IN-WATER SEA TURTLE MONITORING AND 

RESEARCH IN FLORIDA: REVIEW AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Chris Eaton, Erin McMichael, Blair Witherington, Allen Foley, 

Robert Hardy, and Anne Meylan 

 

 

 U.S. Department of Commerce 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association 

 National Marine Fisheries Service 

 

 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-38 

 June 2008 

© J. Abernathy
i

IN-WATER SEA TURTLE MONITORING AND 

RESEARCH IN FLORIDA: REVIEW AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Chris Eaton, Erin McMichael, Blair Witherington, Allen Foley, 

Robert Hardy, and Anne Meylan 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

100 Eighth Avenue, SE 

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-38 

June 2008 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutiérrez, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (Ret.) 

Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

James W. Balsiger, Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
ii

Suggested citation: 

Eaton, C., E. McMichael, B. Witherington, A. Foley, R. Hardy, and A. Meylan. 2008. In-water sea 

turtle monitoring and research in Florida: review and recommendations. U.S. Dep. Commerce, 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-38, 233 p. 

A copy of this report may be obtained from:

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Florida Wildlife Research Institute 

100 Eighth Avenue, SE 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

or 

Office of Protected Resources 

NMFS, NOAA 

1315 East-West Highway, F/PR2 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Or online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/publications/techmemos.htm 

Technical Memoranda are used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary 

results, interim reports, or special-purpose information and have not received complete 

review, editorial control, or detailed editing, however they are expected to reflect sound 

professional work. This report was prepared under Grant No. 2003-0206-009 from the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, through a Cooperative Agreement with NOAA’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service. Views or opinions expressed in this report are those of 

the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the National Marine Fisheries Service. 
iii

Table of Contents

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

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

LIST OF ACRONYMS.......................................................................................................... vii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... ix 

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 

METHODS............................................................................................................................ 3 

RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 6 

Distribution of Projects.................................................................................................. 6 

Site Descriptions by Region......................................................................................... 12 

Northwest.................................................................................................................. 12 

Southwest.................................................................................................................. 44 

Southeast................................................................................................................... 67 

Northeast................................................................................................................. 161 

Sampling Methods...................................................................................................... 190 

Species Occurrence .................................................................................................... 194 

Information Gaps....................................................................................................... 202 

Candidates for a Composite Trend Analysis............................................................. 206 

DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... 213 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................... 217 

LITERATURE CITED........................................................................................................ 218 

APPENDIX A.................................................................................................................... 220 

APPENDIX B.................................................................................................................... 224 

APPENDIX C.................................................................................................................... 227 
iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Regional divisions of the state. .......................................................................... 5 

Figure 2 - Active in-water projects in Florida. ................................................................. 10 

Figure 3 - Inactive in-water projects in Florida. ............................................................... 11 

Figure 4 - Northwest Florida in-water projects ................................................................ 13 

Figure 5 - St. Joseph Bay study area................................................................................. 17 

Figure 6 - Epipelagic Drift Community - Northwest study area. ..................................... 21 

Figure 7 - Rudloe et al. Apalachee Bay study area........................................................... 25 

Figure 8 - Campbell et al. Apalachee Bay study area....................................................... 28 

Figure 9 - Deadman Bay study area.................................................................................. 32 

Figure 10 - Carr & Caldwell Cedar Key study area.......................................................... 35 

Figure 11 - Schmid Cedar Key study area........................................................................ 39 

Figure 12 - Crystal River Energy Complex study area..................................................... 43 

Figure 13 - Southwest Florida in-water projects............................................................... 45 

Figure 14 - Tampa Bay study area.................................................................................... 49 

Figure 15 - Tampa Bay Entrance Channel study area. ..................................................... 53 

Figure 16 - Epipelagic Drift Community - Southwest study area. ................................... 56 

Figure 17 - Charlotte Harbor study area. .......................................................................... 59 

Figure 18 - Ten Thousand Islands study area. .................................................................. 63 

Figure 19 - Big Sable Creek Complex study area............................................................. 66 

Figure 20 - Southeast Florida in-water projects................................................................ 68 

Figure 21 - Key West NWR study area. ........................................................................... 72 

Figure 22 - Florida Bay study area. .................................................................................. 76 

Figure 23 - Broward County Reefs study area.................................................................. 80 

Figure 24 - Galt Ocean Mile/Lauderdale-By-The-Sea study area.................................... 84 

Figure 25 - The Breakers Central Reef Tract study area. ................................................. 88 

Figure 26 - Lake Worth Lagoon study area...................................................................... 92 

Figure 27 - The Breakers study area................................................................................. 96 

Figure 28 - Hutchinson Island Hardbottom Surveys study area..................................... 100 

Figure 29 - St. Lucie Power Plant study area.................................................................. 105 

Figure 30 - Jenning’s Cove study area............................................................................ 109 

Figure 31 - Indian River County Hardbottom Surveys study area. ................................ 113 

Figure 32 - Northern Indian County Reefs study area.................................................... 119 

Figure 33 - Central Indian River Lagoon study area. ..................................................... 126 

Figure 34 - Central Brevard County Reefs study area.................................................... 130 

Figure 35 - Epipelagic Drift Community - Southeast study area.................................... 133 

Figure 36 - Carr et al. Port Canaveral Ship Channel study area..................................... 137 

Figure 37 - Henwood Cape Canaveral study area. ......................................................... 142 

Figure 38 - Bolten et al. Port Canaveral Ship Channel study area. ................................ 146 

Figure 39 - Standora et al. Cape Canaveral study area................................................... 151 

Figure 40 - Segars et al. Cape Canaveral study area. ..................................................... 155 

Figure 41 - Trident Submarine Basin study area. ........................................................... 160 

Figure 42 - Northeast Florida in-water projects.............................................................. 162 

Figure 43 - Cape Canaveral & Northeast Coast study area. ........................................... 166 

Figure 44 - Ehrhart Mosquito Lagoon study area........................................................... 171 

Figure 45 - Provancha Mosquito Lagoon study area...................................................... 175 
v

Figure 46 - SEAMAP-SA Northeast Coast study area. .................................................. 178 

Figure 47 - Segars et al. Northeast Coast study area. ..................................................... 182 

Figure 48 - Epipelagic Drift Community - Northeast study area.................................... 185 

Figure 49 - Fernandina Harbor study area. ..................................................................... 189 

Figure 50 - Capture and sighting methods used by each in-water project...................... 193 

Figure 51 - Species found at each active in-water project site. ...................................... 196 

Figure 52 - Species found at each inactive in-water project site. ................................... 197 

Figure 53 - Species composition in Northwest in-water projects................................... 198 

Figure 54 - Species composition in Southwest in-water projects................................... 199 

Figure 55 - Species composition in Southeast in-water projects. ................................... 200 

Figure 56 - Species composition in Northeast in-water projects. ................................... 201 

Figure 57 - Locations of geographic gaps in in-water sea turtle research in Florida...... 204 
vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Summary of all in-water sea turtle projects conducted in Florida....................... 7 

Table 2 - Number of in-water projects in each region where each marine turtle species has 

been documented ......................................................................................... 195 

Table 3 - Number of in-water projects where the various life stages of each species of sea 

turtle have been captured............................................................................. 195

Table 4 - Strandings of each marine turtle species per kilometer of coastline in the coastal 

counties of Florida from 1980-2004............................................................ 203

Table 5 - Geographic Gaps in In-Water Sea Turtle Research in Florida........................ 205 

Table 6 - Species and life stages of marine turtles captured/sighted at each candidate 

index site...................................................................................................... 207

Table 7 - Description of available trend data for each candidate index site................... 208 

Table 8 - Morphological data collected from turtle captures at each candidate 

index site...................................................................................................... 209

Table 9 - Sex-determination methods and growth rate information available from each 

candidate index site...................................................................................... 210

Table 10 - Description of genetic sampling conducted at each candidate index site ..... 211 

Table 11 - Health assessment and FP documentation at each candidate index site........ 212 

Table 12 - Aerial-survey projects targeting sea turtles. .................................................. 227 

Table 13 - Databases on sea turtle interactions with fisheries........................................ 229 

Table 14 - Trawling activities targeting sea turtles......................................................... 230 

Table 15 - Aerial-survey projects targeting other species that report sea turtles............ 231 

Table 16 - Sea turtle satellite-telemetry studies involving turtles released 

from Florida................................................................................................. 232

Table 17 - Sea turtle satellite-telemetry studies involving turtles tracked into Florida waters 

from other locations..................................................................................... 233
vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACCSTR – Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research 

AFB – U.S. Air Force Base 

Cc – Caretta caretta 

CCL – Curved Carapace Length 

Cm – Chelonia mydas

CPUE – Catch per Unit Effort 

CREC - Crystal River Energy Complex 

Dc – Dermochelys coriacea

DEP – Department of Environmental Protection 

DERM – Department of Environmental Resource Management 

DNR – Department of Natural Resources 

DOI – Department of the Interior 

DOQQ – Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle 

DOT – Department of Transportation 

DPEP – Department of Planning and Environmental Protection 

ECB – East Coast Biologists, Inc. 

Ei – Eretmochelys imbricata

FAU – Florida Atlantic University 

FGDL – Florida Geographic Data Library 

FKNMS – Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

FMRI – Florida Marine Research Institute (former name of FWRI) 

FNAI – Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

FP – Fibropapillomatosis 

FPC – Florida Power Corporation 

FWC – Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission 

FWRI – Fish & Wildlife Research Institute 

GIS – Geographic Information System 

HUNT – Haphazard Unmarked Nonlinear Transect 

IRG – Inwater Research Group, Inc. 

IRL – Indian River Lagoon 

Lk – Lepidochelys kempii 

MMS – Minerals Management Service 

NMFS – National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NP – National Park 

NWFWMD – Northwest Florida Water Management District 

NWR – National Wildlife Refuge 

OCL – Over-the-Curve Carapace Length

PIT – Passive Integrated Transponder 

RIA – Radioimmunoassay 

SAV – Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

SCDNR – South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

SEAMAP – South East Area Monitoring and Assessment Program 

SEFSC – Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

SFWMD – South Florida Water Management District 
viii

SJRWMD – St. Johns River Water Management District 

SRWMD – Suwannee River Water Management District 

SSCL – Standard Straight Carapace Length 

SST – Sea Surface Temperature 

SWFWMD – Southwest Florida Water Management District 

TAMUG – Texas A&M University at Galveston 

UCF – University of Central Florida 

UF – University of Florida 

USACE – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USAF – U.S. Air Force 

USCB – U.S. Census Bureau 

USFWS – U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

USGS – U.S. Geological Survey 

VIMS – Virginia Institute of Marine Science 
ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This work provides an overview of historical and current research and monitoring projects 

investigating the occurrence, distribution, abundance, and representation of life stages of sea 

turtles in Florida waters. This report provides a framework for a cooperative network from 

which regional-population estimates could be produced. Because sea turtles in the water are 

difficult to count, status and trends assessments have considered the in-water abundance and 

distribution of sea turtles only in a rudimentary way. In contrast, counts of sea turtle nests on 

Florida beaches have provided detailed measures of abundance and distribution for 

reproductively active females. The need for assessing populations of both immature and 

mature sea turtles in the water to complement nesting beach-based assessments has been 

widely recognized (Magnuson et al., 1990; National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 1991a, 1991b, 1992; Turtle Expert Working Group, 1998, 2000; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, 1992). 

In-water studies of sea turtles in Florida began in 1955 when Carr and Caldwell collaborated 

with turtle fishermen in Cedar Key to obtain information on sea turtles in that area. Since 

then, 41 other in-water sea turtle research projects have taken place or are taking place in 

Florida. These projects have produced valuable information concerning the biology, 

distribution, and abundance of Florida’s sea turtles, but this information is scattered and often 

difficult to access. Data from many of the current in-water projects have the potential to 

contribute to composite, population-trend assessments on a statewide level. However, such 

assessments should only be made following an understanding of variation in project methods. 

Our objectives were to summarize past and present in-water sea turtle monitoring and 

research activities throughout the state (including the results of these studies), identify gaps 

where additional in-water projects are needed, and provide recommendations on how to 

structure a statewide program to coordinate and standardize certain aspects of in-water sea 

turtle research in Florida with particular regard to producing statewide population-trend 

assessments. 

We identified 25 active and 17 inactive in-water sea turtle research projects in Florida, with 

the majority (18 active, 10 inactive) taking place on the Atlantic coast. Projects on the 

Atlantic coast were mainly conducted in inshore lagoons or nearshore hardbottom reefs, and 

those on the gulf coast were conducted mostly in shallow bays and nearshore seagrass 

meadows. We collected detailed information on each project through published literature, 

annual reports, questionnaires directed to principal investigators, and other modes of 

communication, including personal interviews. This information, including capture methods, 

sampling protocols, and numbers of captured sea turtles by species and size, was entered into 

a Microsoft Access database. A “General Findings” section for each project was compiled 

based on the collected information. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps were 

created overlaying each project’s study area on habitat layers of potential interest to 

researchers. 

Cataloging existing projects allowed us to determine the overall geographic coverage of the 

current in-water sea turtle research projects in Florida and to build a comprehensive picture 

of the species and life stages studied. This catalog also allowed us to identify gaps in the 
x

geographic coverage of studies and to determine representation of species and life stages. 

Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) and loggerheads (Caretta caretta) made up the majority of 

captures for in-water projects throughout the state. Kemp’s ridleys (Lepidochelys kempii) 

were rarely captured on the Atlantic coast but were the most common species captured along 

the gulf coast. Hawksbills (Eretmochelys imbricata) and leatherbacks (Dermochelys 

coriacea) were rarely captured by in-water researchers. Green turtles larger than juveniles 

were captured more frequently in Key West National Wildlife Refuge than in any other inwater project. Projects found immature and adult life stages of loggerheads to occur in 

similar proportions, but slightly more projects found subadults than other stages. All Kemp’s 

ridley life stages were captured by in-water researchers, with neritic-stage juveniles and 

subadults being encountered most frequently. Immature, neritic-stage juveniles and adult 

hawksbills were captured at Key West NWR and The Breakers projects. Too few data were 

available on leatherbacks from in-water studies to make generalizations about the distribution 

of their life stages throughout the state. 

In addition to in-water sea turtle research projects, we also compiled a list of available 

databases that provided information on sea turtles in Florida waters. These included 

• Aerial Surveys for Sea Turtles, 

• Sea Turtle Strandings, 

• Fishery Interactions with Sea Turtles, 

• Trawling Activities Targeting Sea Turtles, 

• Incidental Takes Associated with Renourishment and Dredging Projects, 

• Incidental Sightings in Aerial Surveys Targeting Other Species, 

• Satellite Telemetry Tracking of Sea Turtles from Florida, and 

• Satellite Telemetry Tracking of Turtles into Florida from Outside the State. 

We reviewed all 25 of the current in-water research projects to determine which would 

provide the best index of trends in the abundances of the various sea turtles species in 

Florida. Taking into consideration the likelihood of a project’s continuing into the 

foreseeable future, the ability of a project to provide data on trends in abundances and the 

need for all projects combined to adequately represent the various habitats known to be 

associated with sea turtles and the species and life stages of each species found in Florida, we 

recommended 12 of the active projects for inclusion into an index-monitoring network. 

These included 

• St. Joseph Bay, 

• Charlotte Harbor, 

• Key West NWR, 

• Florida Bay, 

• The Breakers, 

• St. Lucie Power Plant, 

• Jenning’s Cove, 

• Northern Indian River County Reefs, 

• Central Indian River Lagoon, 

• Central Brevard County Reefs, 

• Trident Submarine Basin, 

• Mosquito Lagoon. 
xii 

Our analyses also revealed 11 specific areas in Florida where no in-water studies were 

being conducted but where sea turtles were thought likely to occur based on the presence 

of habitats known to be associated with sea turtles; where sea turtles were known to occur 

based on records of dead, sick, or injured sea turtles (i.e., strandings); or where sea turtles 

were known to occur based on reported observations. These geographic gaps were 

• Northwest Bays and Nearshore 

Habitat, 

• Southern Big Bend Nearshore Habitat, 

• Ten Thousand Islands, 

• Southwest Offshore Habitat, 

• Western Everglades Inshore Habitat, 

• Keys Offshore Coral Reef Habitat, 

• Biscayne Bay, 

• Southeast Nearshore Hardbottom Habitat, 

• Northeast Offshore Habitat, 

• Northeast Inshore and Estuarine Habitat, 

• Artificial Reefs throughout Florida 

Waters.
1

INTRODUCTION

Five species of sea turtles regularly occur in Florida waters: loggerhead (Caretta caretta), 

green turtle (Chelonia mydas), Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), hawksbill 

(Eretmochelys imbricata), and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea). Loggerheads are 

listed as a “Threatened” species on the state and federal level, whereas the other four 

species are classified as “Endangered”. Actions necessary to successfully help these 

species recover must be based on an adequate understanding of the overall range of these 

animals, the spatial and temporal distributions of various life stages, and the 

spatiotemporal interactions of sea turtles and the significant threats to them. Continuous 

monitoring of the status of these sea turtle populations is also necessary to evaluate the 

efficacy of the recovery actions. 

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) monitors the status of 

adult female sea turtles and reproductive effort through nest-count and hatchlingproduction data collected by FWC-permitted projects throughout Florida. The research is 

undertaken by various organizations with the funding provided mostly from outside 

FWC. However, FWC’s permitting role allows the agency to coordinate this composite 

monitoring effort. Coordination takes place within two complementary FWC 

programs—the Statewide Nesting Beach Survey Program (SNBS) and the Index Nesting 

Beach Survey Program (INBS). The two programs have different objectives, providing 

either 1) a near-complete census at the expense of strict consistency in survey frequency 

and boundaries (SNBS) or 2) consistent temporal and spatial effort at the expense of 

complete spatial or temporal survey coverage (INBS). These survey programs have 

provided useful measures of abundance, distribution, and trends in nest counts (Meylan et 

al. 1995; Witherington et al. submitted), but they do not address the need for assessments 

elsewhere in sea turtle life histories. This need for monitoring populations of both 

immature and mature sea turtles in the water has been widely recognized (Magnuson et 

al., 1990; National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991a, 

1991b, 1992; Turtle Expert Working Group, 1998, 2000; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and National Marine Fisheries Service, 1992). There is currently no structured 

coordination or organization of any aspect of the many in-water research projects in 

Florida and no mechanism for examining the overall in-water populations of both 

immature and mature sea turtles in Florida. 

 

Initially, most information on the distribution and status of sea turtle populations in 

Florida was derived from turtle-fishery reports and from interviews with local fishermen 

and owners of seafood restaurants (Witzell, 1994a). In-water sea turtle research projects 

in Florida began in 1955, when Carr and Caldwell (1956) collaborated with turtle 

fishermen in the Cedar Key area to capture and tag sea turtles in order to assess local 

aggregations as well as to examine possible overwintering behavior. Since that time, 

many individual in-water sea turtle research projects have been conducted throughout the 

state. These projects have targeted various sea turtle species and life stages, have been 

conducted in various types of habitats, and have employed a number of different capture 

methodologies that are usually tailored to local environmental conditions. These projects 

have produced valuable information concerning the biology, distribution, and abundance 
2

of Florida’s sea turtles, but this information is scattered and often difficult to access. 

Establishing some level of coordination among these projects could allow at least some 

of these currently discrete studies to contribute to composite trend assessments of inwater sea turtle populations in Florida. This type of coordinated program could also 

create and maintain a database of summary information on all of the projects. Managers 

and other interested parties could use such a centralized database as a resource for 

information and contacts for Florida’s in-water sea turtle populations. 

The principal purpose of this study was to summarize information on all of the in-water 

sea turtle research projects that have been conducted in Florida and to evaluate the 

potential for using a subset of current projects to produce composite trend assessments. 

Although Florida is one of the best studied areas in the world, we identified several gaps 

where additional in-water sea turtle research is needed. Evidence of gaps included 

underrepresentation of species or life stages observed and geographic locations where 

potential sea turtle habitat occurs but no research is taking place. In a synthesis of this 

information on in-water research, species information, and gaps, we provide 

recommendations on how to structure a statewide program to coordinate and standardize 

in-water sea turtle research in Florida to accommodate statewide population-trend 

assessments. 
3

METHODS

We began identifying Florida’s existing in-water sea turtle research projects by 

examining the Florida Marine Turtle Permit Holder database and associated paper files, 

which are maintained by FWC. An FWC permit is required for research involving 

human interactions with sea turtles in Florida, and associated permit records include 

project descriptions, annual reports, and associated publications. We also conducted 

literature searches and consulted proceedings of past International Sea Turtle Symposia, 

as well as other gray literature, to find information on Florida in-water sea turtle research 

that did not require an FWC permit (e.g., visual sea turtle surveys). 

We created a list of data that would provide a synopsis of Florida’s in-water sea turtle 

research projects (Appendix A). We attempted to contact the principal investigator(s) of 

each project to request these data. If we were unable to contact at least one of the 

principal investigators of a project, we obtained these data from files, reports, or 

publications related to that particular study. All data were entered into a Microsoft 

Access database. 

To assess the geographic distribution of projects, we assigned each project to one of four 

regions: northwest, southwest, southeast, and northeast (Figure 1). If a project spanned 

more than one region, we assigned it to the region containing the majority of the study 

area. We determined life stages found in each study based on the size ranges for each 

species reported by principal investigators. We defined four life stages for the hardshelled species (oceanic-stage juvenile, neritic-stage juvenile, subadult, and adult) and 

two life stages for leatherbacks (immature and mature). Life stages and associated size 

ranges were defined according to available information from the literature and personal 

communication with researchers in Florida and the Caribbean (Appendix A). 

We digitized the geographic extent of each study to generate detailed site maps using 

ArcGIS version 9.1 (ESRI, 2005). Bathymetric values for each study area were derived 

from the Coastal Relief Model which is compiled and distributed by the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC). 

The data were downloaded from the NGDC website (www.ngdc.noaa.gov) in ASCII 

format and converted to raster format within ArcGIS. The data describe bathymetric 

values to the nearest 1/10 meter at a spatial resolution of three arc-seconds (Divins and 

Metzger, 2007). Bathymetric values for projects conducted specifically within channels 

of known depth (e.g., Canaveral Ship Channel) were obtained directly from NOAA 

nautical charts. If available, we obtained GIS layers that were spatially associated with 

in-water projects from FWC’s Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI); if not 

available from FWRI, these layers were acquired from other agencies. The site maps 

were sent along with initial study descriptions to principal investigators for feedback and 

approval. 

To identify the in-water sea turtle research projects that could best contribute to 

composite trend analyses in Florida, we sent a questionnaire (Appendix B) to the 

principal investigators who planned to continue sampling during 2006 (i.e., active 
4

projects). Our primary objectives were 1) to learn which studies currently or could in the 

future determine abundances (either relative or absolute) and 2) to obtain more detailed 

information regarding each project’s measure of abundance. We rated these projects on 

their duration and sampling consistency and sought to assemble a broad representation of 

habitats, regions, species and life stages. 

In addition to information on in-water research projects that target sea turtles, we 

compiled data on sea turtle strandings in Florida (provided by the Sea Turtle Stranding 

and Salvage Network), and we compiled pertinent data obtained by projects where inwater sea turtle data have been collected incidentally. We investigated aerial-survey 

studies conducted over Florida waters for records of turtle sightings. Reports on fisheries 

bycatch and databases on channel-dredging and beach-renourishment projects were also 

queried for records of sea turtles. We consulted state and county management agencies 

to identify fishery surveys, artificial-reef monitoring, and other monitoring efforts that 

may have noted sea turtle presence. Other marine researchers within FWRI and Mote 

Marine Laboratory also provided us with regular reports of sea turtle encounters during 

their research projects. We searched both the literature and the internet for records of sea 

turtles that have been tracked by satellite in Florida waters. The sea turtle data we 

gathered from each of the ancillary sources (Appendix C) were also entered into our 

Microsoft Access and geospatial databases. 

We used data gathered from the in-water sea turtle research projects and from our 

additional data sources to delineate habitats and general areas commonly inhabited by sea 

turtles in Florida. We integrated this with the geographic coverages of active in-water 

sea turtle research projects to identify geographic gaps in Florida where future in-water 

sea turtle research might prove fruitful (Figure 57). We also determined the species and 

life stages that are underrepresented in active studies. 

We sent contributing researchers a comprehensive report summarizing information on all 

the in-water projects we assessed, which was to acknowledge the participation of 

researchers and to facilitate collaboration in their studies. This summary of research 

showed how each project fit into a proposed network of in-water sea turtle research in 

Florida. The report included maps displaying each project’s study area overlaid with 

habitat layers that may be of interest to principal investigators. These maps were 

included as examples of the potential value of incorporating GIS into in-water research 

projects.
5

Figure 1 - Regional divisions of the state.
6

RESULTS

Distribution of Projects 

We identified 42 in-water sea turtle research projects that have been conducted in Florida 

(Table 1). Twenty-five of these were active as of December 2006 (Figure 2), whereas 

sampling had ended in the other 17 studies (Figure 3). Research projects began as far 

back as 1955, although few studies were conducted prior to the 1980s. Currently active 

studies lasted from 6 months to 31 years, with a median duration of 6 years. 

The majority of in-water research has been conducted in the southeastern part of the state 

from the Florida Keys north through Brevard County; the percentage of studies occurring 

in this region has varied annually from 50 - 67%. As of 2006, 14 projects were active in 

the southeast region, compared to four in the northwest, three in the southwest, and four 

in the northeast. Consequently, the habitats receiving the most study were those most 

represented in the southeastern part of the state. Benthic-habitat types consisting of sand 

(present in 43% of study areas) and seagrass (38%) were most prevalent in study areas. 

This was consistent with the prevalence of these two habitat types throughout the neritic 

waters of Florida. Worm-rock reefs (14%) and other hardbottom substrates (22%) were 

also common in project study areas and are characteristic of the southeastern part of the 

state. Other benthic habitats observed in east-coast surveys included dredged channels, 

coral, algae mats, and shell. Aside from sand and seagrass, the bottom types (in 

descending order of prevalence) present in gulf-coast study areas were mud, oyster beds, 

dredged channels, algal mats, and mangroves. 

In-water research on sea turtles in Florida tended to be focused on near-shore shallow 

habitats, where capture techniques can be more easily employed and sea turtles are more 

likely to forage. The vast majority of projects (34) were conducted exclusively in neritic 

habitats, and an additional four study areas spanned neritic and oceanic areas; only four 

projects were carried out entirely in oceanic waters. Of the 38 projects conducted in 

neritic waters, 13 study areas were in estuarine waters, 23 were in marine waters, and 2 

were in both areas. Study-area depths ranged 0 - 737 meters, but the mean study-area 

depth was less than 10 meters for 64% of projects. Thirty-one percent of projects were 

carried out in areas with a mean depth less than 2 meters. 

Detailed accounts of each in-water research project, arranged from St. Joseph Bay 

(northwest) to Fernandina Harbor (northeast), are presented below. Each project account 

contains general information, methodology, summarized results, findings, literature 

produced, and a geographic representation of the study area. Maps describing regional 

distributions of these projects precede each group of site accounts. 

 
7

Table 1 - Summary of all in-water sea turtle projects conducted in Florida (listed west to east). 

Site PI Region County Status Start 

St. Joseph Bay R. Carthy and E. McMichael Northwest Gulf active May Epipelagic Drift Community – Northwest B. Witherington Northwest Outside county boundaries active AugusApalachee Bay J. Rudloe et al. Northwest Franklin, Wakulla active June Apalachee Bay C. Campbell et al. Northwest Wakulla inactive AugusDeadman Bay J. Barichivich Northwest Taylor, Dixie inactive April Cedar Key A. Carr and D. Caldwell Northwest Levy, Citrus inactive April Cedar Key J. Schmid Northwest Levy inactive June Crystal River Energy Complex D. Bruzek Northwest Citrus active 19Tampa Bay A. Meylan et al. Southwest Hillsborough, Pinellas, Manatee inactive Oct

19

Tampa Bay Entrance Channel D. Nelson Southwest Pinellas, Manatee inactive Febr

19

Epipelagic Drift Community – Southwest B. Witherington Southwest Outside county boundaries active AugusCharlotte Harbor T. Tucker et al. Southwest Charlotte, Lee active March Ten Thousand Islands W. Witzell and J. Schmid Southwest Collier inactive June Big Sable Creek Complex K. Hart Southwest Monroe active Nove

20
8

Table 1 Cont’d 

Site PI Region County Status Start 

Key West National Wildlife Refuge M. Bresette et al. Southeast Monroe active May Florida Bay B. Schroeder et al. Southeast Monroe active 19Broward County Reefs C. Makowski Southeast Broward active May Galt Ocean Mile/ Lauderdaleby-the-Sea R. Wershoven and J. Wershoven Southeast Broward, Palm Beach, Martin inactive March The Breakers Central Reef Tract 

M. Salmon and C. 

Makowski Southeast Palm Beach inactive July 

Lake Worth Lagoon M. Bresette et al. Southeast Palm Beach active March The Breakers L. Wood Southeast Palm Beach active April Hutchinson Island Hardbottom Surveys M. Bresette et al. Southeast St. Lucie, Martin inactive June St. Lucie Power Plant M. Bresette et al. Southeast St. Lucie active 19Jenning’s Cove M. Bresette et al. Southeast St. Lucie active Septe

19

Indian River County Hardbottom Surveys M. Bresette et al. Southeast Indian River active June Northern Indian River County Reefs L. Ehrhart Southeast Indian River active 19Central Indian River Lagoon L. Ehrhart Southeast Indian River, Brevard active May Central Brevard County Reefs K. Holloway-Adkins Southeast Brevard active 20
9

Table 1 Cont’d 

Site PI Region County Status Start 

Epipelagic Drift Community – Southeast B. Witherington Southeast Outside county boundaries active AugusPort Canaveral Ship Channel A. Carr et al. Southeast Brevard inactive Febr

19

Cape Canaveral T. Henwood Southeast Brevard inactive JanuarPort Canaveral Ship Channel A. Bolten et al. Southeast Brevard inactive March Cape Canaveral E. Standora et al. Southeast Brevard inactive March Cape Canaveral A. Segars et al. Southeast Brevard active April Trident Submarine Basin L. Ehrhart Southeast Brevard active 19Cape Canaveral & Northeast Coast J. Schmid Northeast Brevard, Volusia, Flagler, St. Johns, Duval, Nassau inactive May Mosquito Lagoon L. Ehrhart Northeast Brevard, Volusia inactive July Mosquito Lagoon J. Provancha Northeast Brevard, Volusia active 19Northeast Coast A. Segars et al. Northeast St. Johns, Duval, Nassau inactive July Northeast Coast E. Wenner et al. Northeast Volusia, Flagler, St. Johns, Duval, Nassau active April Epipelagic Drift Community – Northeast B. Witherington Northeast Outside county boundaries active Septe

20

Fernandina Harbor D. Dickerson et al. Northeast Nassau inactive Oct

19
10

Figure 2 - Active in-water projects in Florida. 
11

Figure 3 - Inactive in-water projects in Florida.
12

Site Descriptions by Region

Northwest

In the Northwest region of Florida (Escambia through Pasco County), there have been a 

total of eight studies, four of which are still active (Figure 4). 

