . ..... ..... ..... ........... . ......... 1 Study Object i ves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 BACKGROUND ........................................ ........ 4 Impacts of Armoring on the Beach .. ... . . . ........ . ........ 4 Presence of Armoring on Turtle Nesting Beaches . .... . . ........ 6 Impacts of Armoring on Turtle Nesting Behavior .... ............. 7 METHODS .................................................. 10 Study Sites ............... . ..... ......................... 10 Beach Profiles .................. . . . ................... 12 Nesting Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 RESULTS . .... ............... ......... . .................... 23 Beach Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Site 1 .............................................. 24 Site 2 ........... ................................. 24 Site 3 .... ................................. ......... 24 Weather Conditions . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Nesting Surveys ......... . .................... .. .......... 25 Interactions ................... .......... ....... ........ 27 DISCUSSION ....... ......................... ............... 41 Data Limitations .... ..................... ....... ......... 41 Biological Observations ................ . ........... ....... 42 Emergence Site Selection ..... . .... ................... 42 Nesting Success ......... . .......................... 44 Consequences of Non-Nesting Emergences ............... 45 Beach Elevations ................................... 47 Comparisons to Historical Data .......................... 48 Management Implications ........... ........................ 49 Loss of Nesting Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

PAGE 6

Cumulative Effects of Armoring ......... ................. 49 RECOMMENDATIONS ................... ....................... 57 Future Studies .................. ......................... 57 Management of Coastal Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 CONCLUSIONS .................... ............................ 60 REFERENCES ............ .................................... 63 APPENDICES .................................................. 72 APPENDIX 1 REFERENCES TO STUDIES ON THE EFFECTS OF SEAWALLS ON BEACHES ...................... 73 APPENDIX2. BEACH PROFILE DATA . . . .................. 78 APPENDIX 3 SEA TURTLE NESTING DATA .................. 105 APPENDIX 4 WEATHER CONDITIONS ................... . 110 ii

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Density of turtle emergences in walled vs non-walled (north and south combined) study zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 2 Number of nesting and non-nesting emergences of loggerhead turtles observed i n survey zones with seawalls and non-walled adjacent areas ................................................ 33 Table 3 Comparison between nesting densities of loggerhead turtles in non walled and walled study zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table 4 Distances the turtle stopped from the base of the dune or the seawall ............................................ ... 37 Table 5. Mean elevations of the beach in the area that the sea turtles utilized for nesting (0 3 m from the dune or the base of the seawall) ..... 37 Table 6 Number of turtles that encountered a landward obstacle (i.e., dune or seawall) during emergence ............................... 38 Table 7 Number of loggerhead turtles that exhibited wander i ng behavior during emergence ..... .......... .................. .... 39 Table 8 Descriptions of emergence events where loggerhead turtles traversed more than one zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 9 A comparison of data from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Statewide Nesting Database to data collected in the walled and non-walled zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Table 10. References to studies on the effects of seawalls on beaches .... 74 Table 11. Raw beach profile data ..... ............................. 79 Table 12 Sea turtle nesting data from Site 1 106 Table 13 Sea turtle nesting data from Site 2 107 Table 14. Sea turtle nesting data from Site 3 109 iii

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Schematic of seawall effects on the beach ........ ................. ..... ...... ... 8 Figure 2 Percentage of shoreline armored in the State of Florida ....... ........ . .... 9 Figure 3. Locations of study sites on the east coast of Florida ............ . . ......... 16 Figure 4 Aer i al photo of Study Site 1 showing the locations and lengths of the three study zones ................. ......... .......... ................. 17 Figure 5. Aerial photo of Study Site 2 showing the locations and lengths of the four study zones ..... ....... . ........................ ....... . ....... . 18 Figure 6 Aerial photo of Study Site 3 showing the locations and lengths of the three study zones ..... .... .... . ............ .... . . .............. ... 19 Figure 7 Diagram showing the methods used in collecting beach profile data across the beach .. ...... ................. .......... . . ............ .................... 20 Figure 8 Fresh loggerhead tracks at a nest at one of the study sites ..... ... ...... .21 Figure 9A. Example of a track where a loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) interacted with the seawall ..... ..... ......... ................... ....... ......... . ... ... 22 Figure 9B Example of a track where a loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) wandered along the seawall ....... ..... . . .... ........... ......... ................. 22 Figure 10. Site 1 profiles of seawall-backed beaches (zone B) and adjacent non-walled beaches (zones A & C) taken in June, July and September, 1996 ............ ..... ... .............. ... ..... .. .. ........ 29 Figure 11. Site 2 profiles of seawall-backed beaches ( zones B &C) and adjacent non-walled beaches (zones A & D) taken i n June July and September 1996 ................ ......... .... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... 30 Figure 12 Site 3 profiles of seawall backed beaches (zone B) and adjacent non-walled beaches (zones A & C) taken in June July and September 1996 ........... ....... ....... ........ ... ............. .... 31 iv

PAGE 9

Figure 1 3 Comparison of the percentage of nesting t o non-nesting emergences in each zone .......................... . .... . .... ..... . . ..... ... . . 35 Figure 14 Percentage of non-nesting emergences where body pitting was evident in walled and non walled zones .... ... ... ..... . . ................ 36 Figure 15 Aerial photos showing changes in turtle nesting habitat at Site 1 (1972 -1985) ... ... .... ..................... .... ...... .. .. ....... ... .......... ... 53 F i gure 16 Aeri al photos showing changes in nesti ng beach habitat at Site 2 (1972 1985 ) ......... ..... ...... ... . ....... ......... .... ... . . . . . . ...... . . . 54 Figure 17 S i mulation models of the cumu l ative effects of coastline armor i ng on sea turtle nesting behavior ......... ...... . ............ ........ . . 56 Figure 18 Site 1 profiles of Zone A north June July September. ..... .... ........ 84 Figure 19 Site 1 profiles of Zone B north, June, July, September ... .... .... ... ... . 85 Figure 20 Site 1 profiles of Zone B south June July September ... . ...... ... ... . 86 Figure 21. Site 1 profiles of Zone C south June July September. ... .................. 87 Figure 22 Site 2 profiles of Zone A north June July September ... ........ ......... 88 Figure 23 Site 2 profiles of Zone A middle June, July, September. . .......... ..... 89 Figure 24. S i te 2 profiles of Zone A south June July, September ........ ...... ....... 90 Figure 25 Site 2 profiles of Zone B north June, Ju l y September . . . .......... ... 91 Figure 26 Site 2 profiles of Zone B south June July September ... ... ............... 92 Figure 27 Site 2 profiles of Zone C north June July September. ... ................. 93 Figure 28. Site 2 profiles of Zone C south June, July September ... ..... ........... . 94 Figure 29 Site 2 profiles of Zone D north, June July September . . .... .... ......... 95 Figure 30. S i te 2 profiles of ZoneD m i ddle June July September. ... .............. 96 Figure 31. Site 2 profiles of ZoneD south June July September. .... . . .... ... ... 97 Figure 32 Site 3 profiles of Zone A north June July, September ...... ........ ...... 98 v

PAGE 10

Figure 33 Site 3 profiles of Zone A middle June July, September . ... .... ........ 99 F i gure 34 S i te 3 profiles of Zone A middle2 June July September ...... ...... ... 1 00 Figure 35. Site 3 profiles of Zone 8 north, June July September ................. .... 101 Figure 36 Site 3 profiles of Zone B south June July, September ........ .... ...... 1 02 F i gure 37 Site 3 profiles of Zone C middle, June, July, September .. .. ........ ... 1 03 Figure 38 Site 3 profiles of Zone C south June July September ... ... ........... 1 04 F i gure 39 Satellite image of Hurricane Bertha (7/11/96) .................. .............. 111 Figure 40 Satellite image of Hurricane Fran (9/04/96) ...................... ........ ... 112 vi

PAGE 11

THE IMPACT OF COASTAL ARMORING STRUCTURES ON SEA TURTLE NESTING BEHAVIOR AT THREE BEACHES ON THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA by ANDREA MOSIER An Abstract Of a thesis submitted in partial fulf i ll me n t of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Marine Sc i ence University of South F l orida December 1998 Co-Major Professor : Albert C Hine Ph D Co-Major Professor : Anne B Meylan Ph D vii

PAGE 12

The purpose of this study was to investigate sea turtle nesting behavior in the presence of armoring structures. Armoring structures include a wide variety of rigid structures such as seawalls, rock piles, and wooden retaining walls designed to control beach erosion. Three beaches on the east coast of Florida were surveyed to compare the nesting behavior of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in front of armoring structures to that on adjacent non-armored beaches Beach profile data were used to examine spatial relationships of turtle nests and armoring structures, and to describe physical changes in the beach during the nesting season A total of 252 turtle emergences were documented over a 25-day survey period. Significantly fewer emergences occurred in front of seawalls than on adjacent non-walled beaches. Of the turtles that did emerge in front of seawalls significantly more returned to the water without nesting than did turtles that emerged on beaches without seawalls The lower number of emergences on beaches with seawalls suggests that nest site selection was made by some turtles before emerging on the beach Of the 52 turtle tracks recorded in front of the seawalls, 37 (71 %) came into contact with the walls. Of those 37 turtles 32 (86%) returned to the water without nesting. Beach profiles showed that turtle nesting habitat in front of the seawalls was lower in elevation than that on adjacent, non-armored beaches Seawalls appeared to block the turtle's access to higher elevations and resulted in an increase in abandoned nesting attempts. viii

PAGE 13

As coastal armoring becomes more prevalent on a given stretch of beach the probabil i ty of a turtle emerging in front of the structure increases thereby i ncreasing the probability of non nesting emergences A simulation model was derived using data from this study to show the cumulative effect of increased shoreline armoring on turtle nesting emergences These models can be used to fo r ecast changes in turtle nest i ng act i vity on armored beaches around the state Abstract Approved : ____ Co-Major Professor: Albert C Hine Ph D Professor Department of Marine Science Date Approved : Abstract Approved : __ ....,......,__ ___ ,_ __ ,_ _________ ' Co-Major Anne B Meylan Ph D Associate Professor Department of Marine Science Date Approved : __ ix

PAGE 14

INTRODUCTION There are more than 1 000 km of sandy beaches in the state of Florida (CLARK, 1992). In addition to being a major tourist and development resource, the beaches off the southeast coast of the United States host the largest loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting aggregation in the Western Hemisphere, and the second largest in the world (NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE and U S FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, 1991). More than ninety percent of loggerhead nesting activity in the United States occurs on Florida beaches (LUND, 1978; MURPHY and HOPKINS, 1984 ; SHOOP et al. 1985 ; MEYLAN et al., 1995). Florida also supports the most diverse sea turtle nesting activity in the continental United States with regular nesting by species, the loggerhead, the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and the leatherback (Oermoche/ys coriacea) Two other sea turtle species, the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and the Kemp s ridley (Lepidochelys kempit), have also occasionally been documented nesting in Florida (MEYLAN et al., 1995). All of the turtl es that nest in Florida are listed as endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, except the loggerhead which is listed as a threatened species under Federal jurisdiction (NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE and U S FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 1993) However, the 1

PAGE 15

loggerhead is considered Endangered internationally by the IUCN and is listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) (BAILLIE and GROOMBRIDGE 1996) Florida s beaches are important fo r both humans and nesting sea turtles. Unfortunately, coastal development coupled with a landward movement of beaches is dimin i shing this essential habitat (SCHMAHL and CONKLIN 1991) Shorel i ne retreat and accretion, characteristic of sandy beaches may be the result of both natural and human related factors including storm events sea level rise land subsidence, inlet development and port management (DOYLE et al., 1984 ; PILKEY and WRIGHT 1988). However, these natural phenomena only create a critical erosion problem when upland development such as private residences, condominiums and businesses are threatened (SCHMAHL and CONKLIN, 1991 ) Where coastal development occurs, properties are often fortified or "armored" to protect them from erosion This can result in permanent loss of dry beach through continued erosion and prevention of natural beach dune accretion (U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 1984 ; PILKEY and WRIGHT 1988; MAGNUSON et al. 1990). Sea turtles require stable beaches and dunes for optimal nesting habitat (MAGNUSON et al. 1990). Nests constructed on shifting beaches are susceptible to destruction from erosion, i nundation or accretion (NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 1991). The widespread coastal development that has taken place in Flor i da over the last fifty years coupled with natural processes that constantly alter the shape of coastal areas have resulted in loss 2

PAGE 16

or degradation of significant amounts of suitable nesting habitat (NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, 1991 ) thus increasing the competition between man and turtle for dry, stable beaches Although all species of sea turtles that nest on Florida's beaches are protected under Florida Statutes (Chapter 370.12), sea turtle protection efforts in Florida are compromised by a lack of comprehensive nesting habitat protection (MEYLAN et al., 1995) Coastal engineers have analyzed the effects of coastal construction and rising sea level on shoreline migration and are able to predict how much shoreline will persist in the future (NATURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 1990) However information is lacking on how future changes in the shoreline, both natural and man-made, will affect the availability and quality of sea turtle nesting habitat. Study Objectives The present study investigates sea turtle nesting behavior in the presence of armoring structures The objectives were 1) to determine the effects of armoring structures on sea turtle emergences and nesting success ; 2) to describe changes in beach elevation in front of armoring structures, and 3) to examine the spatial relationship of the turtle nests to the armoring structures 3

PAGE 17

BACKGROUND Impacts of Armoring on the Beach There are many types of coastal armoring structures Offshore structures such as jetties and breakwaters are designed to stabilize inlets and divert the natural flow of sediment to trap sand on beaches Sand bags and geotextile tubes are buried on beaches to hold the sand in place Onshore structures, such as bulkheads, seawalls, and revetments, are placed parallel to the shoreline to separate the land area from the water area (U.S ARMY CORPS 1984) Combinations of these and other types of armoring can be found all along the Florida shoreline One of the most common armoring structures erected in Florida is the seawall. Seawalls may be built of steel timber, concrete, or rubble mound They may have vertical curved, stepped or sloped faces, and vary greatly in height and length. They are all primarily designed to resist waves and protect upland structures (U.S. ARMY CORPS., 1984) The beach can respond in many ways once a coastal armoring structure is constructed (Figure 1 ). Some of the variables that determine morphological changes in the beach include : seasonality weather conditions changes in sediment transport, and type and design of the structure (TAIT and GRIGGS, 4

PAGE 18

1990). Engineers often divide beach responses into two categories : end effects (e g., end-scour up coast sand accretion) and frontal effects (e g., frontal scour and troughs) During storms, seawalls prevent landward movement of the natural equilibrium beach profile Sections of the beach without seawalls will erode during storm conditions and establish an offshore bar which provides protection to the beach by tripping high waves and reducing their energy before they reach the beach When a seawall is present this offshore bar does not form so waves expend more energy on a much shorter section of beach This event coupled with constricted longshore currents across the surf zone, typically causes higher velocities in front of seawalls Consequently higher waves can reach the seawall and the areas adjacent to it, resulting in a lower beach profile in front of the seawall than the beach profile without the seawall (WALTON and SENSABAUGH, 1979). It is well documented that the impact of a seawall on the beach is largely dependent on its position on the beach profile (MACDONALD and PATTERSON 1985 ; KRAUS 1988 ; GRIGGS and TAIT, 1988) In a paper discussing the major factors determining the effect of seawalls on coastal processes WEGGEL (1988) stated that, ''The most obvious factor is the location of the seawall relative to the active shoreface. A seawall located well landward of the active shoreface will not influence coastal processes except possibly during periods of exceptionally high water. On the other hand, seawalls located on the active shoreface will modify the nearshore beach profile ... 5

PAGE 19

Beach responses are not independent of one another and a beach may exhibit several characteristics over time. KRAUS and McDOUGAL (1996) compiled references of authors who have observed and discussed the effects of seawalls on the beach system A summary of these studies and a list of references are located in Appendix 1. Although these studies are far from comprehensive or definit i ve, they do begin to address the effects that structures can have on the beach system. Because of the variability in beach response to armoring structures, coastal engineers must design structures that will protect upland dwellings preserve the beach face and remain cost effective Unfortunately, the most common type of armoring structure, the vertical-face seawall, often results in severe scouring to the beachface, especially when the toe of the wall is in shallow water, as is the case on many of Flor i da's eroding beaches (TAIT and GRIGGS, 1988) Presence of Armoring on Turtle Nesting Beaches Although the impact of coastal armoring on sea turtle nesting habitat is poorly understood, structures continue to be erected on turtle nesting beaches Data summarized in 1996 showed that 23o/o of Florida's east coast and 14% of the west coast were armored with some type of hard structure (FDEP BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS, 1996) In a 1990 study, the Florida Division of Beaches and Shores showed that existing armoring was concentrated in five areas of the state, and predicted that most additional armoring would li kely occur along the southeast and southwest coasts of the state (Figure 2), (CLARK, 1992). Unfortunately, this same area encompasses many of the primary nesting 6