St. Joseph Bay – Carthy & McMichael (2001-active) 

Epipelagic Drift Community – Northwest – Witherington (2005-active) 

Apalachee Bay – Rudloe et al. (1984-active) 

Apalachee Bay – Campbell et al. (1995-1997) 

Deadman Bay – Barichivich (1996-1999) 

Cedar Key – Carr & Caldwell (1955) 

Cedar Key – Schmid (1985-1996) 

Crystal River Energy Complex – Bruzek (1999-active) 
13

Figure 4 - Northwest Florida in-water projects. Inactive projects described with shaded callout 
14

Site Name: St. Joseph Bay

General Information

Site Name: St. Joseph Bay

Site Reference Number: 1

Region: Northwest County: Gulf

Approximate Latitude: 29.76° N Approximate Longitude: 85.35° W

Principal Investigator (s): Raymond R. Carthy, Erin McMichael, Russell Scarpino

Contact Address: P.O. Box 110485, Gainesville, FL 32611

Contact Email: rayc@zoo.ufl.edu

Organizations Involved: Florida Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, University of 

Florida, USGS

Organization Type: university, federal agency

Project Status: active

Active Years: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005

Start Date: May 2001

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, tracking

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: set-netting, strike-netting

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: 150 m

Mesh Size: 8 inch Net Depth: 2 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistically

Sampling Locations:focus in southern portion near seagrass beds

Sampling-Area Description: lagoon

Bottom Type: seagrass, sand

Water Type: estuarine

Mean Depth (m): 5.0

Depth Range (m): 0.0 -11.1

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 2002, 2003, 2004

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km net hr

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk
15

Site Name: St. Joseph Bay

Capture Information Data current through 2004

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 220 n/a 26.2 67.4 40.2 N

Loggerhead 11 n/a 31.7 96.7 57.0 N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 44 n/a 29.5 49.5 37.1 N, S

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag, sonic tag, radio tag, satellite tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: yes

Growth-Rate Determination: yes Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Recapture data suggest that the juvenile green turtle population in St. Joseph Bay is 

composed, at least in part, of resident turtles. It appears that turtles enter St. Joseph Bay 

at just under 30 cm SCL, and the majority of turtles remain in this habitat until they reach 

just over 60 cm SCL. The estimated mean time of residency within St. Joseph Bay is 7 

years (± 1.5 years). Carr suggested that juvenile turtles undergo developmental 

migration, or ontogenic shifts in habitat preference. As juveniles get larger, they move to 

different habitats and use resources present within these areas. These life-stage-based 

changes in resource needs and use may very well be affecting the size classes of juvenile 

green turtles found in St. Joseph Bay. Although no turtles were net-captured at water 

temperatures below 20o C, repeated cold-stunning events have resulted in mass strandings 

of juvenile green turtles in this area. It is likely that these turtles did not partake in 

seasonal movements over the winter but instead remained in the area. Comparison of 

body condition indices of stunned and unstunned turtles indicates that cold-stunned 

turtles had significantly poorer body condition (less mass per cm of SCL). Turtles may 

be foraging less in the winter, conserving energy, and perhaps surviving using the fat 

stores they have accumulated during the warmer foraging months. There was a 

noticeable, yet not statistically significant, negative correlation between growth rate and 
16

the number of cold-stunning episodes a turtle experienced. Several turtles from St. 

Joseph Bay were found to return to specific sites following displacement, suggesting site 

fidelity. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

McMichael, E., R.R. Carthy, and J.A. Seminoff. 2003. Evidence of homing behavior and 

site fidelity in juvenile green sea turtles of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. In: 

Seminoff, J.A. (comp.). Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on 

Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-503, pp. 223-224. 

McMichael, E., R.R. Carthy, and J.A. Seminoff. 2006. Ecology of juvenile sea turtles in 

the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. In: Pilcher, N.J. (comp.). Proceedings of the 

Twenty-Third Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-536, pp. 20-21. 

McMichael, E., A. Turner, R.R. Carthy, and T.M. Summers. 2006. Summary of 2002 

cold stun turtles in St. Joseph Bay, Florida. In: Pilcher, N.J. (comp.). Proceedings of 

the Twenty-Third Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-536, pp. 184-186. 
17

Figure 5 - St. Joseph Bay study area.
18

Site Name: Epipelagic Drift Community - Northwest

General Information

Site Name: Epipelagic Drift Community - Northwest

Site Reference Number: 2

Region: Northwest County: Outside county boundaries

Approximate Latitude: 29.12° N Approximate Longitude: 85.05° W

Principal Investigator (s): Blair Witherington

Contact Address: 9700 South A1A, Melbourne Beach, FL 32951

Contact Email: witherington@cfl.rr.com

Organizations Involved: FWC/FWRI

Organization Type: state agency

Project Status: active

Active Years: 2005, 2006

Start Date: August 2005

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, visual surveys

Visual-Survey Method: boat-based transects through linear drift habitat

Capture Method: dip-netting from surface

Net Type: dip net Net Length: n/a

Mesh Size: 0.25-1.5 in. Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistic

Sampling Locations: various locations within study area

Sampling-Area Description: pelagic downwelling zones, drift lines, Sargassum patches

Bottom Type: n/a

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 37.9

Depth Range (m): 14.6-62.1

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 2005

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km2 transect

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk, Ei
19

Site Name: Epipelagic Drift Community - Northwest

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 6 7 19.4 22.7 20.6 O

Loggerhead 0 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Kemp’s Ridley 4 4 24.9 25.4 25.1 O, N

Hawksbill 2 0 19.4 23.7 21.8 O

Leatherback 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: n/a

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: no

 General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

This study site lies 20-60 km south of Apalachicola and is part of a larger four-region 

study of sea turtles in epipelagic drift communities in Florida. Posthatchling turtles 

inhabit surface drift-lines located in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and near the western Gulf 

Stream front off Florida. They are observed and captured during linear transects through 

oceanic fronts, slicks, windrows, Sargassum patches, and other drift material. Transects 

take place seasonally, principally July to October, during periods of calm sea state 

(Beaufort force 0-3). Capture rates (turtles per time, distance, or area) of posthatchling 

turtles are highest for transects in Atlantic shelf waters near the Gulf Stream. Capture 

rates of small juveniles are highest for transects in the Gulf of Mexico 40-70 NM from 

Florida. All Kemp’s ridleys captured so far have been from the Gulf of Mexico. 

Behavioral measurements and diet analysis suggest that loggerhead posthatchlings are 

float-and-wait foragers of mainly animal material, with a diet that includes mostly 

neuston from the Sargassum community, pleuston, jellies, and drift carrion. 
20

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Witherington, B. 1994a. Some "lost-year" turtles found. In: Schroeder, B.A., and B.E. 

Witherington (comps.). Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea 

Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC341, pp. 194-196. 

Witherington, B. 1994b. Flotsam, jetsam, post-hatchling loggerheads, and the advecting 

surface smorgasbord. In: Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar 

(comps.). Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology 

and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351, pp. 166-168. 

Witherington, B. 2000. Habitats and bad habits of young loggerhead turtles in the open 

ocean. In: Abreu-Grobois, F.A., R. Briseno Duenas, R. Marquez, and L. Sarti 

(comps.). Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Symposium on Sea Turtle 

Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFWC-436, pp. 

34-35. 

Witherington, B.E. 2002. Ecology of neonate loggerhead turtles inhabiting lines of 

downwelling near a Gulf Stream front. Marine Biology 140:843-853. 

Witherington, B., and S. Hirama. 2006. Little loggerheads packed with pelagic plastic. In: 

Pilcher, N.J. (comp.). Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Symposium on Sea 

Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC536, pp 137-138. 

Witherington, B., and S. Hirama. 2006. Sea turtles of the epi-pelagic Sargassum drift 

community. In: Frick, M., A. Panagopoulou, A. Rees, and K. Williams (comps.). 

Book of abstracts. Twenty-Sixth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Athens, Greece, pp. 209.
21

Figure 6 - Epipelagic Drift Community - Northwest study area.
22

Site Name: Apalachee Bay (Rudloe et al.)

General Information

Site Name: Apalachee Bay (Rudloe et al.)

Site Reference Number: 3

Region: Northwest County: Franklin, Wakulla

Approximate Latitude: 29.73° N Approximate Longitude: 84.70° W

Principal Investigator (s): Jack Rudloe, Anne Rudloe, Larry Ogren

Contact Address: P.O. Box 237, 222 Clark Dr., Panacea, FL 32346

Contact Email: gspecimen@sprintmail.com

Organizations Involved: Gulf Specimens Laboratory, NMFS

Organization Type: nonprofit, federal agency

Project Status: active

Active Years: 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Start Date: June 1984

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, incidental capture

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: trawl, incidental (hook & line, gill net, seine fishing, trawling)

Net Type: trawl net, seine net, gill net Net Length: variable

Mesh Size: variable Net Depth: variable

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistic

Sampling Locations:trawling focused on Levy & Dickerson Bays, incidental captures at various 

locations

Sampling-Area Description: bay

Bottom Type: seagrass, sand, mud

Water Type: estuarine

Mean Depth (m): 6.7

Depth Range (m): 0.0-20.5

Effort-Data Availability: yes (for trawling)

Years for which CPUE Calculated: n/a

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/trawl hr

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk, Ei
23

Site Name: Apalachee Bay (Rudloe et al.)

Capture Information Data current through 2004

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 4 n/a 26.9 98.0 n/r N, S, A

Loggerhead 7 n/a n/r n/r n/r n/r

Kemp’s Ridley 195 n/a 20.3 57.9 36.7 O, N, S

Hawksbill 1 n/a n/r n/a n/a n/r

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes
24

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Fishermen in the area bring in turtles that have been taken incidentally during shrimptrawling, gill-netting, and seine-fishing for other species. Information is obtained 

regarding locality, depth, bottom type, and gear use at the time of capture. Turtles are 

released into nearby Dickerson Bay after processing and within a period of no longer than 

seven days in rehabilitation. Turtles have been collected from 17 locations over a 60-

mile stretch of coast. Those caught during the winter are significantly larger than those 

taken during the summer months. The peak number of individuals is collected in 

December and May, which coincide with the peaks in local shrimping efforts. 

Researchers conducted monthly trawl-sampling for turtles from June 1990 through May 

1991 for 12 hours per month with a 40-ft trawl at Alligator Point, Franklin County, FL. 

Eight sites were sampled; one site in Levy Bay and one in Dickerson Bay became 

primary net-sampling locations. Thirty-two Kemp’s ridleys and one green turtle were 

captured during the course of the study. The researchers also recaptured five headstarted 

Kemp’s ridleys from Texas, enabling them to determine site fidelity, rates of travel 

between recapture locations, and growth rates for these turtles. 

The number of captures does not necessarily reflect relative species abundances because 

researchers did not request that fishermen bring in representative proportions of each 

species. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Rudloe, A., and J. Rudloe. 1992. Characterization of an inshore population of Kemp's 

ridley sea turtle in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. In: Richardson J.I., and T.H. 

Richardson (comps.). Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle 

Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-361, 

pp. 103-107. 

Rudloe, A., J. Rudloe, and L.H. Ogren. 1991. Occurrence of immature Kemp's ridley 

turtles, Lepidochelys kempi, in coastal waters of northwest Florida. Northeast Gulf 

Science 1:49-53. 
25

Figure 7 – Rudloe et al. Apalachee Bay study area.
26

Site Name: Apalachee Bay (Campbell et al.)

General Information

Site Name: Apalachee Bay (Campbell et al.)

Site Reference Number: 4

Region: Northwest County: Wakulla

Approximate Latitude: 30.04° N Approximate Longitude: 84.29° W

Principal Investigator (s): Cathi Campbell, Kenneth Sulak, William J. Barichivich

Contact Address: P.O. Box 488, Gainesville, FL 32602

Contact Email: ccampbell@wcs.org

Organizations Involved: USGS, NMFS, University of Florida

Organization Type: federal agencies, university

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 1995, 1996, 1997

Start Date: August 1995

End Date: July 1997

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: set-netting, strike-netting 

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: unknown

Mesh Size: unknown Net Depth: unknown

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistic

Sampling Locations: variable within study area 

Sampling-Area Description: bay

Bottom Type: seagrass, sand, oyster, beds, mud

Water Type: estuarine

Mean Depth (m): 0.9

Depth Range (m): 0.0-6.0

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: n/a

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km net hr (set net)

Species Found: Cm, Lk
27

Site Name: Apalachee Bay (Campbell et al.)

Capture Information Data current through 1997

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 1 n/a 37.3 98.0 37.3 N

Loggerhead 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Kemp’s Ridley 5 n/a 28.6 38.4 34.0 N

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: no

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Researchers deployed set nets across narrow channels or over shallow seagrass beds. 

Four of the Kemp’s ridleys captured were headstarted turtles, and capture data indicate 

that this area functions as important development habitat for juvenile Kemp’s ridleys. 

Strike-netting proved to be the most effective method for capturing Kemp’s ridleys. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Barichivich, W.J., K.J. Sulak, and R.R. Carthy. 1997. Characterization of Kemp's Ridley 

sea turtles in the Florida Big Bend area during 1997. Annual report submitted to 

NMFS and FDEP, 11 pp. 

Campbell, C.L. 1996. Capture of juvenile Kemp’s ridleys in the nearshore waters of 

Apalachee Bay, Florida. In: Byles, R., and Y. Fernandez (comps.). Proceedings of the 

Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412, pp. 28-30. 
28

Figure 8 – Campbell et al. Apalachee Bay study area.
29

Site Name: Deadman Bay

General Information

Site Name: Deadman Bay

Site Reference Number: 5

Region: Northwest County: Taylor, Dixie

Approximate Latitude: 29.75° N Approximate Longitude: 83.68° W

Principal Investigator (s): William J. Barichivich

Contact Address: 7920 NW 71st St., Gainesville, FL 32653

Contact Email: jamie_barichivich@usgs.gov

Organizations Involved: USGS, University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Fish & Wildlife 

Research Unit, NMFS

Organization Type: federal agencies, university

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999

Start Date: April 1996

End Date: June 1999

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: set-netting, strike-netting, hand-capture from boat

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: 100 m

Mesh Size: 8 cm Net Depth: 2.5 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: monthly

Sampling Locations:focus on "The Bars" just north of Steinhatchee River Channel

Sampling-Area Description: bay

Bottom Type: seagrass

Water Type: estuarine

Mean Depth (m): 0.7

Depth Range (m): 0.0-5.9

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: n/a

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km net hr (set net)

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk
30

Site Name: Deadman Bay

Capture Information Data current through 1999

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 28 n/a 27.9 70.7 42.0 N, S

Loggerhead 11 n/a 23.7 66.9 49.6 O, N

Kemp’s Ridley 139 n/a 22.2 51.8 34.9 O, N, S

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag

Species Exhibiting FP: Cm

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: yes Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

The shallow seagrass flats and associated channels of the Florida Big Bend support at 

least three species of marine turtles, principally Kemp’s ridley turtles. Growth rates 

gathered from Deadman Bay supported a polyphasic growth model by showing a slower 

growth in the 20 to 29 cm size class than in larger size classes. This is one of the few 

studies that have documented postpelagic sizes of both Kemp’s ridleys and loggerhead 

turtles. Kemp’s ridley turtles at this site were smaller than those found near Cedar Key 

by Schmid (2000; see below). Testosterone radioimmunoassays revealed a female-biased 

sex ratio in ridleys of 3.7:1. Fecal samples from Kemp’s ridleys showed that the diet of 

the turtles consisted mainly of crabs and that prey diversity was low. Researchers found 

netting over seagrass beds and channels to be the most effective method of capturing 

Kemp’s ridleys. An area known as ‘The Bars,’ just north of the Steinhatchee River 

Channel, proved to be very productive for netting efforts. Strike-netting was limited to 

use in areas of good-water quality and was effective when set-netting could not be 

conducted due to unfavorable conditions, such as strong tides or high boat traffic. The 

low number of green and loggerhead captures was not so much a reflection of their 

abundance as a consequence of sampling microhabitats that would maximize Kemp’s 

ridley captures. 
31

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Barichivich, W.J., K.J. Sulak, and R.R. Carthy. 1998. Feeding ecology and habitat 

affinities of Kemp's Ridley sea turtles in the Big Bend, Florida. Annual report 

submitted to NMFS and FDEP, 18pp. 

Barichivich, W.J., K.J. Sulak, and R.R. Carthy. 1999. Feeding ecology and habitat 

affinities of Kemp's Ridley sea turtles in the Big Bend, Florida. Annual report 

submitted to NMFS and FDEP, 18pp. 

Geis, A.A., W.J. Barichivich, T. Wibbels, M. Coyne, A.M. Landry Jr., and D. Owens. 

2005. Predicted sex ratio of juvenile Kemp’s ridley sea turtles captured near 

Steinhatchee, Florida. Copeia 2005:393-398. 

Schmid, J.R. 2000. Characterizing the developmental habitats and habitat utilization by 

Kemp’s ridley turtles using GIS. In: Kalb, H.I., and T. Wibbels (comps.). Proceedings 

of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443, pp. 185.

Schmid, J.R., and W.J. Barichivich. 2004. Developmental biology and ecology of Kemp's 

ridley turtles, Lepidochelys kempii, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Chelonian 

Conservation and Biology 4(4):826-832. 

Schmid, J.R., and W.J. Barichivich. In press. The Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii). 

In: Meylan, P.A. (ed.). The Biology and Conservation of Florida Turtles. Chelonian 

Research Monographs 3. 
32

Figure 9 - Deadman Bay study area.
33

Site Name: Cedar Key (Carr and Caldwell)

General Information

Site Name: Cedar Key (Carr and Caldwell)

Site Reference Number: 6

Region: Northwest County: Levy, Citrus

Approximate Latitude: 29.00° N Approximate Longitude: 82.92° W

Principal Investigator (s): Archie Carr, David Caldwell

Contact Address: n/a

Contact Email: n/a

Organizations Involved: University of Florida, American Museum of Natural History, Florida 

State Museum

Organization Type: university, museum

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 1955

Start Date: April 1955

End Date: November 1955

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: turtle fishery

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: 91.4-189.2 m

Mesh Size: 8-12 inch bar Net Depth: 2.4-3.1 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistic

Sampling Locations: various locations within study area

Sampling-Area Description: bay

Bottom Type: channels in seagrass flats

Water Type: estuarine

Mean Depth (m): 2.7

Depth Range (m): 0.0-10.7

Effort-Data Availability: no

Years for which CPUE Calculated: n/a

Method of Calculating CPUE: n/a

Species Found: Cm, Lk
34

Site Name: Cedar Key (Carr and Caldwell)

Capture Information Data current through 1955

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 43 n/a 41.3 57.8 59.8 N

Loggerhead 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Kemp’s Ridley 25 n/a 38.1 63.5 52.4 N, S, A

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: flipper (oval), cow ear monel

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Data in this study came from commercial turtle catches in the Cedar Key area. Green 

turtle and Kemp’s ridley commercial catch decreased in the fall and resumed in late 

spring. The larger-sized turtles of both species were caught early in the season, whereas 

turtles were smaller late in the season. Local fishermen observed mud-covered turtles in 

the spring and “bunching” (temporary increases in catch) at the beginning and end of the 

season, providing some evidence of possible overwintering behavior. Fishermen also 

found small green turtles in the area, particularly near rivers, but they were not taken 

commercially.

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Carr A., and D.K. Caldwell. 1956. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles. 1, Results 

of field work in Florida, 1955. American Museum Novitates 1793:31-24. 
35

Figure 10 - Carr & Caldwell Cedar Key study area.
36

Site Name: Cedar Key (Schmid)

General Information

Site Name: Cedar Key (Schmid)

Site Reference Number: 7

Region: Northwest County: Levy

Approximate Latitude: 29.12° N Approximate Longitude: 82.92° W

Principal Investigator (s): Jeffrey Schmid, Larry Ogren

Contact Address: 1450 Merrihue Dr., Naples, FL 34102

Contact Email: jeffs@conservancy.org

Organizations Involved: University of Florida, NMFS

Organization Type: federal agency, university

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996

Start Date: June 1985

End Date: 1996

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, tracking

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: set-netting, strike-netting

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: 65 m

Mesh Size: 51-61 cm stretch Net Depth: 20 meshes

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: seasonally, as needed

Sampling Locations: various locations within study area

Sampling-Area Description: bay

Bottom Type: oyster bars, seagrass, sand flats

Water Type: estuarine

Mean Depth (m): 0.5

Depth Range (m): 0.0-1.2

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km net hr (set net)

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk
37

Site Name: Cedar Key (Schmid)

Capture Information Data current through 1996

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 10 n/a 42.9 70.9 63.5 N, S

Loggerhead 20 n/a 50.0 86.4 66.1 N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 269 n/a 26.8 58.6 44.5 N, S

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Rototag, Inconel tag, PIT tag, radio tag, sonic tag, post-marginal holes

Species Exhibiting FP: Cm

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: yes

Growth-Rate Determination: yes Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead turtles were captured during April through November, and 

green turtles were captured during June to September. The main capture site, Corrigan 

Reef, is a series of oyster reefs and sand bars on rocky bottom where loggerheads and 

Kemp’s ridleys were found. Recapture data indicated that this area may have long-term 

Kemp’s ridley residents. Green turtles (mid- to late-subadults) were found on the 

seagrass shoals in the eastern portion of Waccassassa Bay. Examination of Kemp’s 

ridley surfacing behavior revealed that the turtles were submerged longer at night. 

Home-range sizes were also determined for Kemp’s ridleys: their movements were 

oriented with the direction of prevailing tide but also showed extended periods of time 

with no directed movement. This is believed to be stationary maintenance, or rather an 

optimization of swimming energetics and foraging during these periods. The rate of 

movement was not correlated with size of the turtle, and reduced nocturnal activity was 

observed in some turtles. Although Kemp’s ridleys used seagrass beds, they mostly used 

live bottom on rock outcroppings (nearshore hardbottom communities) and showed 

fidelity to these sites. The research further suggested that smaller Kemp’s ridley turtles 

use seagrass and larger ones use hardbottom substrate types. 
38

Blood-hormone assays performed over the course of the study showed that capture 

induces hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal and hyperglycemic stress responses in Kemp’s 

ridleys. 

Literature / Reports Produced: 

Gregory, L.F., and J.R. Schmid. 1998. Stress, sex, and steroids in Kemp's ridley turtles 

(Lepidochelys kempii). In: Epperly, S. P., and J. Braun. (comps.). Proceedings of the 

Seventeenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-415, pp. 65-66. 

Gregory, L. F., and J.R. Schmid. 2001. Stress responses and sex ratio of wild Kemp’s 

ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempi) in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. General and 

Comparative Endocrinology 124:66-74. 

Schmid, J.R. 1998. Marine turtle populations on the west-central coast of Florida: results 

of tagging studies at the Cedar Keys, FL, 1986-1995. Fishery Bulletin 96:589-602. 

Schmid, J.R. 2000. Activity Patterns and Habitat Associations of Kemp's Ridley Turtles, 

Lepidochelys kempi, in the Coast Waters of the Cedar Keys, Florida. Doctoral 

dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 184 pp. 

Schmid, J.R., and L.H. Ogren. 1990. Results of a tagging study at Cedar Key, FL, with 

comments on Kemp's ridley distribution in the southeastern U.S. In: Richardson, 

T.H., J.I. Richardson, and M. Donnelly (comps.). Proceedings of the Tenth Annual 

Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SEFC-278, pp. 129. 

Schmid, J.R., and W.N. Witzell. 1997. Age and growth of wild Kemp's ridley turtles 

(Lepidochelys kempi): Cumulative results of tagging studies in Florida. Chelonian 

Conservation and Biology 2(4):532-537. 

Schmid, J.R., A.B. Bolten, K.A. Bjorndal, and W.J. Lindberg. 2002. Activity patterns of 

Kemp's ridley turtles, Lepidochelys kempii, in the coastal waters of the Cedar Keys, 

Florida. Marine Biology 140:215-228. 

Schmid, J.R., A.B. Bolten, K.A. Bjorndal, W.J. Lindberg, H.F. Percival, and P.D. Zwick. 

2003. Home range and habitat use by Kemp's ridley turtles in west-central Florida. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 67:196-206. 
39

Figure 11 - Schmid Cedar Key study area.
40

Site Name: Crystal River Energy Complex

General Information

Site Name: Crystal River Energy Complex

Site Reference Number: 8

Region: Northwest County: Citrus

Approximate Latitude: 28.95° N Approximate Longitude: 82.75° W

Principal Investigator (s): Dave Bruzek

Contact Address: P.O. Box 14042 - CX1B, St. Petersburg, FL 33733

Contact Email: david.bruzek@pgnmail.com

Organizations Involved: Progress Energy Florida

Organization Type: investor-owned electric-utility power plant

Project Status: active

Active Years: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Start Date: 1999

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: incidental in intake canal

Net Type: n/a Net Length: n/a

Mesh Size: n/a Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: consistent

Sampling Locations: consistent

Sampling-Area Description: bay

Bottom Type: sand, mud, channel

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 6.0 (from nautical charts)

Depth Range (m): 0.0-6.0 (from nautical charts)

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: n/a

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/yr

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk, Ei
41

Site Name: Crystal River Energy Complex

Capture Information Data current through 2004

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 38 n/a 24 50 n/r O, N

Loggerhead 8 n/a 40 90 n/r N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 92 n/a 23.2 60.0 n/r O, N, S, A

Hawksbill 1 n/a n/r n/a n/a n/r

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag

Species Exhibiting FP: Cm

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: no
42

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

The Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC) contains five separate power plants that 

began commercial operations in October 1966, November 1969, March 1977, December 

1982, and December 1984, respectively. The Gulf of Mexico provides cooling and 

receiving waters for various units through an intake canal, which is a 14-mile-long 

dredged canal with an average minimum depth of 20 feet. It extends 3 miles westward 

into the Gulf from the plant, and then continues another 11 miles out into the gulf (Figure 

13). Sea turtle protection measures were implemented in 1998, when Florida Power 

Corporation (FPC) observed a significant increase in the number of Kemp’s ridleys 

stranded on the intake bar racks of the power plants. Data on the number and sizes of 

turtles stranded on the racks have been collected ever since that time. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Florida Power Corporation. 1999. Crystal River Energy Complex intake screens 

monitoring sea turtle program – 1999. Annual report submitted to FWC. 

Florida Power Corporation. 2000. Crystal River Energy Complex intake screens 

monitoring sea turtle program – 2000. Annual report submitted to FWC, 8 pp. 

Florida Power Corporation. 2001. Crystal River Energy Complex intake screens 

monitoring sea turtle program – 2001. Annual report submitted to FWC, 12 pp. 

Florida Power Corporation. 2002. Crystal River Energy Complex sea turtle program 

summary. Annual report submitted to FWC, 4 pp. 

Florida Power Corporation. 2003. Crystal River Energy Complex intake screens 

monitoring sea turtle program 2003. Annual report submitted to FWC, 8 pp. 

Progress Energy Florida. 2004. Crystal River Energy Complex intake screens monitoring 

sea turtle program 2004. Annual report submitted to FWC, 9 pp. 

Progress Energy Florida. 2005. Crystal River Energy Complex sea turtle rescue and 

recovery summary 2005. Annual report submitted to FWC, 1 pp. 
43

Figure 12 - Crystal River Energy Complex study area.
44

Southwest

In the Southwest region (Pinellas through the mainland portion of Monroe County) six 

studies have been conducted, three of which are still in progress (Figure 13). 

Tampa Bay – Meylan et al. (1993-1998) 

Tampa Bay Entrance Channel – Nelson (1997-1998) 

Epipelagic Drift Community – Southwest – Witherington (2005-active) 

Charlotte Harbor – Tucker et al. (2003-active) 

Ten Thousand Islands – Witzell & Schmid (1997-2004) 

Big Sable Creek Complex – Hart (2006-active) 
45

Figure 13 - Southwest Florida in-water projects. Inactive projects are indicated by 

shaded callout boxes. 
46

Site Name: Tampa Bay

General Information

Site Name: Tampa Bay

Site Reference Number: 9

Region: Southwest County: Hillsborough, Pinellas, Manatee

Approximate Latitude: 27.73° N Approximate Longitude: 82.65° W

Principal Investigator (s): Anne Meylan, Allen Foley

Contact Address: 100 8th Ave. SE, St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Contact Email: anne.meylan@MyFWC.com

Organizations Involved: FWC/FWRI

Organization Type: state agency

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998

Start Date: 1993

End Date: 1998

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, visual sightings

Visual-Survey Method: random sightings from boat

Capture Method: trawling, set-netting

Net Type: trawl net, tangle net Net Length: 55-114 m set nets, 2 trawl nets @ 7.6 m ea

Mesh Size: 8-12 inch bar Net Depth: 3 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistic

Sampling Locations: netting & trawling at various locations throughout bay 

Sampling-Area Description: bay and adjacent marine waters

Bottom Type: seagrass, sand, mud

Water Type: estuarine, marine

Mean Depth (m): 3.7

Depth Range (m): 0.0-15.7

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: n/a

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km net hr (set net); turtles/trawl hr (trawling)

Species Found: Cc, Lk
47

Site Name: Tampa Bay

Capture Information Data current through 1998

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Loggerhead 2 1 89.6 97.4 93.5 A

SCLmin SCLmin SCLmin

Kemp’s Ridley 0 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: titanium tag, plastic tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: no
48

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

FWRI staff conducted visual surveys and set tangle nets for marine turtles between 1993 

and 1997. Trawl netting was used to sample for turtles in May and June of 1995. Thirty 

30-minute paired tows yielded only a single loggerhead. 

This compilation of data suggests that marine turtles are relatively inconspicuous in 

Tampa Bay. Although only two species were found in this study, four species have been 

reported in the bay: loggerheads, Kemp’s ridleys, green turtles, and hawksbills (in order 

of decreasing abundance). It appears that ridleys and loggerheads may be year-round 

residents. 

The bay supports a range of life stages: neritic juveniles, subadults, and adults (including 

nesting female loggerheads). Historical data suggest marine turtle populations were more 

robust prior to pressures from the turtle fishery. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Meylan, A., A. Redlow, A. Mosier, K. Moody, and A. Foley. 1999. Sea turtles in Tampa 

Bay, Florida. In: Pribble, J.R., A.J. Janicki, and H. Greening (eds.). Baywide 

Environmental Monitoring Report, 1993-1998, Tampa Bay, Florida. Tampa Bay 

Estuary Program, Technical Publication #07-99, 13-1 to 13-15. 

Meylan, A., A. Redlow, A. Mosier, K. Moody, A. Foley, and B. Brost. 2003. Sea turtles 

in Tampa Bay, Florida. In: Pribble, J.R., A.J. Janicki, and H. Greening (eds.). 

Baywide Environmental Monitoring Report, 1998-2001, Tampa Bay, Florida. Tampa 

Bay Estuary Program, Technical Publication #06-02 pp. 18-1 to 18-13.
49

Figure 14 - Tampa Bay study area.
50

Site Name: Tampa Bay Entrance Channel

General Information

Site Name: Tampa Bay Entrance Channel

Site Reference Number: 10

Region: Southwest County: Pinellas, Manatee

Approximate Latitude: 27.57° N Approximate Longitude: 82.77° W

Principal Investigator (s): David Nelson

Contact Address: 4104 Freetown Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39183

Contact Email: drdavenelson@msn.com

Organizations Involved: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Organization Type: federal agency

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 1997, 1998

Start Date: February 1997

End Date: June 1998

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, tracking

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: trawling

Net Type: trawl net Net Length: 2 60-ft nets

Mesh Size: 8 inch mesh Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: seasonally

Sampling Locations: various locations throughout channel

Sampling-Area Description: dredged channel

Bottom Type: channel

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 6.5

Depth Range (m): 0.0-28.5

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1997, 1998

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/trawl hr; turtles/trawl nm

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk
51

Site Name: Tampa Bay Entrance Channel

Capture Information Data current through 1998

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 1 n/a 83.7 n/a n/a S

Loggerhead 5 n/a 62.0 99.3 86.6 N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 3 n/a 53.4 54.9 54.4 S

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, satellite tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: yes

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes
52

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

This study included four seasonal trawl surveys within the Tampa Bay Entrance Channel 

in the spring, summer, and fall of 1997, and the spring of 1998. The Army Corps of 

Engineers conducted relative-abundance surveys for ten days each season by using trawl 

nets to assess sea turtle spatial occurrence relative to the channel bottom. There were 

only a small number of turtles captured at any time of the year, suggesting that the 

number of turtles in the channel throughout the year is low. Seasonal abundance was 

documented to be somewhat higher in the fall. 

USACE fit two adult male loggerheads, one adult female loggerhead, two subadult 

loggerheads, and two subadult Kemp’s ridleys with satellite transmitters during 1997 and 

1998. Turtles were tracked for 13 to 376 days. Tracking revealed that sea turtles 

remained in the general study area for days or months at a time and eventually moved in 

response to changing water temperatures. Turtle densities were higher when water 

temperatures were above 15° C and lower when the temperature fell below that threshold. 

Turtles moved either offshore or southward as water temperatures decreased, and 

returned to their original location when water temperatures warmed. The researchers 

recommended that dredging activities in the Tampa Bay Entrance Channel be conducted 

during water-temperature extremes in either winter or summer. Cool winter temperatures 

force sea turtles offshore, and turtles move farther inshore and to the north of the channel 

when temperatures warm in the summer. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Nelson, D.A. 1999. Sea turtle relative abundance and seasonal movements in Tampa Bay 

Entrance Channel. Report prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville 

District, 40 pp. 