PAGE 20

beaches for sea turtles in Florida (MEYLAN et al. 1995, SCHROEDER and MOSIER 1 996) Impacts of Armoring on Turtle Nesting Behavior Virtually no studies have been published documenting the effects of seawalls on turtle nesting behavior However, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has compiled annual summaries of nesting sea turtle data since 1979 and the following turtle interactions w i th coastal armoring structures have been reported in these summaries : prevent i on of access to sui t able nesting s i tes the permanent loss of nest i ng habitat abandonment of nesting attempts due to i nteraction with the structure interference with proper nest cavity construction and nest covering and increase i n clutch mortality resulting from freq u ent inundation (UNPUBLISHED FDEP DATA) Additionally if the structures begin to break apart they can trap or impede nesting females and hatchl i ngs Although many of these interactions are witnessed regularly at coastal armoring s t ructures few data have been collected documenting their occurrences (SCHROEDER and MOSIER 1996 ) 7

PAGE 21

.. .:: .:: DO WNDRIFT FLANKING--. .. LONGSHORE CURRENT ERODED UNPROTECTED . Sf{f)RELINE __ _..:.,.J J SHORELINE"__,/ BAR BAR INCIDENT WAVES (bilr dosplilced ? l REFLECTED WAVES Figure 1 Schemat i c of seawall effects on the beach (From Kraus, 1988) 8

PAGE 22

r"'"1 14% of West Coast Armored Florida Counties With The Most Existing Armoring Florida Counties With Primary Turtle Nesting Habitat \ Florida Counties Where Primary Turtle Nesting Habitat Overlaps With Coastal Armoring Florida Counties With The Most Potential For Future Coastal Armoring Figure 2. Percentage of shoreline armored in the State of Florida 23% of East Coast A rmored
PAGE 23

METHODS Study Sites The three study sites were located on the east coast of Florida between Melbourne Beach (Brevard County) and Wabasso Beach (Indian River County) (Figure 3) This is an area well known for high densit i es of nesting by marine turtles (PROVANCHA and EHRHART, 1987) All three sites had at least one vertical seawall. Site 2 had two adjacent walls. Study Site 1 the northern most study site was on an eroding shore l ine located at 3935 South AlA, Melbourne Beach Florida 28 00.8' N, 80 31. 9' W A long-term erosion problem in the area has been caused by jetties at Port Canaveral a man-made harbor approximate l y 46. 7 km to the north (HUNT, 1980). Eros i on in this area was exace r bated by Hurricane David in 1979 which made landfall 32 km south of Melbourne as a Category 1 hurricane Severe beach erosion was reported from a near five-foot storm tide ( DOEHRING et. al. 1994) Consequently a 30.2 m long vertical concrete seawall was built in front of a multi-family beach-side residential structure The rest of the study area was to the north and south of the seawall and was backed by heavily vegetated, undeveloped dune (Figure 4). Study S ite 1 was divided into the following three units : Zone A= 44. 5 m to the north of the wall; Zone B = 30 2 m in front of the seawall ; and Zone C = 31. 7 m to the south of the wall. 10

PAGE 24

Study Site 2 was located 1219 m south of Site 1 at 28 00 3 N 80 31. 7' W There were two seawalls at this site One was an older 35. 1 m concrete vertical wall that was situated 4 9 m seaward of a 25 3 m newer wall. Both walls were 7 6 m h igh and were located in front of two commercial properties (1 two-family condominium and one small older motel) This site was divided into four sections: Zone A = 105.46 m north of the two walls, backed by undeveloped heavily vegetated dune ; Zone B =35m in front of the newer seawall ; Zone C = 25 3 m beach in front of t he second older seawall ; and Zone D = 67.4 m beach to the south in front of undeveloped heav i ly vegetated dune. A single fam i ly resident i al unit marks the southernmost boundary of this site (Figure 5) The third study site was located south of Sebastian Inlet in Ind i an River County at 27 45.8' N 80 23.8 W T h ere was a vertical sheet pile type seawall with a concrete cap being constructed to the north of Wabasso Beach Park At the time this study was conducted the wall was 150.4 m One year later the wall had been extended to 158 5 m Th i s study s i te was divided into three zones : Zone A = 336.4 m to the north of the wall in front of a 3 5 m high erod ing bluff under a dozen residential properties ; Zone B = 150.4 m in front of the 2 9 m high seawall backed by a dozen residential properties; Zone C = 246 9 min front of Wabasso County Park boardwalk and Walt Disney World's Vero Beach Resort and boardwalk. Eros ion along this beach is caused by the Sebastian Inlet and its long north jetty and short south jetty which interrupt the north-south l i ttoral drift (Figure 6) 11

PAGE 25

Beach Profiles Beach profile data were collected three times during the nesting season in order to determine elevations of the turtle nesting habitat (Figure 7) Elevation measurements were obtained using a Wild NA24 automatic surveying level, following methods similar to those described by HYMEL (1996). Nesting zones were based on the length of the seawalls at each study site Points of origin were established on the beach using Florida DNR reference markers R-155, R158 and Indian River County elevation marker #9343 1 as benchmarks for Study Sites 1 2 and 3, respectively. The profiles were varying distances apart in the along shore direction, depending on the length of the established turtle-nesting zones. The greatest distance was 125m apart (Study Site 3, Zone A) and the least distance 30 m apart (Study Site 1, Zone B). Readings were taken at the boundaries of these zones from the cliff line out to wading depth 3m apart in the shore normal d i rection In order to ensure that measurements were taken in the same place each time, profile lines were established at perpendicular angles taken from the center of each zone These pre-determined angles were preserved throughout the study period The elevation data were entered into a Surfer Software spreadsheet as z coordinates then combined with x and y coordinates to generate contour maps and simulated three-dimensional surface plots of the turtle nesting beach This allowed for visualization of the elevation changes in beach habitat that the turtles utilized and by overlaying the x,y coordinates of the turtle nests, the elevations of the nest locations could be determined 12

PAGE 26

Nesting Surveys Nesting beach surveys were conducted on 25 days between June 16 August 17, 1996. Surveys took place between sunrise and 10:00 AM and were done by walking at the level of the most recent high-tide line and recording turtle tracks from the night before. Fresh turtle tracks were easy to recognize in the moist sand (Figure 8). Standard techniques (PRITCHARD et. al., 1983) were used to identify the species of turtle involved, and to determine the activities of the turtle during the previous night. Nesting behavior can be categorized according to the following stages : emergence onto the beach, digging a primary body pit, digging an egg chamber, depositing eggs, rear flipper covering secondary body pitting and returning to the water (HAlLMAN and ELOWSON 1992). Completion of the final stage results in successful nesting. However, a turtle can abandon the nesting attempt at any of the pre-egg laying stages and return to the water In this study, the presence of a nest was usually determined by evidence of rear flipper covering (i.e., sand misting, extensive damage to vegetation, secondary body pit dug) at the crest of the track These signs indicated that the turtle completed the nesting process and attempted to camouflage the clutch. Nests were not excavated in order to confirm the presence of eggs. However, natural predators occasionally dug into the nest, leaving traces of eggs and confirming that a clutch had been deposited at the site. Tracks that did not result in a completed nest were identified as non-nesting emergences These crawls were visually examined to determine at which of the 13

PAGE 27

above stages the turtle had abandoned the nesting attempt and were divided into th r ee categories based on the following definitions : 1) Non-Digging( also referred to as a turn around or half moon ) the turtle emerged onto the beach and returned to the water without beginning the nesting process 2 ) Body Pitting-after emerg ing onto the beach the turtle stopped began to dig a primary body p i t stopped during this process and returned to the water 3) Egg Chamber Dug -a turtle emerged onto the beach, dug a body p i t dug an egg chamber stopped and returned to the water without depositing eggs or covering the egg chamber. The position of the farthest landward point of each track (usually at the crest) was measured and recorded at all three study sites At Study Site 3 tracks were marked on a daily basis by FDEPpermitted individuals who provided additional data for th i s beach The l ocat i ons of one hundred nests found on the beach during the 25-day-period were recorded using reference points and a grid system These locations were entered into a Surfer sp r eadsheet and put over the beach profile maps These maps were used to determ i ne elevations of tracks and to i llustrate the interactions between the turt l es and the beach system Tracks were also v i sually exam i ned to determ i ne i f the turtle encountered a vert i cal obstacle at the landward-most point of travel during emergence (e.g Figure 9a) Although these obstacles may have been natural ( e g dunes) or art i ficial (e.g seawalls), and may or may not have created a h i ndrance to the 14

PAGE 28

15 nesting turtle in all cases the turtle came in con t act with the object. Types of encounters were divided into six categories : 1) No interactio n with an obstacle (dune or seawall) 2) Turtle encountered an obstacle 3) Turtle encountered an obstacle crawled parallel along the shoreline while remaining in constant contact with the obstacle ( e g., Figure 9b) 4) Turtle encountered an obstacle and dug at the base. 5) Turtle encountered a structure associated with an obstacle (e.g., wooden crosswalks pilings etc .). 6) Turtle crawled onto or over the obstacle In the cases where the turtle "wandered (i.e crawled parallel to the shoreline) data on the direction and the distance wandered were collected Several animals wande r ed out of one study zone and into another during the course of one emergence These data were documented and analyzed on a case-by-case basis (i.e., in the analysis of emergence data they were included in the zone in which the turtle emerged, and in the analysis of nesting data the zone in which she nested). They were omitted in zone totals as indicated Statistical tests were run using SigmaStat Software (Jande! Scientific) The following Binomial Random Variable Test was also derived to determine probabilities B i nom i al Random Var i abl e T est p= UnlL } ( p x (qnx)) n =Total Number of Emergence s p = Proport i on o f Beach with Seawalls x = Number of Emergences at Seawalls q = P r oportion of Beach without Seawalls

PAGE 29

Location Map 1 Study Site 1 Study Site 2 I 1,200 meters Figure 3 Location of study sites on the east coast of Florida N A I Atlantic Ocean Study Site 3 !wabasso Beach l 16

PAGE 30

44.5 M ZONE A ............... Figure 4 Aerial photo of Study Site 1 showing the locations and lengths of the three study zones ...... -....,J

PAGE 31

t ..... .:_;,, ... -... 6 7 -' M D /, I 't .t . r-, '' ZONE t Y "'lY C -: :ll'>"'"" ,, ' , ...... ,_. .. . u:;'' .-<. Y ,t "' ... .. ' .. ,_: ... J', : "' .. . ... ,,_. .,. l": .. ; ; \ .. ' . ; 2S J M HIM IOS. S M A Figure 5 Aerial photo of Study Site 2 showing the locations and lengths of the four study zones ...... CXl

PAGE 32

C/) <1> c 2 >. "0 :::J Ci) <1> ..r:: ...... <1> ..r:: ...... 0 C/) ..r:: ...... 0> c <1> "0 c co C/) c 0 :;:; co u 0 <1> ..r:: ...... 0> c ..r:: C/) ('I) <1> ...... U5 >. "0 :::J U5 0 0 ...... 0 ..r:: Q.. co ;::: <1> <{ LL 19

PAGE 33

l : ........... ELEVATIONS MEASURED EVERY 3 0 M TO WADING DEPTH ZONE A ( ... Figure 7. Diagram showing the methods used in collecting beach profile data across the beach ;f.:.i ;:.. ;.': .... '"'' f N 0

PAGE 34

en (].) ...... c;; >. "0 ::J ...... en (].) ..c ...... 0 Q) c 0 -ro ...... en (].) c co ...... co en .::t:. (.) ...... "0 co Q) ..c Q) 0) 0) 0 ..c en u.. cri ::J .Q> u.. 21

PAGE 35

Figure 9A. Example of a track where a loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) interacted with the seawall. Figure 98. Example of a track where a loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) wandered along the seawall. 22

PAGE 36

Beach Profiles Site 1 RESULTS Beach elevation data were collected at Site 1 on 6/16/96, 7/20/96 and 9/21/96 in order to coincide with the beginning, middle and end of the turtle nesting season for this area The profile results for each date are presented in Appendix 2 The location of each transect is depicted on a map of the study site at the top of each figure Beach profiles measured in mid-June were typical of an early summer beach profile (i.e., the beachface was flatter and elevations were lowest overall) (KRAUS and McDOUGAL 1996) July profiles show sand was building up at the baseline, and beach-face slope was steepening seaward Late September profiles exhibited the highest elevations at the baseline (toe of dune or base of seawall) and the steepest beach-face slopes, typifying an early winter profile (KRAUS and McDOUGAL, 1996) Figure 1 0 shows a comparison of beach profiles in each zone for each survey Profiles indicate that the beach in front of the seawall was similar in elevation to the adjacent non-walled beach but that the seawall prevented access to the higher elevation sites 23

PAGE 37

Site 2 Site 2 was also surveyed for beach profiles on 6/16/96, 7/20/96 and 9/21/96 Graphs depicting the results of these profiles are also in Appendix 2. Figure 11 shows a comparison of beach profiles collected at the walled and non-walled zones. Similar to Site 1 profiles, the beach increased slightly in elevation during the summer and berm slopes steepened in September Site 3 Study Site 3 was somewhat different from the other two sites Due to time constraints, beach profile data could not be collected on the same days as the other two sites Data were collected on 6/2/96, 7/20/96, and 9/22/96, still coinciding with the beginning, middle and end of turtle nesting season Appendix 2 contains plots of the beach profiles on these three dates Seawall construction was taking place as late as June 1 making the June 2 profiles in that area artificial. At the north end, the beach face was steep and elevations increased throughout the nesting season as was seen at the other two study sites The profiles at the north end of the wall did not show an increase in elevation over time, and south of the wall there was only a slight increase Profiles taken south of the seawall zone were flatter than those north of the wall, and exhibited an overall increase in elevation during the season with the most accretion observed during the 7/20/96 survey shortly after the passage of a storm event. Figure 12 shows a comparison of profiles between the non-walled and walled zones throughout the nesting season 24

PAGE 38

Weather Conditions Weather data were obtained from the NOAA National Data Buoy Center and were analyzed in conjunction with the changes in beach profiles The data were collected at buoy "41009CANAVERAL", which is a 6-m NOMAD buoy situated at 28.50 N, 80 .18 W. Data were summarized for the study period of6/01/96-9/22/96 and can be found in Appendix 4. Nesting Surveys A total of 252 loggerhead turtle tracks were documented at the three study sites (Site 1 = 75, S i te 2 = 115 and Site 3 = 61 ). Field data are presented in Appendix 3 Four green turtle tracks were also noted but were excluded from the analyses Loggerhead emergences were not evenly distributed between the non walled and walled zones of the study sites (Table 1 ) Results of the binomial random variable test indicated that fewer turtles emerged in front of the seawalls than in the non-walled zones at Site 1 and Site 2 (P < 0.05) Although there was no statistical difference found in the spatial distribution of emergences at Site 3, there may still have been a trend toward turtles avoiding emergences in front of the seawall (P = 0 06) Next tracks were examined to determine if the turtle completed the nesting process. Table 2 lists the number of nesting and non-nesting emergences that took place in each survey zone over the 25-day study At all three study sites, turtles that emerged in the non-walled zones completed the nesting process more often than turtles that emerged in front of the seawalls (Table 3) There 25

PAGE 39

were also differences between the ratios of emergences that resulted in nests, and emergences that did not. There were fewer nesting emergences than non nesting emergences in the seawalled zones (Figure 13) Turtles that did not nest during an emergence abandoned their nesting attempts at one of three nesting stages : 1) before digging (i.e non-digging), 2) after body pitting, or 3) after constructing an egg chamber There did not appear to be any correlation between the presence of a seawall and the stage of nesting completed (Figure 14) In the non-walled zones the majority of turtles crawled high on the beach usually to the base of the dune or beyond The majority of turtles emerging in the seawalled zones crawled to the base of the wall. Minimum and maximum distances measured from the farthest point of the tracks (or in the case of nesting emergences from the egg clutch) to the base of the dune or seawall are listed in Table 4 A Kruskai-Wallis One Way ANOVA showed no statistical differences in the distances traveled landward between the non walled and walled sites (P = 0.570) Table 5 lists the mean elevations of the beach in the area that sea turtles utilized for nesting (i.e., between 0 and 3m from the dune or from the seawall) At Site 1 and Site 2, mean elevations in front of the seawalls were 2.84 m above MSL and 3 02 m above MSL respectively These were significantly different (P= 0.00136 and P= 0 0280) than the mean elevations at the non-walled areas, which were 3 2 m above MSL and 3.4 m above MSL. Site 3 did not show a statistical difference in the mean elevations of the beach in front of the seawalls 26