Nelson, D.A. 2000. Winter Movements of Sea Turtles. In: Kalb. H., and T. Wibbels 

(comps.). Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology 

and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443, pp. 26. 
53

Figure 15 - Tampa Bay Entrance Channel study area. 
54

Site Name: Epipelagic Drift Community - Southwest

General Information

Site Name: Epipelagic Drift Community - Southwest

Site Reference Number: 11

Region: Southwest County: Outside county boundaries

Approximate Latitude: 27.13° N Approximate Longitude: 83.36° W

Principal Investigator (s): Blair Witherington

Contact Address: 9700 South A1A, Melbourne Beach, FL 32951

Contact Email: witherington@cfl.rr.com

Organizations Involved: FWC/FWRI

Organization Type: state agency

Project Status: active

Active Years: 2005

Start Date: August 2005

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, visual surveys

Visual-Survey Method: boat-based transects through linear drift habitat

Capture Method: dip-netting from surface

Net Type: dip net Net Length: n/a

Mesh Size: 0.25-1.5 in. Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistic

Sampling Locations: various locations within study area

Sampling-Area Description: pelagic downwelling zones, drift lines, Sargassum patches

Bottom Type: n/a

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 43.8

Depth Range (m): 16.9-64.0

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 2005

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km2 transect

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk, Ei
55

Site Name: Epipelagic Drift Community - Southwest

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 1 1 23.0 n/a n/a O

Loggerhead 6 0 4.6 6.3 5.4 O

Kemp’s Ridley 1 4 23.7 n/a n/a O

Hawksbill 1 0 21.0 n/a n/a O

Leatherback 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: n/a

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: no

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

This study site is located 20-100 km west of Sarasota and represents the southwest site of 

the broader epipelagic drift community project. See the narrative under Epipelagic Drift 

Community – Northwest for more information and literature produced. 
56

Figure 16 - Epipelagic Drift Community - Southwest study area.
57

Site Name: Charlotte Harbor

General Information

Site Name: Charlotte Harbor

Site Reference Number: 12

Region: Southwest County: Charlotte, Lee

Approximate Latitude: 26.70° N Approximate Longitude: 82.14° W

Principal Investigator (s): Tony Tucker, Jerris Foote, Jeffrey Schmid, Anne Meylan

Contact Address: 1600 Ken Thompson Parkway, Sarasota, FL 34236

Contact Email: tucker@mote.org

Organizations Involved: Mote Marine Laboratory, Conservancy of SW FL, Ding Darling NWR, 

Charlotte Harbor NEP, FWC/FWRI

Organization Type: nonprofit, federal agency, state agency

Project Status: active

Active Years: 2003, 2004

Start Date: March 2003

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, visual sightings

Visual-Survey Method: random sightings from boat

Capture Method: set-netting

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: 200 m

Mesh Size: 12 inch bar Net Depth: 3 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistic

Sampling Locations: variable

Sampling-Area Description: bay

Bottom Type: sand, seagrass, live bottom

Water Type: estuarine

Mean Depth (m): 1.9

Depth Range (m): 0.0-16.1

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 2003, 2004

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km net hr

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk
58

Site Name: Charlotte Harbor

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 1 5 56.6 n/a 56.6 N

Loggerhead 1 17 82.5 n/a 82.5 A

Kemp’s Ridley 4 15 32.7 40.2 37.7 N, S

Hawksbill 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: no

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

In-water netting and visual surveys began in 2003 to evaluate species composition, 

developmental migrations, habitat use, and feeding ecology. Loggerheads are typically 

found near tidal passes, ridleys congregate close to creek or bay mouths, and green turtles 

are often observed in seagrass pastures in 6-8 feet of water. Annual CPUE rates for 

visual transect sightings range from 0.011-0.021 turtles/hour. Sighting densities dropped 

during the winter months. 

Another goal of this project is to evaluate posthurricane effects on turtle foraging ecology 

in Charlotte Harbor. A Kemp’s ridley was observed eating horseshoe crabs near the 

mouth of the Peace River in September 2003. Surveys conducted after Hurricane 

Charley in 2004 reported hypoxic conditions and a massive horseshoe crab die-off in that 

same area. Disturbances to seagrass beds and changes in crustacean populations after 

hurricanes are also being evaluated as having possible effects on sea turtle foraging 

ecology. 
59

Figure 17 - Charlotte Harbor study area.
60

Site Name: Ten Thousand Islands

General Information

Site Name: Ten Thousand Islands

Site Reference Number: 13

Region: Southwest County: Collier

Approximate Latitude: 25.87° N Approximate Longitude: 81.59° W

Principal Investigator (s): Wayne Witzell, Jeffrey Schmid

Contact Address: 75 Virginia Beach Dr., Miami, FL 33149

Contact Email: wayne.witzell@noaa.gov

Organizations Involved: NMFS, Conservancy of Southwest Florida

Organization Type: federal agency, nonprofit

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004

Start Date: June 1997

End Date: August 2004

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, tracking

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: strike-netting

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: 200-300 m

Mesh Size: 20.5 cm stretch Net Depth: 3-4 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistic

Sampling Locations:focus on Gullivan Bay, Cape Romano, Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve

Sampling-Area Description: bay

Bottom Type: mangrove bays, sand, oyster reefs, mud, seagrass

Water Type: estuarine

Mean Depth (m): 1.5

Depth Range (m): 0.0-4.0

Effort-Data Availability: no

Years for which CPUE Calculated: n/a

Method of Calculating CPUE: n/a

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk. Ei
61

Site Name: Ten Thousand Islands

Capture Information Data current through 2004

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 13 n/a n/r n/r 51.6 n/r

SCLmin

Loggerhead 15 n/a n/r n/r 65.5 n/r

SCLmin

Kemp’s Ridley 191 n/a 21.4 65.2 40.4 O, N, S, A

SCLmin SCLmin SCLmin

Hawksbill 5 n/a 52.2 n/a n/a N 

 SCLmin SCLmin SCLmin

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag, radio tag, sonic tag

Species Exhibiting FP: Cm, Cc

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: yes

Growth-Rate Determination: yes Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes
62

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Some Kemp’s ridleys set up home ranges in this area for as long as three years. Fewer 

loggerheads were present in the study area because they may prefer deeper waters. Green 

turtle numbers were also low, possibly due to sparse seagrass beds in the area. The total 

number of captures decreased in December through February. Recaptures were 

documented within and between sampling seasons, indicating foraging-site fidelity. A 

hawksbill/loggerhead hybrid was captured four times within one year. The study 

documented habitat-partitioning by different turtle species in Gullivan Bay. Kemp’s 

ridley turtles principally used areas of sand substrate with plumed worm tubes and livebottom organisms; green turtles were found mainly in the seagrass beds in the 

northwestern portion of the study area. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Schmid, J.R. 2004. Determining essential habitat for the Kemp's ridley turtle in the Ten 

Thousand Islands, Florida. Final report submitted to Marine Turtle Grants Program. 

16 pp. 

Schmid, J.R. 2005. Essential habitat for Kemp’s ridley turtles in the Ten Thousand 

Islands, Florida. Final report submitted to Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, 

Marine Turtle Permit #147, 18 pp. 

Witzell, W.N., and J.R. Schmid. 2002. Investigation of immature sea turtles in the coastal 

waters of southwest Florida. In: Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (comps.). 

Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477, pp. 276-277. 

Witzell, W.N., and J.R. Schmid. 2003. Multiple recaptures of a hybrid hawksbillloggerhead turtle in the Ten Thousand Islands, Southwest Florida. Herpetological 

Review 34:323-325. 

Witzell, W.N., and J.R. Schmid. 2004. Immature sea turtles in Gullivan Bay, Ten 

Thousand Islands, Southwest Florida. Gulf of Mexico Science 22:54-61. 

Witzell, W.N., and J.R. Schmid. 2005. Diet of immature Kemp’s ridley turtles 

(Lepidochelys kempi) from Gullivan Bay, Ten Thousand Islands, southwest Florida. 

Bulletin of Marine Science 77:191-199. 

Witzell, W.N., A.A. Geis, J.R. Schmid, and T. Wibbels. 2005. Sex ratio of immature 

Kemp’s ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempi) from Gullivan Bay, Ten Thousand 

Islands, south-west Florida. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the 

United Kingdom 85:205-208. 
63

Figure 18 - Ten Thousand Islands study area. 
64

Site Name: Big Sable Creek Complex

General Information

Site Name: Big Sable Creek Complex

Site Reference Number: 14

Region: Southwest County: Monroe

Approximate Latitude: 25.59° N Approximate Longitude: 81.17° W

Principal Investigator (s): Kristen Hart

Contact Address: 600 4th Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Contact Email: kristen_hart@usgs.gov

Organizations Involved: USGS, Duke University Marine Laboratory

Organization Type: federal agency, university

Project Status: active

Active Years: 2006

Start Date: November 2006

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, tracking

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: set-netting, strike-netting, pound-netting, dip-netting

Net Type: tangle net, pound net, dip net Net Length: unknown

Mesh Size: unknown Net Depth: unknown

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: seasonal

Sampling Locations: variable

Sampling-Area Description: creek complex

Bottom Type: mud, algae mat, mangroves

Water Type: estuarine

Mean Depth (m): 0.9

Depth Range (m): 0.0-3.5

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 2006

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km net hr (set net); turtles/km (dip-net transects); turtles/hr 

(pound net)

Species Found: Cm 
65

Site Name: Big Sable Creek Complex

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 5 n/a 32.8 51.9 40.1 n/r

Loggerhead 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Kemp’s Ridley 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

 

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag, satellite tag

Species Exhibiting FP: Cm

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: yes

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: no

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Juvenile green turtles had been observed in the creeks around Cape Sable, precipitating 

this capture-based project. Sampling began in 2006 using pound nets and dip nets. 

Future sampling will employ tangle nets. 
66

Figure 19 - Big Sable Creek Complex study area.
67

Southeast

The majority of studies, twenty, have been conducted in the Southeastern region (Keys 

part of Monroe County through Brevard County) with fourteen still active (Figure 20). 

Key West National Wildlife Refuge – Bresette et al. (2002-active) 

Florida Bay –Schroeder et al. (1990-active) 

Broward County Reefs – Makowski (2003-active) 

Galt Ocean Mile/Lauderdale-by-the-Sea – Wershoven & Wershoven (1986-1991) 

The Breakers Central Reef Tract – Salmon & Makowski (2001-2003) 

Lake Worth Lagoon – Bresette et al. (2005-active) 

The Breakers – Wood (2003-active) 

Hutchinson Island Hardbottom Surveys – Bresette et al. (2004-2005) 

St. Lucie Power Plant – Bresette et al. (1976-active) 

Jenning’s Cove – Bresette et al. (1998-active) 

Indian River County Hardbottom Surveys – Bresette et al. (2001-active) 

Northern Indian River County Reefs – Ehrhart et al. (1988-active) 

Central Indian River Lagoon – Ehrhart et al. (1982-active) 

Central Brevard County Reefs – Holloway-Adkins (2003-active) 

Epipelagic Drift Community – Southeast – Witherington (1992-active) 

Port Canaveral Ship Channel – Carr et al. (1978) 

Cape Canaveral – Henwood (1978-1984) 

Port Canaveral Ship Channel – Bolten et al. (1992-1993) 

Cape Canaveral – Standora et al. (1993) 

Cape Canaveral – Segars et al. (2006-active) 

Trident Submarine Basin – Ehrhart et al. (1993-active) 
68

Figure 20 - Southeast Florida in-water projects. Inactive projects described with shaded 

callout boxes.
69

Site Name: Key West National Wildlife Refuge

General Information

Site Name: Key West National Wildlife Refuge

Site Reference Number: 15

Region: Southeast County: Monroe

Approximate Latitude: 24.56° N Approximate Longitude: 82.00° W

Principal Investigator (s): Michael Bresette, Jonathan Gorham, Richard Herren, Blair Witheringon, 

Dean Bagley

Contact Address: 4160 NE Hyline Dr., Jensen Beach, FL 34957

Contact Email: mbresette@inwater.org

Organizations Involved: Inwater Research Group, Inc.

Organization Type: nonprofit

Project Status: active

Active Years: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Start Date: May 2002

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, visual surveys

Visual-Survey Method: random sightings from boat, HUNT

Capture Method: hand-capture from boat, set-netting

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: 150 m

Mesh Size: 40 cm stretch Net Depth: 4 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: seasonally

Sampling Locations: various locations within study area

Sampling-Area Description: archipelago

Bottom Type: seagrass, channels, hardbottom, coral, sand, livebottom

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 8.1

Depth Range (m): 0.0-40.0

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 2005, 2006

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km transect; turtles/km net hr (set net)

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Ei
70

Site Name: Key West National Wildlife Refuge

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 87 915 27.0 108.5 61.3 N, S, A

Loggerhead 182 472 36.4 98.1 75.5 N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 19 58 28.2 69.0 46.4 N, S

Leatherback 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag, paint

Species Exhibiting FP: Cm, Cc

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

In 1986, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), and University of Central Florida (UCF) personnel surveyed the area 

near the Marquesas Keys for the possible presence of sea turtles, they determined that 

this area was potential developmental habitat for marine turtles and warranted further 

investigation. In 2002, Inwater Research Group (IRG) began systematic surveys in the 

Key West National Wildlife Refuge and observed many turtles in the vicinity. Soon after 

capture efforts began, green, loggerhead, and hawksbill turtles were captured. This was 

the first project in the continental U.S. to sight and capture hawksbill sea turtles on a 

regular basis. IRG has observed low levels of fibropapillomatosis (FP) in loggerheads 

and green turtles in the area. GPS-coordinate data are available for turtle-sighting and -

capture locations. In 2004, IRG identified an area just west of the Marquesas Keys that 

appeared to support green turtles of size classes rarely seen in Florida waters: subadults 

and adults (> 70 cm SCL). This habitat differs from that of other areas worked in the 

refuge. It contains large Syringodium seagrass beds interspersed with stretches of sand 

and sponge habitat in 4-6 m of water; the rest of the study area consists of shallow (1-3 

m) seagrass beds dotted with patchy sponge/hardbottom habitat and deep-water channels. 

Small green turtles are conspicuously absent from the western area, yet they are found in 
71

significant numbers only 4 km away in the shallow lagoons of the Marquesas. It is 

possible that smaller green turtles use the ‘dead-end’ channels found within the 

Marquesas complex as a refuge from falling water levels and large predators. These 

small green turtles are also found throughout the rest of the Key West National Wildlife 

Refuge (KWNWR) in shallow basins and seagrass beds. This study may provide the first 

evidence of resource-partitioning by green turtles in the refuge. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Bresette, M., and R. Herren. 2002. Demographic composition of marine turtles in the Key 

West National Wildlife Refuge, 2002. Annual report submitted to USFWS, Key West 

NWR, Contract 1448-40181-02-G-044, 31 pp. 

Inwater Research Group, Inc. 2003. Demographic composition of marine turtles in the 

Key West National Wildlife Refuge, 2003. Annual Report submitted to NMFS, 27 pp. 

Inwater Research Group, Inc. 2004. Sea turtle sampling in the Key West National 

Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Interim report submitted to FWC/FMRI, August 2004, 18 

pp. 

Inwater Research Group, Inc. 2005. Final report on sea turtle sampling in the Key West 

National Wildlife Refuge, Florida, July 2005. Report submitted to FWC/FWRI, 24 

pp. 

Schroeder, B.A. 1986. Summary of Marquesas Keys marine turtle field work (12-16 May 

1986). Memorandum from files, NOAA, NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Center, 27 May 

1986, 5 pp. 
72

Figure 21 - Key West NWR study area.
73

Site Name: Florida Bay

General Information

Site Name: Florida Bay

Site Reference Number: 16

Region: Southeast County: Monroe

Approximate Latitude: 24.96° N Approximate Longitude: 80.86° W

Principal Investigator (s): Barbara Schroeder, Allen Foley, Blair Witherington

Contact Address: NMFS, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910

Contact Email: barbara.schroeder@noaa.gov

Organizations Involved: NMFS, FWC/FWRI

Organization Type: federal & state agencies

Project Status: active

Active Years: 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 

2004, 2005, 2006, 2007

Start Date: 1990

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, visual surveys, tracking

Visual-Survey Method: random sightings from boat, HUNT

Capture Method: hand-capture from boat (1991-2007), set-netting (1990-1993)

Net Type: tangle Net Length: 100 m

Mesh Size: 16 inch stretch Net Depth: 13.5 ft

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: annually

Sampling Locations: primarily SW area of Florida Bay within Everglades NP

Sampling-Area Description: bay

Bottom Type: seagrass, sand, hardbottom, channels

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 1.0

Depth Range (m): 0.0-4.0

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km (transect); turtles/km net hr (set net)

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk, Ei
74

Site Name: Florida Bay

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 73 n/r 25.5 66.1 45.8 N

Loggerhead 902 n/r 33.0 98.7 77.7 N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 23 n/r 28.9 64.5 50.7 N, S, A

Hawksbill 3 n/r 38.2 58.1 49.8 N

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, Rototag, PIT tag, paint, radio tag, sonic tag, satellite tag

Species Exhibiting FP: Cm, Cc

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: yes Tracking Studies Conducted: yes

Growth-Rate Determination: yes Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes
75

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Central and western Florida Bay (primary sampling sites) provide important habitats for 

immature and adult loggerheads, immature green turtles, and immature (and possibly 

adult) Kemp’s ridleys. Loggerheads and green turtles are the most abundant; Kemp’s 

ridleys are reliably captured in certain areas; immature hawksbills are rarely encountered 

within the study area. Adult loggerheads of both sexes are found year-round. Multiple 

recaptures of immature and adult loggerheads over periods of up to ten years indicate 

some strong site-fidelity within Florida Bay. FP is externally present in green turtles at 

relatively high rates and is commonly observed in loggerheads, though at a much lower 

rate. The external expression of the disease is generally less severe in loggerheads. This 

project produces data on residency, growth, migrations, reproductive status, blood 

chemistry, sex ratios, genetic composition, tag retention, FP occurrence, and FP 

progression/regression. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Foley, A.M. 2006a. Reproductive movements and behavior of male and female 

loggerheads from a southeast U.S. foraging ground. Final report submitted to the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 21 pp. 

Foley, A.M. 2006b. Long-term study of sea turtles in Florida Bay. Final report submitted 

to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 15pp. 

Schroeder B.A., and A.M. Foley. 1995. Population studies of marine turtles in Florida 

Bay. In: Richardson, J.I., and T.H. Richardson (comps.). Proceedings of the Twelfth 

Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-361, pp. 117. 

Schroeder B.A., A.M. Foley, B.E. Witherington, and A.E. Mosier. 1998. Ecology of 

marine turtles in Florida Bay: population structure, distribution, and occurrence of 

fibropapilloma. In: Epperly, S.P., and J. Braun (comps.). Proceedings of the 

Seventeenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-415, pp. 281-283. 
76

Figure 22 - Florida Bay study area.
77

Site Name: Broward County Reefs

General Information

Site Name: Broward County Reefs

Site Reference Number: 17

Region: Southeast County: Broward

Approximate Latitude: 26.10° N Approximate Longitude: 80.10° W

Principal Investigator (s): Chris Makowski

Contact Address: 2481 NW Boca Raton BLVD, Boca Raton, FL 33431

Contact Email: CMakowski@coastalplanning.net

Organizations Involved: Broward County DPEP, Coastal Planning 

and Engineering

Organization Type: county, consulting firm

Project Status: active

Active Years: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Start Date: May 2003

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: visual surveys

Visual-Survey Method: straight line transects while snorkeling

Capture Method: n/a

Net Type: n/a Net Length: n/a

Mesh Size: n/a Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistic

Sampling Locations:same transects during each sampling session

Sampling-Area Description: nearshore hardbottom/reef

Bottom Type: worm rock reefs, sand

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 6.3

Depth Range (m): 0.0-16.5

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: n/a

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km transect

Species Found: Cm
78

Site Name: Broward County Reefs

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle n/a 370 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Loggerhead n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Kemp’s Ridley n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: n/a

Species Exhibiting FP: n/a

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: no
79

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Beach restoration projects have the potential to compromise nearshore reef habitats and 

have detrimental effects on the associated ecosystems. Coastal Planning and Engineering 

and FAU conducted “turtle tows” to monitor green turtle populations along nearshore 

reef tracts in Broward County. The “turtle tow” method is a variation of the “shark 

fishing” technique of towing a diver behind a boat so the diver can determine abundance 

and distribution without disturbing or handling the animals being surveyed. Surveys 

were performed twice during each sampling session: once north to south and once south 

to north. A GIS database was also established with the location of each observed turtle. 

Surveys in 2003 and 2004 have provided two consecutive juvenile green turtle population 

estimates in this area. Long-term monitoring is planned to assess temporary fluctuations 

and long-term variation in the population. In 2003, the two directional surveys yielded 

the same number of green turtles in the area: 48. In 2004, the two directional surveys 

yielded similar numbers, north to south (35), and south to north (42). Observations of 

turtle behaviors were also recorded. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Salmon, M., C. Makowski, C. Christopher, and C. Whalen. 2004. Broward County sea 

turtle survey: 2004 pre-construction monitoring of green turtle populations on the 

nearshore reefs of Broward County, Florida. Interim report to Broward County, 8 pp. 

Makowski, C., R.P. Slattery, and M. Salmon. 2005. “Shark Fishing”: a method for 

determining the abundance and distribution of sea turtles at reef habitats. 

Herpetological Review 36:36-38. 
80

Figure 23 - Broward County Reefs study area.
81

Site Name: Galt Ocean Mile and Lauderdale-by-the-Sea

General Information

Site Name: Galt Ocean Mile and Lauderdale-by-the-Sea

Site Reference Number: 18

Region: Southeast County: Broward, Palm Beach, Martin

Approximate Latitude: 26.61° N Approximate Longitude: 80.03° W

Principal Investigator (s): Robert and Jeanne Wershoven

Contact Address: 2962 Waterford Dr. S, Deerfield Beach, FL 33442

Contact Email: ecovista@bellsouth.net

Organizations Involved: Broward County Audubon Society

Organization Type: nonprofit

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991

Start Date: March 1986

End Date: March 1991

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, aerial surveys, strandings

Visual-Survey Method: aerial surveys

Capture Method: SCUBA-diving at night

Net Type: n/a Net Length: n/a

Mesh Size: n/a Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: weekly

Sampling Locations: capture site is a 1.5 km stretch of reef in Broward; aerial survey over broader 

area

Sampling-Area Description: nearshore hardbottom/reef

Bottom Type: reef, limestone ledges

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 98.2

Depth Range (m): 0.0-242.1

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: n/a

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/hr dive time

Species Found: Cm, Ei
82

Site Name: Galt Ocean Mile and Lauderdale-by-the-Sea

Capture Information Data current through 1991

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 187 19 27.4 CCL 67.0 CCL 43.5 CCL N

Loggerhead 0 14 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Kemp’s Ridley 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 3 0 34.0 CCL 60.0 CCL 35.0 CCL N

Leatherback 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: yes Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

This area supports populations of juvenile green turtles and juvenile hawksbills. Turtles 

were usually found resting on the reef at night. No turtles were observed during daytime 

surveys of habitat type and food sources; turtles were only observed during night dives. 

4.25 man-hours were spent per capture, and the study had an overall capture success rate 

of 53.95%. Green turtles were captured during all months, with higher numbers captured 

during June, August, April, and May and lower numbers captured in September and 

December. The number of turtles captured decreased when colder, fresh water was 

present on the reef (mainly in July). No adults were captured in the study, and only one 

adult green turtle was observed. The size distribution of turtles appeared to change with 

season (larger in fall and winter). Aerial surveys were conducted in March and 

September of 1987. High concentrations of turtles were observed in March along the 

first reef area off John U. Lloyd State Recreational Area, Galt Ocean Mile, and Pompano 

Beach south of the fishing pier. Turtles were not found close to the coast during the 

September study, but loggerheads were observed offshore in the area between Boca 

Raton and St. Lucie inlets, with concentrations north of Jupiter Inlet near Hobe Sound 

NWR. Turtle dispersal during fall and winter may have been the result of a lack of 

sufficient algae on which to feed in nearshore areas, but further study is needed. Homing 
83

was observed in one green turtle that was sent to a rehabilitation facility for five months, 

released 10 miles south of the capture site, and recaptured at the original capture site 

three weeks later. 

Juvenile green turtles in Broward County used large expanses of hardbottom reef areas 

for foraging and resting. Turtles entered this habitat from pelagic zones at 30 cm CCL 

and departed once they reached 60 cm CCL. Stranding data indicated that recreational 

activities were a significant source of mortality to the population. Visible propeller 

injuries were cited in 34 of 56 strandings in Broward County during the study period, and 

entanglement in fishing lines was observed in seven other strandings. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Wershoven, R. 1989. Assessment of utilization of sleeping habitat by juvenile turtles off 

Broward County, Florida. In: Ogren, L., F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, 

G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (eds.). Proceedings of the Second Western 

Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226, pp. 

347-348. 

Wershoven, R., and J.L. Wershoven. 1988. A survey of juvenile green turtles and their 

resting and foraging habitats off Broward County, Florida 3/1/86 - 12/13/87. Report 

submitted to Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Marine 

Resources, 35 pp. 

Wershoven, R., and J.L. Wershoven. 1989. Assessment of juvenile green turtles and their 

habitat in Broward County, Florida waters. In: Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, and T.H. 

Richardson (comps.). Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle 

Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232, pp. 

185-187. 

Wershoven, R., and J.L. Wershoven. 1992. Juvenile green turtles in their nearshore 

habitat of Broward County, Florida: A five year review. In: Salmon, M., and J. 

Wyneken (comps.). Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle 

Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-302, pp. 

121-123. 
84

Figure 24 - Galt Ocean Mile/Lauderdale-By-The-Sea study area.
85

Site Name: The Breakers Central Reef Tract

General Information

Site Name: The Breakers Central Reef Tract

Site Reference Number: 19

Region: Southeast County: Palm Beach

Approximate Latitude: 26.72° N Approximate Longitude: 80.03° W

Principal Investigator (s): Mike Salmon, Chris Makowski, Jeffrey Seminoff

Contact Address: 777 Glades Rd., Boca Raton FL 33431

Contact Email: salmon@fau.edu

Organizations Involved: Florida Atlantic University

Organization Type: university

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 2001, 2002, 2003

Start Date: July 2001

End Date: November 2003

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, visual surveys, tracking

Visual-Survey Method: dive survey

Capture Method: SCUBA-diving

Net Type: n/a Net Length: n/a

Mesh Size: n/a Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistic

Sampling Locations:several consistent capture locations along reef

Sampling-Area Description: nearshore hardbottom/reef

Bottom Type: patchy worm rock reef system, hardbottom

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 2.8

Depth Range (m): 0.0-6.8

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: n/a

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km transect (visual dive surveys)

Species Found: Cm
86

Site Name: The Breakers Central Reef Tract

Capture Information Data current through 2003

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 6 141 27.9 48.1 36.7 N

Loggerhead 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Kemp’s Ridley 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, sonic tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: yes

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes
87

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Six juvenile green turtles were equipped with ultrasonic transmitters and tracked for 55-

62 days, with an average of 94 transmissions per turtle. All turtles occupied distinct 

home ranges and core areas that were largely restricted to the reef and showed 

considerable overlap with food and shelter sites. At night, each turtle revisited its own 

exclusive resting site(s) along the nearshore reef tract. Four of the six turtles selected 

only one resting site. The other two turtles each used two resting sites on opposite ends 

of their respective home ranges. More than one turtle was never observed at any one 

resting site. Daytime diving patterns consisted of more frequent, shallower dives than 

nighttime patterns. Lavage sampling showed all six turtles had a mixed diet of similar 

macroalgae and sponge fragments. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Makowski, C. 2004. Home Range and Movements of Juvenile Atlantic Green Turtles 

(Chelonia mydas L.) on Shallow Reef Habitats in Palm Beach, Florida, USA. 

Master’s thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, 37 pp. 

Makowski, C., J.A. Seminoff, and M. Salmon. 2006. Home range and habitat use of 

juvenile Atlantic green turtles (Chelonia mydas L.) on shallow reef habitats in Palm 

Beach, Florida, USA. Marine Biology 148:1167-1179. 

Makowski, C., R.P. Slattery, and M. Salmon. 2005. “Shark Fishing”: a method for 

determining the abundance and distribution of sea turtles at reef habitats. 

Herpetological Review 36:36-38. 
88

Figure 25 - The Breakers Central Reef Tract study area.
89

Site Name: Lake Worth Lagoon

General Information

Site Name: Lake Worth Lagoon

Site Reference Number: 20

Region: Southeast County: Palm Beach

Approximate Latitude: 26.70° N Approximate Longitude: 80.05° W

Principal Investigator (s): Michael Bresette, Jonathan Gorham, Richard Herren, Blair Witherington, 

Dean Bagley

Contact Address: 4160 NE Hyline Dr., Jensen Beach, FL 34957

Contact Email: mbresette@inwater.org

Organizations Involved: Inwater Research Group, Inc.

Organization Type: nonprofit

Project Status: active

Active Years: 2005, 2006

Start Date: March 2005

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, visual surveys

Visual-Survey Method: HUNT

Capture Method: set-netting

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: 150 m

Mesh Size: 40 cm stretch Net Depth: 4 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: quarterly

Sampling Locations:focus effort just east of Little Munyon Island

Sampling-Area Description: lagoon

Bottom Type: seagrass, sand

Water Type: estuarine

Mean Depth (m): 0.1

Depth Range (m): 0.0-0.1

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 2005, 2006

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km net hr (set net); turtles/km (from transects)

Species Found: Cm, Cc
90

Site Name: Lake Worth Lagoon

Capture Information Data current through 2005 (sightings) & 2006 (captures)

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 30 35 29.8 54.9 43.0 N

Loggerhead 1 1 72.0 n/a 72.0 S

Kemp’s Ridley 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag

Species Exhibiting FP: Cm

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes
91

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

This project was established to assess the extent to which sea turtles use Lake Worth 

Lagoon. The study was required under a management plan for the lagoon developed by 

the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management in 1998 

and seeks to obtain baseline data on species abundance, size distributions, CPUE at 

different sites, prevalence of FP, and habitat preference within the lagoon. 

Initial visual transects in March 2005 began to identify turtle “hotspots” where netting 

efforts would be most productive. An area around Little Munyon Island just north of 

Lake Worth Inlet has proven to be important green turtle habitat and is where a majority 

of netting occurs now. CPUE numbers in this area are comparable to those found in 

Jenning’s Cove. The observations of loggerheads indicate that Lake Worth Lagoon may 

be developmental habitat for that species. 

Approximately two thirds of captured green turtles have exhibited FP, which is a higher 

rate than that found in other eutrophic, degraded, low-flow environments around the 

state. Two of the 31 turtles captured so far have been victims of boat strikes, which is a 

proportion similar to those seen in IRG’s other studies (4.4% of captures with boatrelated injuries in Jenning’s Cove, 8.6% in Key West National Wildlife Refuge). 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Inwater Research Group. 2005. Population assessment of marine turtles in Lake Worth 

Lagoon, Florida. Report submitted to Palm Beach County Department of 

Environmental Resources Management, 16 pp. 
92

Figure 26 - Lake Worth Lagoon study area.
93

Site Name: The Breakers

General Information

Site Name: The Breakers

Site Reference Number: 21

Region: Southeast County: Palm Beach

Approximate Latitude: 26.80° N Approximate Longitude: 80.02° W

Principal Investigator (s): Lawrence Wood

Contact Address: 14200 U.S. Hwy 1, Juno Beach, FL 33408

Contact Email: lwood@marinelife.org

Organizations Involved: Marinelife Center

Organization Type: nonprofit

Project Status: active

Active Years: 2004, 2005, 2006

Start Date: 2004

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: SCUBA-diving

Net Type: n/a Net Length: n/a

Mesh Size: n/a Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistic

Sampling Locations: various locations within study area

Sampling-Area Description: nearshore hardbottom/reef

Bottom Type: sand, coral, hardbottom

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 18.5

Depth Range (m): 6.0-32.2

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: n/a

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/hr dive time

Species Found: Ei
94

Site Name: The Breakers

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Loggerhead n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Kemp’s Ridley n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 88 n/a 40.2 82.3 58.2 N, S, A

Leatherback n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: yes Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes
95

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Although capture dates above are current through 2006, the findings detailed here are 

based only on results through October 2005. Fifty-four hawksbills had been caught 

during a total of 55.7 hours of diving. Resightings had been confirmed for 13 tagged 

turtles, with a maximum of five sightings of one individual. The maximum time at large 

for any resighted turtle had been documented at 250 days within close proximity to 

capture location, suggesting site fidelity. The capture method has proven successful, with 

only two turtles escaping. Photo ID has been used, relying on barnacle patterns and 

morphological anomalies. Genetic samples have been collected for all animals. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Wood, L.D. 2004. A preliminary assessment of hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys 

imbricata) in Palm Beach County waters. Annual report submitted to FWC, FWC 

permit #077, 2 pp. 