PAGE 40

and in the non-walled zones (mean = 2 6 m above MSL) However, there was a significant difference between the elevations of the walled areas in the three study sites with Site 3 exhibiting consistently lower elevations than the other two beaches Elevations of the nests were calculated using a SURFER software program by combining the distance measurements and the beach profile data collected throughout the season For Site 1 the mean elevation of the nests deposited in front of the wall was 2 56 m above MSL (.02) which was significantly different (P=0 0001) than the mean elevation of nests in the non-walled sites (3 08 m above MSL (.20)) At Site 2, the mean elevation of nests deposited in front of the wall was 2 87 m above MSL ( 1 0), which was significantly different (P=0.0158) than the mean elevation of nests in the non-walled sites (3 18 m above MSL ( 3)) Site 3 had only 2 nests in the front of the wall which had a mean elevation of 2 2 m above MSL (.42), which was not significantly different (P=0.4620) than the mean elevation of the 17 nests in the non-walled areas (2.47 m above MSL ( 23)) Interactions Of the 52 turtles that emerged in front of a seawall, 37 (71 %) had some physical contact with the wall. This contact ranged from touching the seawall with a flipper and turning back toward the water to digging against the structure before returning to the water Deta iled descriptions of the physical contacts observed are listed in Table 6 Of those turtles that had contact with the seawall 32 (86%) resulted in non-nesting emergences 27

PAGE 41

The most common type of interaction turtles had with seawalls involved crawling up to the wall, turning 90 and wandering along the wall before returning to the water. Although only 10% of emergences exhibited wandering behavior, 7 4% of those that wandered did so in front of the seawalls (Table 7) All of these turtles had direct contact with the wall during wandering and all resulted in false crawls. Turtles wandered distances ranging from 1 2 to 9 2 meters in either a north or south direction. The direction appeared to be random but there was some preference towards the closest edge of the seawall. An interesting observation was that in Study Sites 1 and 2 64% of all wandering recorded took place on the nights of 15 July and 16 July These were also the only nights that turtles exhibited wandering behavior in the absence of seawalls Wandering was not observed during that time period at Study Site 3 Seven turtles traversed more than one zone during the course of one emergence These occurrences are described in Table 8. Five of these took place at Site 1, where the span of seawall was shorter than at the other sites 28

PAGE 42

Site 1 A WALL --ZoneA 5 Zone 8 ( walled ) 4 ---Zone C 3 6/16/96 2 1 0 1 1 0 20 30 B WALL ........... 5 _J (f) 4 Q) 3 7/20/96 > 0 .c 2 co C/) 1 I... Q) ..... Q) 0 E ..._ c -1 0 10 20 30 0 rn > C. Q) w WALL 5 4 3 9/21/96 ::-..... 2 '-.. '-.. .'-.. .'-.. '-.. 1 '-.. 0 -1 0 10 20 30 Distance From Baseline (meters) Figure 10. Site 1 profiles of seawall backed beaches (zone B ) and adjacent non -wall ed beaches (z ones A & C ) taken in June July and September 1996 MSL = Mean Sea Level. 29

PAGE 43

Site 2 A 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 B ...-.. 5 .....J CJ) 4 Q.) > 3 0 ..0 ro 2 C/) I.... Q.) 1 -Q.) E 0 ........ c 1 0 :;::::; ro > Q.) w C 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -10 0 10 -10 0 10 -10 0 10 ZoneA Zone B (walled) .... ... Zo ne 8 (walle d) ---Zone 6/16/96 20 30 20 30 9/21/96 20 30 Distance From Basel ine (meters) F i gure 11. Site 2 profi l es of seawall backed beaches (zones 8 & C) and adjacent non walled beaches (zones A & D) taken June July and September 1996 MSL = Mean Sea Level. 30

PAGE 44

Site 3 A ..-... __. 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -10 C/) B (1) > 0 ..0 ro en (1) -(1) E c 0 :.;::; ro > (1) w C 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -10 -10 Wall 0 10 Wall 0 10 Wall 0 10 -ZoneA Zone B (walled) ---Zone C 6/02/96 20 30 7/20/96 20 30 9/22/96 20 30 Distance From Baseline (meters) Figure 12 Site 3 profiles of seawalled backed beaches (zone B) and 31 adjacent non-walled beaches (zones A & C) taken in June, July and September 1996 MSL = Mean Sea Level.

PAGE 45

32 Table 1 Density of turtle emergences in walled vs. non-walled (north and south combined) study zones. Statistical values (P) within zones are for KruskalWallis tests using non-parametric statistics with alpha = 0.05 #of Days x P value Difference Surveyed Number of emergences/meter/day Site 1: Wa ll ed 25 0 0193 !. 0 0292 0 00779 Yes Non-walled 25 0 .0601 !. 0 0660 Site 2 : Walled (1) 25 0 .0171 !. 0 0386 0 000434 Yes Wall ed (2) 25 0 0158 :t_0.0361 Non-walled 25 0 0409 :t_0.0391 Site 3: Wall e d 25 0 0043!. 0 0055 0 05752 N o Non walled 25 0 .0061 + 0 0059

PAGE 46

Table 2. Number of nesting and non-nesting emergences of loggerhead turtles observed in survey zones with seawalls and non-walled adjacent areas. "*" indicates those individuals that utilized more than one zone during the emergence are included in the total for the study site but not included in the zone totals calculations. Study Site 1 Zone Number of Nests Number of Non-nesting Percentage of Nests Emergences Completed A (no wall) 15 14 52% B (wall) 2 10 17% C (no wall) 18 17 51% Total 35 41 46% *Totals include 5 individuals that emerged in one zone and exited from another. Study Site 2 Zone Number of Nests Number of Non-nesting Percentage of Nests Emergences Completed A (no wall) 35 22 61% B (wall) 4 10 29% C (wall) 0 10 0 D (no wall) 23 15 61% Total 58* 57 50% *Totals include 3 individuals that emerged in one zone and exited from another. Study Site 3 Zone Number of Nests Number of Non-nesting Percentage of Nests Emergences Completed A (no wall) 7 17 29% B (wall) 2 14 13% C (no wall) 10 11 48% Total 19 42 31% 33

PAGE 47

Table 3 Comparison between nesting densities of loggerhead turtles in non walled and walled study zones Nesting data for all zones at all sites were collected during 25 days of nesting surveys For each study site, the mean nesting dens i ty in the non-walled zones was greater than the mean nesting density in the walled zones (Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test P < 0 .01 ). Site 1 2 3 Non-walled Beach Mean (sd ) Length ( m ) nests / meter/day 76 0 027 (0 037) 173 0 020 (0 020) 583 0 002 (0. 002) Walled Beach Length Mean (sd) ( m ) nests/meter/day 30 0 .003 (0 009) 60 0 000 (0.000) 150 0 .001 (0. 003) 34

PAGE 48

100 Q) 80 C> $ 60 c: Q) (.) 40 s-Q) a_ 20 0 Site 1 Site2 Site 3 -.. -,\.._ \ 0. .. ... '1 \ \ \ \ -.. ' .. 1 :1-.. ,, ... "S: .. ., .. \\_\, 1\ ... "' '"'. \ .....__ ,":1.,"1.' 11'--'\. \ \ .. \ \,: \ ll .. .,.,. ...... :,, .... ... wall control wall1 wall2 control wall control tJ Non-nesting emergences D Nesting emergences Figure 13. Comparison of the percentage of nest i ng to no n -nes t ing eme r gences in each zone (.V 01

PAGE 49

Site 1 Site2 Site 3 100 11 90% 81% 178% 79% (]) 80 "' \ I '" 67% v o I C'> ___ 64Yo IT"( "-" :.....:-.. -.. ;\' .-'\'' "' \V \ "'""', > ....,c 60 \. \ '"" .. ...... ,,...,, ,, '' ., \...'-.;:. ,..... "-.'\.:" \ '',. !\ .\'" '>. ''" ... "" \."-' .\ > ,:;-' : ,, ' I"''-, <: ' ._::,\ :. '\.'\ .,.,,' \ ..,,.,. 0 0'\ '\'\' 3601 0 10Yo 0 L ---I o T o T wall control wall1 wall2 control wall control I Non-digging D Body Pitting I F igure 14 Percentages of non-nest i ng emergences where body pitting was evident in wallled and non-walled zones. w 0>

PAGE 50

Table 4 Distances the turtle stopped from the base of the dune or the seawall. Negative values indicate the turtle traveled landward of the base of the dune (i.e., crossed over the dune) Site 1: Non-walled (zones A & C) Walled (zone B) Site2 : Non-walled (zones A & D) Walled (zones 8 &C) Site 3: Non-walled (zones A & C) Walled (zone B) Distance from the Egg Clutch to the Base of the Dune or Seawall (m) 1 5 0 3 -7 3 0.3 0 15 2.2 Max. 4 8 1.5 7 0 2 5 7.0 8.8 Distance from the Non-nesting Emergence Track to the Base of the Dune or Seawall (m) Min -5 5 0 3 -7 3 0 15 0 15 0.15 8.3 10 6 7 0 8.8 8 8 18 3 Table 5. Mean elevations of the beach in the area that sea turtles utilized for nesting (0-3 m from the dune or the base of the seawall). Profiles at site 3 were were likely influenced by fill placed in front of the wall during construction. Site 1 2 3 Mean Beach Elevations i n Non-Walled Zones (sd) (m) 3.2 (0 15) 3.4 (0 27) 2 6 (0.22) Mean Beach Elevations in Walled Zones (sd) (m) 2.8 (0.30) 3.0 (0 23) 2.7 (0 05) 37

PAGE 51

Table 6. Number of turtles that encountered a landward obstacle (i.e., dune or seawall) during emergence All three study sites are combined A "structure associated with an obstacle" includes wooden crosswalks pilings and large beach debris "( )" indicates the number of emergences that resulted in nests Turtle Behavior 1 Turtle encountered obstacle and returned to the water 2 Turtle encountered obstacle and crawled parallel along the obstacle 3 Turtle encountered obstacle and dug at the base of obstacle 4 Turtle encountered a structure associated with an obstacle. 5 Turtle crawled onto/over the obstacle 6 Turtle crawled to top of obstacle Wall 11 (0) 21 (4) 10 (2) 3 (0) 0* 0* Dune 24 (0) 7 (0) 41 (32) 4 (1) 29 (23) 13 (9) This behavior was impossible where the obstacle involved was a seawall. 38

PAGE 52

Table 7. Number of loggerhead turtles that exhibited wandering behavior during emergence Number in parentheses is the percentage of the total number of emergences that exhibited wandering behavior Study Site 1 Total# of Total Wall NonContacted Emergences Number Walled the Wall with Wandering 75 10 6 4 5 (13%) *Nests were deposited in non walled zones turtle crawled along edge of wall and nested in adjacent non walled zone Study Site 2 Total# of Total Wall Non Contacted Emergences Number Walled the Wall with Wandering 115 13 10 3 10 (11%) Study Site 3 Total# of Total Wall NonContacted Emergences Number Walled the Wall with Wandering 61 4 4 0 3 (6.6%) Nesting Non-nesting Emergences 2* 8 Nesting Non-nesting Emergences 2 11 Nesting Non-nesting Emergences 0 4 39

PAGE 53

40 Table 8 Descriptions of emergence events where loggerhead turtles traversed mo r e than one zone. Study Site Date Description of Turtle Behavior Site 1 6/20/96 Turtle emerged in front of the seawall (zone B) wandered north along the seawall and nested in non walled zone A 7/15/96 Turtle emerged i n front of the seawall (zone B) wandered north along the seawall and nested i n non-walled zone A. 7/16/96 Turtle emerged i n front of the seawall ( z one B), wandered south along the wall exited from non-walled zone C w i thout nesting 7/16/96 Turtle emerged at the far north end of non walled zone C began to dig aga i nst the seawall, stopped digging wandered north 6 9 meters along the wall and exited from the walled zone B without nesting 7/1 6/96 Turtle emerged in front of the seawall (zone B) wandered 10.6 meters south along seawall ex i ted from non-walled zone C without nesting S i te 2 6/26/96 Turtle emerged i n seawalled zone C wandered north along the edge of seawall 2 into zone B (seawall 1 ), exi ted from zone B without nesting 7/2/96 Turtle emerged in seawalled zone C wandered south along the wall and exited from non-walled zoneD without nesting

PAGE 54

DISCUSSION Data Limitations Nesting densities vary along the east coast of Florida even between adjacent beaches (MEYLAN et al., 1995). A number of factors can cause a decrease in nesting activity on a particular beach : e g., coastal development, pedestrian traffic lighting, and shoreline morphology as influenced by coastal and other (yet to be identified) processes In the present study the total number of emergences per meter of beach was lower in Site 3 than in Site 1 and Site 2. Although an attempt was made to control for many of the above-mentioned variables in the study site selection process, the opportunity to evaluate a beach in a preconstruction condition outweighed the anticipated difficulties in data analysis. Because of the differences observed at Site 3 comparisons were made between walled and non-walled zones within sites but not between the different study sites It is necessary to note an important limitation imposed by the methods used in this study. Counting tracks on the beach the morning after turtles have emerged is standard practice in nesting-beach data collection However, during the night the tide can wash away the tracks of turtles that had crawled up only as far as the swash zone 41

PAGE 55

All observations in the present study were limited to the area of the beach above the swash zone and data on non-nest i ng emergences may be incomplete Biological Observations Emergence Site Selection Although l i ttle about the characteristics of the nesting sites selected by loggerheads has been documented some studies have suggested that sea turtles prefer to nest on beaches with certain physical features. CALDWELL (1959) described six profiles of beaches used by nesting sea turtles and concluded that turtles preferred to nest on high beaches backed by rounded dunes WILLIAMS-WALLS et al. (1983) found no correlation between nesting densities and the physical characteristics of beaches and concluded that the turt l es must select their nest i ng areas before they emerge from the ocean. PROVANCHA and EHRHART (1984) suggested that nest site selection is influenced by offshore parameters that are associated with high energy beaches MORTIMER (1982) reported that green turtles on Ascension Island appeared to prefer to nest on unlighted beaches with open sandy offshore approaches and on foreshores that were relatively free of rock clutter. However, she hesitated to say that the turtles selected these beaches solely because of these characteristics She emphasized that sea turtles nest on a variety of beach types and that other factors (e g. biot ic, genetic) may contribute more to nest site selection than the geolog i cal characteristics of the beaches do Loggerhead nesting does occur on developed urban beaches along the southeast coast of the United States (MANN 1978 ; MEYLAN et al. 1995 ; 42

PAGE 56

SALMON et al., 1995) However, artificial lights found on urban beaches are a deterrent to nesting turtles (WITHERINGTON, 1992) In a study by SALMON et al. 1995, data showed that nests on urban beaches were often concentrated in dark, shadowed areas in front of tall buildings or clusters of trees. They concluded that these objects probably acted as light barriers, making an otherwise bright beach appear darker. Several studies have been conducted on the incubation environment inside the nest (BUSTARD and GREENHAM, 1968; MCGEHEE, 1979; PACKARD et al., 1981, 1988; WHITMORE and DUTTON, 1985; MROSOVSKY, 1988; ACKERMAN 1996) and how changes in nest location on the beach may influence incubation conditions (MROSOVSKY et al., 1984; SPOTILA et al., 1987). HAYS and SPEAKMAN (1993) examined the spatial distribution and hatchling success of loggerhead turtle nests in Cephalonia, Greece. They found that hatchling success was significantly higher for nests away from the water, and that loggerheads tended to make their nests in the places where hatchling success would be highest (HAYS and SPEAKMAN, 1993). Other authors have shown that eggs deposited at lower beach elevations may suffer detrimental effects from saltwater inundation, including suffocation of the developing embryos and disruption of egg metabolism (KRAEMER and BELL, 1980) Sand temperatures may also be lower at lower beach elevations, which could influence hatchling sex ratios (MROSOVSKY and PROVANCHA, 1989) In the present study, there were fewer turtle emergences found in front of walls than in non-walled areas, suggesting that some turtles made the decision 43

PAGE 57

to abandon the nesting attempt before emerging onto the beach. These results ind i cate that there may be a mechanism by wh ich turtles can detect seawalls These turtles may have responded to some offshore or nearshore cue that discouraged them from emerging on that stretch of beach o r they may have been discouraged by a visual cue on the beach. The fact that some turtles did emerge in front of the walls suggests there was more than one cue present or that individuals responded differently to the same cues Nest ing Success Although sea turtles emerge from the water to nest it is not uncommon for them to return to the water without nesting (DODD 1988). The reasons they abandon their nesting attempts are not completely understood. HAlLMAN and ELOWSON ( 1992) compiled an Ethogram of Loggerhead Turtle Nesting Behavior in which they defined the beginning of each phase of nesti ng behavior as the point when the turtle makes a decision to either cont i nue the nesting behavior or abandon the effort and return to the water. They went on to suggest that this po i nt of dec i sion between phases is brought about by one or more external s t imuli (HAlLMAN and ELOWSON 1 992) Many studies have attempted to identify possible sources of stimuli and describe at which phase of nesting behavior each stimuli become relevant to the nesting turtle Several physical and chemical factors, such as sand grain size dune configuration compressibility of sand, olfaction, and thermal variations, have been suggested as potential cues that could st i mulate nesting behavior (HENDRICKSON, 1958 ; CARR and OGREN 1960; CARR et al., 1966 ; HIRTH and CARR 1970 ; 44