Wood, L.D. 2005. A preliminary assessment of hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys 

imbricata) in Palm Beach County waters. Annual report submitted to FWC, FWC 

permit #077, 4 pp. 

Wood, L.D. 2006. A preliminary assessment of hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys 

imbricata) in Palm Beach county waters. In: Frick, M., A. Panagopoulou, A. Rees, 

and K. Williams (comps.). Book of abstracts. Twenty-Sixth Annual Symposium on 

Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Athens, 

Greece, pp. 336. 
96

Figure 27 - The Breakers study area.
97

Site Name: Hutchinson Island Hardbottom Surveys

General Information

Site Name: Hutchinson Island Hardbottom Surveys

Site Reference Number: 22

Region: Southeast County: St. Lucie, Martin

Approximate Latitude: 27.32° N Approximate Longitude: 80.21° W

Principal Investigator (s): Michael Bresette, Jonathan Gorham, Richard Herren, Blair Witherington, 

Dean Bagley

Contact Address: 4160 NE Hyline Dr., Jensen Beach, FL 34957

Contact Email: mbresette@inwater.org

Organizations Involved: Inwater Research Group, Inc.

Organization Type: nonprofit

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 2004, 2005

Start Date: June 2004

End Date: April 2005

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: visual surveys

Visual-Survey Method: boat-based straight-line transects

Capture Method: n/a

Net Type: n/a Net Length: n/a

Mesh Size: n/a Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: monthly

Sampling Locations:same transects during each sampling session

Sampling-Area Description: nearshore hardbottom/reef

Bottom Type: hardbottom, coral, worm-rock reef

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 8.4

Depth Range (m): 0.0-14.9

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 2004, 2005

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km transect

Species Found: Cm, Cc
98

Site Name: Hutchinson Island Hardbottom Surveys

Capture Information Data current through 2005

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle n/a 198 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Loggerhead n/a 49 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Kemp’s Ridley n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: n/a

Species Exhibiting FP: n/a

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: no
99

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

This study investigated the distribution of marine turtles in the nearshore, hardbottom 

habitat off Hutchinson Island. Eight permanent 3-km visual transects were established 

parallel to the beach at six locations over and adjacent to the reefs. Turtles were located 

by observers atop a tower on a slow-moving vessel along these transects. 

Many more green turtles were observed than loggerheads in the study area, but their 

distribution was significantly more variable between transects, indicating that green turtle 

“hotspots” exist along the reef. Loggerheads were found in nearly equal abundances 

nearshore (200 m from shore) and offshore (1000 m from shore). Green turtles, however, 

were significantly more abundant closer to shore. Green turtles were present year-round, 

but loggerheads were much more common on summer transects than on those in the 

winter months. 

This study method could potentially be used year-round as a noninvasive way to study 

marine turtle distribution and abundance. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Inwater Research Group Inc. 2005. Abundance and distribution of marine turtles within 

nearshore hardbottom and associated habitats. Report submitted to Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission, 38 pp. 
100

Figure 28 - Hutchinson Island Hardbottom Surveys study area.
101

Site Name: St. Lucie Power Plant

General Information

Site Name: St. Lucie Power Plant

Site Reference Number: 23

Region: Southeast County: St. Lucie

Approximate Latitude: 27.35° N Approximate Longitude: 80.23° W

Principal Investigator (s): Michael Bresette

Contact Address: 6451 S. Ocean Dr., Jensen Beach, FL 34957

Contact Email: mbresette@inwater.org

Organizations Involved: Quantum Resources Inc.

Organization Type: consulting firm

Project Status: active

Active Years: 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 

1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 

2004, 2005, 2006

Start Date: 1976

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: incidental capture in intake canal

Net Type: tangle net, dip nets Net Length: 2 @ 35 m each

Mesh Size: 40 cm Net Depth: 6 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: continually

Sampling Locations: consistent

Sampling-Area Description: nearshore sandy bottom

Bottom Type: sand, shell

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 5.4

Depth Range (m): 0.0-10.2

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 

1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 

2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/year

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk, Ei, Dc
102

Site Name: St. Lucie Power Plant

Capture Information Data current through 2005

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 4260 n/a 18.7 108.3 40.8 O, N, S, A

Loggerhead 5995 n/a 39.7 108.9 70.0 N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 39 n/a 26.5 66.9 n/r N, S, A

Hawksbill 41 n/a 35.9 83.8 n/r N, S, A

Leatherback 30 n/a 110.0 157.0 n/r I, A

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag

Species Exhibiting FP: Cm, Cc

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: yes Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Sea turtles become caught in the St. Lucie Power Plant intake pipes and are pulled 

through to the intake canal where they are retrieved and examined before release. 

Historically, most captures in the intake canal were loggerhead turtles. From 1976 to 

1992, 83% of captures were loggerhead turtles, and only 15% were green turtles. An 

increase in the green turtle capture rate began in 1992 and they now account for more 

than 40% of captures. A high level of site fidelity of green turtles to the nearshore wormrock reefs and areas around the power plant has been documented. Green turtles enter 

this habitat at 25 to 30 cm SCL and leave as they approach 65 cm SCL. An increase in 

the green turtle recapture rate from 5% in 1994 to 48.5% in 2003 indicates that the 

population may be approaching saturation-tagging in this area. Loggerhead captures are 

predominantly juveniles in the 50-70 cm SCL range. Most adult loggerheads captured 

are females that may be attempting to nest on nearby beaches. 

Witzell et al. (2002) used mixed stock analysis with genetic markers found in mtDNA to 

determine that three different western Atlantic subpopulations contribute to juvenile 

loggerheads caught in the St. Lucie Power Plant intake canal. Results indicated that 69% 
103

were from south Florida, 20% from Mexico, and 10% from northeastern Florida-North 

Carolina. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Bass, A.L., and W.N. Witzell. 2000. Demographic composition of immature green turtles 

(Chelonia mydas) from the east central Florida coast: evidence from mtDNA markers. 

Herpetologica 56:357-367. 

Bresette, M., and J. Gorham. 2001. Growth rates of juvenile green turtles (Chelonia 

mydas) from the Atlantic coastal waters of St. Lucie County, Florida, USA. Marine 

Turtle Newsletter No. 91, pp. 7-8. 

Bresette, M., J. Gorham, and B. Peery. 1998. Site fidelity and size frequencies of juvenile 

green turtles (Chelonia mydas) utilizing near shore reefs in St. Lucie County, Florida. 

Marine Turtle Newsletter 82, pp. 5-7. 

Bresette, M.J., R.M.Herren, and D.A. Singewald. 2004. Comparison of fibropapilloma 

rates of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) from two different sites in St. Lucie County, 

Florida. In: Coyne, M.S., and M.D. Clark (comps.). Proceedings of the Twenty-First 

Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-528, pp. 125-126. 

Bresette, M., D. Singewald, E. De Maye. 2006. Recruitment of post-pelagic green turtles 

(Chelonia mydas) to nearshore reefs on Florida’s east coast. In: Frick, M., A. 

Panagopoulou, A. Rees, and K. Williams (comps.). Book of abstracts. Twenty-Sixth 

Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle 

Society, Athens, Greece, pp. 288. 

Gorham, J.C., and M.J. Bresette. 2000. Bias-free estimates of measurement error in sea 

turtle morphometric data collection. In: Kalb. H., and T. Wibbels (comps.). 

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443, pp. 178-179. 

Gorham, J.C., M.J. Bresette, and B.P. Peery. 1998. Comparative tag retention rates for 

two styles of flipper tags. In: Epperly, S. P., and J. Braun (comps.). Proceedings of 

the Seventeenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-415, pp. 190-193. 

Herren, R.M., M.J. Bresette, and D.A. Singewald. 2001. Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) 

growth rates from nearshore Atlantic waters. In: Coyne, M.S., and M.D. Clark 

(comps.). Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle 

Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-528, pp. 

186-187. 
104

Martin, R.E., R.G. Ernest, N.W. Wells, and J.R. Wilcox. 1989. Size distribution and 

seasonal abundance of loggerhead and green turtlens in nearshore waters off St. Lucie 

Power Plant, Florida. In: Ogren, L., F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. 

Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham. Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic 

Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226, pp. 334-335. 

Wibbels, T., D.W. Owens, and M.S. Amoss. 1987. Seasonal changes in the serum 

testosterone titers of loggerhead sea turtles captured along the Atlantic Coast of the 

United States. In: Witzell, W.N. (ed.) Ecology of East Florida Sea Turtles. 

Proceedings of the Cape Canaveral, Florida Sea Turtle Workshop. NOAA Technical 

Report NMFS-53, pp. 59-64. 

Wibbels, T., D.W. Owens, Y.A. Morris, and M.X. Amoss. 1987. Sexing Techniques and 

sex ratios for immature loggerhead sea turtles captured along the Atlantic Coast of the 

United States. In: Witzell, W.N. (ed.). Ecology of East Florida Sea Turtles. 

Proceedings of the Cape Canaveral, Florida Sea Turtle Workshop. NOAA Technical 

Report NMFS-53, pp. 65-74. 

Wilcox, J.R., G. Bouska, J. Gorham, B. Peery, and M. Bresette. 1998. Knee deep in green 

turtles: Recent trends in capture rates at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. In: Byles, 

R., and Y. Fernandez (comps.). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on 

Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-412, pp. 147-148. 

Witzell, W.N., A.L. Bass, M.J. Bresette, D.A. Singewald, and J.C. Gorham. 2002. Origin 

of immature loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) at St. Lucie Power Plant, 

Florida: evidence from mtDNA markers. Fisheries Bulletin 100:624-631. 

Technical Reports: 

Quantum Resources Inc., 1995-2006. Florida Power and Light Co., St. Lucie Unit 2 

annual environmental operating reports [1995-2006]. Prepared by Quantum 

Resources Inc. for Florida Power and Light Company, Juno Beach, FL. 
105

Figure 29 - St. Lucie Power Plant study area.
106

Site Name: Jenning's Cove

General Information

Site Name: Jenning's Cove

Site Reference Number: 24

Region: Southeast County: St. Lucie

Approximate Latitude: 27.45° N Approximate Longitude: 80.30° W

Principal Investigator (s): Michael Bresette, Jonathan Gorham, Richard Herren, Blair Witherington, 

Dean Bagley

Contact Address: 4160 NE Hyline Dr., Jensen Beach, FL 34957

Contact Email: mbresette@inwater.org

Organizations Involved: Inwater Research Group, Inc.

Organization Type: nonprofit

Project Status: active

Active Years: 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Start Date: September 1998

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: set-netting

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: 150 m

Mesh Size: 40 cm stretch Net Depth: 4 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: monthly

Sampling Locations:focus netting on edge of a 6-7.5 m-deep dredge hole

Sampling-Area Description: lagoon

Bottom Type: seagrass, sand, algae mat

Water Type: estuarine

Mean Depth (m): 1.2

Depth Range (m): 0.2 - 2.2

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km net hr

Species Found: Cm, Cc
107

Site Name: Jenning's Cove

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 222 n/a 32.2 74.8 51.6 N, S

Loggerhead 38 n/a 57.1 83.7 n/r N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag

Species Exhibiting FP: Cm

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes
108

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

This study was designed to address fundamental questions concerning relative 

abundance, population dynamics, FP rates, and movements of marine turtles in the 

southern Indian River Lagoon (IRL) system. The southern portion of the IRL supports 

populations of both loggerhead and green turtles. The mean SCL of green turtles here is 

more than 10 cm larger than that in the northern IRL system. FP rates are comparable to 

those to the north but higher than the rates at the nearby St. Lucie Power Plant. The 

researchers seek to expand sampling to the south of Jenning’s Cove in order to obtain a 

more comprehensive picture of differences in turtle populations in different areas of the 

Indian River Lagoon. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Bresette, M., B. Peery, and J. Gorham. 1999. Assessment of marine turtles in an area of 

the Southern Indian River Lagoon System, Florida: September 1998-June 1999. 

Annual report submitted to NMFS, NMFS permit number 1144, 22 pp. 

Bresette, M., B. Peery, and J. Gorham. 2000. Assessment of marine turtles in an area of 

the Southern Indian River Lagoon System, Florida: 2000 annual report. Annual report 

submitted to NMFS, NMFS permit number 1144, 12 pp. 

Bresette, M.J., R.N. Herren, and D.A. Singewald. 2001. Comparison of fibropapilloma 

rates of green turtles (Chelonia mydas ) from two different sites in St. Lucie County, 

Florida. In: Coyne, M.S., and M.D. Clark (comps.). Proceedings of the Twenty-First 

Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-528, pp. 125-126. 

Bresette, M.J., J.C. Gorham, and B.D. Peery. 2002. Initial assessment of sea turtles in the 

southern Indian River Lagoon System, Ft. Pierce, Florida. In: Mosier, A., A. Foley, 

B. Brost (comps.). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle 

Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477, pp. 

271-273. 

 

Inwater Research Group, Inc. 2003-2005. Southern Indian River Lagoon project: research 

program summary reports [2003-2005]. Annual reports submitted to FWC, FWC 

permit number 125. 

Inwater Research Group, Inc. 2001-2002. Assessment of marine turtles in the Southern 

Indian River Lagoon System, Florida: [2001-2002] annual reports. Annual reports 

submitted to NMFS, NMFS permit number 1144. 
109

Figure 30 - Jenning’s Cove study area.
110

Site Name: Indian River County Hardbottom Surveys

General Information

Site Name: Indian River County Hardbottom Surveys

Site Reference Number: 25

Region: Southeast County: Indian River

Approximate Latitude: 27.70° N Approximate Longitude: 80.37° W

Principal Investigator (s): Michael Bresette, Jonathan Gorham, Richard Herren, Blair Witherington, 

Dean Bagley, Stacy Kubis, Madeline Broadstone

Contact Address: 4160 NE Hyline Dr., Jensen Beach, FL 34957

Contact Email: mbresette@inwater.org

Organizations Involved: Inwater Research Group, Inc.

Organization Type: nonprofit

Project Status: active

Active Years: 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Start Date: June 2001

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: visual surveys

Visual-Survey Method: boat-based, straight-line transects

Capture Method: n/a

Net Type: n/a Net Length: n/a

Mesh Size: n/a Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: seasonally

Sampling Locations:same transects during each sampling session

Sampling-Area Description: nearshore hardbottom/reef

Bottom Type: hardbottom, worm rock

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 7.4

Depth Range (m): 0.0-14.1

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km transect

Species Found: Cm, Cc
111

Site Name: Indian River County Hardbottom Surveys

Capture Information Data current through 2005

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle n/a 567 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Loggerhead n/a 113 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Kemp’s Ridley n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: n/a

Species Exhibiting FP: n/a

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: no
112

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

This study was initially a four-year effort to determine the effects of a beachrenourishment project on sea turtle abundances in the area and to describe the distribution 

of turtles in the nearshore reefs off Indian River County. It is now continuing as a 

population-monitoring project. Three study areas were defined, one of which was 

affected by the renourishment project. Within each area, three 3-km transects were 

established parallel to the beach at 300, 600, and 1200 feet offshore. Surfacing turtles 

were counted by observers on a tower onboard a small boat. 

Green turtles made up the majority of overall sightings. Loggerheads were more 

abundant in the offshore transects than in those close to shore, while green turtles were 

generally found closer to shore. The vast majority of turtles in each year were sighted in 

the northern study area of the county, where the renourishment occurred. A comparison 

of turtle abundance before and after the renourishment project revealed slightly higher 

numbers in 2005 than before the project. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Inwater Research Group. 2005. Indian River County sectors 1 & 2 beach restoration inwater sea turtle distribution and abundance monitoring. Third annual report submitted 

to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 22 pp. 
113

Figure 31 - Indian River County Hardbottom Surveys study area.
114

Site Name: Northern Indian River County Reefs

General Information

Site Name: Northern Indian River County Reefs

Site Reference Number: 26

Region: Southeast County: Indian River

Approximate Latitude: 27.80° N Approximate Longitude: 80.40° W

Principal Investigator (s): Llewellyn Ehrhart, William Redfoot, Dean Bagley

Contact Address: Department of Biology, P.O. Box 162368, Orlando FL 32816

Contact Email: lmehrhart@earthlink.com

Organizations Involved: University of Central Florida

Organization Type: university

Project Status: active

Active Years: 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 

2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Start Date: 1988

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, tracking

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: set-netting

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: 100-220 m

Mesh Size: 30.5 and 40.0 cm stretch Net Depth: 3.7 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: summer

Sampling Locations: various locations along reef 76-220 m from shore

Sampling-Area Description: nearshore hardbottom/reef

Bottom Type: worm rock reefs

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 12.6

Depth Range (m): 9.9-14.1

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 

1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km net hr

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Ei
115

Site Name: Northern Indian River County Reefs

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 1013 n/a 24.7 88.8 42.1 O, N, S, A

Loggerhead 18 n/a 49.7 92.9 65.9 N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 2 n/a 24.8 60.2 42.5 O, N

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag, satellite tag, sonic tag

Species Exhibiting FP: Cm

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: yes

Growth-Rate Determination: yes Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes
116

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

The worm reef on which the study is taking place is nearly continuous along the Atlantic 

coast of Florida from Biscayne Bay north to Jupiter, then is patchy northward to Cape 

Canaveral. The reefs are built by aggregations of polychaete worms in the family 

Sabellariidae that cement sand grains and fragments of shells into their tubes. The reefs 

extend from the intertidal zone to a depth of approximately 10 m in a series of linear 

structures parallel to the shoreline and they provide a substrate for at least 109 species of 

marine algae. 

This study has captured mainly juvenile and subadult green turtles, as well as some 

subadult loggerheads, a few adult female loggerheads, and two hawksbills. The small 

number of loggerhead captures is somewhat odd because divers report sightings of the 

species over the reefs farther south along Florida’s east coast. CPUE for green turtles 

during summer is higher over the reef than it is in the IRL, suggesting that there is either 

a greater summer population of green turtles on the reef or that turtles are more 

concentrated in the sampling area there. A female-biased sex ratio has been documented 

using Radioimmunoassay (RIA) titrations from green turtles on the reef. 

Recapture data suggest that turtles may emigrate to the western Caribbean as they 

undergo ontogeny. Green turtles from the reef have been captured locally at St. Lucie 

Power Plant, and turtles tagged by other projects near IRC have been captured on the 

reef. The turtles consume mostly algae in the Divisions Chlorophyta and Rhodophyta. 

Green turtles show an 8-32.9% prevalence of FP in this habitat, far lower than that in the 

nearby IRL. This is possibly due to the “oceanic” nature of the reef system. Haplotype 

analysis of green turtle mtDNA indicates that turtles in this population originate from 

Florida, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Aves Island. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Bagley, D.A., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1999. Characterization of a population of juvenile green 

turtles from an east central Florida developmental habitat. Florida Scientist 62(1):36. 

Bagley, D.A., A.L. Bass, S. Johnson, L.M. Ehrhart, and B.W. Bowen. 1998. Origins of 

juvenile green turtles from an east central Florida developmental habitat as 

determined by mtDNA analysis. In: Abreu-Grobois, F.A., R. Briseno Duenas, R. 

Marquez, and L. Sarti (comps.). Proceedings of the Eighteenth International 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFWC-436, pp. 37. 

Ehrhart, L. M. 1984. Structure, status and ecology of loggerhead and green turtle 

populations in developmental habitats of the Indian River Lagoon System, Florida. 

In: Bacon, P., F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Hirth, L. Ogren, and M. Weber. 1984. 

Proceedings of the Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. Volume 1, pp. 256.
117

Ehrhart, L. M. 1992. Turtles of the worm rock reefs. The Florida Naturalist 65(2):9-11. 

Ehrhart, L.M., and K.G. Holloway-Adkins. 2000. A comparative study of the feeding 

ecology of Chelonia mydas; the incidental ingestion of Prorocentrum sp. and related 

topics. Final Report to the Bernice Barbour Foundation, 11 pp. 

Ehrhart, L.M. and L.H. Ogren. 1999. Studies in foraging habitats: capturing and handling 

turtles. In: Eckert, K. L., K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois, and M. Donnelly (eds). 

Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. 

IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication No. 4, pp. 61-64.

Ehrhart, L.M., and W.E. Redfoot. 2000. UCF marine turtle research-Indian River 

Lagoon and near-shore worm reefs. In: Bjorndal, K.A., and A.B. Bolten. Proceedings 

of a Workshop on Assessing Abundance and Trends for In-Water Sea Turtle 

Populations. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-445, pp. 47-48. 

Ehrhart, L. M., W.E. Redfoot, and D.A. Bagley. 1996. A study of the population ecology 

of in-water marine turtle populations on the east-central Florida coast from 1982-96. 

Comprehensive final report to NOAA/NMFS, 164 pp. 

Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, and W.E. Redfoot. 1999. A study of the population ecology 

of in-water marine turtle populations on the east-central Florida coast, in 1997-98. 

Final report to NOAA/NMFS, 56 pp. 

Ehrhart, L.M., W.E. Redfoot, and D.A. Bagley. 2000. Green turtles in three 

 developmental habitats of the Florida Atlantic coast: population structure, 

fibropapillomatosis and post-juvenile migratory destinations. In: Abreu-Grobois, 

F.A., R. Briseno Duenas, R. Marquez, and L. Sarti (comps.). Proceedings of the 

Eighteenth International Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFWC-436, pp. 32. 

Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, W.E. Redfoot, S.A. Kubis, and S. Hirama. 2001. In-water 

population studies of marine turtles on the east-central Florida coast; September, 1999 

through December, 2000. Final report to NOAA/NMFS, 53 pp. 

Guseman, J.L., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1990. Preliminary assessment of a marine turtle 

population inhabiting the Sabellariid reefs off Indian River County, Florida, with 

comparisons to a nearby lagoon population. Florida Scientist 53(1):23. 

Guseman, J.L., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1991. Green turtles on Sabellariid worm reefs: initial 

results from studies on the Florida Atlantic coast. In: Richardson, T. (comp.). 

Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-278, pp. 125-127. 
118

Frutchey, K.P., E.S. Dierenfeld, L.M. Ehrhart, and P.C.H. Pritchard. 2002. Plasma levels 

of vitamins A and E in three marine turtle species nesting in the Archie Carr National 

Wildlife Refuge. Florida Scientist 65(Suppl. 1):44. 

Hirama, S., and L.M. Ehrhart. 2002. Epizootiology of green turtle fibropapillomatosis on 

the Florida Atlantic coast. In: Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (comps.). 

Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477, pp. 51. 

Hirama, S., and L.M. Ehrhart. 2003. Prevalence of green turtle fibropapillomatosis in 

three developmental habitats on the east coast of Florida. In: Seminoff, J.A. (comp.). 

Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-503, pp. 302. 

Holloway-Adkins, K.G., and L.M. Ehrhart. 2000. A comparative study of the feeding 

ecology of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Florida Scientist 63(1):44. 

Holloway-Adkins, K.G., and L.M. Ehrhart. 2001. A comparison of habitat foraging 

ecology and the biotoxin okadaic acid in five Florida populations of Chelonia mydas. 

In: Coyne, M.S., and M.D. Clark (comps.). Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-528, pp. 61-63.

Holloway-Adkins, K.G., S.A. Kubis, A.M. Maharaj, and L.M. Ehrhart. 2002. 

Extraordinary capture rates of juvenile green turtles over a nearshore reef at 

Sebastian, Florida in the summer of 1999. In: Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost 

(comps.). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology 

and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477, pp. 265-266. 

Holloway-Adkins, K.G., M.J. Bresette, and L.M. Ehrhart. 2003. Juvenile green turtles of 

the Sabellariid worm reef. In: Pilcher, N.J. (comp.). Proceedings of the Twenty-Third 

Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. Twenty-Second 

Symposium Proceedings Addendum. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-536, pp. 259.

Kubis, S.A. 2003. Growth Rates of Juvenile Green Turtles, Chelonia mydas, from Three 

Developmental Habitats Along the East Central Coast of Florida. Master’s thesis, 

University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, 60 pp. 

Redfoot, W.E., L.M. Ehrhart, and P.W. Raymond. 1985. A juvenile Atlantic hawksbill 

turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, from Brevard County, Florida. Florida Scientist 

48(4):193-196. 
119

Figure 32 - Northern Indian County Reefs study area.
120

Site Name: Central Indian River Lagoon

General Information

Site Name: Central Indian River Lagoon

Site Reference Number: 27

Region: Southeast County: Indian River, Brevard

Approximate Latitude: 27.83° N Approximate Longitude: 80.44° W

Principal Investigator (s): Llewellyn Ehrhart, William Redfoot, Dean Bagley

Contact Address: Department of Biology, P.O. Box 162368, Orlando FL 32816

Contact Email: lmehrhart@earthlink.com

Organizations Involved: University of Central Florida

Organization Type: university

Project Status: active

Active Years: 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 

1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Start Date: May 1982

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, tracking

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: set-netting

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: 2 nets totaling 450 m

Mesh Size: 10.5 and 40 cm stretch Net Depth: 3.7 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: monthly

Sampling Locations:same netting location each sampling session

Sampling-Area Description: lagoon

Bottom Type: seagrass, drift algae, sand

Water Type: estuarine

Mean Depth (m): 0.1

Depth Range (m): 0.0-0.1

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 

1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km net hr

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk, Ei
121

Site Name: Central Indian River Lagoon

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 2685 n/a 24.3 99.5 44.1 O, N, S, A

Loggerhead 988 n/a 41.5 103.0 64.7 N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 3 n/a 35.1 48.5 40.0 N, S

Hawksbill 1 n/a 67.6 n/a 67.6 S

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag, satellite tag

Species Exhibiting FP: Cm, Cc

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: yes

Growth-Rate Determination: yes Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

This study has allowed for the assessment of trends in turtle populations over a long 

period of time. Since 1982, tangle nets have been deployed at nine locations in the 

central region of the IRL system between the town of Indialantic, Brevard County, and 

the town of Wabasso, Indian River County. The majority of netting effort has occurred 

in a large embayment 3 km south of Sebastian Inlet known locally as South Bay. The 

undisturbed areas of shoreline are made up of red mangroves; seagrass beds are 

composed of manatee grass and shoal grass in areas less than one meter deep. Halophila

is found in deeper waters. Large areas of drift algae cover the lagoon and are found 

adjacent to the seagrass beds. 

Green turtles make up the majority of captures in the lagoon, followed respectively by 

subadult loggerheads, adult loggerheads (both male and female), and other species 

including Kemp’s ridley and hawksbill turtles. Male loggerheads measuring 63.5 to 72 

cm are probably maturing males; those between 74.1 and 80.9 cm are classified as 

maturing males. 
122

The higher catch of green turtles may be misleading because this may be a result of the 

netting site and not necessarily representative of the entire lagoon. The netting site is 

amidst large mats of drift algae, where green turtles may be foraging. Aside from one 

adult male, all of the green turtles captured have been juveniles. Green turtle captures 

and CPUE in the lagoon have been increasing over the years. Green turtle relative 

abundance follows a cyclic pattern throughout the year, with higher abundances during 

the fall and winter than in the spring and summer. This cycle may be due to seasonal 

migration and changes in food supply. Green turtles in this area forage principally on 

drift algae that are more abundant during colder temperatures. The biomass of these 

algae undergoes a marked decrease during late spring and summer. In addition, this 

change in seasonal abundance may be due to southern and northern seasonal migrations 

that occur to areas with appropriate water temperatures along the east coast. A sharp 

drop in captures of green turtles over 70 cm may signal an ontogenic shift as maturing 

green turtles leave this area. Genetic samples show that green turtles in the lagoon come 

from rookeries in Florida, Mexico, Costa Rica, Aves Island, Brazil, Ascension Island, and 

Guinea Bissau. Genetic samples have also been taken from loggerheads. 

RIA techniques show that both greens and loggerheads in this habitat have a sex ratio 

bias towards females. The severity of green turtle FP varies greatly from individual to 

individual, as well as temporally. Overall there is 28.3 – 71.6% incidence of the 

condition. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Bagley, D.A., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1999. Characterization of a population of juvenile green 

turtles from an east central Florida developmental habitat. Florida Scientist 62(1):36. 

Bagley, D.A., A.L. Bass, S. Johnson, L.M. Ehrhart, and B.W. Bowen. 1998. Origins of 

juvenile green turtles from an east central Florida developmental habitat as 

determined by mtDNA analysis. In: Abreu-Grobois, F.A., R. Briseno Duenas, R. 

Marquez, and L. Sarti (comps.). Proceedings of the Eighteenth International 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFWC-436, pp. 37. 

 

Ehrhart, L.M. 1983. Marine turtles of the Indian River Lagoon System. Florida Scientist 

46(3/4):337-346. 

Ehrhart, L.M. 1984a. Structure, status and ecology of loggerhead and green turtle 

populations in developmental habitats of the Indian River Lagoon System, Florida. 

In: Bacon, P., F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Hirth, L. Ogren, and M. Weber. 1984. 

Proceedings of the Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. Volume 1, pp. 256.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1985. Characterization of loggerhead and green turtle populations in the 

Indian River Lagoon system, Florida, with comments on use of the terms, "juvenile" 

and "subadult." American Zoologist 25(4):106A. 
123

Ehrhart, L.M. 1991. Fibropapillomas in green turtles of the Indian River Lagoon, Florida: 

distribution over time and area. In: Balazs, G.H., and S.G. Pooley (eds.). Research 

Plan for Marine Turtle Fibropapilloma. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSWFSC-156, pp. 59-61. 

Ehrhart, L.M., and S. Hirama. 1999. Epidemiology of Green Turtle Fibropapilloma 

Disease (FP) in Florida. Final Report to the Bernice Barbour Foundation, 14 pp. 

Ehrhart, L.M., and K.G. Holloway-Adkins. 2000. A Comparative Study of the Feeding 

Ecology of Chelonia mydas; the Incidental Ingestion of Prorocentrum sp. and Related 

Topics. Final Report to the Bernice Barbour Foundation, 11 pp. 

Ehrhart, L.M., and L.H. Ogren. 1999. Studies in foraging habitats: capturing and handling 

turtles. In: Eckert, K.L., K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois, and M. Donnelly (eds.). 

Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles.

IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication No. 4, pp. 61-64. 

Ehrhart, L.M., and W.E. Redfoot. 1995. Composition and status of the marine turtle 

assemblage of the Indian River Lagoon system. Bulletin of Marine Science 

57(1):279-280. 

Ehrhart, L.M., and W.E. Redfoot. 1992. Trends in loggerhead and green turtle population 

densities in Florida’s east coast lagoons: the usefulness of CPUE analysis. Florida 

Scientist 55(1):25. 

Ehrhart, L.M., and W.E. Redfoot. 2000. UCF marine turtle research-Indian River Lagoon 

and near-shore worm reefs. In: Bjorndal, K.A., and A.B. Bolten. Proceedings of a 

Workshop on Assessing Abundance and Trends for In-Water Sea Turtle Populations. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-445, pp. 47-48. 

Ehrhart, L.M., and B.E. Witherington. 1986. The role of juveniles and subadults in the 

ecologic geography of Florida loggerheads and green turtles: evidence form the 

central region of the Indian River. Florida Scientist 49(1):38. 

Ehrhart, L. M., W.E. Redfoot, and D.A. Bagley. 1996. A study of the population ecology 

of in-water marine turtle populations on the east-central Florida coast from 1982-96. 