PAGE 58

BUSTARD 1973 ; MANN, 1977 ; STONEBURNER and RICHARDSON, 1981) Although nesting attempts are probably abandoned to some degree on all nesting beaches, an increase in the frequency of aborted nest i ng attempts on a given stretch of beach may indicate that the beach is undergoing changes that make it less suitable for turtles (WILLIAMS-WALLS et al. 1983 ; PROVANCHA and EHRHART 1987) The increase in abandoned nesting attempts in front of the seawall seen in this study suggests that there were environmental cues present on the beach that caused the turtles to abandon their nesting attempts These cues may have come from the structure itself (i.e. visual or tactile cues) or they may have been associated with beach conditions at the structure, such as thermal, olfactory, or moisture-content cues Data suggested that beach elevation may play a role in the turtles abandoning of the nesting attempts although this cue may have been secondary to the above-mentioned environmental cues Consequences of Non-Nesting Emergences The a c t of crawling on land is strenuous exercise for this large animal that is adapted for swimming, and the energetic costs of reproduction in sea turtles must be tremendously high PRANGE and JACKSON (1976) reported that the green turtle consumed 7 to 10 times more 02 when walking than it does when resting They state that sea turtles sustain a high rate of ventilation and metabolism during the i r stay on the beach which can last several hours." Considering that loggerheads nest an average of 4 times per season some individuals have been reported nesting as many as 8 times in one season 45

PAGE 59

(CALDWELL 1962 ; LeBUFF, 1974 ; LUND, 1979 ; LENARZ, 1981 ; LIMPUS and REED 1985)-every crawl must be carefully accounted for in the turtle s total energy budget. Therefore, it would seem to be an exceptional burden to the turtle to travel up the beach, only to encounter an obstacle and return without having nested An even greater loss of energy must come when the turtle wanders parallel to the shore before returning to the water In the present study, 74% of all the turtles that wandered along the shore had emerged in front of the seawalls All of these turtles had contact with the wall, and they all failed to nest. Turtles wandered distances ranging from 1 2 to 9 2 meters in random directions One turtle wandered south, then turned back and wandered north along the same crawl before abandoning the nesting effort altogether Wandering behavior has been reported as rare in some nesting-behav ior studies (BUSTARD et al., 1975; HAlLMAN and ELOWSON 1992) but is noted as common in others ( CALDWELL et al. 1959). Wandering appears to depend on beach conditions and possibly on the scarcity of other suitable nesting sites within the nesting ranges (HAlLMAN and ELOWSON 1992) Sea turtles tend to return to the same beach to nest each time, thus exhibiting fidelity to a nesting beach Green turtles are famous for their faithful return to the same site on the beach within meters of their previous nesting sites Although loggerheads typically do not exhibit this high degree of nesting beach fidelity, they have been documented nesting in close proximity (0-5 km) to previous nesting sites A small percentage may use more distant nesting sites in 46

PAGE 60

the general area (EHRHART 1 979 ; BJORNDAL et al. 1983 ; LIM PUS, et al., 1984 ; FOOTE and SPRINKEL, 1992) If nesting trips are wasted in front of a seawall, an exhausted turtle may eventually deposit eggs in a sub-optimal environment such as a poorly constructed nest cavity, a lower beach elevation, or possibly in the water-where the eggs would drown Beach Elevations There was no statistical difference between the mean distance at which turtles stopped from the seawall and that at which turtles stopped from the dune in the non-walled area However, the mean elevation of the nests built in front of the walls was significantly lower than the mean elevation of nests built in the non walled areas Emerging turtles appeared to travel up the beach until reaching a particular elevation for nesting. A seawall placed too close to the water restricted the turtle from reaching the area of the beach profile where nests were most likely to develop (HAYS and SPEAKMAN, 1993). In several field studies researchers have examined seawall and beach interactions and found that in late spring and early summer, berm height and width were the same on walled and non-walled beaches However, from later in the summer through winter and early spring, the berm at walls eroded sooner relative to adjacent control beaches. The berm was lost even sooner at walls located closer to the water, resulting in a flatter profile in front of the walls (KRAUS and McDOUGAL 1996). While end effects can have broad-reaching impacts on the adjacent "unprotected" shoreline (KRAUS, 1988; TAIT and GRIGGS, 1 990), this frontal scour, or lowering of the beach profile, poses more 47

PAGE 61

of an immediate concern to a turtle using the beach for nesting because the timing of this lowered profile corresponds with the sea turtle nesting season (in June, July and August). Nesting turtles may use elevation as an important cue. A study by HORROCKS and SCOTT (1991) suggested that hawksbill turtles in Barbados, West Indies, based their nest site selection on beach elevation By measuring the slope and distance traveled inland they showed that hawksbills had a preferred nesting elevation and that nests were more successful at this elevation. DELPECH (1996) showed a close relationship between the volume of sediment and the number of nests actually dug, indicating that nest site selection was somehow related to the morphology of the beach Results from these studies corroborate my findings that nests were placed in significantly higher locations in the non-walled zones at 2 of the 3 study sites, because turtles emerging in the non-walled zones could get to the higher elevations that seawalls prevented access to. Therefore, nests made in front of seawalls were at a lower mean elevation than were those nests made in the non-walled areas. Comparisons to Historical Data All three study sites are surveyed annually for turtle nesting activity through the F.D.E.P. Statewide Sea Turtle Nesting Beach Survey program. Site 1 and Site 2 are part of a 40. 5 km stretch of beach that is known as "S Brevard Beaches in the State's database. Site 3 is surveyed in its entirety, and data 48

PAGE 62

from this site are reported in the State s database under the name of Wabasso Bch S Availability of these data allowed me to compare the nesting averages from the present study to those derived from the Statewide Sea Turtle Nesting Beach Survey Data (Table 9) Ratios of non-nesting to nesting emergences collected at the non-walled zones in my study sites were virtually identical to rat i os of non-nesting to nesting emergences averaged over a four-year period (1993-1996) for the entire stretch of beach Because historically these data have been collected over the span of walled and non walled beaches, any significant changes in nesting behavior that took place in front of the seawalls has been missed or masked within the data collected for the entire beach Management Implications Loss of Nesting Habitat Figures 15 and 16 are composites of photos of S i tes 1 & 2 showing the changes in the amount of beach over a ten-year period It is interesting to note the location of the seawall each year and the landward retreat of the beach on either side of the structure To the homeowner this retreat is bad" erosion but to the nesting sea turtle the dune remains an elevated nesting site. There are no photos that show this for Site 3 because the wall had just been constructed at the time of the present study. Cumulative Effects of Armoring As coastal armoring becomes more prevalent on beaches the probability of a turtle emerging in front of a seawall increases, thereby increasing the odds that nesting attempts will be abandoned A simple simulation model derived using 49

PAGE 63

data from the present study shows the cumulative effects of coastal armoring on turtle nesting behavior. The model uses known nesting-success ratios from the unarmored portion of the beach to calculate the effects that increasing the distance of armoring along the beach would have on the percentage of turtle nests The results, given in Figure 17, show that at Site 1, 51% of emergences would result in nests if no portion of the beach were armored If 20% of this beach were armored that number would decrease to 46% If 60% of the beach were armored the nesting success would drop to 31%, and if 100% of Site 1 were armored only 17% of all emergences would result in nests. The same pattern of decreased nesting is seen in models of the other two sites It is interesting to note the differences between the two seawalls at Site 2 If 100% of Site 2 were armored with a wall close to the water, nesting could be expected to decrease to zero! When data are collected in this way and plugged into the formula, the model can be used to forecast changes in turtle nesting activity on other armored beaches Formula for Nesting Model [Cu x Nu + C A x NA] x 100% = Percent of nests expected Cu = Proportion of coastline unarmored N u = Proportion of emerging turtles expected to nest on unarmored beach. C A =Proporti on of coastline armored N A = Proportion of emerging turtles e x pected to nest on armored beach 50

PAGE 64

Because of the cumulative effects of seawalls on turtle nesting behav i or an increase in the rate of coastal armoring has obvious, serious consequences These turtle nesting data illustrate the problems tha t coastal armoring structures present to sea turtles 51

PAGE 65

Table 9 A comparison of data from the Florida Department of Env i ronmenta l Protect ion Statew i de Nesting Database to data collected in the walled and non-walled zones Data were averaged for 1993 1996. Beach Name Four-year Percentage of Percentage of Four-year Percentage of Percentage Average Non-nesting Non-nesting Average Nesting of Nesting Percentage of Emergences in Emergen ces in Percentage of Emergences Emergences Non-nesting Non-walled the Walled Nesting in Non-walled in the Walled Emergences Zones Zone Emergences Zones Zone S Brevard Beaches 49% 44% 85 % 51% 56% 15% Wabasso Bch S 63% 62% 88 % 37% 38% 12% *FDEP Data *FDEP Data 01 N

PAGE 66

............ 1980 ........................ -....... __ ._. ,........_ ..-.. _._ -. ".... ..>:::..::.. .. Figure 15. Aerial photos showing changes in turtle nest ing habitat at S i te 1 (1972 1985) 01 (.V

PAGE 67

54 Figure 16 Aerial photos showing changes in nesting beach habitat at Site 2, (1972 1985)

PAGE 68

Figure 17 Simulation models of the cumulative effects of coastline armoring on loggerhead nesting behavior A) Model of Site 1 data where the wall was situated 3 7 m in front of the dune B) Model of Site 2 data where there were two walls ; wall1 (represented by a solid line) was situated 3.1 m in front of the dune and wall2 (represented by a dashed line) was situated 7.6 m in front of the dune C) Model of Site 3 where the wall was situated less than 0 3 m in front of the dune

PAGE 69

U) ..._. (/) Q) z c :::s U) <1) 0::: ..._. ro ...c 1-U) <1) u c <1) Q) E w -0 <1) 0> ro ..._. c Q) <.> 1... <1) 0.. 100 --r----------------, 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Site 1 0 0 1 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 00 100 -.-----------------, 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Site 2 0 1 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 00 100 ---.---------------, 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Site 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 Percentage of Coastline Armored 56

PAGE 70

RECOMMENDATIONS Future Studies Although few data exist on the effects of seawalls on turtle nesting behavior, seawalls are being constructed at an unprecedented rate on Florida beaches (SCHMAHL and CONKLIN, 1991). A large percentage of suitable beaches in Florida are currently surveyed daily for turtle nesting activity. In some cases, data have been collected for 20 years and can be used to evaluate beaches for nesting densities and nest success. Now that biologists know where turtles are nesting, they need to look at the characteristics of the habitat and how they may contribute to differences in nesting success The length of beach surveyed is currently determined by geographic, municipal, ownership, or random boundaries. Because these surveys often span long stretches of beach that include both armored and non-armored habitat the negative impacts of seawalls are often masked within the data It is essential that nesting data be collected in a method similar to the methodology outlined in this paper in order to document any changes in nesting behavior that may occur in front of seawalls. Coastal engineers, turtle biologists and homeowners need to work together to explore alternatives to armoring structures on the nesting beach. 57

PAGE 71

In many cases, new construction should not be permitted on the edge of eroding shorelines, alleviating the necessity for a seawall later on Management of Coastal Development An inventory is needed of exactly how much coastal armoring is currently present on turtle nesting beaches and how much more is scheduled to be built. The State of Florida needs to take a comprehensive approach to coastal armoring management rather than the current individual parcel approach It is interesting to note that the state does not consider beach erosion a problem unless upland dwellings are in danger. Some of the most rapidly eroding beaches i n Florida have no armoring structures because there are no properties to protect (e g. Cape San B i as) Other beaches suffering from less erosion are being armored in order to protect structures and nearby highways (e.g., Flagler Beach) The State of Florida has spent far too much effort on managing the "erosion" problem instead of concentrating on reducing the development" problem (Schmahl and Conklin 1991 ). Current coastal construction needs to be slowed until an assessment can be made of how much coastal armoring Florida's beaches can sustain and still provide healthy turtle nesting habitat. Coastal construction projects should be carefully evaluated by the state before being permitted on eroding shorelines. Properties currently in the Coastal Barrier Resources System are not eligible for Federal assistance in the event of an emergency and more beaches should be added to the system. 58

PAGE 72

All requests for armoring permits located in the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge should be den i ed based on sea turtle nesting habitat protection. These denials should be extended to the beaches adjacent to the refuge if it can be shown that effects of the armoring structure will extend into the Refuge 59

PAGE 73

CONCLUSIONS Based on the data collected in this study, it was determined that seawalls in the study areas had the following four effects on turtle nesting behavior: 1 There were significantly fewer turtle emergences in front of the seawalls than in the non-walled zones 2. The turtles that did emerge in front of the seawall abandoned the nesting effort more often than turtles emerging on adjacent non-walled beaches 3 Turtles traveled up the beach until reaching an area of the beach profile where nests were most likely to be successful. 4. Seawalls blocked the turtle's access to h i gher elevations on the beach Florida plays an important role in the life history of the sea turtle Providing a beach for turtle reproduct i on is critical to the survival of the species Around the state hundreds of volunteers log in thousands of hours recording marking and protecting sea turtle nests. They know that each nest represents an opportunity for some hundred new sea turtle hatchlings But all around the state these same concerned citizens see many of the beaches they work on quickly disappearing as they are developed and armored with fabricated structures They witness first hand as the turtles are forced to nest near the water and the consequent drowning of nests in the tides Biologists, surfers swimmers and 60

PAGE 74

local citizens watch with concern as the beaches they enjoy become narrow and access becomes difficult. It is not uncommon for turtle b i ologists to be blocked from surveying areas of the beach at high tides often caught between a sea wall and the water In many areas of the state new construct ion is still taking place at the water's edge Buildings fall into the water and a new, taller and more expensive structu re, is rebuilt in the same footprint. Not only is there no sign that coastal development is slowing down but it is progressing faster as beachfront property becomes less available more expensive and therefore in high demand It is still considered a status symbol in our soc i ety to live as close to the water as possible The state of Florida has a tremendous responsibility to protect sea turtles There are only two truly la r ge nesting aggregat i ons of loggerheads in the world the largest being that on Masirah and the Kuria Muria Islands of Oman and the second in the southeastern Uni ted States (of wh ich Florida represents 90%) The l ocation of the Oman n esting beaches makes it vulnerable to the i mpacts of war or catastrophic destruction due to o i l spills. Eithe r disasters would leave Florida s beaches to ma i ntain the logg e rhead spec i es The sea turtles that nest in Florida come from widely scattered feeding g r ounds many of which are outs i de the boundaries of the United States Their long journey makes them vulnerable to many global threats such as mar i ne pollution entanglement in debris and incidental capture in commercial fish ing gear Once they reach thei r Florida destination the biggest threat the turtles face is nesting habitat destruction due to coastal development. 61

PAGE 75

As Florida loses more of it's sea turtle nesting habitat every year, it also loses it's biggest attraction for tourists These same sandy beaches that support the best turtle nesting habitat are the beaches that tourists flock to Florida to enjoy. Coastal armoring structures constructed to protect private upland property not only block turtles' access to nesting sites, but they often block pedestrian access to the beach, as well Access to the beach is a public ownership right protected under the public trust doctrine Public rights to beach access have been used in Texas, New Jersey, North Carolina and Massachusetts, to prevent rebuilding of coastal structures that impaired access. Hopefully, more studies like this one will encourage the state of Florida to adopt a more progresssive policy and implement regulatory measures to protect its beaches 62

PAGE 76

REFERENCES ACKERMAN, R.A., 1996. The nest environment and the embryonic development of sea turtles In : LUTZ P .L. and MUSICK J .A. (eds ) The Biology of Sea Turtles. Boca Raton Florida CRC Press pp 83-106 BASCO D.R., 1990 The effect of seawalls on long-term shoreline change rates for the southern Virginia ocean coastline. Proceedings 22"d Annual Coastal Engineering Conference American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 1292-1305 BASCO, D .R.; BELLOMO, D A., and POLLOCK C., 1992a. Statistically significant beach profile change with and without the presence of seawalls Proceedings 22" d Annual Coastal Engineering Conference American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 1003-1020. BIRKEMEIER, W. A., 1980. The effect of structures and lake level on bluff and shore erosion in Berrigen County Michigan, 1970-74 Coastal Engineering Research Center Misc Report No 802 US. Army Corps of Engineers 74 p BIRKEMEIER, W .A.; BICHNER, E.W.; SCARBOROUGH B .L.; McCARTHY M .A., and EIER W C., 1991 Nearshore profile response caused by Hurricane Hugo In: FINKLE C W., and PILKEY O H., (eds.), Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No 8:113-127 BJORNDAL K.A. ; MEYLAN A.B., and TURNER B.J. 1983 Sea turtles nesting at Melbourne Beach Florida I. size, growth and reproduct i ve biology Biological Conservation 26 : 65-77 BUSTARD, R., 1973 Sea Turtles: Natural History and Conservation Taplingler New York BUSTARD, H.R., and GREENHAM P 1968 Physical and chemical factors affecting hatching in the green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas. Ecology, 49: 269276 BUSTARD H .R.; GREENHAM, P., and LIMPUS C., 1975 Nesting behaviour of loggerhead and flatback turtles in Queensland Australia. Akademie Van Wetenschappen Amsterdam Proceedings Series C 78 : 111-122. 63