Comprehensive final report to NOAA/NMFS, 164 pp. 

Ehrhart, L.M., W.E. Redfoot, and D.A. Bagley. 1998. Green turtles in three 

developmental habitats of the Florida Atlantic coast: population structure, 

fibropapillomatosis and post-juvenile migratory destinations. In: Abreu-Grobois, 

F.A., R. Briseno Duenas, R. Marquez, and L. Sarti (comps.). Proceedings of the 

Eighteenth International Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFWC-436, pp. 32. 
124

Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, and W.E. Redfoot. 1999. A study of the population ecology 

of in-water marine turtle populations on the east-central Florida coast, in 1997-98. 

Final report to NOAA/NMFS, 56 pp. 

Ehrhart, L.M., W.E. Redfoot, and D.A. Bagley. 2000. Green turtles in three 

developmental habitats of the Florida Atlantic coast: population structure, 

fibropapillomatosis and post-juvenile migratory destinations. In: Abreu-Grobois, 

F.A., R. Briseno Duenas, R. Marquez, and L. Sarti (comps.). Proceedings of the 

Eighteenth International Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFWC-436, pp. 32. 

Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, W.E. Redfoot, S.A. Kubis, and S. Hirama. 2001. In-water 

population studies of marine turtles on the east-central Florida coast; September, 1999 

Through December, 2000. Final report to NOAA/NMFS, 53 pp. 

Hirama, S., and L.M. Ehrhart. 2003. Prevalence of green turtle fibropapillomatosis in 

three developmental habitats on the east coast of Florida. In: Seminoff, J.A. (comp.). 

Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-5, pp. 302. 

Hirama, S., and L.M. Ehrhart. 2002. Epizootiology of green turtle fibropapillomatosis on 

the Florida Atlantic coast. In: Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (comps.). 

Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477, pp. 51. 

Hirama, S., and L.M. Ehrhart. 2001. Regression/progression of fibropapilloma severity in 

green turtles in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, based on recapture records. In: 

Coyne, M.S., and M.D. Clark (comps.). Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-528, pp. 78. 

Hirama, S., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1999. Prevalence and severity of green turtle 

fibropapillomatosis in the Indian River Lagoon. Florida Scientist 62(1): 35. 

Holloway-Adkins, K.G., and L.M. Ehrhart. 2001. A comparison of habitat foraging 

ecology and the biotoxin okadaic acid in five Florida populations of Chelonia mydas. 

In: Coyne, M.S., and M.D. Clark (comps.). Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-528, pp. 61-63.

Holloway-Adkins, K.G., and L.M. Ehrhart. 2000. A comparative study of the feeding 

ecology of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Florida Scientist 63(1):44. 

Kubis, S.A. 2003. Growth Rates of Juvenile Green Turtles, Chelonia mydas, from Three 

Developmental Habitats Along the East Central Coast of Florida. Master’s thesis, 

University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, 60 pp. 
125

Kubis, S.A., D.A. Bagley, and L.M. Ehrhart. 2001. Elasmobranch associates of marine 

turtles on the east coast of Florida. In: Coyne, M.S., and M.D. Clark (comps.). 

Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and 

Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-528, pp. 220-221.

Kubis, S.A., W.E. Redfoot, D.A. Bagley, and L.M. Ehrhart. Changes in relative 

abundance and population structure of immature marine turtles in the Indian River 

Lagoon, Florida over the past 20 years. In: Seminoff, J.A. (comp.). Proceedings of the 

Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-5, pp. 3. 

Lohmann, K.J., C.M.F. Lohmann, L.M. Ehrhart, D.A. Bagley, and T. Swing. 2004. 

Geomagnetic mapping facility in sea turtles. Nature 428:909-910. 

Parkinson, C.L., L.M. Ehrhart, and J.S. Reece. 2004. The genetic identity and global 

significance of juvenile loggerhead turtles in the Indian River Lagoon. Final report to 

Marine Turtle Grants Committee, 2 pp. 

Redfoot, W. E., L.M. Ehrhart, and J.L. Guseman. 1992. A spatial and temporal 

comparison of the morphometrics of juvenile green turtles and subadult loggerheads 

in the central region of the Indian River lagoon. Florida Scientist 55(1):25. 

Redfoot, W.E., L.M. Ehrhart, and P.W. Raymond. 1985. A juvenile Atlantic hawksbill 

turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, from Brevard County, Florida. Florida Scientist 

48(4):193-196. 

Schmid, T.H., L.M. Ehrhart, and F.F. Snelson. 1988. Notes on the occurrence of rays 

(Elasmobranchii, Batoidea) in the Indian River Lagoon System, Florida. Florida 

Scientist 51(2):121-128. 

Witherington, B.E., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1989. Hypothermic stunning and mortality of 

marine turtles in the Indian River Lagoon System, Florida. Copeia 1989(3):696-703. 

Witherington, B. E., and Ehrhart, L.M. 1987. Frequency and effects of papillomatosis in 

green turtles of the Indian River Lagoon system. In: Serino, J.L. (comp.). Proceedings 

of the Seventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, pp. 22. 
126

Figure 33 - Central Indian River Lagoon study area.
127

Site Name: Central Brevard County Reefs

General Information

Site Name: Central Brevard County Reefs

Site Reference Number: 28

Region: Southeast County: Brevard

Approximate Latitude: 28.18° N Approximate Longitude: 80.57° W

Principal Investigator (s): Karen Holloway-Adkins

Contact Address: P.O. Box 33715, Indialantic, FL 32903

Contact Email: kgha@earthlink.net

Organizations Involved: East Coast Biologists Inc., Florida Atlantic University

Organization Type: nonprofit, university

Project Status: active

Active Years: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Start Date: 2003

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, visual surveys, tracking

Visual-Survey Method: boat-based, straight-line transects

Capture Method: set-netting

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: 180 m

Mesh Size: 30 cm stretch Net Depth: 4 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistic

Sampling Locations: netting and transects variable within study area

Sampling-Area Description: nearshore hardbottom/reef

Bottom Type: worm rock reef, hardbottom

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 12.2

Depth Range (m): 2.4-16.4

Effort-Data Availability: yes (for set-netting only)

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km net hr (set net); none for visual surveys

Species Found: Cm, Cc
128

Site Name: Central Brevard County Reefs

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 34 172 26.4 64.6 37.0 N

Loggerhead 0 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Kemp’s Ridley 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag, sonic tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: yes

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes
129

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

This study was initiated in 2003 to characterize the marine turtle populations along the 

reefs off of central Brevard County. It was expanded in 2005 to provide information on 

marine turtles utilizing the “Mid Reach” as part of a Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Brevard County Shore Protection Study. Both visual transect surveys 

and tangle netting trips are used to study the turtles in the area. The substrate in the study 

area consists of hardbottom, worm rocks, coquina, and limestone outcroppings. The 

water conditions are very dynamic and often turbid due to the close proximity to the 

intertidal zone. Therefore, tangle nets and dip nets are used east of the reef formation. 

Juvenile green turtles have made up 99% of visual sightings and all captures. Transects 

have shown turtles to be fairly evenly distributed across the northern sectors of the study 

area. Most of the captured green turtles have been in the smaller juvenile size range. 

Lavage samples are taken to identify the diets of captured turtles and show red algae to 

make up a major part of green turtle diets. None of the turtles captured have exhibited 

signs of FP. Turtles are also outfitted with acoustic tracking devices to study their spatial 

movements. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

East Coast Biologists. 2004. Characterizing the population structure and foraging ecology 

of marine turtles utilizing nearshore reefs in central Brevard County. Report to 

Marine Turtle Grants Committee, 12pp. 

Holloway-Adkins, K. 2006. Juvenile green turtles (Chelonia mydas) foraging on a highenergy, shallow reef on the east coast of Florida, USA. In: Frick, M., A. 

Panagopoulou, A. Rees, and K. Williams (comps.). Book of abstracts. Twenty-Sixth 

Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle 

Society, Athens, Greece, pp. 193. 

Holloway-Adkins, K. and Provancha, J. 2005. Abundance and foraging activity of marine 

turtles using nearshore rock resources along the Mid Reach of Brevard County, 

Florida. Final report to Olsen Associates, Inc. 45 pp. 
130

Figure 34 - Central Brevard County Reefs study area.
131

Site Name: Epipelagic Drift Community - Southeast

General Information

Site Name: Epipelagic Drift Community - Southeast

Site Reference Number: 29

Region: Southeast County: Outside county boundaries

Approximate Latitude: 28.28° N Approximate Longitude: 80.16° W

Principal Investigator (s): Blair Witherington

Contact Address: 9700 South A1A, Melbourne Beach, FL 32951

Contact Email: witherington@cfl.rr.com

Organizations Involved: FWC/FWRI

Organization Type: state agency

Project Status: active

Active Years: 1992, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2005, 2006

Start Date: August 1992

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, visual surveys

Visual-Survey Method: boat-based transects through linear drift habitat

Capture Method: dip-netting from surface

Net Type: dip net Net Length: n/a

Mesh Size: 0.25-1.5 in. Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistic

Sampling Locations: various locations within study area

Sampling-Area Description: pelagic downwelling zones, drift lines, Sargassum patches

Bottom Type: n/a

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 60.3

Depth Range (m): 2.4-292.4

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1992, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2005

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km2 transect

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Ei
132

Site Name: Epipelagic Drift Community - Southeast

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 9 3 5.3 26.0 CCL 7.7 O, N

Loggerhead 987 332 3.9 7.8 5.2 O

Kemp’s Ridley 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 1 0 13.4 n/a 13.4 O

Leatherback 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: n/a

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: no

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

This study area was established earlier than the other three epipelagic drift community 

sites and focuses on the Florida Current off of Brevard County. Captures are almost 

exclusively small oceanic-stage loggerheads (young of the year). See the narrative under 

Epipelagic Drift Community – Northwest for more information and literature produced. 
133

Figure 35 - Epipelagic Drift Community - Southeast study area.
134

Site Name: Port Canaveral Ship Channel (Carr et al.)

General Information

Site Name: Port Canaveral Ship Channel (Carr et al.)

Site Reference Number: 30

Region: Southeast County: Brevard

Approximate Latitude: 28.41° N Approximate Longitude: 80.55° W

Principal Investigator (s): Archie Carr, Larry Ogren, Charles McVea

Contact Address: n/a

Contact Email: lhogren@aol.com

Organizations Involved: University of Florida, NMFS

Organization Type: university, federal agency

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 1978

Start Date: February 1978

End Date: March 1978

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: trawling

Net Type: trawl net Net Length: 18 m

Mesh Size: unknown Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: once in winter

Sampling Locations: various locations within study area

Sampling-Area Description: dredged channel

Bottom Type: channel

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 9.8

Depth Range (m): 1.4-11.2

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1978

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/trawl min

Species Found: Cc, Lk
135

Site Name: Port Canaveral Ship Channel (Carr et al.)

Capture Information Data current through 1978

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Loggerhead 241 n/a 57.5 98.0 69.1 N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 3 n/a n/r n/r n/r n/r

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: monel tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: no
136

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Loggerheads were incidentally captured at high rates in trawlers. Fifty-six loggerheads 

were caught in a 123-minute trawl, and 100 were caught in a 128-minute trawl. This is 

the highest concentration ever reported for any species of a sea turtle in a nonbreeding 

habitat. Eighty-five percent of the captures were subadults. Thermal data suggested that 

torpid turtles had been dragged out of the bottom and walls of the channel and were likely 

hibernating. The implication is that loggerheads may sometimes hibernate in temperate 

sections of their range, just as some freshwater turtles do. Turtles were embedded in 

mud, which would have been the result of voluntary behavior prior to becoming torpid. 

Turtle body temperature was documented at 2-3° C higher than the water temperature of 

14° C. The temperature 25 cm into the mud bottom was the same as that of the turtles 

captured. This implies that the turtles would not need to use thermoregulation and could 

rely on the surrounding mud to maintain a viable temperature. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Ogren, L., and C. McVea, Jr. 1981. Apparent hibernation by sea turtles in North 

American waters. In: K. A. Bjorndal (ed.). Biology and conservation of sea turtles. 

Proceedings of the World Conference on Sea Turtle Conservation. Smithsonian 

Institute Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 127-132. 

Carr, A., L. Ogren, and C. McVea. 1980. Apparent hibernation by the Atlantic 

loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta off Cape Canaveral, Florida. Biological 

Conservation 19:7-14. 
137

Figure 36 - Carr et al. Port Canaveral Ship Channel study area. 
138

Site Name: Cape Canaveral (Henwood)

General Information

Site Name: Cape Canaveral (Henwood)

Site Reference Number: 31

Region: Southeast County: Brevard

Approximate Latitude: 28.41° N Approximate Longitude: 80.44° W

Principal Investigator (s): Tyrrell Henwood

Contact Address: NMFS, 3209 Frederic Street, Pascagoula, MS 39567

Contact Email: n/a

Organizations Involved: NMFS

Organization Type: federal agency

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984

Start Date: January 1978

End Date: December 1984

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: trawling

Net Type: trawl net Net Length: 18.5 m

Mesh Size: unknown Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistic

Sampling Locations: various locations within channel

Sampling-Area Description: dredged channel

Bottom Type: channel

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 10.0

Depth Range (m): 0.0-18.9

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/trawl hr

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk
139

Site Name: Cape Canaveral (Henwood)

Capture Information Data current through 1984

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 20 n/a 23.6 68.1 33.8 O, N

SCLmax SCLmax SCLmax

Loggerhead 3710 n/a 45.0 110.0 73.2 N, S, A

SCLmax SCLmax SCLmax

Kemp’s Ridley 40 n/a 24.1 66.0 38.6 O, N, S, A

SCLmax SCLmax SCLmax

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag

Species Exhibiting FP: not reported

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Loggerheads: 

Size and sex composition of turtle aggregations in the Canaveral area changed seasonally. 

Migrations of breeding turtles occurred during the spring and summer months and were 

less common throughout the rest of the year, suggesting that adults were not resident in 

the area. Subadult turtle movements were not dependant on reproductive activities and so 

their distributions may have reflected changes in environmental conditions and foraging 

opportunities. CPUE and recapture data indicated that turtle aggregations are dynamic 

and that turtles move into and out of the area regularly. 

Adult males moved into the Canaveral area prior to adult females. Peak densities of 

males occurred during April and May, with adult males leaving by June. The same males 

were often present year after year for breeding activities. This suggested that males may 

breed annually and do not migrate with females. Adult females who nested in the 

Canaveral area did not overwinter there. Females that were encountered in the winter 

were either non-breeding or members of other nesting populations. Breeding females 
140

were dominant May to August. These were short-term migrants that emigrated from 

distant foraging areas. 

Subadult turtles were dominant in the ship channel from August to March. Subadults 

emigrated as far north as Chesapeake Bay in the spring. The majority of the longdistance recoveries of Canaveral turtles occurred north of Cape Canaveral, but these may 

portray a biased impression of dispersal patterns. Most of the recoveries came from 

shrimp trawlers. Higher levels of shrimping occur in the north while not much fishing 

effort takes place to the south. The greatest concentrations of subadults occurred from 

October to March. Many subadults were present year after year, depending on 

environmental conditions. This suggested a residential population of subadults which 

disperse locally during spring and summer and return to the channel each winter. 

Green Turtles: 

Green turtles were captured during all months except August and November. The 

infrequent nature of capture and lack of seasonal change in abundance when compared to 

loggerheads suggested that these animals may represent an itinerant population. No 

green turtles were ever recaptured. Greens in the Canaveral area may represent early 

developmental stages that precede the shift to herbivory and subsequent recruitment to 

feeding pastures since they were smaller than those observed by Ehrhart in Mosquito 

Lagoon. Offshore captures of green turtles may represent transients that are making their 

way to coastal developmental habitats where seagrasses are abundant. 

Kemp’s ridleys: 

All but one Kemp’s ridley capture were immature. The capture of this one adult-sized 

Kemp’s ridley outside the Gulf of Mexico suggested that mature Kemp’s ridleys 

occasionally forage along the east coast of Florida. 

Most Kemp’s ridley captures occurred from December through March, suggesting that 

the species is present primarily during winter months. Recaptures by shrimping vessels 

off Georgia and South Carolina confirmed that Kemp’s ridleys occur in waters north of 

Canaveral during the summer and fall months, but shrimping effort is biased towards that 

time of year. There was a southward movement of ridleys during periods of colder water 

temperatures. Kemp’s ridleys overwintered in Cape Canaveral and moved north along 

the Atlantic coastline with increasing sea temperatures, foraging as far north as 

Chesapeake Bay. These same turtles moved south when water temperatures began to 

fall. Seasonal movements up and down the coast may continue until they reach sexual 

maturity and then return to the Gulf of Mexico to breed. 
141

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Henwood, T.A. 1987. Sea Turtles of the Southeastern United States, with Emphasis on 

the Life History and Population Dynamics of the Loggerhead Turtles, Caretta 

caretta. Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 170 pp. 

Henwood, T.A. 1987. Movements of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, in the vicinity of 

Cape Canaveral, Florida, as determined by tagging experiments 1978-1984. In: 

Witzell, W.N. (ed.). Ecology of East Florida Sea Turtles. Proceedings of the Cape 

Canaveral, Florida Sea Turtle Workshop. NOAA Technical Report NMFS-53, pp. 29. 

Henwood, T.A. 1987. Distribution and migrations of immature Kemp's ridley turtles 

(Lepidochelys kempi) and green turtles (Chelonia mydas) off Florida, Georgia, and 

South Carolina. Northeast Gulf Science 9(2):153-159. 

Henwood, T.A. 1987. Movements and seasonal changes in loggerhead turtle Caretta 

caretta aggregations in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral, Florida (1978-1984). 

Biological Conservation 40:191-202. 

Wibbels, T., D.W. Owens, and M.S. Amoss. 1987. Seasonal changes in the serum 

testosterone titers of loggerhead sea turtles captured along the Atlantic Coast of the 

United States. In: Witzell, W.N. (ed.) Ecology of East Florida Sea Turtles. 

Proceedings of the Cape Canaveral, Florida Sea Turtle Workshop. NOAA Technical 

Report NMFS-53, pp. 59-64. 

Wibbels, T., D.W. Owens, Y.A. Morris, and M.X. Amoss. 1987. Sexing Techniques and 

sex ratios for immature loggerhead sea turtles captured along the Atlantic Coast of the 

United States. In: Witzell, W.N. (ed.). Ecology of East Florida Sea Turtles. 

Proceedings of the Cape Canaveral, Florida Sea Turtle Workshop. NOAA Technical 

Report NMFS-53, pp. 65-74. 
142

Figure 37 - Henwood Cape Canaveral study area.
143

Site Name: Port Canaveral Ship Channel (Bolten et al.)

General Information

Site Name: Port Canaveral Ship Channel (Bolten et al.)

Site Reference Number: 32

Region: Southeast County: Brevard

Approximate Latitude: 28.41° N Approximate Longitude: 80.55° W

Principal Investigator (s): Alan Bolten, Karen Bjorndal, Dena Dickerson

Contact Address: ACCSTR, Bartram Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611

Contact Email: abb@zoo.ufl.edu

Organizations Involved: University of Florida, USACE

Organization Type: university

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 1992, 1993

Start Date: March 1992

End Date: February 1993

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: trawling

Net Type: trawl net Net Length: 20 m

Mesh Size: 8 inch stretch Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: monthly

Sampling Locations: 4 sampling stations sampled during each session

Sampling-Area Description: dredged channel

Bottom Type: channel

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 9.8

Depth Range (m): 1.4-11.2

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1992, 1993

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/trawl hr; turtles/trawl km

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk
144

Site Name: Port Canaveral Ship Channel (Bolten et al.)

Capture Information Data current through 1993

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 2 n/a 52.0 98.5 75.3 N, A

Loggerhead 171 n/a 47.0 109.8 n/r N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 1 n/a 30.8 n/a 30.8 N

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: no
145

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

The number of loggerheads captured and the size classes observed varied seasonally. 

Adults principally used the channel during the spring-summer breeding season; juveniles 

were present year round. Differences between stations may have been related to 

differences in bottom type. 

A peak in juvenile captures in the winter was believed to represent a group of juvenile 

loggerheads migrating south away from cooler northern temperatures. 

Blood samples were collected from 168 loggerheads, and plasma samples were evaluated 

for 26 analytes. This was done to establish baseline values for blood chemistries to 

monitor the long-term physiological status of loggerhead populations. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Bolten, A.B., K.A. Bjorndal, P.J. Eliazar, and L.F. Gregory. 1993. Assessment of sea 

turtle relative abundance in Port Canaveral Ship Channel, Florida. Final report 

submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, July 1993. Cooperative Agreement 

DACW17-90-H-0015, 65 pp. 

Bolten A.B., K.A. Bjorndal, P.J. Eliazar, and L.F. Gregory. 1994. Seasonal Abundance, 

Size Distribution, and Blood Chemical Value of Loggerheads (Caretta caretta) in 

Port Canaveral Ship Channel, Florida. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-353, 39 pp. 

Dickerson, D.D., K.J. Reine, D.A. Nelson, and C.E. Dickerson, Jr. 1995. Assessment of 

Sea Turtles Abundance in Six South Atlantic U.S. Channels. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station Miscellaneous Paper EL-95-5, 129 pp. 
146

Figure 38 - Bolten et al. Port Canaveral Ship Channel study area.
147

Site Name: Cape Canaveral (Standora et al.)

General Information

Site Name: Cape Canaveral (Standora et al.)

Site Reference Number: 33

Region: Southeast County: Brevard

Approximate Latitude: 28.41° N Approximate Longitude: 80.57° W

Principal Investigator (s): Edward Standora, Stephen Morreale, Alan Bolten

Contact Address: 2097 Ferry Rd., Grand Island, NY 14072

Contact Email: standoea@aol.com

Organizations Involved: Buffalo State College, Cornell University, University of Florida

Organization Type: universities

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 1993

Start Date: March 1993

End Date: April 1993

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, tracking

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: trawling

Net Type: trawl net Net Length: 18 m

Mesh Size: unknown Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: consistently over 2 months

Sampling Locations: various locations within channel

Sampling-Area Description: dredged channel

Bottom Type: channel

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 11.0 (from nautical charts)

Depth Range (m): 0.0-11.0 (from nautical charts)

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: n/a

Method of Calculating CPUE: n/a

Species Found: Cc
148

Site Name: Cape Canaveral (Standora et al.)

Capture Information Data current through 1993

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Loggerhead 81 n/a 45.6 108.7 n/r N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, sonic tag, radio tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: yes

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: no
149

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

This study used biotelemetric methods to determine daily patterns of channel usage by 

turtles and compared them with movements outside the channel. The diurnal diving 

patterns of turtles were monitored to determine the relative amount of time spent at 

different depths. The study also documented the amount of time loggerheads spent at the 

surface in order to assist in calculating correction factors for aerial surveys. The 

researchers also examined the utility of relocating turtles from the channel as a means of 

mitigating or minimizing turtle deaths caused by dredging. 

Loggerhead sizes ranged from juvenile to adult and included both males and females. 

Eighty-one turtles were captured, ten of which were adult males that were immediately 

released from the net. Twenty-two of the captured turtles were tagged and released back 

into the channel. The remaining 49 turtles were used in the monitoring and relocation 

studies. A bimodal distribution of size classes indicated that turtles of two distinct size 

classes used this channel: juvenile and adult. Mainly juveniles were captured in March, 

and adult males made up the majority of captures in April. A study in the summer of 

1992 (Bolten et al., 1993), conversely, found females to be dominant. 

Turtles spent greater amounts of time in the bottom third of the water column in the 

spring and considerably less time at the surface than during the 1992 summer study 

(Bolten et al., 1993). There were also differences in behavior between size classes within 

the spring: mature males were more active at the surface than juveniles and showed a 

greater tendency toward residency in the channel area. These differences were evident in 

the direction of movement, net distance moved, and rate of travel for most turtles. The 

higher levels of adult activity may be due to the start of the mating season for 

loggerheads in the area. During this period, there was a large influx of adult males and a 

later one by adult females in the summer. The differences observed both between and 

within seasons may thus reflect differences between age classes and reproductive 

condition. 

During a relocation experiment to assess management strategies, 34 turtles were released 

at distances of 10, 40, and 70 km north or south of the channel. Six control turtles were 

not displaced. Control turtles did not display uniform behavior. The displacement 

distance was significantly correlated with the time it took for turtles to return to the 

channel. There was no significant relationship between the direction of displacement and 

the time required to return or the number of turtles returning. Overall, however, turtles 

released to the south showed less random movements than those released to the north. 

The study did not recommend relocation during spring; relocations may, however, 

different seasonal effects and concomitant changes in turtle behavior and activity. 
150

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Eberle, M.D., E.A. Standora, J.M. Edbauer, T.S. Ryder, K.L. Williams, S.J. Morreale, 

and A.B. Bolten. 1994. The effect of abiotic factors on the position of loggerhead 

turtles (Caretta caretta) in the water column at Cape Canaveral, Florida. In: Bjorndal, 

K.A., A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar (comps.). Proceedings of the 

Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351, pp. 37. 

Ryder, T.S., E.A. Standora, M.D. Eberle, J.M. Edbauer, K.L. Williams, S.J. Morreale, 

and A.B. Bolten. 1994. Daily movements of adult male and juvenile loggerhead 

turtles (Caretta caretta) at Cape Canaveral, Florida. In: Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, 

D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar (comps.). Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351, pp. 131. 

Standora, E.A., M.D. Eberle, J.M. Edbauer, T.S. Ryder, K.L. Williams, S.J. Morreale, 

and A.B. Bolten. 1993. Diving behavior, daily movements, and homing of loggerhead 

turtles (Caretta caretta) at Cape Canaveral, Florida, March and April 1993. Report to 

the Army Corps of Engineers, 209 pp. 

Standora, E.A., T.S. Ryder, M.D. Eberle, J.M. Edbauer, K.L. Williams, S.J. Morreale, 

and A.B. Bolten. 1994. Homing behavior of loggerhead turtles relocated from 

dredging areas in Cape Canaveral Channel, Florida. In: Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, 

D.A. Johnson, and J.P. Eliazar (comps.). Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351, pp. 141-142. 
151

Figure 39 - Standora et al. Cape Canaveral study area.
152

Site Name: Cape Canaveral (Segars et al.)

General Information

Site Name: Cape Canaveral (Segars et al.)

Site Reference Number: 34

Region: Southeast County: Brevard

Approximate Latitude: 28.39° N Approximate Longitude: 80.54° W

Principal Investigator (s): Al Segars, Michael Arendt, Julia Byrd, David Whitaker, David Owens, 

Gaëlle Blanvillain

Contact Address: P.O. Box 12559, Charleston, SC 29422

Contact Email: segarsa@dnr.sc.gov

Organizations Involved: South Carolina DNR, College of Charleston, Georgia Southern 

University

Organization Type: state agency, universities

Project Status: active

Active Years: 2006

Start Date: April 2006

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, tracking

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: trawling

Net Type: trawl net Net Length: 60’ head rope

Mesh Size: 8 inch stretch Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: annually

Sampling Locations: variable within study area

Sampling-Area Description: dredged channel

Bottom Type: channel

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 10.2

Depth Range (m): 10.2-10.2

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 2006

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/trawl hr

Species Found: Cc
153

Site Name: Cape Canaveral (Segars et al.)

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Loggerhead 23 n/a 59.0 105.0 82.0 N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag, satellite tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: yes Tracking Studies Conducted: yes

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes
154

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Loggerheads were targeted in the Cape Canaveral Shipping Channel with the primary 

goal of outfitting the animals with satellite transmitters to monitor their migrations. Nine 

adult males were tagged in 2006, four of which appeared to remain as residents in the 

area. Four adult males migrated north to South Carolina, Maryland, and New Jersey and 

eventually returned southward in September. The ninth transmitter failed after only 10 

days. 

Laparoscopy and ultrasounds were performed on adult male loggerheads to determine 

reproductive activity. Researchers compared these methods to hormone sampling and 

measures of plastron softness as less invasive ways to assess reproductive activity. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Arendt, M., A. Segars, J. Byrd, J.D. Whitaker, D. Owens, and G. Blanvillain. 2007. 

Examination of Local Movement and Migratory Behavior of Sea Turtles During 

Spring and Summer Along the Atlantic Coast Off the Southeastern United States. 

Annual report to NMFS, 50 pp. 
155

Figure 40 - Segars et al. Cape Canaveral study area.
156

Site Name: Trident Submarine Basin

General Information

Site Name: Trident Submarine Basin

Site Reference Number: 35

Region: Southeast County: Brevard

Approximate Latitude: 28.41° N Approximate Longitude: 80.60° W

Principal Investigator (s): Llewellyn Ehrhart, William Redfoot, Dean Bagley

Contact Address: Department of Biology, P.O. Box 162368, Orlando FL 32816

Contact Email: lmehrhart@earthlink.com

Organizations Involved: University of Central Florida

Organization Type: university

Project Status: active

Active Years: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Start Date: 1993

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, tracking

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: set-netting, dip-netting

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: 220-240

Mesh Size: 30.5 and 40.0 cm Net Depth: 3.7 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: seasonally

Sampling Locations: consistent netting locations

Sampling-Area Description: man-made submarine basin

Bottom Type: algae mats, rock walls

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 12.0 (from nautical charts)

Depth Range (m): 0.0-12.0 (from nautical charts)

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km net hr (set net)

Species Found: Cm, Cc
157

Site Name: Trident Submarine Basin

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 1223 n/a 22.8 52.0 32.4 O, N

Loggerhead 8 n/a 36.6 70.8 58.3 N, S

Kemp’s Ridley 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag, sonic tag, radio tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: yes

Growth-Rate Determination: yes Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

The Trident Basin is a man-made embayment lined with rock rip-rap, which is covered 

by an algal mat. The site is home to a significant number of juvenile green turtles, which 

contrasts with the predominance of loggerheads in the adjacent ship channel. Very few 

loggerheads are ever found in the basin, and most of those are sick and have to be taken 

to rehabilitation facilities. The small size of green turtles in the basin is remarkable in 

that none is larger than 50 cm. Most other projects in the state capturing juvenile green 

turtles find individuals greater than 50 cm. This population structure might be explained 

by the limited biomass of the algal mat in the basin. Diet analysis shows that the turtles 

mainly eat the algae that grow on the rip-rap. 

David Nelson used radio and sonic telemetry on some of the green turtles captured to 

determine movements and diving patterns. Turtles spent a majority of time near the 

rocky shoreline on the western side of the basin, which provides cover and feeding 

habitat. Some turtles moved out of and then back into the basin during predawn hours. 

Daytime dives were shorter and more frequent than those at night, suggesting that the 

turtles feed during the day and rest at night. The sex ratio in this project is strongly 

biased towards females, and FP has not been found on turtles in the basin. 
158

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Bagley, D.A., A.L. Bass, S. Johnson, L.M. Ehrhart, and B.W. Bowen. 1998. Origins of 

juvenile green turtles from an east central Florida developmental habitat as 

determined by mtDNA analysis. In: Abreu-Grobois, F.A., R. Briseno Duenas, R. 

Marquez, and L. Sarti (comps.). Proceedings of the Eighteenth International 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFWC-436, pp. 37.

Ehrhart, L.M., and K.G. Holloway-Adkins. 2000. A comparative study of the feeding 

ecology of Chelonia mydas; the incidental ingestion of Prorocentrum sp. and related 

topics. Final Report to the Bernice Barbour Foundation, 11 pp. 

Ehrhart, L.M., and W.E. Redfoot. 2002. The structure, size and feeding ecology of the 

unique juvenile green turtle population utilizing the Trident Turning Basin, Cape 

Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida as developmental habitat. Final report to 

SpecPro, Inc, 37 pp. 

Ehrhart, L.M., W.E. Redfoot, and D.A. Bagley. 1996. A study of the population ecology 

of in-water marine turtle populations on the east-central Florida coast from 1982-96. 

Comprehensive final report to NOAA/NMFS, 164 pp. 

Ehrhart, L.M., W.E. Redfoot, and D.A. Bagley. 1998. Green turtles in three 

developmental habitats of the Florida Atlantic coast: population structure, 

fibropapillomatosis and post-juvenile migratory destinations. In: Abreu-Grobois, 

F.A., R. Briseno Duenas, R. Marquez, and L. Sarti (comps.). Proceedings of the 

Eighteenth International Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFWC-436, pp. 32. 

Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, and W.E. Redfoot. 1999. A study of the population ecology 

of in-water marine turtle populations on the east-central Florida coast, in 1997-98. 

Final report to NOAA/NMFS, 56 pp. 

Ehrhart, L.M., W.E. Redfoot, and D.A. Bagley. 2000. Green turtles in three 

developmental habitats of the Florida Atlantic coast: population structure, 

fibropapillomatosis and post-juvenile migratory destinations. In:Abreu-Grobois, F.A., 

R. Briseno Duenas, R. Marquez, and L. Sarti (comps.). Proceedings of the Eighteenth 

International Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFWC-436, pp. 32. 

Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, W.E. Redfoot, S.A. Kubis, and S. Hirama. 2001. In-water 

population studies of marine turtles on the east-central Florida coast; September, 1999 

through December, 2000. Final report to NOAA/NMFS, 53 pp. 
159

Frutchey, K.P., E.S. Dierenfeld, L.M. Ehrhart, and P.C.H. Pritchard. 2002. Plasma levels 

of two vitamins (Retinol and Tocopherol) essential for immune system function in 

juvenile marine turtles from Florida. In: Pilcher, N.J. (comp.). Proceedings of the 

Twenty-Third Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-536, pp. 252. 

Hirama, S., and L.M. Ehrhart. 2002. Epizootiology of green turtle fibropapillomatosis on 

the Florida Atlantic coast. In: Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (comps.). 

Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477, pp. 51 

Hirama, S., and. L.M. Ehrhart. 2003. Prevalence of green turtle fibropapillomatosis in 

three developmental habitats on the east coast of Florida. In: Seminoff, J.A. (comp.). 

Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-5, pp. 302. 

Holloway-Adkins, K.G., and L.M. Ehrhart. 2000. A comparative study of the feeding 

ecology of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Florida Scientist 63(1):44. 

Holloway-Adkins, K.G., and L.M. Ehrhart. 2001. A comparison of habitat foraging 

ecology and the biotoxin okadaic acid in five Florida populations of Chelonia mydas. 

In: Coyne, M.S., and M.D. Clark (comps.). Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-528, pp. 61-63.

Kubis, S.A. 2003. Growth Rates of Juvenile Green Turtles, Chelonia mydas, from Three 

Developmental Habitats Along the East Central Coast of Florida. Master’s thesis, 

University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, 60 pp. 

Nelson, D.A. 1997. Summer behavior of juvenile green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) in 

Cape Canaveral Air Station, Trident Submarine Basin, Florida. Report to Patrick Air 

Force Base, Cape Canaveral Air Station, 45th Space Wing, 51 pp. 

Redfoot, W.E., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1998. The feeding ecology of juvenile green turtles 

utilizing the Trident Basin, Port Canaveral, Florida as developmental habitat. In: 

Abreu-Grobois, F.A., R. Briseno Duenas, R. Marquez, and L. Sarti (comps.). 

Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFWC-436, pp. 33.

Redfoot, W.E., L.M. Ehrhart, and D.A. Nelson. 1996. A population of juvenile green 

turtles utilizing the Trident Submarine Basin, Port Canaveral, Florida. In: Keinath, 

J.A., D.E. Barnard, J.A. Musick, and B.A. (comps.). Proceedings of the Fifteenth 

Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-387, pp. 258-259. 
160

Figure 41 - Trident Submarine Basin study area.
161

Northeast

The Northeast region (Volusia through Nassau County) has had seven different studies. 

Four of them are still underway (Figure 42). 

Cape Canaveral & Northeast Coast – Schmid (1986-1991) 

Mosquito Lagoon – Ehrhart (1976-1979) 

Mosquito Lagoon – Provancha (1994-active) 

Northeast Coast – Wenner & Webster (1989-active) 

Northeast Coast – Segars et al. (2000-active) 

Epipelagic Drift Community – Northeast – Witherington (2005-active) 

Fernandina Harbor – Dickerson et al. (1991-1993) 
162

Figure 42 - Northeast Florida in-water projects. Inactive projects described with shaded 

callout boxes. 
163

Site Name: Cape Canaveral & Northeast Coast

General Information

Site Name: Cape Canaveral & Northeast Coast

Site Reference Number: 36

Region: Northeast County: Brevard, Volusia, Flagler, St. Johns, Duval, Nassau

Approximate Latitude: 29.22° N Approximate Longitude: 80.82° W

Principal Investigator (s): Jeffrey Schmid

Contact Address: 1450 Merrihue Dr., Naples, FL 34102

Contact Email: jeffs@conservancy.org

Organizations Involved: NMFS

Organization Type: federal agency

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991

Start Date: May 1986

End Date: December 1991

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: trawling via contract with shrimpers

Net Type: trawl net Net Length: 30.5 m

Mesh Size: unknown Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: monthly

Sampling Locations: various locations within study area

Sampling-Area Description: channel/pelagic

Bottom Type: channel, hardbottom, pelagic

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 17.8

Depth Range (m): 0.0-26.6

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/trawl hr

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk, Dc
164

Site Name: Cape Canaveral & Northeast Coast

Capture Information Data current through 1991

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 41 n/a 24.0 55.4 36.0 O, N

Loggerhead 774 n/a 38.2 110.0 67.7 N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 113 n/a 21.5 60.3 37.0 O, N, S, A

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 1 n/a n/r n/a n/r n/r

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: yes Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes
165

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Size classes of loggerheads present at the study site varied seasonally. Researchers found 

a decrease in captures of subadults from April to July, whereas adult abundance 

increased. Loggerheads were present year round, although the total monthly captures 

were highest during November, December, and January. Eighty percent of total 

loggerhead captures were subadults; 20% were adults. 

More Kemp’s ridleys were captured in the winter months and, with one exception, were 

small to mid-size subadults. Green turtles were captured from November to January, all 

juveniles (< 40 cm SSCL). 

The majority of the study’s trawling effort occurred between May and December, which 

corresponds to the shrimping season. CPUE for loggerheads ranged from 0.02 turtles/net 

hour to 1.09 turtles/net hour. The maximum CPUEs for Kemp’s ridleys and green turtles 

were 0.25 and 0.05 turtles/net hour, respectively. These values are likely representative 

of turtles taken during overall commercial fishing efforts off Cape Canaveral. 

Short-term growth rates were calculated for some turtles but were based only on 

recaptures made within less than one year. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Schmid, J.R. 1995. Marine turtle populations on the east-central coast of Florida: results 

of tagging studies at Cape Canaveral, FL, 1986-1991. Fishery Bulletin 93:139-151. 

Schmid, J.R., and W.N. Witzell. 1997. Age and growth of wild Kemp's ridley turtles 

(Lepidochelys kempi): cumulative results of tagging studies in Florida. Chelonian 

Conservation and Biology 2(4):532-537. 
166

Figure 43 - Cape Canaveral & Northeast Coast study area.
167

Site Name: Mosquito Lagoon (Ehrhart)

General Information

Site Name: Mosquito Lagoon (Ehrhart)

Site Reference Number: 37

Region: Northeast County: Brevard, Volusia

Approximate Latitude: 28.76° N Approximate Longitude: 80.74° W

Principal Investigator (s): Llewellyn Ehrhart

Contact Address: Department of Biology, P.O. Box 162368, Orlando FL 32816

Contact Email: lmehrhart@earthlink.com

Organizations Involved: University of Central Florida

Organization Type: university

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979

Start Date: July 1976

End Date: April 1979

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, tracking

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: set-netting

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: 150-230 m

Mesh Size: 30.5 - 38.1 cm Net Depth: 3.7 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: monthly

Sampling Locations: netting focused on areas adjacent to extensive seagrass areas

Sampling-Area Description: lagoon

Bottom Type: seagrass, sand

Water Type: estuarine

Mean Depth (m): 0.7

Depth Range (m): 0.0-2.0

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km net hr

Species Found: Cm, Cc
168

Site Name: Mosquito Lagoon (Ehrhart)

Capture Information Data current through 1979

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 23 n/a 29.5 75.4 n/r N, S

Loggerhead 82 n/a 44.0 92.5 n/r N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: monel tag, sonic tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: yes

Growth-Rate Determination: yes Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes
169

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Netting took place at six main sites throughout Mosquito Lagoon between July 1976 and 

April 1979. The most productive sites for green turtle captures were adjacent to 

extensive seagrass areas. Loggerheads were captured throughout the year, but the most 

productive months were from April to October. Low overall catch rates of the species 

could have been due to a sampling bias towards the warmer months. Green turtles were 

captured more frequently in warmer months, especially August, than in cooler months. 

Green turtles remained in the lagoon for extended periods of time, suggesting residency. 

The size structures of the loggerhead and green turtle populations were different: all 

captured green turtles were immature, whereas some captured loggerheads were adults. 

Recapture data suggested that there was more immigration of loggerheads than green 

turtles into the lagoon. In addition, it appeared that the population structure of each 

species varied in the lagoon, suggesting possible differences in habitat use. Although 

both species entered the lagoon around the same time, recaptured loggerheads appeared 

to grow twice as fast as recaptured green turtles and may leave the lagoon earlier than do 

green turtles. Green turtles and loggerheads may use the lagoon at different life stages, or 

loggerheads may simply grow faster than green turtles. 

Ehrhart and Mendonca found that green turtles adopted home ranges at water 

temperatures above 25° C and remained active at water temperatures between 18° C and 

34° C. Green turtles occupied deeper waters when water temperatures dropped to 

between 11° C and 18° C and apparently stopped feeding. Diurnal feeding behavior was 

observed in the telemetered turtles. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Ehrhart, L.M. 1976. Studies of marine turtles at KSC and an annotated list of amphibians 

and reptiles of Merritt Island. Office of Graduate Studies and Research, Florida 

Technological University, Orlando, Florida, 119 pp. 

Ehrhart, L.M. 1976. A study of a diverse coastal ecosystem on the Atlantic coast of 

Florida; studies of marine turtles at KSC and an annotated list of amphibians and 

reptiles of Merritt Island. Final report grant no. NGR 10-019-004. 

Ehrhart, L.M. 1977. Threatened and endangered species of the Kennedy Space Center. 

In: Vickers, D.H. (ed.). Annual Report: a Continuation of Baseline Studies for 

Environmentally Monitoring Space Transportations Systems (STS) at John F. 

Kennedy Space Center. NASA Contract Report NAS10-8986, pp. 587-617. 
170

Ehrhart, L.M. 1980. A continuation of baseline studies for environmentally monitoring 

space transportation systems (STS) at John F. Kennedy Space Center. Volume 4: 

Threatened and endangered species of the Kennedy Space Center. Part 1. Marine 

turtle studies. Final report to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

NASA Contract Report 163122, 416 pp. 

Mendonca, M.T. 1981. Comparative growth rates of wild immature Chelonia mydas and 

Caretta caretta in Florida. Journal of Herpetology 15:447-451. 

Mendonca, M.T. 1983. Movements and feeding ecology of immature green turtles 

(Chelonia mydas) in a Florida lagoon. Copeia 1983:1013-1023. 

Mendonca, M.T., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1982. Activity, population size, and structure of 

immature Chelonia mydas and Caretta caretta in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida. Copeia 

1982:161-167. 

Schroeder, B.A., and D.W. Owens. 1994. Sex ratio of immature green turtles in an east 

central Florida developmental habitat. In: Schroeder, B.A., and B.E. Witherington 

(comps.). Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology 

and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-341, pp. 157-161. 

Witherington, B.E., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1989. Hypothermic stunnings and mortality of 

marine turtles in the Indian River Lagoon System, Florida. Copeia 1989:696-703. 
171

Figure 44 - Ehrhart Mosquito Lagoon study area.
172

Site Name: Mosquito Lagoon (Provancha)

General Information

Site Name: Mosquito Lagoon (Provancha)

Site Reference Number: 38

Region: Northeast County: Brevard, Volusia

Approximate Latitude: 28.76° N Approximate Longitude: 80.74° W

Principal Investigator (s): Jane Provancha

Contact Address: 7001 N. Atlantic Ave., Suite 113, Cape Canaveral, FL 32920

Contact Email: jprovancha@dynamac.com

Organizations Involved: NASA/Dynamac Corp.

Organization Type: federal agency, consulting firm

Project Status: active

Active Years: 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Start Date: 1994

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, tracking

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: set-netting

Net Type: tangle net Net Length: 2@240 m

Mesh Size: 9x9 cm Net Depth: 3.6 m

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: seasonally

Sampling Locations: various locations within study area

Sampling-Area Description: lagoon

Bottom Type: seagrass, sand

Water Type: estuarine

Mean Depth (m): 0.7

Depth Range (m): 0.0-2.0

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 

2004, 2005, 2006

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km net hr

Species Found: Cm, Cc
173

Site Name: Mosquito Lagoon (Provancha)

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 172 n/a 33.2 83.8 50.3 N, S, A

Loggerhead 23 n/a 51.2 97.3 78.6 N, S

Kemp’s Ridley 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag, sonic tag

Species Exhibiting FP: Cm

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: yes

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

Mosquito Lagoon continues to provide important developmental habitat for juvenile 

green and loggerhead turtles. The conditions of the seagrass beds and the water quality 

are relatively good and are notably protected by the surrounding federal lands. Current 

threats to turtles in this body of water are related to boating pressure that has increased 

with the recent surge in local commercial and recreational fishing (trout and redfish). 

This could result in turtle harassment, boat strikes, and grassbed scarring, among other 

effects. 

This project uses the same study location as Ehrhart used previously, allowing it’s data to 

be compared to his historical data. Green turtles now represent more than 90% of the 

captures, which differs greatly from the species composition observed by Ehrhart in the 

1970s, when 80% of the netting captures were loggerheads. Provancha et al. have 

quantified very low numbers of Limulus polyphemus (horseshoe crabs) in the tangle nets 

as compared to observations from two decades ago, when very large numbers of Limulus

were incidentally captured in the nets. This finding is of interest because Limulus is 

known to be a common food item for loggerheads. 
174

Recapture rates are relatively low at 10%. The CPUEs are also low in Mosquito Lagoon 

when compared to other study locations in Florida (overall mean of 0.52 turtles per net 

kilometer). Winter cold fronts may significantly influence the numbers of turtles in 

Mosquito Lagoon, but only one moderate cold-stunning event has occurred here since 

1989. Some site fidelity has been demonstrated, based on recaptures and acoustic 

tracking within Mosquito Lagoon. Researchers have also observed connectivity to other 

sites within the Indian River Lagoon, whereby animals from the other sites are 

occasionally found in Mosquito Lagoon and vice versa. 

FP is externally present in many green turtles, with an average rate of encounter of 50%. 

No signs of FP have been observed in loggerheads. Four green turtles showed some level 

of tumor reduction upon recapture, one of which exhibited total regression. 

Data collected include passive acoustic tracking of 15 turtles (three from rehabilitation 

facilities) to yield more detail on travel and use patterns within Mosquito Lagoon and in 

the northern Indian River Lagoon. Other data include sex ratios and genetic composition. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Provancha, J. 2006. Annual report for sea turtle netting in Mosquito Lagoon: Reference 

Florida Permit #114, NMFS Permit #1450. 13 January 2006, 11 pp. 

Provancha, J. 1995-2004. Annual reports for sea turtle netting in Mosquito Lagoon: 

Reference Florida Permit #114, NMFS Permit #942. 

Provancha, J., R. Lowers, D. Scheidt, M. Mota, and M. Corsello. 1998. Relative 

abundance and distribution of marine turtles inhabiting Mosquito Lagoon, Florida, 

USA. In: Epperly, S.P., and J. Braun (comps.). Proceedings of the Seventeenth 

Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-415, pp. 78-79. 

Provancha, J.A., M.J. Mota, K.G. Holloway-Adkins, E.A. Reyier, R.H. Lowers, D.M. 

Scheidt, and M. Epstein. 2005. Mosquito Lagoon sea turtle cold stun event of January 

2003, Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, FL. Florida 

Scientist 68(2):114-121.

Provancha, J.A., R. Lowers, M. Mota, K. Holloway-Adkins, E. Reyier, and D. Scheidt. 

2006. Trials and tribulations of tracking sea turtles in Mosquito Lagoon- trends in 

abundance and results from the passive acoustic monitoring network. In: Frick, M., 

A. Panagopoulou, A. Rees, and K. Williams (comps.). Book of abstracts. TwentySixth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea 

Turtle Society, Athens, Greece, pp. 209. 
175

Figure 45 - Provancha Mosquito Lagoon study area. 
176

Site Name: Northeast Coast (SEAMAP-SA)

General Information

Site Name: Northeast Coast (SEAMAP-SA)

Site Reference Number: 39

Region: Northeast County: Volusia, Flagler, St. Johns, Duval, Nassau

Approximate Latitude: 30.42° N Approximate Longitude: 81.35° W

Principal Investigator (s): Elizabeth Wenner, Pearse Webster

Contact Address: P.O. Box 12559, Charleston, SC 29422

Contact Email: websterp@dnr.sc.gov

Organizations Involved: South Carolina DNR

Organization Type: state agency

Project Status: active

Active Years: 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Start Date: April 1989

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: trawling

Net Type: trawl net Net Length: 75’ head rope

Mesh Size: 1 7/8” Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: spring, summer, fall

Sampling Locations:random subsample of set stations

Sampling-Area Description: pelagic

Bottom Type: pelagic

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 11.7

Depth Range (m): 4.6-19.7 (4.6-9.1 since 2001)

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 

1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/trawl hr

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk, Dc
177

Site Name: Northeast Coast (SEAMAP-SA)

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size*† (cm) Mean Size*† Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 5 n/a 31.9 65.0 48.4 N 

 SCLmin SCLmin SCLmin

Loggerhead 127 n/a 52.2 84.0 64.9 N, S, A 

 SCLmin SCLmin SCLmin

Kemp’s Ridley 6 n/a 46.0 53.8 50.5 S 

 SCLmin SCLmin SCLmin 

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Leatherback 2 n/a 148.6 149.5 149.1 A 

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported †SCL measurements were not collected prior to 1996 

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

This study area is just a portion of the larger study area used in the Southeast Area 

Monitoring and Assessment Program – South Atlantic Coastal Survey, which extends 

from Cape Hatteras, NC, to Cape Canaveral, FL. SEAMAP is a fishery-independent 

trawl survey which does not specifically target any species. Sea turtles are one of several 

“priority species” from which more detailed data are collected. 

Loggerheads were the most prevalent sea turtle species captured. Loggerhead densities 

were highest off the Florida coast and decreased northward. Seasonal density did not 

vary. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

SEAMAP-SA Shallow Water Trawl Survey. 2003. Results of Trawling Efforts in the 

Coastal Habitat of the South Atlantic Bight, 2003. Annual report to NMFS, 97 pp. 
178

Figure 46 - SEAMAP-SA Northeast Coast study area. 
179

Site Name: Northeast Coast (Segars et al.)

General Information

Site Name: Northeast Coast (Segars et al.)

Site Reference Number: 40

Region: Northeast County: St. Johns, Duval, Nassau

Approximate Latitude: 29.98° N Approximate Longitude: 81.17° W

Principal Investigator (s): Al Segars, David Whitaker, Michael Arendt, Phillip Maier

Contact Address: P.O. Box 12559, Charleston, SC 29422

Contact Email: segarsa@dnr.sc.gov

Organizations Involved: South Carolina DNR

Organization Type: state agency

Project Status: active

Active Years: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 (**planned to resume by 2008) 

Start Date: July 2000

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: trawling

Net Type: trawl net Net Length: 60’ head rope

Mesh Size: 8 inch stretch Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: annually

Sampling Locations:subsample of set stations

Sampling-Area Description: pelagic and nearshore

Bottom Type: pelagic, sand

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 0.9

Depth Range (m): 0.0-6.0

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/trawl hr

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk
180

Site Name: Northeast Coast (Segars et al.)

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 7 n/a 27.6 30.6 29.5 N

Loggerhead 827 n/a 44.8 103.5 67.5 N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 55 n/a 26.7 62.1 45.4 N, S, A

Hawksbill 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: yes Sex-Ratio Determination: yes

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes
181

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

This project was designed to provide a standardized measure of relative abundance of sea 

turtles along the southeastern coast of the United States from Winyah Bay, SC, to St. 

Augustine, FL. Researchers employed fisheries-independent trawl sampling to capture 

turtles. 

Loggerheads were the primary sea turtle species captured. Catch per unit effort of 

loggerheads was higher in this study than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Loggerhead 

catch rates were also significantly higher than those reported by commercial shrimp 

trawlers in the same area. Catch rates ranged from 0.48 to 0.59 loggerheads per trawlnet-hour. The researchers believe that their higher CPUE values reflect an increase in the 

juvenile loggerhead population since the 1980s, but they also noted a trend of reduced 

catch rates of smaller loggerheads over the first four years of the study. 

Loggerhead densities increased at lower latitudes. Juvenile loggerheads tended to 

congregate near inlets, while adults were more evenly distributed. Juveniles also showed 

stronger site fidelity than adults, as indicated by interannual recaptures. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Maier, P.P., A.L. Segars, M.D. Arendt, J.D. Whitaker, B.W. Stender, L. Parker, R. 

Vendetti, D.W. Owens, J. Quattro, and S.R. Murphy. 2004. Development of an Index 

of Sea Turtle Abundance Based Upon In-water Sampling With Trawl Gear. Final 

Project Report to NMFS, 92 pp. 
182

Figure 47 - Segars et al. Northeast Coast study area. 
183

Site Name: Epipelagic Drift Community - Northeast

General Information

Site Name: Epipelagic Drift Community - Northeast

Site Reference Number: 41

Region: Northeast County: Outside county boundaries

Approximate Latitude: 29.98° N Approximate Longitude: 80.03° W

Principal Investigator (s): Blair Witherington

Contact Address: 9700 South A1A, Melbourne Beach, FL 32951

Contact Email: witherington@cfl.rr.com

Organizations Involved: FWC/FWRI

Organization Type: state agency

Project Status: active

Active Years: 2005

Start Date: September 2005

End Date: n/a

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture, visual surveys

Visual-Survey Method: boat-based transects through linear drift habitat

Capture Method: dip-netting from surface

Net Type: dip net Net Length: n/a

Mesh Size: 0.25-1.5 in. Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: opportunistic

Sampling Locations: various locations within study area

Sampling-Area Description: pelagic downwelling zones, drift lines, Sargassum patches

Bottom Type: pelagic

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 460.1

Depth Range (m): 108.9-737.3

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 2005

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/km2 transect

Species Found: Cc
184

Site Name: Epipelagic Drift Community - Northeast

Capture Information Data current through 2006

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Loggerhead 13 0 4.5 7.2 5.2 O

Kemp’s Ridley 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hawksbill 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: n/a

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: no

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

The northeast epipelagic drift community study focuses on the Florida Current off St. 

John’s County. All captures thus far have been of small oceanic-stage juvenile 

loggerheads. See the narrative under Epipelagic Drift Community – Northwest for more 

information on the broader study and literature produced. 
185

Figure 48 - Epipelagic Drift Community - Northeast study area. 
186

Site Name: Fernandina Harbor

General Information

Site Name: Fernandina Harbor 

Site Reference Number: 42

Region: Northeast County: Nassau

Approximate Latitude: 30.71° N Approximate Longitude: 81.33° W

Principal Investigator (s): Dena Dickerson, Charles Dickerson, Kevin Reine, David Nelson

Contact Address: 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180

Contact Email: dena.d.dickerson@erdc.usace.army.mil

Organizations Involved: USACE

Organization Type: federal agency

Project Status: inactive

Active Years: 1991, 1992, 1993

Start Date: October 1991

End Date: March 1993

Equipment and Methods

General Method Used: capture

Visual-Survey Method: n/a

Capture Method: trawling

Net Type: trawl net Net Length: unknown

Mesh Size: unknown Net Depth: n/a

Sampling and Effort

Sampling Regime: monthly

Sampling Locations:set stations sampled 6-10 times per month

Sampling-Area Description: dredged channel

Bottom Type: channel

Water Type: marine

Mean Depth (m): 12.9

Depth Range (m): 7.0-16.7

Effort-Data Availability: yes

Years for which CPUE Calculated: 1991, 1992, 1993

Method of Calculating CPUE: turtles/trawl nm; turtles/trawl hr; turtles/trawl tow

Species Found: Cm, Cc, Lk
187

Site Name: Fernandina Harbor

Capture Information Data current through 1993

Number of Number of Size* (cm) Mean Size* Life Stages 

Captures Sightings Min and Max (cm) Captured**

Green Turtle 1 0 30.4 n/a 30.4 N

Loggerhead 125 0 43.4 92.4 63.9 N, S, A

Kemp’s Ridley 8 0 31.1 60.7 43.2 N, S, A

Hawksbill 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Leatherback 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

* All size measurements are SSCL unless otherwise indicated

** For Cm, Cc, Lk, & Ei: O - Oceanic-stage juvenile; N - Neritic-stage juvenile; S - Subadult; A - Adult. 

 For Dc: I - Immature; A - Adult. Based on reported size ranges and life stage sizes in Appendix C

n/a=not applicable; n/r=not reported

Other Information Collected

Tag Type: Inconel tag, PIT tag

Species Exhibiting FP: none

Genetic-Sample Collection: no Sex-Ratio Determination: no

Laparoscopy Performed: no Tracking Studies Conducted: no

Growth-Rate Determination: no Evidence of Site Fidelity: yes
188

General Findings/ Miscellaneous: 

The Army Corps of Engineers initiated a series of trawl surveys for sea turtles in shipping 

channels along the southeastern coast of the United States in an effort to determine the 

seasonality of sea turtle occurrence in the channels. Hopper dredging operations could 

then be scheduled around sea turtle occurrence in the future. 

Sea turtles started returning to the Fernandina Harbor channel in early April and 

remained in the area until early December. The peak month for captures was October. 

Juvenile loggerheads made up the majority of turtles captured in the channel. 

Loggerheads originally captured in Fernandina Harbor were later captured in channel 

trawl surveys in Brunswick Harbor and Cape Canaveral. Kemp’s ridleys were more 

commonly observed in Fernandina Harbor than in any channel surveyed except 

Brunswick Harbor. 

Literature/ Reports Produced: 

Dickerson, D.D., K.J. Reine, D.A. Nelson, and C.E. Dickerson, Jr. 1995. Assessment of 

Sea Turtles Abundance in Six South Atlantic U.S. Channels. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station Miscellaneous Paper EL-95-5, 129 pp. 
189

Figure 49 - Fernandina Harbor study area.
190

Sampling Methods 

Sampling regimes varied by project. Most commonly, researchers sampled 

opportunistically (14 of 42 projects) whenever conditions were favorable. Studies 

employing only visual surveys involved a more regular sampling schedule, either 

monthly (one project) or seasonally (usually 3 to 4 trips per year; 2 projects). These 

regimes allowed sighting rates to be compared from year to year. Many capture projects 

employed seasonal sampling (10 projects) to examine how sea turtle aggregations change 

throughout the year. Other sampling regimes of capture-based projects included annual 

(3 projects), monthly (7 projects), weekly (2 projects), and daily (3 projects). 

The methodology for assessing sea turtle aggregations was capture-based in 39 of the inwater projects and sighting-based in three of the in-water projects. Thirteen of the 

capture-based studies also involved at least some visual surveys. The geographic 

distribution of these methodologies is shown in Figure 50. 

The most commonly used visual method (13 projects) involved boat-based sightings. 

Sighting data were collected from a vessel by researchers who located sea turtles as they 

surfaced to breathe or who sighted sea turtles beneath the surface. The species and 

location were generally noted. Sightings may have been noted opportunistically while 

the boat was in transit or while researchers were conducting other activities. The 

preferred boat-based survey method, however, involved conducting standardized 

transects that used stationed observers. In this method for evaluating relative abundance, 

two observers were typically stationed atop a viewing platform located a couple of meters 

above the boat deck, with each observer monitoring a different side of the boat for sea 

turtles. Another researcher drove the boat in a directed transect that was recorded and 

used to measure effort. This effort was represented as transect distance or, when an 

effective perpendicular sighting distance was determined, as transect area ([effective 

perpendicular sighting distance]*[transect length]). The species, exact location, and 

time of each turtle that surfaced were recorded in order to calculate a catch (or sightings) 

per unit effort (CPUE; e.g., turtles/km). 

Methods similar to those used in boat-based transects were employed for both aerial- and 

dive-transect surveys. In the aerial surveys employed in one of the projects, the observers 

were stationed inside an airplane rather than on a boat platform. Dive surveys (two 

projects) involved two divers being towed underwater behind a boat where they noted 

sightings of sea turtles (Makowski et al. 2005). In both of these methods, researchers 

calculated relative abundance as turtles/km transect length or as turtles/km2

 search area. 

Capture methods varied greatly between projects and were based on the environmental 

conditions at the study area. We identified eight general techniques used to capture sea 

turtles, each with a different measure of effort. The specific parameters (e.g., net length, 

net depth, mesh size) for each of these techniques varied by project. Due to the variations 

in general capture methods, CPUE units differed between projects. This creates difficulty 

in analyses using data pooled from all projects. 
191

The method most commonly used to capture sea turtles was set-netting, used in 18 

different studies. This technique was used in shallow, turbid waters, where submerged 

sea turtles were not easily seen, and typically involved a nylon-mesh tangle net up to 500 

meters in length that was usually anchored at both ends. The bottom line was weighted 

so that the net stretched from surface to bottom. Researchers waited for turtles to swim 

into the net and become entangled, at which time they retrieved them by hand or dip net. 

CPUE can be measured as turtles/(length*hours), where length equals the length of net 

that is set and hours equals the number of hours of soak time for that length of net. 

Capture location was generally defined as the midpoint of the set net. 

Trawling was another common technique used to capture sea turtles and was used in 12 

different studies. This was the primary method used to capture sea turtles in deeper 

waters. One trawl net was typically set from each side of the research vessel. These nets 

did not have Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) installed (by special federal permit) and 

were generally towed for 15-30 minutes to minimize adverse effects on any sea turtles 

that were captured. CPUE was measured in several different ways: turtles/number of 

tows, turtles/tow time, turtles/tow area ([tow distance]*[combined net width]), or 

turtles/tow volume ([tow distance]*[combined area of net mouths]). Capture location 

was generally defined as either the geographic or temporal midpoint of the tow. 

Strike-netting involved the use of a tangle net similar to that used in set-netting. 

Employed in six studies, this technique offered a more assertive way of capturing sea 

turtles in shallow waters, when the animals could only be seen when surfacing. When a 

sea turtle was spotted, researchers released the net near the turtle and quickly circled the 

animal while letting out the net. Once the net encircled the turtle, researchers waited 

until it became entangled in the net and then retrieved the turtle. Effort is typically 

measured in number of sets, although in some cases, researchers conduct visual transects 

to spot the sea turtles and base the CPUE on that technique (e.g., turtles/distance). 

Capture location was defined as either the location where the turtle entangled itself in the 

net or where it was originally spotted. 

Dip nets were often used to capture smaller sea turtles, which spend a significant amount 

of time at the surface. We identified six projects that used this method of capture. The 

round net at the end of a long handle has a mesh size suited to the size of targeted turtles 

(e.g., smaller mesh for hatchlings). Dip netting was conducted when turtles were sighted 

on visual transects or after opportunistic sightings, and the CPUE of the visual method 

was therefore recorded. Capture location was defined as either the location where the 

turtle was caught in the dip net or where it was sighted on transect. 

The hand-capture from boat method was often used in shallow waters that had good 

visibility. Researchers in three projects used this technique. This capture method is 

similar to the turtle-rodeo described by Limpus and Reed (1985) in that turtles were 

sighted using boat-based surveys; and were then followed until a diver on the boat 

jumped into the water, captured the animal, and brought it to the surface. Researchers on 

the boat then brought the animal onboard. As with dip-netting, CPUE was linked to that 
192

of the boat survey. Capture location was typically defined as either the location where 

the turtle was brought to the surface or where it was originally sighted. 