PAGE 77

CALDWELL O .K., 1959. The loggerhead turtles of Cape Romain, South Carolina Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences 4 : 319-348 CALDWELL O K (ed.), 1962. III. Comments on the nesting behavior of Atlantic loggerhead sea turtles, based primarily on tagging returns Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences, 25: 287-302 CALDWELL, O.K.; CARR, A., and OGREN, L H., 1959. I. Nesting and migration of the Atlantic loggerhead turtle Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences, 4 : 295-308 CARR, A.; HIRTH, H., and OGREN, L., 1966 The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 6 the hawksbill turtle in the Caribbean Sea American Museum Novitates, 2248: 1-29. CARR A.F and CARR, M 1972. Site fixity in the Caribbean green turtle. Ecology 53 : 425-429 CARR, A., and OGREN, L., 1960. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles 4. the green turtle in the Caribbean Sea Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 121: 1-48. CLARK R. R., 1992 Beach conditions in Florida: A statewide inventory and identification of beach erosion problem areas in Florida Beaches and Shores Technical Memorandum 89-1 4th Edition Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Beaches and Shores Tallahassee Florida. 208 p. DAVIS R.A. Jr. and ANDRONACO, M., 1987 Hurricane effects and post-storm recovery, Pinellas County Florida (1985-1986). Proceedings of Coastal Sediments '87, American Society of Civil Engineers pp 1023-1036. DELPECH, Y J., 1997. Effects of three soil cement step faced revetments on sea turtle nesting activity and hatch success on Casey Key, Florida Undergraduate thesis, Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida. 129 p. DEWALL, A.E., and CHRISENSON J A., 1984. Guidelines for predicting maximum nearshore sand level changes on unobstructed beaches. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Coastal Engineering Research Center Misc Paper CERC-84-4 39p. DODD, K., Jr. 1988 Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta (Linnaeus 1758) U.S Fish and Wildlife Service NMFS149, Biological Report 14, pp 1-110 64

PAGE 78

DOEHRING F.; DUEDALL I.W., and WILLIAMS J.M., 1994 Florida Hurricane s and Tropical Storms 1871-1993 : An Historical Survey. Florida Sea Grant College Program Gainesville Florida TP-71 118p DOYLE L.J.; SHARMA, D C.; HINE A.C. ; PILKEY O.H Jr.; NEAL W J.; PILKEY O H Sr.; MARTIN D., and BELKNAP D., 1984. Living With the West Florida Shore. Duke University Press Durham N.C 222 p EHRHART L.M., 1979 A survey of marine turtles nesting at the Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station North Brevard County. Florida Department of Natural Resources Report 122 p ESCOFFIER F .F., 1951. Design and performance of seawalls in Mississippi. Proceedings of the 2 nd Coastal Engineering Conference American Society of Civ i l Engineers pp 257-267 FITZGERALD, D.M ; VAN HETEREN S and MONTELLO T.M 1994 Shoreline processes and damages resulting from the Halloween Eve storm of 1991 along the North and South shores of Massachusetts Bay, U S A. Journal of Coastal Research, 10(1) : 113-132 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1998 Statewide Nesting Beach Survey Database Florida Marine Re s earch Institute St. Petersburg Florida FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1996 Division of Beaches and Coastal Systems Permit Database Tallahassee Florida F OOTE J J. and SPRINKEL J M 1992 Loggerhead nesting data from a s i x year tagging program on Casey and Manasota K e ys Southwest Florida In : Richardson J l., and Richardson T.H., (comp.), Pro c eedings of the Twelfth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Bio logy and C o nservation NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-SEFC 232 p. 179 GARDNER W H 1986 Water content. In : Klute A. (ed .), Methods of Soil Analysis. Soil Science Society of America. Mad i son Wisconsin Pp 493-544 GRIGGS, G.B and TAIT, J.F 1988. The effects of coastal protection structures on beaches along Northern Monterey Bay California Journal of Coastal Researc h Special Issue No 4 : 93 -111. GRIGGS G B.; TAIT J F., and CORONA W., 1994. The interaction of seawalls and beaches : seven years of monitoring Monterey Bay California Shore and Bea ch, 62 ( 3): 21-28 65

PAGE 79

HAlLMAN J.P., and ELOWSON, A.M., 1992 Ethogram of the nesting female loggerhead (Caretta caretta) Herpetologica 48(1) : 1 30. HAYS G C., and SPEAKMAN, J .R., 1993 Nest placement by loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta Animal Behavior 45 : 47-5 3. HENDRICKSON J.R 1958. The green sea turtle Chelonia mydas (Linn ) in Malaya and Sarawak Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 130 : 455535. HIRTH H F., and CARR A.,1970 The Green turtle in the Gulf of Aden and Seychelles Islands Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Afdel i ng Natuurkunde Tweede Reeks, 58 : 1-44 HOPKINS S .R., and RICHARDSON J.l., (eds .), 1984 Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles. National Marine Fisheries Service Washington D C 64 p. HORROCKS, J A. and SCOTI, N MeA., 1991 Nest site location and nest success in the hawksb ill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata in Barbados, West Indies. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 69 : 1-8 HUNT, S D., 1980 Port Canaveral entrance glossary of inlets report no .9, Florida Sea Grant College Report Number 39 HYMEL, S K 1996 The evolution of nearby beaches after the emplacement of a revetment on Casey Key in Sarasota county Flor i da. Masters thesis Univers i ty of South Florida St. Petersburg Flor i da 180 p. KOMAR P O., and McDOUGAL, W G., 1988 Coastal erosion and engineer ing structures : the Oregon experience. In : Kraus N.C., and Pilkey O.H., (eds.) Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No 4 : KRAEMER J E and BELL R., 1980 Rain induced mortality of eggs and hatchlings of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) on the Georgia coast. Herpetologica 36 : 72-77. KRAUS N C., 1988. The effects of seawa lls on the beach : extended literature review. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No.4: 1-28. KRAUS N C., and McDOUGAL W G 1996. The effects of seawalls on the beach : Part I an updated literature review. Journal of Coastal Research 12(3) pp 691-701 66

PAGE 80

KRIEBEL, D L.; DALLY W.R., and DEAN, R G., 1986 Beach profile response following severe erosion events. Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, UF /COEL-86/016, University of Florida, Gainesville Florida LEBUFF, C.R., Jr., 1974 Unusual nesting relocation in the loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta. Herpetologica, 30:1 pp 29-31 LENARZ, M S ; FRAZER, N.B.; RALSTON M .S., and MAST, R.B., 1981 Seven nests recorded for loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta in one season. Herpetological Review, 12:9. LIMPUS C J.; FLEAY, A., and GUINEA, M., 1984. Sea turtles of the Capricornia Section, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park In: Ward W T., and Saenger, P., (eds.) The Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef: Past Present and Future Royal Society of Queensland and Austral i an Coral Reef Society: Brisbane pp 61-78 LIMPUS, C J., and REED P.C., 1985 The loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta in Queensland : observations on internesting behavior Australian Wildlife Research 12: 535-40 LUND F., 1974. Marine turtle nesting in the United States. Unpublished Report to the U S Fish and Wildlife Service 39 p. LUND, F., 1978 Threatened Atlantic loggerhead In: MCDIARMID R W., (ed ) Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida Vol. 3 Amphibians and Reptiles. University Presses of Florida Gainesville, Florida Pp. 35-36. MACDONALD, H.V., and PATTERSON D C., 1985 Beach response to coastal works, Gold Coast Australia Proceedings 191 h Coastal Engineering Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 1522-1538 McDOUGAL, W.G.; STURTEVANT, M.A., and KOMAR, P.O., 1987. Laboratory and field investigations of the impact of shoreline stabilization structures on adjacent properties. Proceedings of Coastal Sediments '87, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 961-973. MAGNUSON, J J.; BJORNDAL, K A.; DUPAUL, W.O. ; GRAHAN G L.; OWENS, D W.; PETERSON C.H.; PRITCHARD, P C .H.; RICHARDSON, J l.; SAUL, G E. ; and WEST, C W., 1990 Decline of the Sea Turtles : Causes and Prevention National Academy Press, Washington, D C 259 p MANN T.M., 1977 Impact of developed coastline on nesting and hatchling sea turtles in Southeastern Florida. Masters thesis Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida 100 p 67

PAGE 81

McGEHEE, M.A., 1979 Factors affecting the hatching success of loggerhead sea turtle eggs (Caretta caretta caretta) Masters thesis University of Central Florida Orlando Florida. McGEHEE, M A., 1990 Effects of moisture on eggs and hatchlings of Loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) Herpetologica 46(3) : 251-258 MEYLAN, A.B 1978 The behavioral ecology of the West Caribbean green turtle Chelonia mydas in the internesting hab i tat. Masters thesis University of Florida, Gainesville Florida MEYLAN A.B.; SCHROEDER, B., and MOSIER, A. 1995 Report on sea turtle nesting activity in the State of Florida 1979-1992 Florida Marine Research Publication No 52 June 1995, pp 1-19 MORTIMER, J .A., 1982, Factors influencing beach selection by nesting sea turtles In : Bjorndal, K .A. (ed .), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Pp. 45-51 MORTON R.A. 1988 Interactions of storms, seawalls and beaches of the Texas coast. In : KRAUS N C and PILKEY, O.H (eds.) Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No 4 : 115-136 MOSSA J., and NAKASHIMA, L.D., 1989 Change along a seawall and natural beaches : Fourchon LA Proceedings Coastal Zone 89 American Soc i ety of Civil Engineers pp 3723-3 7 37 MROSOVSKY N., 1988 Pivotal temperatures for loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) from northern and southern nesting beaches Canadian Journal of Zoology 66 : 661 669 MROSOVSKY, N., and PROVANCHA J., 1989 Se x ratio of loggerhead sea turtles hatching on a Florida beach Canadian Journal of Zoology, 67: 25332539. MROSOVSKY, N.; HOPKINS-MURPHY S R and RICHARDSON J l., 1984 Sex rati o of sea turtl es: seasonal changes Science 225 : 739-741 MURPHY T.M., and HOPKINS, S R., 1984 Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting beaches in the southeast region Uni ted States. Final Report to National Marine Fisheries Service (Contract NA83-GA-C-00021 ) 73 p. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE and U S FISH and WILDLIFE SERVICE, 1991 Recovery plan for U S population of Loggerhead turtle National Marine Fishe ries Service Washington D C 64 p 68

PAGE 82

NATURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 1990. Managing Coastal Erosion. National Academy Press Washington, D .C. 182p. NELSON, D O., 1991 Factors effecting beach morphology changes caused by Hurricane Hugo northern South Carolina. In: FINKLE C.W., and PILKEY O H., (eds .), Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No 8 : 163-179 PACKARD G.C ; PACKARD, M J.; BOARDMAN, T.J.; and ASHEN, M.D., 1981. Possible adaptive value of water exchanges in flexible-shelled eggs of turtles Science 213 : 471-473 PACKARD G.C.; PACKARD M.J. ; MILLER, K., and BOARDMAN T J., 1988 Effects of temperature and moisture during incubation on carcass composition of hatching snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina). Journal of Comparative Physiology B., 158: 117-125 PILKEY, O.H., and WRIGHT H .L. Ill, 1988 Seawalls versus beaches In: KRAUS, N C., and PILKEY O H., (eds .), Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No. 4: 41-66. PILKEY O .H. JR.; SHARMA, D C.; WANLESS, H .R.; DOYLE L.J. ; PILKEY O H., SR. ; NEAL, W.J. and GRUVER, B .L., 1984 Living With the East Florida Shore Duke University Press Durham North Carolina. 259 p PLANT N., 1990. The Effects of Seawalls on Beach Morphology and Dynamic Processes Masters thesis University of California Santa Cruz California PRANGE H D., and JACKSON, D.C. 1976 Ventilation gas exchange and metabolic scaling of a sea turtle. Respiratory Physiology 27 : 369-377. PRITCHARD P.; BACON P.; BERRY F.; CARR A. ; FLETEMEYER J ; GALLAGHER R.; HOPKINS S.; LANKFORD R.; MARQUEZ M.R. ; OGREN L.; PRINGLE W Jr.; REICHART H., and WITHAM, R., 1983 Manual of Sea Turtle Research and Conservation Techniques Second Edition. BJORNDAL K.A. and BALAZS G. H (eds.), Center for Environmental Education Washington D .C. 126 p PROVANCHA, J.A. and EHRHART L.M 1987 Sea turtle nesting trends at Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, and relationships with factors influencing nest site selection In: WITZELL, W.N. (ed.), Ecology of East Florida Sea Turtles NOAA Technical Report NMFS 53 : 33-44 69

PAGE 83

SALMON, M.; REINERS R.; LAVIN C., and WYNEKEN J., 1995 Behavior of loggerhead sea turtles on an urban beach I. Correlates of nest placement. Journal of Herpetology 29: 560-567 SAYRE W 0., 1987 Coastal erosion on the barrier islands of Pinellas County, west-central Florida Proceedings of Coastal Sediments 87 American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 1037-1 050. SCHMAHL, G.P., and CONKLIN, E.J 1991 Beach erosion in Florida : A challenge for planning and management. In: MAGOON O.T.; CONVERSE, H.; TIPPLE V.; TOBIN LT., and CLARK D., (eds .), Coastal Zone '91 Volume 1 : ASCE, pp 261-271 SCHROEDER B.A. and MOSIER A.E. 1996 Between a rock and a hard place : coastal armor ing and marine turtle nesting habitat. Unpublished paper presented at 16th Annual Sea Turtle Symposium February 28 -March 1, H i lton Head South Carolina SEXTON W J., and MOSLOW T F., 1981. Effects of Hurricane David 1979 on the beaches of Seabrook Island South Carolina Northeastern Geology, Volume 3 Nos. 3/4 : 297-305 SHOOP R.C.; RUCKDESCHEL, C.A. and THOMPSON N B., 1985 Sea turtles in the southeast United States: nest ing activity as derived From aerial and ground surveys 1982 Herpetologica 41 (3): 252-259 SPOTILA J .R.; STANDORA E.A. ; MORREALE S J., and RUIZ G J 1987 Temperature dependent sex determination i n the green turtle (Chelonia mydas ) : effects on the sex ratio on a natural nesting beach Herpetologica 43(1) : 74-81 STONEBURNER D .L., and RICHARDSON J l. 1981 Observations on the role of temperature in l oggerhead turtle nest site selection Copeia 1981 : 238-241 TAIT, J B., and GRIGGS G.B., 1990 Beach response to the presence of a seawall : a comparison offield observations In: KRAUS, N .C., and PILKEY O.H., (eds ) Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No 4 : 95 114 TANNER, W F., 1960 Florida coastal classification Transactions Gulf Coastal Association of Geological Societies 10 : 259 266. TERCHUNIAN, A.V., 1988 Permitting coastal armoring structures : can seawalls and beaches coexist? In : KRAUS N C., and PILKEY, O H., (eds.) Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No. 4 : 65-75 70

PAGE 84

TOUE, T., and WANG H 1990. Three dimensional effects of seawall on the adjacent beach Proceedings Coastal Engineering Conferen c e American Society of Civ i l Engineers pp. 2782-2795 UDA, T. 1989. Is the presence of seawalls and concrete armor blocks the cause of foreshore erosion? Proceedings 491 h Annual Conference on Civil Engineering, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, pp 42-43 (in Japanese). U S ARMY CORPS of ENGINEERS 1984 Shore Prot e ction Manual Volume 1 U.S Government Printing Office, Washington D C WALTON T. L., and SENSABAUGH W., 1979 Seawall design on the open coast. Florida Sea Grant College Report No 29 24 p WEGGEL, J .R., 1988 Seawalls: the need for research dimens i onal considerat i ons and a suggested classification KRAUS N C., and PILKEY O.H., ( eds.) Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No.4: 29-40 WHITMORE, C.P., and DUTTON P H., 1985 Infertility, embryonic mortal ity and nest site selection in leatherback and green sea turtles in Suriname Biolog ical Conservation 34 : 251-272. WILLIAMS S J ; DODD K., and GOHN K K., 1990 Coasts in cr i sis U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1075. Un i ted States Government Pr i nting Office WILLIAMS-WALLS N.; O HARA J. ; GALLAGHER R.M. ; WORTH D.F.; PERRY, B D and WILCOX, J .R., 1983 Spatial and temporal trends of sea turtle nesting on Hutchinson Island Florida 1971-1979 Bulletin of Marine Science 33: 55-56 WITHERINGTON B E., 1986 Human and natural causes of marine turtle clutch and hatchling mortality and the i r relationsh i p to hatching product i on on an important Florida nesting beach Mast e r s thesis, Univers i ty of Central Flor i da Orlando, Florida 141 p. WITHERINGTON B E., 1992. Behavioral responses of nest i ng sea turtles to artificial lighting Herpetologica 48(1) : 31 -39 WOOD, W .L., 1988 Effects of seawalls on profile adjustmen t along Great Lakes coastlines In : N C KRAUS and O H PILKEY (eds ) Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No.4: 71

PAGE 85

72 APPENDICES

PAGE 86

APPENDIX 1. REFERENCES TO STUDIES ON THE EFFECTS OF SEAWALLS ON BEACHES 73

PAGE 87

Table 10. References to Studies on the Effects of Seawalls on Beaches I REFERENCE TITLE --SUMMARY ------I Escoffie r (1951) Walton and Sensabaugh (1979) Birkemeier ( 1 980) Sex t o n and Moslow ( 1 98 1 ) Dewall and Christenson (1984) Design and Pe r formance of Sea Walls in Mississippi Sound Seawall Design on the Open Coast The Effect of Structures and Lake Level on B luff and Shore Erosion in Berrigen County, M i c h igan 1 970-74 Effects of Hurrican e David, 1 979, on the beaches of Seabrook Island South Caro l ina Guidelines for predicting maximum nearshore sand level changes on unobstructed beaches Observed flanking at the wall and l oss of backfill. Discussed des i rability of placing beach fill in front of a wall. Obse r vations on the Florida coast include: flanking l oss of backfill and po ssib le detrimental effects o n adjacent beaches not backed by seawalls S uggested that scour may be l ess at sho rt seawalls because of sand supplied from adjacent beaches Found that the volume of material eroded from the unprotected portion of beach dow n drift from the seawall was approximately equa l to that removed from the littora l system by encasement behind the wall. Observed that after Hurricane David recovery of the beach i n fr o nt of the wall proc ee d ed at a lower rat e than the average profile re c o very. Sugg es t e d that recovery of the beach is a function of po si tion adjacent to coastal structures. Discovered a linear relationship between extreme wave he ig ht and maximum scou r depth at the toe of a seawall. """

PAGE 88

I REFERENCETITLE SUMMARY I MacDonald and Patterson ( 1985) Kriebel Dally and Dean (1986) Davis and Andronaco (I 987) McDougal et al. (1987) Sayre (1987) Griggs and Tait ( 1988) Komar and McDougal (1988) Beach Respon s e to Coastal Works Gold Coast Australia Beach Profile Re s ponse Following Severe Erosion Events Hurric ane Effects and Post-Storm Recovery P ine llas County Florida (198 5-1986) Laboratory and Field In ves tigations of the Impact of Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Adjacent Propertie s Coastal Erosion on the Barrier Islands of Pinellas County, West-Central Florida The Effects of Coastal Protection Structures on Beaches Along Northern Monterey Bay California Coastal Erosion and Engineering Structures: the Ore go n Experience Concluded that "the further seaward they [seawall s ] are constructed the greater th e ir influence and the less likel y will a usable beach be maintained in front. Concluded that while beach erosion at the wall was not apparent l y more severe than on adjacent beaches, it was more localized and dramatic Found that ... although the beaches in front of the seawalls eroded most severely during the highe s t levels [wave height from storms], they also recovered the fastes t in areas where large ridge and runnel systems were produced." Observed loc a l erosion at the ends of walls along w ith arcuate indentations that extended 50 to 150 m alongshore Concluded that beaches with seawalls experienced greater erosion during storm events (hurricanes and extratropical) Observations included : summer berm disappeared sooner in front of the walls ; the berm in front of an impermeable vertical wall eroded before the berm in front a permeable sloping revetment ; no difference in matured beach profiles ; berm retreat and scour was accelerated as much as 150 m down coast of the wall ; spring and summer berm buildup was the same on walled and non walled "Concluded that the presence of a rip current and associated rip embayment may have been more responsible for erosion near a riprap wall than the structure itself. )> IJ IJ m z 0 >< ........... () 0 z _.. z c m 0 ......... 01

PAGE 89

I REFERENCETITLE SUMMARY I Morton (1988) Pilkey and Wright (1988) Wood (1988) Mo ssa and Nakashima (1989) Uda (1989) Basco (1990) Plant ( 1990) Interactions of Storms, Seawalls, and Beaches of the Texas Coast Seawalls versus beaches Effects of Seawalls on Profile Adjustment Along Great Lakes Coastline s Change Along a Seawall and Natura l Beaches: Fourchon, LA I s the Presence of Seawalls and Concrete Armor Blocks the Cause of Foreshore Erosion? The Effect of Seawalls on LongTerm Shoreline Change Rates for the Southern Virginia Ocean Coastline The Effects of Seawalls o n Beach Morphology and D y namic Processes A comprehensive and wide-scale case stu d y of the effects of seawa lls on beaches in Texas including changes on control beaches without seawalls. Found that the dry beach was consistently narrower in front of hard impermeable structures, and the width decreased with increa s ing density of stabilizing s tructures Compared beach profile change between armored and unarmored regions of shoreline along southern Lake Michigan. Concluded that offshore profiles did not change between armored and unarmored portions of shoreline Monitored a concrete-bag se awall and adjacent non-walled beaches in Loui sia na Observed that storm erosion and s ubsequent recov ery at the wall were intermediate in value relati ve to the adjacent natural beaches located to the east and west." Inspected scour at seawalls and r evetmen t s along the coast of Japan Concluded that str ucture failure was the re su lt of a continuous lowering of beach profile over time Emphasis i s placed on the "seaward b oun dary condition", the c hanges in offshore bathymetry that can contribute to erosion not relat e d to the presence of the absence of a seawall. Found a reduced water permeability in the beach in front of a wall and discussed other coasta l sediment processes at seawalls. )> ""0 ""0 m z 0 X -() 0 z -i z c m 0 .......... -...J 0)

PAGE 90

I REFERENCE TITLE SUMMARY --, Toue and Wang (1990) Birkemeier et al. (1991) Nelson (1991) Basco Bellomo and P ollock (1992a) Fitzgerald et al. (1994) Griggs et al. (1994) Three D i m e n s ional Effects of Seawall on the Adjacent Beach Nearshore Profile Response Caused by Hurricane Hugo Factor s Effecting Beach Morphology Changes Caused by Hurric a ne Hugo, Northern South Carolina Statistically Significant B each Pro file Change With and Without the Presence of Seawalls Shoreline Processes and Damages Resulting from the Halloween Eve Storm of 1991 Along the North and South Shores of Massachusetts Bay, U.S.A The Interaction of Seawalls and Beaches : Seven Years of Monitoring, Monterey Ba y California A 3-m long seawall was placed at the shoreline on a sandy beach The authors found the downdrift beach eroded for a longshore length of three to four times the wall length. Compared preand post-storm profile plot s for beaches in South Carolina with and without seawalls Compared beach profile surveys at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina one day before and after Hurricane Hugo Concluded that "Erosion was not increa se d in front of seawalls or riprap revetments Anal yzed I 2 yea rs of profile data at an extensively seawa lled beach in Sandbridge, Virginia Concluded that" ... there i s no strong statistical evidence to support the claim that seawalls have caused higher shoreline recession at Sandbridge Described beach changes on the coast of Mas sac husetts associated with the Halloween storm of 1991. Found that beaches backed by seawalls or revetments experienced more overall erosion than those with wide berms. Observed that during summer to winter tran s ition, the berm was cut back sooner at walls resulting in a flatter profile. No differences were found between impermeable walls and permeable sloping walls )> -u -u m z 0 >< _... 0 0 z -4 z c m 0 .......... -....! -....!

PAGE 91

78 APPENDIX 2 BEACH PROFILE DATA

PAGE 92

Table 11. Raw beach profile data from Site 1. Elevations were measured in meters above MSL. Su rvev Date : 06/16/96 D ist an ce From Angle 0' 10 20' 30' 40' 50 60' 70' Baseline (feet) Zone A (north) N70 E 3 16 m 2 .66m 2 .21 m 1 95 m 1 72 m 1 66 m 1 33 m 0 87 m Zone B (north) N70 E 2.50 m 2.19 m 1 94 m 1 66 m 1.48 m 1 22 m 0 85 m 0.46 m Zone B (south) N70 E 2 63 m 2 .26m 1 88 m 1 77 m 1 .54 m 1 20 m 0 90 m 0 55 m Zone C (south) N70 E 3 03 m 2 .58 m 2 .30m 1 95 m 1 82 m 1 78 m 1 29 m 0 .77m Survev Date : 07/20/96 --------Distance From Angle 0' 10' 20' 3 0' 40' 50' 60' 70' Ba se l i ne (feet) Zone A (north) N70 E 3 13 m 2 67 m 2.41 m 2 10 m 1 85 m 1 55 m 1 15 m 0 85 m Zone B ( north ) N70 E 2 .67m 2 37 m 2 .06m 1 88 m 1 69 m 1 09 m 0 .63m 0 .23 m Zone B (south) N70 E 2 .85m 2 54 m 2.18 m 1 90 m 1.63 m 1 26 m 0 96 m 0 .54m Zone C (south) N70 E 3.12 m 2.72m 2 39 m 2.18 m 1 96 m 1 60 m 1 14 m 0 74 m Survev Date: 09/21/96 Distance From Angle 0' 10 20' 30' 40' 50' 60 70' Baseline ( feet) Zone A (north) N70 E 3.44 m 3.02 m 2 .57 m 2 02 m 1.48 m 0 .94m 0.48 m Zone B ( north) N70 E 3 09 m 2 57 m 2 .02m 1 62 m 0 99 m 0 .74m Zone B (so uth) N70 E 3 .30m 2 99 m 2 .60m 2 09 m 1 53 m 1.05 m 0 .56 m Zone C (south) N70 E 3 28 m 2 96 m 2 .69m 2 25 m 1 84 m 1.45 m 1 05 m 0 .68 m 80' 0.48 m 0 09 m 0 23 m 0 .37m 80' 0.54m -0.13m 0 .06m 0 38 m 80' 90 0 13 m 0 14 m 0 06 m -0 02 m 90' 0 17 m -0.47m -0 30 m -0 12 m 90' 100 0 18 m 0 10 m -0.44 m 0.40 m 100' 0 20 m 100' ........ CD

PAGE 93

Table 11 (CONTINUED) Raw beach profile data from Site 2 Elevat i ons were measured in meters above MSL. Survev Date : 06/16 / 96 Distance From Angle 0' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 80 90' Baseline ( feet ) Zone A (north) N70 E 3 20 m 2.47 m 2 16 m 1 52 m 1 83 m 1.67 m 1 16 m 0.85 m 0.44 m 0 18 m Zone A (middle ) N70 O E 3 17 m 2 56 m 2 26 m 2 10 m 1.74 m 1 37 m 1 .01 m 0 .61 m 0 24 m -0 06 m Zone B (north) N90 E 2.95 m 2 64 m 2 .31 m 1 98 m 1 68 m 1.49 m 0 98 m 0 50 m 0 09 m -0.24 m Zone B (south)/ N70 E 2.80m 2.44 m 2.41 m 2 17 m 1.61 m 1 .01 m 0.49 m 0 06 m 0 .91 m -0.55 m Zone C (north) Zone C (south) N80 E 2.85m 3.09 m 2.64 m 2.37 m 2 .12 m 1.86 m 1 .51 m 1 19 m 0 96 m 0 75 m Zone D (middle) N80 O E 4 07 m 3 55 m 3 19 m 3 03 m 2 73 m 2.43 m 2 .15 m 2 .0m 1.77m 1.45 m Zone D (south) N80 O E 3 .71 m 3 .22 m 2 .85 m 2.58 m 2.43 m 2 37 m 1 94 m 1 54 m 1 16 m 0 .81 m Survev Date : 07/20/96 Survey Date : 07/20/96 Distance From Angle 0' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 80' 90 Baseline (feet) Zone A (north) N70 E 3.23 m 2 67 m 2.48 m 2 22 m 1 92 m 1 70 m 1.48 m 1 20 m 0 73 m 0 36 m Zone A (middle) N70 E 3 34 m 2 68 m 2.47 m 2 50 m 2 37 m 1 92 m 1 35 m 0 87 m 0.47 m 0 08 m Zone B (north) N90 E 3 .00m 2 70 m 2.40 m 2 .09 m 1 83 m 1 65 m 1.40 m 1 12 m 0 86 m 0 58 m Zone B (south ) / N70 E 2.82 m 2.59 m 2 .31 m 1 97 m 1 80 m 1 64 m 1 26 m 0.97 m 0.61 m 0 18 m Zone C (north) Zone C (south) N80 E 2.91 m 2.82 m 2 .35m 1 97 m 1 .81 m 1 57 m 1 13 m 0 .73m 0 34 m -0 05 m Zone D (middle) N80 E 3.61 m 3 .04m 2 .80m 2 .71 m 2.48 m 2.16 m 1 74 m 1 25 m 0.81 m 0.38 m Zone D (south) N80 E 3 34 m 2 85 m 2 76 m 2 58 m 2 33 m 2 18 m 1.45 m 0 84 m 0.41 m 0 05 m -100 -0 168 m 0 38 m 0 57 m 1 05 m 0.41 m 100' -0 06 m 0 28 m 0.21 m -0 05 m -0.48 m -0 .01 m -0 38 m )> -u -u m z 0 >< N 0 0 z z c m 0 -(X) 0

PAGE 94

Table 11 (CONTINUED) Raw beach profile data from Site 2. Elevations were measured in meters above MSL. --. --Distance From Angle 0' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70 80 90 Base li ne (feet) II Zone A (north) N70 E 3.31 m 3 1 2 m 2 .96m 2 80 m 2 .56 m 2 07 m 1 .77 m 1 3 4 m 0 .91 m 0.46 m Zone A (middle) N70 E 3.47 m 3 05 m 2 .65m 2.44 m 2 .24m 1.83 m 1 .28 m 1 04 m 0 .62m 0 .26m Zone 8 (north) N90 E 3.48 m 2 97 m 2 .66m 2 .11 m 1.5 4 m 0 .91 m 0 .61 m -0 19 m Zone 8 (south)/ N70 E 3 .26m 2 .99m 2 .58 m 1 .86 m 1 .31 m 0 85 m 0 35 m -0 07 m Zone C (north) Zone C (south) N80 E 3 14 m 3 .02m 2 .71 m 2 12 m 1 58 m 1 10 m 0 67 m 0 .21 m -0 20 m Zone 0 (middle) NBO 0E 3 54 m 3 12 m 2 98 m 2 .87 m 2 .77 m 2 37 m 1 93 m 1 58 m 1 19 m 0 80 m Zone 0 (south) N80 E 3.30 m 3 10 m 2 .94m 2 .69m 2.43 m 1 95 m 1 74 m 1 36 m 0 .96 m 0 .58m 100' 0 .06m 0.01 m 0.42 m 1 0 15 m j )> "1:1 "1:1 m z 0 X "' 0 0 z z c m 0 -()) .......