Sea turtles in somewhat deeper waters with good visibility were sometimes captured by 

SCUBA divers, as was done in three capture-based studies. Upon sighting a turtle, the 

diver swam toward it and captured it, then swam with the animal slowly to the surface, 

where researchers brought it onboard a vessel. In one of the three dive-based studies, 

divers conducted nighttime searches for sea turtles that were resting under rock ledges 

and captured these turtles before they left their resting place. Researchers recorded 

CPUE as turtles/dive time. Capture locations were generally recorded as the spot at 

which the diver surfaces with the turtle, which may differ from where the turtle was 

initially encountered. 

Sea turtles became entrapped in the intake canals of two power plants in Florida (Crystal 

River Energy Complex and St. Lucie Power Plant). They were carried towards the plants 

by the in-flowing water until reaching nets or bars across the intake canal that blocked 

further movement. Researchers then pulled the animals out of the canal by hand or with 

a dip net. Capture rates were calculated as turtles/year or turtles/month, although the 

water-intake rate varied throughout the year. The entrance to the intake canal was 

recorded as the capture location. 

Rudloe et al. collected data from incidental sea turtle captures by fishermen in the region 

of Apalachee Bay. The researchers collected measurements from sea turtles that were 

captured in gill nets, fishing trawls, seine nets, and on rod and reel. CPUE values and 

specific locations of these captures were not recorded because this information was rarely 

recorded by the fishermen who participated in this study. 

In all in-water sea turtle capture projects, the animals underwent a basic examination after 

capture. Turtles were measured and examined for basic injuries and health problems. 

Turtles were also tagged with metal flipper tags and/or a subcutaneous Passive Integrated 

Transponder (PIT) tag. Some projects also collected other data on the sea turtles through 

a range of methods: genetic sampling; hormone sampling; tissue/blood sampling for 

health analysis; diet sampling; and satellite, radio, or sonic tracking. 
193

Figure 50 - Capture and sighting methods used by each in-water project.
194

Species Occurrence 

Of the five species of sea turtles regularly occurring in Florida waters, all were captured 

in at least three of the in-water projects, and all except the leatherback were sighted 

during visual surveys that targeted sea turtles (Table 2). We combined capture and 

sighting numbers to evaluate species occurrence and ratios. In total, in-water researchers 

made 27,474 sea turtle captures and 3517 sightings through the end of 2006, a total of 

30,991 observations. Loggerheads (n = 16,306) made up the majority of observations in 

in-water projects in Florida, followed by observations of green turtles (n = 13,067), 

Kemp’s ridleys (n = 1,359), hawksbills (n = 226), and leatherbacks (n = 33). Marked 

differences in species ratios existed among the four regions (Figures 53-56). From the 

data we reviewed, we identified which species and life stages were underrepresented in 

active projects. 

Loggerheads were by far the dominant species in the northeast and, to a lesser extent, in 

the southeast. The high proportion of loggerheads in the southeast, however, was biased 

by six in-water studies in the Cape Canaveral shipping channel, where loggerheads were 

extremely abundant; 98.5% of captures in these projects were loggerheads. When Cape 

Canaveral data were removed from the analysis, loggerheads made up 44.2% of sea turtle 

observations in the southeast region; 54.4% were green turtles. All life-history stages of 

loggerheads have been found in Florida waters, with captured animals ranging from 4 to 

110 cm SCL (Table 3). 

The green turtle is the second most frequently captured species and is as widely 

distributed as loggerheads among Florida’s in-water projects. Thirty-six projects have 

documented this species, including in northwest Florida, the west coast, and the east coast 

(Figures 51-52). Sizes of captured green turtles have ranged from 5 to 109 cm SCL, with 

the majority of studies capturing turtles in the 30 to 70 cm SCL range (Table 3). 

Subadult and adult turtles have only been captured occasionally at the St. Lucie Power 

Plant and, more recently, in relatively high abundance around the Marquesas Keys in the 

Key West NWR study. 

Kemp’s ridleys have been captured in in-water projects at relatively high rates all along 

the west coast of Florida, and they are often the dominant species in study sites along this 

coast (Figures 53-54). This area may be one of the most important foraging grounds for 

the species in the Gulf of Mexico. A limited number of Kemp’s ridleys have also been 

captured along Florida’s Atlantic coast at Cape Canaveral, several northeast coast studies, 

St. Lucie Power Plant, and in the Central Indian River Lagoon. Reports of this species in 

Florida Bay have existed as far back as the 1950s and as recently as January 2005 (Figure 

51). The sizes of Kemp’s ridleys captured during in-water studies in Florida range from 

20 to 67 cm SCL (Table 3). 

Hawksbill turtles have been captured in 13 in-water projects, with sizes ranging from 13 

to 84 cm SCL (Figures 51-52). Observations of more than five hawksbills over the 

course of study have only been made in three of these projects (Key West NWR, The 

Breakers, and the St. Lucie Power Plant); only the former two projects have averaged 
195

more than two hawksbill captures per year. Consequently, little is known regarding the 

abundance and distribution of the species in other areas. Stranding and other data suggest 

that hawksbills may be present in small numbers in southwest coastal waters. They are 

more commonly found on the coral reefs off the Florida Keys, including within the 

FKNMS and Dry Tortugas National Park and in hard-bottom habitats off Palm Beach and 

Broward counties (Meylan and Redlow 2006). 

Several leatherback turtles have been captured at the St. Lucie Power Plant, and three 

leatherbacks were captured during two trawling surveys off the northeast coast (Figures 

51-52). Other than these few turtles, we rely on aerial surveys, strandings, and incidental 

capture records for data on leatherback distribution. There are no ongoing studies that 

target this species in Florida waters, and consequently, relatively little is known about 

their biology and behavior while in state waters. 

Because we did not ask researchers for the number of turtles in each life stage that were 

captured, we could only evaluate life-stage compositions of the populations of each 

species based on the number of projects in which each life stage was observed (Table 3). 

Neritic-stage juveniles were the most common life stage observed in all four hard-shell 

species. Subadult Kemp’s ridleys and loggerheads, as well as adult loggerheads, were 

also relatively common. Regional differences in life stage compositions of Kemp’s 

ridleys were found, with subadults the prominent life stage in the northeast and southwest 

regions, and neritic-stage juveniles more common in the northwest. Oceanic-stage 

juvenile Kemp’s ridleys were also observed in half of all studies in the northwest region. 

Table 2 - Number of in-water projects in each region (active and inactive) 

where each marine turtle species has been documented. Value in parentheses 

next to region heading indicates total number of projects in that region. 

Species Northwest (8) Southwest (6) Southeast (21) Northeast (7) TOTAL 

Green 8 6 17 5 36 

Loggerhead 6 5 18 6 36 

Kemp’s ridley 8 5 6 4 23 

Hawksbill 3 2 8 0 13 

Leatherback 0 0 2 1 3 

Table 3 - Number of in-water projects* (active and inactive) where the 

various life stages of each species of sea turtle have been captured. Column 

totals are total number of life stages encountered (not the total number of 

projects finding those life stages). 

Species Oceanic-Stage Juvenile Neritic-Stage Juvenile Subadult Adult 

Green 10 29 12 6 

Loggerhead 4 23 23 23 

Kemp’s ridley 8 18 17 9 

Hawksbill 4 7 4 2 

Leatherback -----------------------------11

------------------------------ 22 

TOTAL 26 77 56 40 

*Does not include visual-survey data. 

1

Total number of immature leatherbacks; not included in column totals. 

2

Total number of adult leatherbacks; not included in column totals. 
196

Figure 51 - Species found at each active in-water project site. 
197

Figure 52 - Species found at each inactive in-water project site. 
198

 Figure 53 - Species composition in Northwest in-water projects.
199

Figure 54 - Species composition in Southwest in-water projects. 
200

Figure 55 - Species composition in Southeast in-water projects. 
201

Figure 56 - Species composition in Northeast in-water projects. 
202

Information Gaps

Other than the projects in Florida Bay and the western Florida Keys, current in-water 

monitoring projects on the east coast extend only from Broward County to Brevard 

County (Figure 20). Projects north of Mosquito Lagoon occur away from the coast. On 

the west coast, only seven projects can be considered active at this time, and of these, 

only the Crystal River Energy Complex, Big Sable Creek Complex, and the two 

Epipelagic Drift Community studies have regular sampling programs. This leaves many 

geographic gaps in monitoring and research. Both strandings data (Table 4) and aerial 

surveys have indicated that sea turtles occur in the waters along the entire coast of 

Florida. Turtles strand in many counties around the state where no in-water projects are 

currently underway, including Miami-Dade County, nearshore areas from Volusia 

County to the Georgia state line, from Collier County to Pasco County, and from Franklin 

County west to the Alabama state line. Strandings in waters west of Gulf County, for 

example, are the primary source of Kemp’s ridley information for the area. In aerial 

surveys conducted during the early 1980s, turtles were commonly spotted along the entire 

east coast of the state, with higher concentrations off Cape Canaveral (see aerial survey 

section: Schroeder & Thompson 1987). Aerial-survey data from the gulf coast show 

significantly higher densities of sea turtles from the Keys through the Big Bend region 

than along the rest of United States gulf coast (see aerial survey section: Thompson 1986, 

McDaniel 2000). 

Additionally, there are areas with significant turtle populations that were once studied but 

that are no longer being monitored. The reestablishment of monitoring programs at these 

sites would be beneficial because the projects could use the historical data to help 

determine long-term trends. Earlier in-water projects in Cedar Key, Deadman Bay, and 

Tampa Bay found significant numbers of turtles along the west coast. The hardbottom 

visual surveys off Hutchinson Island and Indian River County found large populations of 

green turtles and loggerheads but did not collect any physical data on the animals. New 

studies in these areas that include capture of the turtles would be beneficial to population 

monitoring. 

The seasonal nature of many of the active in-water projects also leaves some gaps in 

efforts to describe and assess aggregations of sea turtles. Most projects reported being 

seasonal (or variable, occasional, annual, or opportunistic) and were usually only 

conducted during the summer months. The paucity of year-round studies could result in 

a failure to identify overwintering areas, seasonal shifts in foraging areas, and other 

migratory events. 
203

Table 4 - Strandings of each marine turtle species per kilometer of coastline in the 

coastal counties of Florida from 1980-2004. Cm – Green turtle; Cc – Loggerhead; Lk – 

Kemp’s ridley; Ei – Hawksbill; Dc – Leatherback. Source: Florida Sea Turtle Stranding 

and Salvage Network database. 

County Cm/km Cc/km Lk/km Ei/km Dc/km 

Nassau 1.817 30.099 3.591 0.089 1.020 

Duval 2.422 30.141 2.561 0.069 1.626 

St. Johns 1.854 16.091 1.032 0.105 1.540 

Flagler 1.003 10.406 0.622 0.035 1.175 

Volusia 2.685 16.120 0.857 0.126 0.832 

Brevard 5.360 18.019 0.351 0.105 0.290 

Indian River 17.168 9.922 0.139 0.390 0.084 

St. Lucie 19.937 17.920 0.173 0.202 0.403 

Martin 10.110 14.702 0.144 0.375 0.780 

Palm Beach 7.089 7.034 0.109 0.903 0.452 

Broward 12.120 6.412 0.052 1.303 0.313 

Miami-Dade 2.468 2.417 0.051 0.426 0.051 

Monroe 7.411 7.505 0.306 0.867 0.298 

Collier 0.349 4.117 0.983 0.044 0.011 

Lee 1.424 9.875 2.620 0.136 0.015 

Charlotte 0.790 5.038 1.432 0.000 0.099 

Sarasota 1.147 8.349 1.845 0.161 0.072 

Manatee 2.204 10.076 1.484 0.270 0.045 

Hillsborough 0.920 7.260 2.556 0.409 0.000 

Pinellas 5.408 7.505 2.979 0.483 0.116 

Pasco 1.311 0.320 0.256 0.032 0.064 

Hernando 0.275 0.034 0.069 0.000 0.034 

Citrus 1.249 0.325 1.174 0.000 0.000 

Levy 0.121 0.035 0.104 0.000 0.000 

Dixie 0.020 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.020 

Taylor 0.000 0.080 0.013 0.000 0.013 

Jefferson 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

Wakulla 0.107 0.107 1.555 0.000 0.027 

Franklin 0.060 1.271 0.636 0.010 0.010 

Gulf 0.660 3.526 1.433 0.023 0.023 

Bay 0.315 3.067 1.347 0.014 0.143 

Walton 0.050 1.712 0.248 0.000 0.248 

Okaloosa 0.129 2.533 0.258 0.000 0.414 

Santa Rosa 0.210 2.311 0.840 0.000 0.630 

Escambia 0.183 1.844 0.457 0.000 0.290 
204

Figure 57 - Locations of geographic gaps in in-water sea turtle research in Florida.
205

Table 5 - Geographic Gaps in In-Water Sea Turtle Research in Florida.

Gap Area Comments 

Northwest Bays & 

Nearshore Habitat 

Extensive area of unsurveyed, shallow, benthic habitat; Cc and Lk have been 

frequently observed in the region. 

Southern Big Bend 

Nearshore Habitat 

Historically high capture rates of Lk and Cm at Cedar Key; extensive seagrass 

beds, channels, and shoals. 

Ten Thousand Islands Historically high capture rates of Lk; extensive seagrass beds, channels, and 

shoals. 

Southwest Offshore 

Habitat 

Aerial surveys and strandings indicated a large number of Cc in this region, 

including adults; hardbottom habitat is conducive to foraging by Cc and Ei; would 

require innovative, vessel-based sampling methods. 

Western Everglades 

Inshore Habitat 

Small Cm have been observed in and around creeks in this area; algae-covered, 

submerged logs may provide food and cover for marine turtles. 

Keys Offshore Coral 

Reef Habitat 

Other than the Key West NWR project, no studies take place on the extensive 

coral reefs on Atlantic side of Keys; coral reef is the primary habitat of hawksbill 

turtles and is also used by other marine turtle species. 

Biscayne Bay Contains extensive seagrass beds with areas of mixed seagrass and hardbottom; 

adjacent to coral reef habitat; could be good developmental habitat for Cm and Ei. 

Southeast Nearshore 

Hardbottom 

Several short-term projects have indicated this habitat is important to juvenile Cm 

and Ei. 

Northeast Offshore 

Habitat 

Aerial surveys indicate large numbers of Cc and Dc; Cc may be concentrated in 

Oculina Bank area and at edge of Gulf Stream. 

Northeast Inshore & 

Estuarine Habitat 

Strandings indicate this is important area for Cm, Cc, and Lk (majority of Lk 

strandings on east coast are north of Volusia County); similar habitat as other east 

coast inshore areas with large sea turtle aggregations. 

Artificial Reefs 

throughout Florida 

Waters 

Divers often report sea turtles using artificial reefs around the state; these 

structures have not been studied as sea turtle habitat. 
206

Candidates for a Composite Trend Analysis

We reviewed the information we gathered on all of the active in-water sea turtle research 

projects in Florida to determine which could contribute to a regional, composite trendanalysis program. Twelve candidate projects were identified: St. Joseph Bay, Charlotte 

Harbor, Key West NWR, Florida Bay, The Breakers, Jenning’s Cove, St. Lucie Power 

Plant, Northern Indian River County Reefs, Central Indian River Lagoon, Central 

Brevard County Reefs, Trident Submarine Basin, and Mosquito Lagoon (Provancha) 

Candidate sites were selected based on their representation of species and life stages 

(Table 6) and consistency of methodology (Tables 7-9). Also of interest were those 

projects currently conducting genetic sampling (Table 10) and health assessments (Table 

11). 
207

Table 6 - Species and life stages of marine turtles captured/sighted at each candidate index site. Letter denotes lcaptured/sighted during the project. Life stages are based on the size ranges of each species captured that were r

principal investigators. Column totals are total number of life stages observed at a site. Life stages included for loggerheads, Kemp’s ridleys, and hawksbills are as follows: O = oceanic-stage juvenile, N = neritic-stage juvenil

adult. Life stages include for leatherbacks are as follows: I = immature, A = adult (see Appendix C). 

St. Joseph 

Bay 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Key West 

NWR 

Florida 

Bay 

The 

Breakers 

St. Lucie Power 

Plant 

Jenning’s 

Cove 

North IRC 

Reefs 

Cen. 

IRL 

Cen. Brevard 

County Reefs 

Green N N N, S, A N O, N, S, A N, S O, N, S, A O, N, S, A N Loggerhead N, S, A A N, S, A N, S, A N, S, A N, S, A N, S, A N, S, A Kemp’s ridley N, S N, S N, S, A N, S, A N, S Hawksbill N, S N N, S, A N, S, A O, N S Leatherback I, A TOTAL 6 4 8 8 3 15 5 9 10 1 
208

Table 7 - Description of available trend data for each candidate index site. 

St. Joseph 

Bay 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Key West 

NWR 

Florida 

Bay 

The 

Breakers 

St. Lucie 

Power Plant 

Jenning’s 

Cove N. IRC Reefs Cen. IRL Cen. Brevard County Reefs 

CPUE Availability yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 

Method for 

Calculating CPUE set net set net set net, HUNT* set net, HUNT* dive hours # turtles/ year set net set net set net set net, transects 

Evaluation of 

CPUE Trends yes no no no no yes yes yes yes no 

Trend Publication no no no no no yes yes yes yes no 

Sampling 

Technique Changes 

Over Time 

n/a n/a 

formerly 

set net, 

now handcapture 

from boat

formerly 

set net, 

now handcapture 

from boat 

n/a 

intake rate of 

cooling pipes 

has varied 

over time 

n/a 

sometimes use 

smaller mesh 

nets 

location 

changed until 

current site 

found 

n/a 

m

*HUNT – Haphazard Unmarked Nonlinear Transects (# turtles/km transect) 
209

Table 8 - Morphological data collected from turtle captures at each candidate index site. All size measurements 

measurements are in kg or lb. 

St. Joseph 

Bay 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Key West 

NWR 

Florida 

Bay 

The 

Breakers 

St. Lucie 

Power Plant 

Jenning’s 

Cove 

N. IRC 

Reefs 

Cen. 

IRL 

Cen. Brevard 

County Reefs 

Standard Straight Carapace 

Length (notch-tip) x x x x x x x x x x 

Maximum Straight Carapace 

Length (tip-tip) x x x x 

Minimum Straight Carapace 

Length (notch-notch) x x x x x x x 

Standard Curved Carapace 

Length (notch-tip) x x x x x x x x x 

Maximum Curved Carapace 

Length (tip-tip) x 

Minimum Curved Carapace 

Length (notch-notch) x x x 

Straight Carapace Width x x x x x x x x x x 

Curved Carapace Width x x x x x x x x x x 

Straight Plastron Length x x x x x x x x x 

Curved Plastron Length x x 

Body Depth x x x x x x x x Head Width x x x x x x x x x x 

Plastron to Vent Length x x x x x x 

Pygal to Vent Length x 

Plastron to Tip of Tail Length x x x x x x x x x 

Vent to Tip of Tail Length x x x x x x 

Interanal Scute Presence Noted x x x 

Mass x x x x x x x x x 
210

Table 9 - Sex-determination methods and growth-rate information available from each candidate index site. All 

captures when external characteristics (tail length and SSCL) indicate a mature status of the turtle. No projects h

regular use of laparoscopy in their determination of maturity and/or sex. 

St. Joseph 

Bay 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Key West 

NWR Florida Bay The Breakers St. Lucie Power Plant Jenning’s Cove N. IRC Reefs Cen. IRL Cen. Breva

County Re

Method of 

Assigning Sex 

tail length, 

SSCL 

tail length, 

SSCL, 

hormone 

assays 

tail length, 

SSCL, 

hormone 

assays 

tail length, SSCL, 

hormone assays, 

laparoscopy, 

ultrasound 

tail length, 

SSCL, 

hormone 

assays 

tail length, 

SSCL 

tail length, 

SSCL 

tail length, 

SSCL, 

hormone 

assays 

tail length, 

SSCL, 

hormone 

assays 

tail length

SSCL 

Species From 

Which Hormone 

Samples Collected 

n/a Cm, Cc, Lk Cm, Ei Cc, Cm, Lk Ei n/a n/a Cm, Cc Cm, Cc n/a 

Person Performing Hormone Analysis n/a Thane Wibbels none Dave Owens Dave Owens n/a n/a Dave Owens Dave Owens n/a 

Samples Analyzed n/a no no yes yes yes no yes yes no 

Archival of 

Samples n/a yes yes yes yes no no yes yes no 

Availability of 

Sex Ratios 

yes 

(necropsies) no no yes yes no no yes yes no 

Availability of 

Annual Growth 

Rates 

Yes, Cm no no Yes, Cc Yes, Ei Yes no Yes, Cm Yes, Cm no 
211

Table 10 - Description of genetic sampling conducted at each candidate index site. 

St. Joseph 

Bay 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Key West 

NWR Florida Bay The Breakers St. Lucie Power Plant Jenning’s Cove N. IRC Reefs Cen. IRL Cen. Brevar

County Ree

Species From Which 

Samples Collected Cm, Cc Cm, Cc, Lk Cc, Cm, Ei Cc, Cm Ei Cc, Cm, Ei none Cm Cm, Cc none 

Type of Samples Collected tissue tissue tissue, blood tissue, blood tissue tissue n/a tissue, blood tissue, blood n/a 

Timeframe of Sample 

Collection 2001-2003 2003-2004 2002- present 1990-present 2004- present 1992-1994, 1999 n/a 1995- present 1995- present n/a 

Archival of Samples yes yes yes yes yes yes n/a yes yes n/a 

Type of Sample Analysis none none mtDNA mtDNA mtDNA mtDNA n/a mtDNA mtDNA n/a 

Person/Organization 

Performing Analysis n/a n/a UCF Bowen (early), Dutton (later) Meylans, Wood Meylans (Ei), Bass (others) n/a Bagley, Bass Bagley, Bass n/a 
212

Table 11 - Health assessment and FP documentation at each candidate index site. Cm = Chelonia mydas, Cc = C

St. Joseph 

Bay 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Key West 

NWR Florida Bay The Breakers St. Lucie Power Plant Jenning’s Cove N. IRC Reefs Cen. IRL Cen. Brevar

County Ree

Type of Health 

Assessment 

visually with 

general 

comments 

visually with 

general 

comments, 

samples 

visually with 

general 

comments, 

samples 

visually with 

general 

comments, 

samples 

visually with 

general 

comments 

visually with 

general 

comments, 

samples 

visually with 

general 

comments 

visually with 

general 

comments, 

samples 

visually with 

general 

comments, 

samples 

visually wit

general 

comments 

Biological 

Samples 

Collected 

(Analysis By) 

none 

blood 

(Wibbels) blood (UF) blood (Antech Diagnostics) none blood (UF) none blood (UF/UCF) blood (UF/UCF) none 

Condition Index 

Assigned none none none none none rate as good, fair, poor, dead rate as good, fair, poor, dead none none none 

Type of FP 

Assessment 

presence/ 

absence 

presence/ 

absence pap map pap map presence/ absence pap map pap map pap map pap map pap map 

Species In 

Which FP Is 

Found 

none none Cm, Cc Cm, Cc none Cm, Cc Cm Cm Cm, Cc none 

Check for Oral 

Tumors no no yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes 

FP Scoring 

Sheet Used none Balazs* Balazs* Balazs* none Balazs* Balazs* Balazs* Balazs* Balazs* 

Photography of 

FP Tumors 

none 

observed severe cases always severe cases none observed severe cases severe cases severe cases severe cases severe case

*From: Balazs, G.H. 1991. Current status of fibropapillomatosis in the Hawaiian green turtle, Chelonia mydas. In: Balazs, G.H., and S

Plan for Marine Turtle Fibropapilloma. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFC-156, pp. 47–57. 

 Work, T.M., and G.H. Balazs. 1999. Relating tumor score to hematology in green turtles with fibropapillomatosis in Hawaii. J

Diseases 35:804-807. 
213 

DISCUSSION

In-water sea turtle research in Florida has consisted of many independent projects, each 

focused on determining characteristics of local sea turtle aggregations. In this report, we 

have laid the groundwork for a sea turtle in-water project-coordination program. Given 

appropriate levels of funding, such a program would have the potential to add 

conservation value to biological information already being collected for sea turtles in 

Florida waters. We feel that such a program is merited because it would provide a single, 

comprehensive database of summary information from past and present in-water sea 

turtle research projects in Florida. A coordinated effort could make it possible to 

combine the local sea turtle population-trend assessments of the individual projects into 

statewide sea turtle population-trend assessments. Specifically, we believe this 

coordination program should 1) compile, report, and maintain summary data from inwater sea turtle research projects in Florida, 2) compile and maintain summary data on 

sea turtle observations or captures made by projects or activities not targeting sea turtles 

or not otherwise included as a Florida sea turtle research project, 3) standardize 

methodologies of data collection for in-water sea turtle research projects in Florida to the 

extent possible, and 4) use data from an appropriate subset of the in-water sea turtle 

research projects to provide statistically sound composite, population-trend assessments 

of in-water populations of the sea turtle species and various life stages of sea turtle 

species found in Florida. 

As part of a project we carried out for NMFS, we have created a database containing 

summary data from all in-water sea turtle research projects that have been conducted in 

Florida. Data from other projects or activities that record incidental observations or 

captures of sea turtles in Florida were also incorporated into the database. This 

comprehensive database allows the visualization of in-water sea turtle data collected 

throughout the state. One of the principal users of such information would be naturalresource managers who are working to conserve or recover sea turtle populations. When 

specific activities that may have an effect on sea turtles in the water are proposed, this 

summary database could help identify which sea turtle species and life stages of various 

species occur within the project site. Along with basic distribution data, managers would 

also be able to see what other sea turtle data have been collected at or near the project site 

and could contact the appropriate researchers for help in making predictions about the 

potential effects on sea turtles. Species distributions could be visualized overall or on the 

life-stage level to help identify sectors of sea turtle populations that could be affected by 

regional management decisions. Sea turtle researchers themselves can benefit from this 

database by more easily identifying potential collaborators. Those seeking to examine 

parameters such as genetics, heavy-metal contamination, or diet on a relatively large 

geographic scale could locate the in-water sea turtle research projects within an area of 

interest where pertinent samples are currently being or could be collected. Finally, this 

database helps FWC assess the extent to which tasks outlined by sea turtle recovery plans 

have been or are being achieved in Florida. This knowledge may then be used to 

prioritize areas or topics for future in-water sea turtle research in Florida. 

One of the most valuable potential products from an in-water monitoring program would 

be the ability to provide statewide trend assessments of in-water sea turtle populations in 
214 

Florida by combining trend data from individual research projects. However, several 

obstacles would need to be overcome first. Eleven different measures of effort were used 

in the projects we reviewed. At best, the number of CPUE unit types among these 

projects could be reduced to the number of different count methods used, which was 

eight. It would be impossible to pool all in-water CPUE data into one compatible dataset, 

but methods could be developed to use the data in a qualitative regional context. A 

second challenge involves the lack of complete coverage of habitats and the nonrandom 

distribution of sampling areas. This problem can be addressed by continually assessing 

information gaps and directing future research towards those needs. 

Lastly, the nonrandom distribution of study areas can lead to two significant problems 

outlined by Dunn et al. (2005): (1) regions with the densest concentration of study areas 

will have the strongest influence on trend analyses, and (2) turtle aggregations in study 

areas may not be representative of the turtle population in that region. The relative ease 

of access to sea turtle habitat on the east coast of Florida has precipitated the first issue, 

as most studies are concentrated in that region. Researchers also tend to seek out the 

densest sea turtle assemblages for research, disregarding more dispersed aggregations. 

This dispersed sector of the population may not be as concentrated, but their total number 

of individuals is likely greater. Any trends in this part of the population may be more 

indicative of the statewide sea turtle population than trends estimated from clustered 

aggregations. 

For this coordinated in-water program to successfully evaluate trends in the state’s sea 

turtle populations, individual projects must have the power to detect trends themselves. 

In order to do so, methods within studies must be standardized across years. This ensures 

that the measure of effort is consistent. There is no way to compare relative abundance 

between years if set-netting is used one year and strike-netting the next. Variations in 

effort are also inherently present between studies, although biases can be reduced if 

project methods have been carefully standardized as part of a broader coordinating effort. 

Sampling dates could be standardized, but these are usually based on when researchers 

are available, when sea turtles are most common in the study area, and when sampling 

conditions are acceptable. Variations in sampling season between projects will, 

therefore, always exist. Principal investigators can, however, model their CPUE rates 

with covariates for observer bias, weather, sea state, and other sighting and capture 

conditions to account for variance from these effects as trends are assessed (Sauer et al.

2005). 

A coordinated program would promote aspects of projects that make their data powerful 

in population-trend detection. Gerrodette and Brandon (2000) suggest that the power of a 

monitoring program to detect a trend depends on four main factors: 

1. The duration of the study. Studies spanning a longer period of time tend to 

provide more data, resulting in more powerful conclusions. 

2. The precision of the procedure for assessing or indexing the population. The 

more precise the estimate, a more likely the trend will be detected. Precision 

depends on many factors, such as how the population is dispersed, how the 
215 

population is assessed (CPUE, mark/recapture, transect), and how much effort is 

put into each assessment (how many nets set). 

3. The rate at which the population is actually changing. It is easier to detect high 

rates of change than low. 

4. The type I error rate (where the null hypothesis is true but is rejected). Computer 

programs such as TRENDS can conduct power analyses and carry out the linear 

regressions to assess the population trends (Gerrodette 1993). 

We further recommend standardization of key morphometric measurements in order to 

allow comparisons of size distributions across projects. The measurements that should be 

standardized include: 

• Carapace length – measure straight (notch-to-tip & notch-to-notch) and curved 

(notch-to-tip & notch-to-notch) 

• Plastron length – measure straight length using calipers to bony edge (ignoring 

extra scales) 

• Tail length – measure from bony edge of plastron to tip of extended tail

• Mass – weigh to the nearest kilogram.

All projects currently conduct at least a visual assessment of turtle health, but specific 

methods vary slightly and some are subjective. Adoption of an agreed-upon set of 

standard definitions would render health assessments more useful. We recommend that 

the following information be collected for its potential to help evaluate the health of sea 

turtle populations on both a local and statewide basis: 

• Fibropapillomatosis – record presence and severity (use pap map and Balazs 

scoring sheet [see Table 11], take dorsal and ventral photos) 

• Injuries/abnormalities – use descriptions, drawings, and/or photos (include noinjury findings) to evaluate. 

In developing a list of potential participants for a coordinated in-water program, we 

considered the predicted persistence of the project, the existence of historical population 

data for that area, geographic representation, species observed, habitat representation, life 

stages observed, intensity and seasonality of sampling, rates of captures/sightings, and 

amount of data collected to date for each project. Some projects with low capture rates 

were also included in order to ensure that all regions and a diverse array of habitats were 

represented, which could also be important for detecting shifts in sea turtle abundance 

away from other project locations. 

We envision that the projects included in composite sea turtle population-trend 

assessments would continue to pursue their individual research and monitoring objectives 

but would voluntarily opt to participate in this collaborative effort to provide a statewide 

assessment of population trends. Initially, the program would link existing in-water 

projects that use a variety of capture or sighting methods which have been found to be 

most appropriate for the conditions at each sampling location. These methods would not 
216 

need to be standardized across projects; they would only need to be consistent within 

each project and have a reliable measure of effort associated with them. 

We believe a coordinated in-water monitoring program should have the following 

features: 

1. Coordinating staff and resources. A permanent program coordinator is critical 

to foster and retain participation, reinforce program goals and methods, provide 

training, and provide ongoing products. GIS staff would provide support to the 

coordinator and program participants. This service would be an incentive to the 

in-water participants to remain in the program and would allow them to conduct 

and publish habitat analyses beneficial to resource managers. Ongoing funding 

would be necessary for the program to fulfill the goal of assessing temporal trends 

in sea turtle populations. 

2. Annual, regional workshops. These meetings would promote standardized 

program methods, facilitate communication between participating researchers, 

allow participants to present their individual data, allow the synthesis of data from 

all participants in workshop proceedings, and focus both enthusiasm and research 

effort. 

3. Participation from sites/projects representative of Florida. We list candidate 

sites/projects that would represent a range of habitats on page 207. These would 

be index sites/projects whose organizers would agree to standardized data 

collection and reporting methods. 

4. Continuation of suitable site-specific techniques. Because many existing 

projects already use methods that are best suited to their individual location and 

conditions, these methods should be part of any effort to standardize data 

collection. Within-site standardization is critical to assessing relative trends. 