PAGE 95

Table 11 (CONTINUED). Raw beach profile data from Site 3. Elevations were measured in meters above MSL. Survev D _.. ........ ----Distance From Angle 0' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 80' 90' Baseline (feet) Zone A ( north) N70 E 2.68m 2 32 m 1 92 m 1.43 m 1 10 m 0 83 m 0.49 m 0 33 m 0 18 m 0 .09m Zone A (middle) N70 E 2 .31 m 1 .91 m 1 58 m 1 27 m 0 .97m 0 69 m 0.45 m 0 .27m 0 .12 m 0.21 m Zone A (middle2) N70 E 2.30m 1 92 m 1 58 m 1.28 m 0.91 m 0.67 m 0.46 m 0 .24m 0 12 m 0.06m Zone B north N80 E *2.66m *2.47 m *2 .11 m *1. 68 m *1.32 m *1.01 m *0 .71 m *0.49 m *0.34 m *0.16 m (seawall) Zone B south N80 O E *2.56 m *2 32 m *1. 92 m *1.56 m *1.22 m *0.95 m *0 .70m *0.49 m *0.31 m *0.16 m (seawall) Zone C (north) N70 E 2 .29 m 2.10 m 1.77 m 1.46 m 1 16 m 0.88 m 0 64 m 0.43 m 0 .24m 0 .09 m Zone C (south) N70 E 2 57 m 2.60m 2 38 m 1 .71 m 1 .29 m 0 .92m 0.62 m 0.40 m 0.22 m 0 07 m (*Area was under construction at the time of profile These elevations were most likely influen ced by construction activities). Survev Date : 07 /2 0/96 Distance From Angle 0 10' 20' 30' 40' 50 60' 70' 80' 90' Baseline (Feet) *Zone A (new north) N70 E 2.22 m 2.04m 1 .81 m 1 70 m 1.58 m 1.40 m 1 06 m 0 69 m 0.39 m 0.09 m Zone A (north) N70 O E 2.65m 2.44 m 2 29 m 2 .15 m 1 90 m 1 99 m 1 20 m 0 82 m 0.49 m 0.27 m Zone A (middle) N70 E 2.60 m 2.30m 2 20 m 2 .10 m 1 80 m 1 60 m 1 10 m 0.73 m 0.52m 0.34 m Zone A (middle2) N70 E 2 .32m 1 .96 m 1 .68 m 1.50 m 1.47 m 1 .31 m 0 95 m 0.65 m 0.40 m 0.22 m Zone B north N80 E 2.65m 2 35 m 2 03 m 1 .57 m 1 75 m 1 66 m 1.50 m 1.09 m 0.76 m 0 .53 m (seawall) Zone B south N80 E 2 .64m 2 79 m 2 33 m 2 .21 m 2 12 m 2 04 m 1 92 m 1.76 m 1 .39 m 1.04 m (seawall) Zone C (north) N70 E 3 .04m 2 76 m 2 50 m 2 .26 m 2 15 m 1 92 m 1.41 m 1 10 m 0 .80m 0.47 m Zone C (south) N70 E 2.78m 2 .61 m 2.27 m 1 90 m 1 .51 m 1.07 m 0 80 m 0.53 m 0 .59m -0. 03 m (*This was a new zone added in after the initial survey of 06/02/96 based on changes in turtle nesting survey boundaries) 100' 0 03 m -0.09 m 100' -0.19 m 0 02 m 0 16 m 0 .31 m 0 .78m 0 .20m -0 38 m )> -u -u m z 0 >< N .......... () 0 z -i z c m 0 .._... (X) N

PAGE 96

Table 11 (CONTINUED). Raw beach profile data from Site 3. Elevations were measured in meters above MSL. Survev Date : 09/22/96 Distance From Angle 0' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 80' 90' 100 Baseline ( Feet) Zone A (new north) N70 E 2 83 m 2 80 m 2 55 m 2 .28m 2 02 m 1 .70 m 1 26 m 0 .86m 0 .52m 0.23m 0 08 m Zone A (north) N70 E 2 82 m 2.40 m 2 07 m 1 86 m 1 .79 m 1 57 m 1 29 m 1 .01 m 0 .69m 0.43 m 0 12 m Zone A (mi ddle) N70 D E 2 .69m 2 24 m 1 95 m 1 85 m 1 .72 m 1 .50 m 1.26 m 0 .96m 0 .66m 0 38 m 0 08 m 1 Zone A (middle2) N70 E 2 78 m 2.74m 2 64 m 2 .32 m 2.07m 1 67 m 1 .37 m 1 09 m 0.76 m 0.45 m 0 15 Zone 8 north N70 E 2.66m 2.37m 2.15 m 2.01 m 1 .89 m 1 84 m 1 6 m 1.36 m 1 06 m 0 .73 m 0.43 m (seawall) Zone 8 south N70 E 2 .74m 2 57 m 2.45 m 2.27 m 2 .06m 1.92 m 1 83 m 1 57 m 1.28 m 0.94 m 0.59m (seawall) Zone C (north) N70 E 2 .72m 2.47 m 2 26 m 1 .91 m 1 67 m 1.46 m 1 22 m 0 .97 m 0.70m 0.43 m 0 12 m Zone C (south) N70 E 2.54m 2 .21 m 2 02 m 1 .83 m 1 .58 m 1 34 m 1 07 m 0 .76 m 0 .77m 0 15 m 0 .05m )> "'U 1J m z 0 >< N 0 0 z --i z c m 0 ----()) (..)

PAGE 97

Location of Profile I Zone C Zone A t Zone A (north) 5 4 (i) '-Q) Qj 3 E ....J en Q) 2 > 0 -.... ...,......_ ......... -... .......... .0 <{ c: .Q 1 -ro > Q) w 0 0 10 20 -1 Distance From Baseline (meters) Figure 18 Site 1 profiles of Zone A north, June July and September. 6/16/96 --7/20/96 ...... .... 9/21/96 30 )> -o -o m z 0 X 1\..) -() 0 z --i z c m 0 '--"

PAGE 98

ZoneC 5 li) ..... 4 $ Q) .s 3 ...J (j) Q) > 0 2 .0 <{ c: 1 Q ro > Q) w 0 -1 Location of Profile ZoneA I (Seawall) Zone B north seawall 0 10 Distance From Baseline (meters) 6/16/96 --7/20/96 ........... 9/21/96 20 Figure 19 Site 1 profiles of Zone B north, June July and September 30 )> -u ""0 m z 0 X N .......... () 0 z -i z c m 0 ......... (X) (Jl

PAGE 99

ZoneC 5 (i) ..... 4 Q) ..... Q) E 3 -_J (/) Q) 2 > 0 .0 <( c 1 0 '-'= ro > Q) [ij 0 -1 Location of Profile Zone B south ( Seawall) Zone A I seawall 0 10 Distance From Basel i ne (meters) 6/16/96 --7/20/96 ..... ...... 9/21/96 20 F igur e 20 Site 1 profiles of Zone B south June July and September. 30 )> -u -u m z 0 X N 0 0 z --i z c m 0 .......... CX> 0>

PAGE 100

Location of Profile Zone C Zone A I Zone C south (Seawall) --6/16/96 --7/20/96 5 ........... 9/21/96 Ul ..... 4 2 Q) .s 3 _J (f) :.:..: .. ... .......................... -Q) 2 > 0 ..c c 1 0 ro > Q) w 0 -1 0 10 20 D i stance From Baseline ( meters) Figure 21. Site 1 profiles of Zone C south June July and September 30 :t> IJ IJ m z 0 X N ......... () 0 z z c m 0 .._.. OJ --1

PAGE 101

Location of Profile I ZoneD ZoneA l (Seawall2) (Seawall1) Zone A (north) 5 4 (j) ..... Q) 3 .... Q) E _J (/) 2 :2 Q) > 0 .0 1 <{ c: 0 :p ro > Q) 0 iTI -1 ". -...... ...,___ 0 6/16/96 --7/21/96 ........... 9/21/96 --:: ::: < :::_. """ '< . 10 20 D is tance From Baseline (meters) Figure 22. Site 2 profiles of Zone A north June, July and September. 30 )> "'U "'U m z 0 X N 0 0 z --i z c m 0 .._... ()) ())

PAGE 102

Location of Profile I ZoneD I 5 lil '4 Q) ..... Q) 3 .s _J (/) 2 Q) > 0 .0 1 <( c 2 ro 0 > Q) [jJ -1 (Seawall2) (Seawall1) Zone A (mid) --6/16/96 7/21/96 '-'; .:.:_. :: ::C """': o, "."' >>,,__ "' '0: .::: .:C C.::.:;, .:C ......... . --9/21/96 0 10 20 D i sta nce From Base li n e (meters) Figure 23 Site 2 profi l es of Zone A middle,June July and September 30 )> -u -u m z 0 >< N 0 0 z -; z c m 0 -CX> CD

PAGE 103

Location of Profile I ZoneA I ZoneD (Seawall2) ,----zone A (south) 5 4 (i) .... Q) 3 ..... Q) .s _J (/) 2 Q) > 0 ..0 <{ 1 c: 0 ro > Q) 0 m 0 10 -1 Distance From Baseline (meters) Figure 24 Site 2 profiles of Zone A south, June July and September ------20 6/16/96 ---7/21/96 ........... 9/21/96 -----........ ....._-.... __ .................... 30 )> -u -u m z 0 X N () 0 z z c m 0 .......... <0 0

PAGE 104

ZoneD (Seawall2) 5 4 en .... Q) -3 Q) E -...J (/) 2 Q) > 0 .0 1 <{ c 0 +J m 0 > Q) w -1 0 Location of Profile Zone A ..... (Seawaii1)Zone B (north) I 6/16/96 --7/21/96 ........... 9/21/96 ---. ............... ---..-.. ____ __ 10 20 Distance From Baseline (meters) Figure 25. Site 2 profiles of Zone B north, June, July and September 30 )> "'0 "'0 m z 0 >< N 0 0 z -1 z c m 0 ..._... <0 .......

PAGE 105

Location of Profile ZoneD .. .. '' : -(Seawall 2) 'f (Seawall 1) Zone B (south) 5 4 w Q) E 3 ... -...J (/) 2 Q) > 0 1 c: 0 0 Q) m 0 10 -1 Distance From Baseline (meters) Figure 26 Site 2 profiles of Zone 8 south, June, July and September. Zone A --6/16/96 --7/21/96 9/21/96 -....... ............... ----............... 20 30 )> "0 "0 m z 0 x N () 0 z z c m 0 -
PAGE 106

ZoneD 5 4 .ru Q) 3 E -...J Cl) 2 :2 Q) > 0 .c Q) 0 m -1 Locat i on of Profile .," -,< ... . ,'' , Zone,-8 . .. (Seawall 2) (Seawall1) Zone C (north) 0 10 Zone A .......... 20 Distance From Baseline (meters) Figure 27. Site 2 profiles of Zone C north, June July and September 6/16/96 ---7/21/96 ........... 9/21/96 --... '--.. -----30 )> "U "U m z CJ x 1\J -0 0 z -f z c m CJ ..._.. co w

PAGE 107

ZoneD 2 Q) E ....I en Q) ; .0 :' zo'he' B Zone A (Seawall1) ........ ........ .. ''-....> . --6/16/96 --7/21/96 ..... ... .. 9/21/96 ....... . ........ ........ ........ ........ 10 20 Distance From Baseline (meters) Figure 28 Site 2 profiles of Zone C south June July and September. ........ 30 )> -u -u m z 0 >< N -0 0 z -1 z c m 0 ......... CD

PAGE 108

ZoneD Vi ... Q) -Q) .s ...J (f) ::::! Q) > 0 .0 <( c: 0 ro > Q) w (Seawall 2) Zone D (north) 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 Location of Profile Zone A . . 0 10 20 Distance From Baseline ( meters) Figure 29 Site 2 profiles of Zone D north June July and September 6/16/96 --7/21/96 . . . . ... 9/21/96 --,,'-. ...._ 30 )> -u -u m z 0 >< "' -() 0 z z c m 0 .._.. CD 01

PAGE 109

Zone ZoneD (middle) (Seawall2) 5 4 (j) ..... (].) 3 (].) E :-:..........._ -_J (/) 2 (].) > 0 .c <( c 1 0 :p fO 0 > (].) [j -1 0 Location of Profile Zone A 6/16/96 --7/21/96 9/21/96 "'.c.:.:: ::::::.:.:.:c.::.:.::.:.: ::_ .::. ::: ....... . ................ ...................... . ......................... ........ ,......_ .............. 10 20 30 Distance From Baseline (meters) Figure 30 Site 2 profiles of Zone D middle, June July and September )> "U "U m z 0 >< 1\J () 0 z -i z c m 0 .._... co 0>

PAGE 110

Location of Profile ZoneD '\. : : , 8 -.. Zone A (Seawall1) Zone D (south) (Seawall2) 5 4 3 .s -I (/) 2 :E 0 .Q 1 Q) ... . '-'....... ..__ .......... iii -1 0 10 20 Distance From Baseline (meters) Figure 31. Site 2 profiles of ZoneD south, June, July and September. --6/16/96 --7/21/96 ...... ..... 9/21/96 ........ __ -.... .... 30 )> "U "U m z 0 >< I\.) () 0 z -1 z c m 0 ........ <0 .......

PAGE 111

Location of Profile Zorlle C zbneA (seawall) --6/02/96 --7/20/96 ........... 9/22/96 -........ --------........ . . . ............. -..... . ...... > "'.<"' "'.::::::::: :::::: ............................. -----------10 20 30 Distance from Baseline (meters) Figure 32 Site 3 profiles of Zone A north June July and September Zone A (north) )> "'() "'() m z 0 >< N -() 0 z -1 z c m 0 -co co

PAGE 112

Location of Profile C Zone A J I (seawall) (Zone A-middle) 5 -rJ) -6 / 02/96 .... Q) 4 -Q) E --7/20/96 ........... 9/22/96 .._... .....J 3 (f) !..:...;.-.-......... __ Q) 2 > 0 .c C'O c:: 1 0 +=" C'O > 0 Q) ---::::: : ::: ::C."' "'"' -" "' ::: :.:. :.:. :::::.:.:.:. ::: .:::"' "'". = w 0 10 20 30 -1 Distance from Baseline (meters) Figure 33 Site 3 profiles of Zone A midd le, June, July September. )> ""0 ""0 m z 0 >< N () 0 z -t z c m 0 .._... co co

PAGE 113

Zor'le C 5 4 Q) Q) E 3 ....... __. ..... . .......... en Q) 2 > 0 ..c cu c: 1 0 cu > Q) w 0 0 -1 Locat i on of Profile ..... . ZbneA Zone A (middle2) -6/02/96 --7/20/96 9/22/96 ___________ ... .. . . ----------. 10 20 30 Distance from Basel i ne (meters) Figure 34 S it e 3 profiles of Zone A middle (2), June, July and September )> -u -u m z 0 >< 1\J () 0 z -1 z c m 0 .._.. 0 0

PAGE 114

Location of Profile ZoneC ZbneA (seawall) Zone 8 (north) 5 6/02/96 en 4 ...... Q) Q) --7/20/96 .......... 9/22/96 E 3 .._.. _J (/) :2 Q) 2 > 0 .0 rn c 1 0 +=' rn > Q) ........ ::: .::::.: ::.: .. :::::.:::.: .::::.:: . .. . . . . . ... ................. ...__.._,_ -----......... . .... --------w 0 -1 I 0 10 20 30 Distance from Baseline (meters) Figure 35. Site 3 profiles of Zone B north June,July and September )> "U "U m z 0 x N -() 0 z :::! z c m 0 ........ 0

PAGE 115

Location of Profile zbneA (seawall) Zone 8 (south) 5 -, q l 6/02/96 --7/20/96 ........... 9/22/96 I I 4 j I I 3 II _j (/) Q) 2 > 0 .0 rn c 1 0 -:p rn ----------"' "' --. == ::-:. . .... . ......... .... . . . ...... ::: :::-.c-:: "''"'"' ::-:.:::.:-> Q) 0 w -1 I 0 10 20 30 Distance from Baseline (meters) Figure 36. Site 3 profiles of Zone B south June July and September )> -u -u m z 0 x N -('") 0 z -f z c m 0 -.....lo. 0 N

PAGE 116

Location of Profile z{neC (seawall) zbneA Zone C (middle) 5 --6/02/96 ......... 4 ----7/20/96 ----------9/22/96 Q) -Q) E 3 __.. ...J ---------(f) :2 Q) 2 > 0 ..0 (13 c: 1 0 :;::; (13 > Q) w 0 -....... .............. ....... __ . . . . . . . . ::::::-.::: ::::...,, "' ::: .::: "' "'."' -.,_,. "'"" ------------. ... -1 0 10 20 30 Figure 37 Site 3 profiles of Zone C middle,June July and September )> ""0 ""0 m z CJ >< 1\.) () 0 z -i z c m CJ ......... ...... 0 (....)

PAGE 117

Location of Profile Zorlle C 'f zbneA Zone 8 (south) (seawall) -5 6/02/96 4 Q) -7/20/96 ...... .... 9/22/96 Q) .s 3 _J I -------... en :!E ... Q) 2 > 0 .c 1J 1J m z 0 >< N () 0 z -i z c m 0 .......... ...... 0

PAGE 118

105 APPENDIX 3 SEA TURTLE NESTING DATA

PAGE 119

APPENDIX 3. (CONTINUED) 106 Table 12 Sea turtle nesting data from sne 1 SITE1_10 ZON WPJ.. TYP DATE DISTANC DESCRIPTION SPECIES INTERA WANDER! NOTES 1 c n nesl 52396 1 50 cc 0 2 c n nes1 52796 U8 cc 0 3 c n nest 61796 2 15 cc 0 4 b y fe 61996 0 30 boclyplts111rted cc BP. 3 0 5 c n nest 61296 0 30 14> In the cl.na cc 5 0 6 b y nes1 51996 0 .00 cc 3 0 7 c n nes1 60996 0 .64 ps1 SOUl\ of edge of wei cc 0 8 c n fe 61996 0 30 boclypltcllg cc BP 8 0 9 b y fc 62096 4.12 \rnerot.nd. no di!9ng cc NO. 0 10 c n nes1 62096 0 30 cc a 0 11 c n fe 62096 8.27 t.marOI.ndno di!9n!l cc NO 0 12 c n nes1 62096 -1 06 cc 5 0 13 c n nest 60996 0 .00 cc 0 14 c n nest 0 0 00 cc 0 15 b y nest 62096 0 30 Slllrtedln tron1 of wal (zone B) ctu1e<1 along wa1 to zone A anc1 nest CC w 2.99 0 16 n f e 62096 0 30 unarOI.nd no dig cc NO 0 17 a n fe 62096 0 30 bas e of cU>e In vegeta'on cc N0. 8 0 18 n nest 62196 0 30 base of cU>e cc 8 0 19 e n fe 62196 3 72 no difl!jr.g \mlltot.rld cc NO. 0 20 a n fc 62196 -1.50 no difl!jr.g 14> on lle cU>e cc N0. 5 0 21 a n nest 62196 0 94 base of cl.na (notllem bOI.ndary of zone A) cc 0 22 b y fc 62696 0 30 the wei, no digging cc N0. 1 0 23 b y fc 62696 10 60 no difl!jng cc NO. 0 24 a n fc 62696 6 70 3 body pits s1llrted shore nonnol direct on cc BP. 0 25 a n fe 62696 1 60 m.ICh digging, COlJd be a nest on 2nd benn south of seagape cc BP, 0 26 n nest 0 0 00 cc 0 27 c n fc 62796 -1 .10 landward of cl.na, no digging. atSOUihem bOI.ndarylne cc N0.5 0 28 a n nes1 62796 2.05 6 feet S0U11 of nont1 TBM post cc 0 29 n nest 62896 2.30 cc 0 30 a n nes1 51896 0 30 toe of IU>e, nest depe v.Nia nesl!ng cc 6 0 46 n fc 71396 4 .70 no digging; snort aa-.1 cc NO. 0 47 b y fc 71596 0 .30 no digging cc N0. 1 0 48 b y nes1 71596 -3.40 laroc1e In')" pile" nont1 ofwol ; same as nest 259 cc 2 99 0 49 n nesl 71596 1 .10 eartdl 1 1 m.,aa'Matbaseofcl.na cc 0 5 0 n nesl 71596 1 .10 at base of cl.na ; eartc:11 1.1 m cc 0 52 n fe 71596 4 60 short. no digging cc NO, 0 53 a n nes1 71596 0.30 at base of dt.ne; carved out cUie v.!lile nes1ing cc N0.6 0 54 a n nes1 71596 1 75 not on base of cl.na Ike others cc 0 55 c n nes1 71596 1 40 at base of cU>e cc 0 56 c n fe 71596 0 30 atbaseofe cc 7 0 57 e n fc 71596 0 30 wandenecU. 15 m SOUII; TBM cc w N0. 9 0 58 e n lc 71596 0 30 no digging cc N0. 8 0 59 b y fc 71696 3 30 no digging cc NO 0 60 a n fe 71696 7 70 no dgging: ps1 nont1 of wei cc N0. 1 0 61 b y fe 71696 2.20 c:ame 14> In B wandered SOUl\ to C cc w N0. 99 0 62 e n fe 71696 0 30 c:ame 14> In zone C body pitted agolnst wei wondered 6 9 mete cc w N0. 9 0 67 b y fe 72196 8 80 no dgging; In tronl of c:t05SWP sle!>S cc N0. 4 0 68 n nest 72196 1 88 cc 0 69 e n fc 72196 0 30 no dgging cc N0. 8 0 70 e n nest 72196 1 00 cc 0 71 e n fe 72196 -6 50 5 5 met ers landl
PAGE 120

APPENDIX 3. (CONTINUED) Table 13. Sea turtle nesting data from Site 2. SITE2_1 ZON WAL TYPE DATE DISTANC DESCRIPllON INTERAC WANDE NOTES ND, S NO 1 d n fc 61696 2 a n fc 61696 5 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 :ro 21 22 23 24 2 5 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 48 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 81 82 83 84 85 88 87 88 89 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 n 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 b fc 61696 d n fc 61696 a n fc 61696 d n fc 61996 a n fc 61996 a n fc 61996 a n nest 52196 a n fc 61996 a n fc 61996 a fc 61996 d n fc 61996 a n fc 62796 a n nest 62196 a fc 62196 b y fc 62196 d n nest 62296 d n nest 62296 d n nest 62596 c fc 62696 c fc 62696 c fc 62696 a nest 62796 a a b b d a d a d a a a c d d d a c d d d a c d a a a a b d a a a a d d d a a a a a a a a b b b b b b d d d d d d a a a n n y n n n n n n n n n n n y y n n n y n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y y y y n n n n n n n n nest nest fc fc nest nest nest nest nest fc nest nest fc nest fc nest nest fc fc nest nest nest nest fc nest nest nest nest fc nest nest nest nest nest nest nest nest nest nest nest nest fc nest fc nest fc fc fc nest nest fc fc fc fc fc fc nest fc fc fc nest 62796 62796 62796 62796 62796 0 0 62996 62996 63096 63096 63096 63096 63096 63096 63096 70196 70196 70196 70196 70196 70196 70296 70296 70296 70996 70996 70996 71096 71096 71096 71496 71496 71496 71496 71496 71396 71496 71596 71596 71596 71596 71596 71596 71596 71596 71596 71596 71596 71596 71596 71596 7 1596 71596 71596 71596 71596 71596 71696 71696 71696 0 .30 high up on dune ; no digging 0.00 low on beach, turned around n o digging 0.00 below high tide line ; no digg i ng turnaround 0 .30 body pit started i 0.30 just north of wall, body pit started adjacent to wall, turtle disturbed by pedes1ria i 0 .30 toe of dune; turnaround at dune, no digging 280 turnaround no digging 0 .30 turnaround at dune no digging 0 .00 0.30 toe of dune no digging 1.20 much digging two separate body pits dug 1 80 body pit dug 0 .30 turnaround no d i gging 11. 20 turnaround no digging 1.20 vegetation beat down ; caved dune in while digging 1.30 no digging, turnaround at dune 0 .30 no digging up against sand dollar wall -2.09 landward of dune depradated 6126/96 1 .06 attoe of dune 1 .30 1 .50 much digging done body pits started, between 5th and 6th brace of wall 0 .30 turned around no digging up against wall 0 15 original crawl at north edge of zone C crawled along edge of wall to zone B 0 .90 29 feet south of northern boundary 2 .00 additional body pit dug 4 .2 meters from dune 1 .10 0 .30 under 6th piling of wall ; could be a nest but dug and couldn't find 0 .30 2 body pits started, just south of previous crawl up against wall 0 .30 toe of dune 0 .30 depradatad at scarp edge -2 .40 l andward of dune ; raccoon tracks all around 1.40 -1.90 at south boundary 2.10 egg chamber dug In toe of dune 3 25 0.30 i n base of dune 0 .30 no digg i ng ; against wall 0.30 base of dune ; at south boundary 0.30 south boundary of zone D 0 .30 up in dune 1.30 0 30 no digging ; wandered 6 2 5 meters south and hit wall again 0 30 crawled up against wall, wandered 1.2 meters south along wall 3.70 just north of 1 s t crosswalk; landward of toe of dune in vegetation 4 50 end of 2nd crosswalk 0.30 south boundary of zoneD 1 .20 11. 6 ft north of midpoint TBM; crawled against dune 0.30 ctawled against wall wandered 9 15 meters to south edge of wall and nestad i -7.30 high up in dune even with crosswalk steps 0 30 in dune 0.30 on dune 3 .56 6 .09 some digging; in eroded area north of sand dollar wall whete profile was taken 1 .00 in front of 10th piling N-S ; ctawl hit wall 2 .77 direcUy in front of 1st crosswalk at transect 1 .20 turtle crawled against dune 1 .00 up against dune 0 .30 up in d u ne 0 .90 1 .95 up in dune ; vegetation sma s hed -2 14 landward of dune ; just south of 1 s t crosswalk transect 0 .30 foot of southern boundary 0 .30 1 .00 ctawl against dune 1.00 crawled up against dune 7 .30 short with no digging 1.40 carved out dune 1.00 egg chamber started 1.00 0.30 up against dune 0.30 north edge of wall ; wandered 2.5 m south along wall ; no digging 0.30 body pit started ; wandered south 1.3 m.; up against wall 0 .30 wandered 6 3 m. south along wall clutch between 5-10 post S-N 1 .00 up against wall where sand has accreted ; clutch between post 3-4 0 .30 along south edge of sand dollar wall and north edge of seaview wall 1 .00 hit wall attar south end in front of Post #1 4 .10 no digging 0 30 wandered 6.0 m north along base of dune; north of 1st crosswalk 0 .30 no digg i ng 0.30 no digg i ng 0 30 on dune line in front of south boundary (2nd crosswalk) -3.50 landward of dune base; no digging smashed vegetation 0 .30 body pit dug ; wandered 2 7 meters to the north 0 .30 0 .50 w w w w w w w w w w ND BP 8 BP,3 ND,7 NO N0. 8 ND, 8 BP BP N0. 8 NO 6 N0.8 N0. 1 5 6 BP ,3 N0. 1 ND. 2 99 BP BP, 3 BP, 3 8 8 5 EC, 6 6 ND,1 8 8 5 N0. 2 N0.2 5 7 7 2,99 5 5 5 BP ND, 1 7 7 5 5 5 7 8 7 7 NO 6 EC,7 7 ND, 2 BP.2 2 2 2 N0. 1 NO N0. 7 ND NO 7 N0. 5 BP, 6 8 107

PAGE 121

APPENDIX 3. ( CONTINU E D ) 108 Table 13. Sea turtle n esti n g data from Site 2 (co n ti n ued). ae a n nest 71696 1 00 8 7 a n fc 71696 0 .30 wandered 4 1 meter south along dune w 9 88 a n nest 71696 1 .00 a; 8 n nest 71696 1 .00 80 b y fc 71696 0.80 ctawted into Band wandered 2 .85 meters north around comer of wall and dug w EC, 2.99 91 b y fc 71696 0.30 no digg ing -wandered north 3.4 meters and back. w N 0 2 D2 b y nest 71696 200 south edge of SandDollar wall wtlere sand has bu i H up 93 d n fc 71696 3 60 94 d n nesl 71696 0 .30 8 95 a n nest 72096 1 30 ge a n fc 72096 3 70 97 d n nesl 72096 0 30 8 98 d n n est 72096 200 99 d n nest 72096 2 .00 100 c y fc 72096 0 30 8 101 c y fc 72096 8 80 102 c y fc 72096 6 .00 103 a n nest 72096 0 .30 8 'to4 a n nest 72096 0 .30 8 105 a n fc 72196 259 toe a n nest 72196 3 35 107 d n fc 72196 4.70 108 d n nest 72196 259 109 a n fc 80696 4 .70 ttO a n nest 80696 0 .30 8 ttt a n fc 80696 3 .30 tt2 a n nest 80596 7 00 113 d n fc 80596 3 .90 114 d n fc 80696 -1.70 no digging-i n veg&tation N0. 5 ItS d n nest 80796 0 .00 ......,n with bottom step of seaview crosswalk 5 118 a n fc 81796 3 .50 117 a n nest 0 0 .30 8 118 a nest 0 0 .30 8 tt9 b y nest 81796 2 .53 em nest wandered 3 5 meters north along wall w 2 120 d n fc 81796 -2 .20 5

PAGE 122

APPENDIX 3. ( CONT I NUED ) 1 09 Table 14 Sea turtle nesting data from Site 3 SITE3_10 ZONE WALL TYPE DATe DISTAN OESCRIP110N SPECIE INTERAC WANDER! NO'ICS 1 b fe 61696 0 .30 body Pit, 5 feet from TBM #1 cc BP 15. le 617116 0 .30 cc NO a. fe 617116 0 .00 no d igging turnaround cc NO 1 4 n f c 61786 0 .30 cc NO 24. n no.t 617116 0 .80 cc 7. n -61896 2 .00 cc Gb lc 61898 0 .91 8th panel from the end or wall cc NO 32 b fe 6 1898 0 .30 cc NO 33 e n nest 8 1898 7.00 cc 34e n k 61896 0 .00 in fr ont of Disne y crosswalk cc NO 35 c lc 62098 0 91 no d i gg ing cc NO 35 c lc 112186 7 .00 n o d i gg ing: turnaround, north of first crossover at park cc NO 37. fc 62196 0 76 no d i gg ing, turnaround cc NO 47 n ""' 112396 2 og cc 38 c n nest 62496 0 .30 just south of 2nd park crosswalk cc 44b ne.t 62496 2 .20 13 pane l s from north end of wall front of house with b i rd) cc 40 e ""' 62596 1 .30 cc 41 c n le 62596 1 .50 no d igging, tum around cc NO 4 2 c le 625116 0 .30 body pit dug; very c lose to Disney crosswalk cc BP 43 e nett 62596 0.60 behind north edge of Disney crosswalk cc 45 n le 62596 4 .50 no digging : turnaround cc NO 46. le 62596 0 .30 roots and vegetation u p rooted two body pits dug 79 meters CC BP 39 c neol 62596 1 .50 cc 48 b lc 62788 1 50 up to 2nd NE piling of new crosswalk over wall (2nd house) cc NO 49 b lc 62796 18 .30 no d i gging, turnaround only cc NO 50 c n nul 628!16 0 1 5 cc 51 b lc 6289e 0 .30 no d i gging ; wandered along wall 4 5 metel 70296 1.40 cc 67e n le 71396 3 .30 no digg ing cc N O 84b le 7 1396 1 .25 wandered 5 .45 meters north cc w N O 69 le 713!16 1 .80 no d igging; tu111e ran into exposed "log" in vegetation cc NO 70. le 71396 0 .30 cc NO 71 f e 713!16 0 .30 no d iggi ng ; at final profile point TaM 5 cc NO no re 7 1396 2 70 no digging ; turnaround on l y cc NO 73c fe 71496 3 60 no digging ; just sou th of park cc NO 74 b lc 71496 0 .30 no digg i ng ; hit north comer of wall cc NO 75. fe 71 496 0.30 up in dune ; some digging ; against crosswalk cc B P 76. neol 71596 1 .42 cc ne fe n186 2 .5g no digging up to b rush pile cc NO 78 e f e n1oo 0 .30 no d igg ing cc NO 8Sb nest 806!16 8 .84 cc 84o n.,l 806!16 2 .00 cc 90b rc 50796 10.36 body pit st.rted cc BP 91 b le 80796 6.40 bod y pit started cc B P 92. n l e 50796 0 .30 just north of wall; 4 body p its, 2 egg cha m bers cc BP,EC 83. le 50796 1 3. 68 no digg ing cc N O 94 fe 50796 1 .20 up against crosswal k; some body pitting (p i ctures) cc B P 97 nosl 50898 1.15 in front of park cc liSa n nest 50898 6 .25 95e nett 50996 4 .87 96 e nest 50996 0 .90

PAGE 123

APPENDIX 4. WEATHER CONDITIONS Winds were predominantly S to SSW with an average speed of 7 8 kts There were two significant storm events in this area during the study period North Atlantic hurricane Bertha passed by the study sites on 7/11/96, moving 13 mph NNW with winds at 100 mph (Figure 39) Although the eye of the storm was well offshore, the outside winds were felt at the study sites Winds at the buoy measured 25 6 kts at the time of the storm. Wave height also increased from an average of 0 .63 m up to 3 6 m on 7/09/96 Wave height did not return to normal averages unt i l 7/14/96 The second storm event that took place during this study was hurricane Fran on 9/04/96. Fran carried sustained winds of 115 mph moving NW at 12 mph (Figure 40) as it passed by the study site. Wave height at the buoy measured 4 3 meters on 9/5/96. Although a stronger storm overall, the timing of Fran was at the end of the turtle nesting season so impacts to nesting adult turtles from this storm were probably minimal. Storm-driven beach conditions were still important to emerging hatchlings, but they were not addressed in this study 110

PAGE 124

111 APPENDIX 4 (CONTINUED) Figure 39 Satellite image of Hurricane Bertha (7/11/96)

PAGE 125

APPENDIX 4 (CONTINUED ) I!Urri=nco l!'r= 9/4/96 7 : 56= '1' Hovin s NW 12111ph nnd.: llSmph USl' Dept of Marine .. I .. .,.. ....... i F i gure 40 Satell i te i mage of Hurricane Fran (9/04/96 ) 112


printinsert_linkshareget_appmore_horiz

Download Options

close
No images are available for this item.
Cite this item close

APA

Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.

MLA

Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.

CHICAGO

Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.

WIKIPEDIA

Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.