5. Standardization of effort and life-history data collection. Although there may 

be some variation between sites/projects in capture methods and abundance 

assessments, all should collect data on effort. These effort data should be directly 

related to capture or observation success. The collection of additional life history 

data should also be encouraged. This would include somatic-size data, sex, 

degree of maturity, diet, behavior, genetic identity, and incidence of disease and 

injury. 

6. Identification and filling of information gaps. Geographic, species, and lifehistory gaps evident in the list of participating sites/projects should be filled when 

possible. The program coordinator should do this by facilitating funding, 

recruiting researchers, and communicating research needs to program participants. 

7. Collaboration. An important function of the program coordinator should be to 

connect interested researchers who have valuable techniques and expertise with 

in-water program participants who have access to captured sea turtles. Successful 

elements of the in-water program should be expanded to states other than Florida 

so that regional assessments are possible. 
217 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this report would not have been possible without the assistance of the 

following organizations: 

Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. 

Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Dynamac Corporation 

EastCoast Biologists, Inc. 

Florida Atlantic University 

Florida Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit 

Florida Power & Light Company 

Gulf Specimen Marine Laboratory 

Inwater Research Group 

Marinelife Center of Juno Beach 

Mote Marine Laboratory 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

United States Geological Survey 

University of Central Florida 

We are especially grateful to the following individuals for their various contributions: 

Jim Abernathy 

Michael Arendt 

Dean Bagley 

Jamie Barichivich 

Michael Bresette 

Beth Brost 

Raymond Carthy 

Llewellyn Ehrhart 

Kristen Hart 

Tomo Hirama 

Karen Holloway-Adkins 

Meghan Koperski 

James Krolick 

Chris Makowski 

Jennifer Moser 

Mario Mota 

Mark Mueller 

Tim O’Meara 

Jane Provancha 

Jim Quinn

William Redfoot 

Jack Rudloe 

Michael Salmon 

Jeffrey Schmid 

Barbara Schroeder 

Al Segars 

Robbin Trindell 

Anton Tucker 

Pearse Webster 

Lawrence Wood 

This project was funded by National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) grant 

#2003-0206-009 through a cooperative agreement between NOAA’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service and NFWF. The views and conclusions contained in this document are 

those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies 

of the U.S. Government or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Mention of trade 

names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. 

Government or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 
218

LITERATURE CITED

Bjorndal, K.A., and A.B. Bolten. 2000. Proceedings of a Workshop on Assessing 

Abundance and Trends for In-Water Sea Turtle Populations. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-445, 83 pp. 

Caldwell, D.K., and A. Carr. 1957. Status of the sea turtle fishery in Florida. Transactions 

of the Twenty-Second North American Wildlife Conference, pp. 457-463.

Carr A., and D.K. Caldwell. 1956. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles. 1, Results 

of field work in Florida, 1955. American Museum Novitates 1793:31-24. 

Divins, D.L. and D. Metzger, NGDC Coastal Relief Model, Retrieved: May 2007, 

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/coastal/coastal.html. 

Dunn, E.H., C.M. Francis, P.J. Blancher, S.R. Drennan, M.A. Howe, D. Lepage, C.S. 

Robbins, K.V. Rosenberg, J.R. Sauer, K.G. Smith. 2005. Enhancing the scientific 

value of the Christmas Bird Count. The Auk 122(1): 338-346. 

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2005. ArcGIS version 9.1. 

Redlands, California. 

Gerrodette, T. 1993. TRENDS: Software for a power analysis of linear regression. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:515-516. 

Gerrodette, T., and J. Brandon. 2000. Designing a monitoring program to detect trends. 

In: Bjorndal, K.A., and A.B. Bolten. Proceedings of a Workshop on Assessing 

Abundance and Trends for In-Water Sea Turtle Populations. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-445, pp. 36-39. 

Ingle, R.M. 1972. Florida's sea turtle industry in relation to restrictions imposed in 1971. 

Florida Department of Natural Resources Laboratory, Contribution No. 201, 8 pp. 

Limpus, C.J., and P.C. Reed. 1985. The green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in Queensland: A 

preliminary description of the population structure in a coral reef feeding ground. 

Pages 47-52 in G. Grigg, R. Shine, and H. Ehmann, editors. Biology of Australasian 

Frogs and Reptiles. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. 

Magnuson, J.J., K.A. Bjorndal, W.D. DuPaul, G.L. Graham, D.W. Owens, C.H. Peterson, 

P.C.H. Pritchard, J.I. Richardson, G.E. Saul, and C.W. West. 1990. Decline of the Sea 

Turtles: Causes and Prevention. National Academy Press, Washington DC, 259 pp. 

Meylan, A., and A. Redlow. 2006. Eretmochelys imbricata - Hawksbill turtle. In: 

Meylan, P.A. (ed.). The Biology and Conservation of Florida Turtles. Chelonian 

Research Monographs 3:105-127. 
219

Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the state of 

Florida 1979-1992. Florida Marine Research Publications 52:1-51. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1991a. Recovery 

Plan for U.S. Population of Loggerhead Turtle, Caretta caretta. National Marine 

Fisheries Service: Washington, D.C., 64 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1991b. Recovery 

Plan for U.S. Population Atlantic Green Turtle, Chelonia mydas. National Marine 

Fisheries Service: Washington, D.C., 52 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery 

Plan for Hawksbill Turtles, Eretmochelys imbricata, in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, 

Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service: St. 

Petersburg, FL, 52 pp. 

Rebel, T.P. 1974. Sea Turtles and the Turtle Industry of the West Indies, Florida, and the 

Gulf of Mexico. Coral Gables: Univ. of Miami Press, 250 pp. 

Sauer, J.R., W.A. Link, and J.A. Royle. 2005. Hierarchical models and Bayesian 

analysis of bird survey information. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

PSW-GTR-191. 9pp. 

True, F.W. 1887. The turtle and terrapin fisheries. In: Goode, G.B. (ed.). The Fisheries 

and Fishery Industries of the United States. Section 5, volume 2, part XIX. U.S. 

Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 

pp. 493-503. 

Turtle Expert Working Group. 1998. An assessment of the Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys 

kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations in the western North 

Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409, 96 pp. 

Turtle Expert Working Group. 2000. Assessment update for the Kemp’s ridley and 

loggerhead sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-444, 115 pp. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1992. Recovery 

Plan for the Kemp’s ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). National Marine 

Fisheries Service: St. Petersburg, FL, 40 pp. 

Witzell, W.N. 1994a. The origin, evolution, and demise of the U.S. sea turtle fisheries. 

Marine Fisheries Review 56:8-23. 

Witzell, W.N. 1994b. The U.S. commercial sea turtle landings. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-350, 130 pp.
220

APPENDIX A - Life Stages 

Determining definitive-size cutoffs for the various life stages is an imperfect exercise for 

several reasons. Literature often disagrees over the correct size to use. Turtles of a given 

species mature over a range of sizes, thus resulting in the overlap of life stages at sizes 

near the cutoff. In addition, it is often difficult to accurately assess maturity and sex in 

the field. The sizes used below, therefore, are only approximate and should not be 

considered to be absolute limits. 

Green turtle:

Carr (1987) reported pelagic posthatchling green turtles in the Atlantic at < 20 cm SCL. 

The recruitment of juvenile green turtles to neritic developmental habitats occurs at 

approximately 30 – 40 cm CCL (Bjorndal and Bolten 1988, Bjorndal and Bolten 1995, 

Barnard et al. 1989). Guseman and Ehrhart (1990) reported the smallest green turtle to 

appear in demersal habitats off the east coast of Florida at 26.9 cm SCL, and Mendonca 

and Ehrhart (1982) found juvenile green turtles in east Florida ranging from 30 to 40 cm 

SCL. Turtles over 70 cm SCL are rarely found in coastal bays along the east coast of 

Florida (D. Bagley pers. comm.). The smallest green turtle reported to nest at Archie 

Carr NWR was 83.2 cm SCL (Ehrhart pers. comm.).

This report adheres to the following size ranges for life stage classification for this 

species: 

Oceanic-stage juvenile: < 25 cm SCL 

Neritic-stage juvenile: 25-69 cm SCL 

Subadult: 70-84 cm SCL 

Adult: ≥ 85 cm SCL 

Loggerhead: 

Loggerhead turtles in the western Atlantic recruit to demersal habitats at 25 to 30 cm 

CCL, with the average loggerhead in this habitat measuring approximately 50 cm CCL 

(Lutcavage and Musick 1985). Lutcavage and Musick (1985) reported sizes of stranded 

turtles in the Chesapeake Bay as small as 25 to 35 cm CCL, whereas loggerhead turtles in 

the coastal estuaries along the east coast of Florida have been found to range from 50 to 

80 cm SCL (Mendonca and Ehrhart 1982, Ehrhart 1983). Bolten (2003) indicated that 

nesting loggerheads in Florida range from 70 to 109 cm SCL (from CCL measurements 

in Dodd 1988). 

This report adheres to the following size ranges for life stage classification for this 

species: 

Oceanic-stage juvenile: < 30 cm SCL 

Neritic-stage juvenile: 30-69 cm SCL 

Subadult: 70-79 cm SCL 

Adult: ≥ 80 cm SCL 
221

Kemp’s ridley:

Ogren (1989) divided life stages of this species into pelagic juvenile (< 20 cm SCL), 

coastal benthic subadult (20-60 cm SCL), and a coastal benthic adult stage (> 60 cm 

SCL). Recent studies suggest that gonadal development may begin as early as 40-50 cm 

SCL (Gregory and Schmid 2001). Coyne and Landry (2000) and Gregory and Schmid 

(2001) suggest that the coastal benthic subadult stage suggested by Ogren should be 

divided into a prepubescent juvenile and pubescent subadult stage. 

This report adheres to the following size ranges for life stage classification for this 

species: 

Oceanic-stage juvenile: < 25 cm SCL 

Neritic-stage juvenile: 25-39 cm SCL 

Subadult: 40-59 cm SCL 

Adult: ≥ 60 cm SCL 

Hawksbill:

Life stages for the hawksbill turtle are as follows: Carr (1987) reported several small (5-

21 cm SCL), pelagic hawksbills in association with Sargassum. Hawksbills in the 

Atlantic (U.S. Virgin Islands) typically recruit to neritic developmental habitats at 20 –25 

cm SCL (Boulon 1994). Meylan and Redlow (in press) note that the smallest neriticstage juvenile hawksbill turtles recorded in Florida have measured 22-25 cm SCL. 

Meylan and Meylan (unpublished) laparoscoped hawksbills of various sizes in Caribbean 

Panama and found prepubescent animals to be as large as 66.6 cm SCL, while the 

smallest adult of either sex was 73.2 cm SCL. Their findings suggest that there is a 

considerable overlap between the various life-stage size distributions. On average, 

however, hawksbills were found to reach pubescence around 65 cm SCL (Meylan and 

Meylan unpublished). 

This report adheres to the following size ranges for life stage classification for this 

species: 

Oceanic-stage juvenile: < 25 cm SCL 

Neritic-stage juvenile: 25-64 cm SCL 

Subadult: 65-74 cm SCL 

Adult: ≥ 75 cm SCL 

Leatherback:

Posthatchling leatherbacks move immediately to the sea and swim actively offshore (Carr 

and Ogren 1959). Mean hatchling size has been measured at 62.8 mm (Carr and Ogren 

1959) and 59.8 mm (Hirth and Ogren 1987). Little is known regarding the oceanic 

distribution of early developmental stages for leatherback sea turtles, but it is assumed 

that the juvenile stages occur in the oceanic zone (Eckert 2002, Bolten 2003). At 

approximately 100 cm Over-the-Curve Carapace Length (OCL), there may be an onset of 

thermogenerating capacity that is not seen in younger or smaller leatherbacks (Eckert 

2002) and may be an indication that once a turtle has reached this size, it is capable of 

exploiting its full adult geographic range. Hirth and Ogren (1987) measured 76 nesting 

leatherback turtles and found the mean size to be 152.8 cm OCL (range of 134.6 – 171.5 
222

cm OCL). Boulon (1992) reported the approximate average size of a nesting female as 

157 cm OCL, with the smallest size of a nesting female as 137 cm OCL. Nesting 

leatherbacks along Florida’s east coast have been measured as small as 125.0 OCL 

(Johnson pers. comm.) and 138.9 OCL (Ehrhart unpublished). The mean size of nesting 

leatherbacks on the east coast has been reported at 151.3 OCL (Johnson pers. comm.). 

This report adheres to the following size ranges for life stage classification for this 

species: 

Immature: < 135 cm OCL 

Adult: ≥ 135 cm OCL 

Literature Cited in Appendix A

Barnard, D.E., J.A. Keinath, and J.A. Musick. 1989. Distribution of ridley, green and 

leatherback turtles in Chesapeake Bay and adjacent waters. In: Eckert, S.A., K.L. 

Eckert, and T.H. Richardson (comps.). Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop 

on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFC-232, pp. 201-203. 

Bjorndal, K.A., and A.B. Bolten. 1988. Growth rates of immature green turtles (Chelonia 

mydas) on feeding grounds in the southern Bahamas. Copeia 1988:555-564. 

Bjorndal, K.A., and A.B. Bolten. 1995. Comparison of length-frequency analyses for an 

estimation of growth parameters for a population of green turtles. Herpetologica 

51:160-167. 

Bolten, A.B. 2003. Variation in sea turtle life history patterns: neritic vs. oceanic 

developmental stages. In: Lutz, P.L., J.A. Musick, and J. Wyneken (eds.). The 

Biology of Sea Turtles. Volume II. CRC Marine Biology Series, CRC Press, Inc.: 

Boca Raton, FL, pp. 243.257. 

Boulon, R.H., Jr. 1992. Leatherback nesting biology, Sandy Point, St. Croix. In: Salmon, 

M., and J. Wyneken (comps.). Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea 

Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC302, pp. 14-16. 

Boulon, R.H., Jr. 1994. Growth rates of wild juvenile hawksbill turtles, Eretmochelys 

imbricata, in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. Copeia 1994:811-814. 

Carr, A. 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. 

Conservation Biology 1:103-121. 

Carr, A., and L. Ogren. 1959. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles. 3. Dermochelys

in Costa Rica. American Museum Novitates 1958:1-29. 

Coyne, M.S., and A.M. Landry, Jr. 2000. Plasma testosterone dynamics in the Kemp’s 

ridley sea turtle. In: Abreu-Grobois, F.A., R. Briseno Duenas, R. Marquez, and L. 
223

Sarti (comps.). Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Symposium on Sea Turtle 

Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFWC-436, pp. 

286. 

Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1988. Synopsis of the Biological Data on the Loggerhead Sea Turtle 

‘Caretta caretta’ (Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 

88-14. 

Eckert, S.A. 2002. Distribution of juvenile leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea

sightings. Marine Ecology Progress Series 230:289-293. 

Ehrhart, L.M. 1983. Marine turtles of the Indian River Lagoon system. In: Taylor, W.K., 

and H.O. Whittier (eds.). Future of the Indian River System. First Symposium, 

Melbourne, FL, 20 Nov. 1981. Florida Scientist 46:337-346. 

Gregory, L.F., and J.R. Schmid. 2001. Stress responses and sexing of wild Kemp’s ridley 

sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. General and 

Comparative Endocrinology 124:66-74. 

Guseman, J.L., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1990. Green turtles on Sabellariid worm reefs: initial 

results from studies on the Florida Atlantic coast. In: Richardson, T.H., J.I. 

Richardson, and M. Donnelly (comps.). Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Workshop 

on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFC-278, pp. 125-127. 

Hirth, H.F., and L.H. Ogren. 1987. Some aspects of the ecology of the leatherback turtle 

Dermochelys coriacea at Laguna Jalova, Costa Rica. NOAA Technical Report 

NMFS-56: 19 pp. 

Lutcavage, M., and J.A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in Virginia. 

Copeia 1985:449-456. 

Mendonca, M.T., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1982. Activity, population size and structure of 

immature Chelonia mydas and Caretta caretta in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida. Copeia 

1982:161-167. 

Meylan, A., and A. Redlow. 2006. Eretmochelys imbricata - Hawksbill turtle. In: 

Meylan, P.A. (ed.). The Biology and Conservation of Florida Turtles. Chelonian 

Research Monographs 3:105-127. 

Ogren, L.H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and subadult Kemp’s ridley sea turtles: 

preliminary results from the 1984-1987 surveys. In: Caillouet, C.W., and A.M. 

Landry, Jr. (eds.). Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Kemp’s 

Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management. Texas A&M University 

Sea Grant College Program, Galveston, TAMU-SG-89-105, pp. 116-123. 
224

APPENDIX B - In-Depth Questionnaire for PIs of Active Projects

In-depth Info on Possible Index Sites 

Measurements taken 

• What morphometric data are collected? Please provide a blank copy of your data 

collection sheet. Please briefly explain each measurement (point to point, curved 

or straight, units?) 

• What is your primary carapace length measurement? 

• Do you weigh turtles? How? Are all turtles weighed, any not weighed? 

• Do you have a measure of accuracy/precision for each of these measurements? 

Assessing potential for future trend analysis 

• Does your current sampling technique allow you to determine abundance and, if so, 

how is that determination made? 

• Have you tested for abundance trends? Published? 

• Has your method (formula) for determining abundance changed over time? 

• Has your sampling technique that allows for a determination of abundance changed 

over time and if so, how? 

What data are collected other than abundance (CPUE)? 

• Do you photograph (digital/film) your animals and what views are used? 

• Do you document hybrids? How do you determine hybrid status? 

• Are you doing some type of health assessment? 

o How? Are you taking, samples, noting physical attributes, condition 

index? 

o Do you assess FP? If so, how? Do you use a standardized scoring sheet? 

If so, could we have a copy? Do you photograph tumors? 

o For what species do you have FP data? 

• Do you collect genetic samples? 

o What kind of samples? Nuclear or mtDNA 

o Timeframe of samples and how are they preserved? 

o Hybrid monitoring through genetics? 

o For what species? 

• Do you assign sex? If so, how? 

o Hormone assays vs. external characteristics 

o External characteristics cut-offs 

o For what species? 

• Are sex ratios available for your site? 

o What type of samples do you collect? Hormone analysis or other? By 

whom? 

o Are the samples stored or have they been analyzed? 

o For what species? 
225

• Do you determine maturity status? If so, how? 

o Laparoscopy or external characteristics? 

o External characteristics cut-offs 

o For what species? 

• Have you determined growth rates? 

o Do you have recaptures >1 year intervals? 

o For what species? 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

What LIFE STAGES (based on the following guidelines) do you have for each 

species you encounter? 

Kemp’s ridley

Hatchling : < 5 cm SCL 

Post-hatchling: 5-19 cm SCL 

Juvenile: 20-39 cm SCL 

Subadult: 40-59 cm SCL 

Adult: > 60 cm SCL 

Leatherback

Hatchling: unknown 

Post-hatchling: unknown 

Juvenile: unknown < 100 cm OCL 

Subadult: 100 – 135 cm OCL 

Adult: >135 cm OCL 

Hawksbill

Hatchling: < 5 cm 

Post-hatchling: 5 to 21 cm SCL 

Juvenile: 22 to 65 cm SCL 

Subadult: 65 to 75 cm SCL 

Adult: > 75 cm SCL 

Loggerhead

Hatchling: < 5 cm SCL 

Post-hatchling: 5 > 10 cm SCL 

Juvenile: 10 – 70 (50) cm SCL 

Subadult: (50) 70 – 85 (70) cm SCL 

Adult: > 85 cm SCL (70) 

Green

Hatchling: < 5 cm SCL 

Post-hatchling: 5 – 22 cm SCL 

Juvenile: 22 – 60 cm SCL 

Subadult: 60 - 80 cm SCL 

Adult: > 80 cm SCL 
226

Presence/Absence (Y/N) 

 Hatchling Posthatchling Juvenile Subadult Adult 

Green 

Loggerhead 

Hawksbill 

Kemp’s ridley 

Leatherback 

For each species encountered, what fractions of captures are... 

 Hatchling Posthatchling Juvenile Subadult Adult 

Green 

Loggerhead 

Hawksbill 

Kemp’s ridley 

Rank the following LIFE HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS as rare, common, very 

common, abundant occurrences observed in your study site...Please note species.

Hatchling dispersal: 

Post-hatchling development and migration: 

Oceanic juvenile development and migration: 

Neritic juvenile development and migration: 

Neritic sub-adult development and migration: 

Oceanic sub-adult development and migration: 

Neritic adult foraging and migration: 

Oceanic adult foraging and migration: 

Male breeding migrations: 

Female breeding migrations: 

Copulation: 

Internesting: 

Littoral nest-site selection: 

General Questions 

• Do you have access to historical abundance information for your site? 

o Are you aware of any uncommon sources for info? 

• Are you aware of any GIS databases for your study area or databases that include 

turtle data from your study? 

• How would you like to see in-water research progress in Florida? 

• What could the state do that would be most useful for your project? 
227

APPENDIX C - Additional Information Sources 

In addition to the 42 in-water research projects for which we present detailed 

descriptions, we gathered data from other projects that reported observations or incidental 

encounters with sea turtles in Florida waters. Some of these projects specifically targeted 

sea turtles, including aerial surveys (Table 12), satellite telemetry studies (Tables 16 and 

17), trawling projects that captured and relocated sea turtles prior to dredging (Table 14), 

and stranding data (Table 4). Other projects observed or captured sea turtles in Florida 

but did so incidental to study of other species or to other activities. These included 

sightings in aerial surveys that were not targeting sea turtles (Table 15), incidental 

bycatch in fisheries (Table 13), and incidental take by dredges (Page 231). 

Aerial Surveys for Sea Turtles

Table 12 - Aerial-survey projects targeting sea turtles. 

Dates Location Organization 

1963-1969 U.S. Atlantic Coast NMFS1 

1982-1984 Cape Hatteras, NC to Key West, FL NMFS-SEFSC2 

1985-1986 New Orleans, LA to Key West, FL, & NE Gulf NMFS-SEFSC3 

1990-1993 Palm Beach County, FL Palm Beach DERM4 

1992-1994 Lafayette, LA to Key West, FL, & NE Gulf Duke University Marine Laboratory5 

1

 Deaver, J.W. 1975. Aerial Oceanographic Observations, July 1969-1970, Cape Cod, Massachusetts to 

Miami, Florida. Oceanographic Report CG373-68, 27 pp. 

Witzell, W.N., and T. Azarovitz. 1996. Relative Abundance and Thermal and Geographic Distribution of 

Sea Turtles Off the U.S. Atlantic Coast Based on Aerial Surveys (1963-1969). NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-381, 10 pp. 2

 Schroeder, B.A. 1984. A Review of the Status of the Leatherback Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the 

Western Atlantic. NMFS SAW/84/MMT/19, 8 pp. 

Schroeder, B.A., and N.B. Thompson. 1987. Distribution of the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, and 

the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, in the Cape Canaveral Florida area: Results of aerial 

surveys. In: Witzell, W.N. (ed.). Ecology of East Florida Sea Turtles, Proceedings of the Cape 

Canaveral, Florida Sea Turtle Workshop. NOAA Technical Report NMFS-53, pp. 45-53. 

Shoop, C.R., and T.J. Thompson. 1983. Southeast turtle survey (SETS). Final report to the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, contract number NA82-GA-C-00012, 80 pp. 

Thompson, N.B. 1984. Progress Report on Estimating Density and Abundance of Marine Turtles: 

Results of First Year Pelagic Surveys in the Southeast U.S. NMFS Miami Laboratory, Coastal 

Resources Division Report, NOAA-NMFS-SAW/84/MMT/7, 64 pp. 

Thompson, N.B., and H. Huang. 1993. Leatherback Turtles in Southeast U.S. Waters. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-318, 25 pp. 3

 Thompson, N.B. 1988. The status of loggerhead, Caretta caretta; Kemp’s ridley, Lepidochelys kempi; and 

green, Chelonia mydas, sea turtles in U.S. waters. Marine Fisheries Review 50:16-23. 4

 Carson, D. 2000. Relative abundance and distribution of sea turtles in the marine and estuarine waters of 

Palm Beach County, Florida, USA, based on aerial surveys, 1990-1993. In: Kalb, H., and T. Wibbels 

(comps.). Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443, pp. 148-152. 5

 Blaylock, R.A. 1993. GOMEX92: Survey Data Documentation Report, Gulf of Mexico Regional Aerial 

Survey, September-October 1992. NOAA/SEFSC Contribution MIA-92/93/24, January 2003. 

McDaniel, C.J., L.B. Crowder, and J.A. Priddy. 2000. Spatial dynamics of sea turtle abundance and 

shrimping intensity in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Conservation Ecology 4:15. 
228

Sea Turtle Strandings

Stranding information is available from Atlantic and Gulf Coast Sea Turtle Stranding and 

Salvage Network reports produced by NMFS6, and from the Florida Sea Turtle Stranding 

and Salvage Network database. Reports and publications produced as a result of coldstunning events in Mosquito Lagoon7

, Indian River Lagoon8, and St. Joseph Bay also 

provide stranding data. 

6

 Teas, W.G. 1992. 1990 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network: Atlantic and 

Gulf Coasts of the United States January-December 1990. NMFS, Miami Laboratory Coastal 

Resources Division Contribution MIA-91/92-60, 52 pp. 

Teas, W.G. 1992. 1991 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network: Atlantic and 

Gulf Coasts of the United States January-December 1991. NMFS, Miami Laboratory Coastal 

Resources Division Contribution MIA-91/92-62, 49 pp. 

Teas, W.G. 1993. 1992 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network: Atlantic and 

Gulf Coasts of the United States January-December 1992. NMFS, Miami Laboratory Coastal 

Resources Division Contribution MIA-92/93-73, 47 pp. 

Teas, W.G. 1994. 1993 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network: Atlantic and 

Gulf Coasts of the United States January-December 1993. NMFS, Miami Laboratory Coastal 

Resources Division Contribution MIA-94/95-12, 47 pp. 

Teas, W.G., and A. Martinez. 1989. 1988 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage 

Network: Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States January-December 1988. NMFS, Miami 

Laboratory Coastal Resources Division Contribution CRD-88/89-19, 47 pp. 

Teas, W.G., and A. Martinez. 1992. 1989 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage 

Network: Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States January-December 1989. NMFS, Miami 

Laboratory Coastal Resources Division Contribution MIA-91/92-39, 51 pp. 7

 Provancha, J.A., M.J. Mota, K.G. Holloway-Adkins, E.A. Reyier, R.H. Lowers, D.M. Scheidt, and M. 

Epstein. 2005. Mosquito Lagoon sea turtle cold stun event of January 2003, Kennedy Space Center, 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, FL. Florida Scientist 68:114-121. 8

Schroeder, B.A., L.M. Ehrhart, J.L. Guseman, R.D. Owen, and W.E. Redfoot. 1990. Cold stunning of 

marine turtles in the Indian River Lagoon system, Florida, December 1989. In: Richardson, T.H., J.I. 

Richardson, and M. Donnelly (comps.). Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle 

Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memo NMFS-SEFSC-278, pp. 67-69. 

Witherington, B.E., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1989. Hypothermic stunning and mortality of marine turtles in the 

Indian River Lagoon system, Florida. Copeia 1989:696-703. 
229

Fishery Interactions with Sea Turtles

Table 13 – Databases on sea turtle interactions with fisheries. All 

databases maintained by NMFS.

Dates Fishery Location 

1950-1976 Exploratory North Carolina to Texas9 

1973-1981 Shrimping North Carolina to Texas10 

1978-present Longline Gulf of Mexico & Atlantic Ocean11 

1981-1991 Various Gulf of Mexico & Atlantic Ocean12 

9

 Bullis, H.R., and S.B. Drummond. Sea turtle captures off the southeastern United States by exploratory 

fishing vessels 1950-1976. Florida Marine Research Publication No. 33, pp. 45-50. 10 Henwood, T.A., and W.E. Stuntz. 1987. Analysis of sea turtle captures and mortalities during 

commercial shrimp trawling. Fishery Bulletin 85:813-817. 11 Fairfield Walsh, C., and L.P. Garrison. 2006. Estimated Bycatch of Marine Mammals and Turtles in the 

U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fleet During 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC539, 51 pp. 

Garrison, L.P. 2003. Estimated Bycatch of Marine Mammals and Turtles in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic 

Longline Fleet During 2001-2002. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-515, 52 pp. 

Garrison, L.P. 2005. Estimated Bycatch of Marine Mammals and Turtles in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic 

Longline Fleet During 2004. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-531, 52 pp. 

Garrison, L.P., and P.M. Richards. 2004. Estimated Bycatch of Marine Mammals and Turtles in the U.S. 

Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fleet During 2003. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-527, 57 

pp. 

Johnson, D.R., C. Yeung, and C.A. Brown. 1999. Estimates of Marine Mammal and Marine Turtle 

Bycatch by the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fleet in 1992-1997. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SEFSC-418, 55 pp. 

Scott, G.P., and C.A. Brown. 1997. Estimates of Marine Mammal and Marine Turtle Catch by the U.S. 

Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fleet in 1994-1995. NOAA/SEFSC Contribution MIA-96/97-28, 31 pp. 

Witzell, W.N. 1984. The incidental capture of sea turtles in the Atlantic U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone 

by the Japanese tuna fleet, 1978-81. Marine Fisheries Review 46:56-58. 

Witzell, W.N. 1992. The Incidental Capture of Sea Turtles in Commercial Non-Shrimping Fisheries in 

Southeastern U.S. Waters. NOAA/SEFSC Contribution MIA-91/91-43, 22 pp. 

Witzell, W.N. 1999. Distribution and relative abundance of sea turtles caught incidentally by the U.S. 

pelagic longline fleet in the western North Atlantic Ocean, 1992-1995. Fishery Bulletin 97:200-211. 

Witzell, W.N., and J. Cramer. 1995. Estimates of Sea Turtle By-Catch by the U.S. Pelagic Longline Fleet 

in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-359, 14 pp. 

Yeung, C. 1999. Estimates of Marine Mammal and Marine Turtle Bycatch by the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic 

Longline Fleet in 1998. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-430, 26 pp. 

Yeung, C. 2001. Estimates of Marine Mammal and Marine Turtle Bycatch by the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic 

Longline Fleet in 1999-2000. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-467, 42 pp. 12 Thompson, N.B. 1991. Preliminary Information on Turtle Captures Incidental to Fishing in Southeastern 

U.S. Waters. NOAA Technical Memorandum MNFS-SEFC-285, 8 pp. 
230

Relocation Trawling Activities Targeting Sea Turtles

Relocation trawling activities are conducted to remove sea turtles from an area where 

they may interact with ongoing dredging projects. Data are hosted by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/seaturtles/index.cfm. 

Table 14 - Trawling activities targeting sea turtles.

Dates Trawl Type Location Organization 

1980-1981 Relocation Canaveral Harbor NMFS 

1999-2004 Relocation King’s Bay Entrance Channel Coastwise Consulting 

2001 Relocation Palm Beach Harbor REMSA, Inc. 

2002, 2004 Relocation Canaveral Harbor REMSA, Inc. 

2003 Relocation Pensacola Harbor Coastwise Consulting 

2005 Relocation Longboat Key Coastwise Consulting 

2005 Relocation Brevard County/Patrick AFB Coastwise Consulting 

2005 Relocation Panama City Beach East Coast Observers 
231

Incidental Takes Associated with Renourishment and Dredging Projects

Reports of incidental takes during beach-renourishment and channel-dredging projects 

are administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and are available at 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/seaturtles/index.cfm

Locations of projects with documented takes in Florida include:

• Canaveral Harbor/Patrick AFB 

• King’s Bay Entrance Channel 

• Fort Pierce 

• Palm Beach Harbor 

• Jacksonville Harbor 

• Tampa Bay – Egmont Channel 

• Charlotte Harbor – Boca Grande Pass 

• Mayport Naval Station 

• Lake Worth Inlet, Jupiter Inlet 

• Venice Beach 

• Longboat Key

Incidental Sightings in Aerial Surveys Targeting Other Species

Table 15 - Aerial-survey projects targeting other species that report sea turtles.

Dates Target Species Location Organization 

1984-1985 Mullet Florida Bay NMFS13 

1987-1997 Manatees South FL Eckerd College14 

1994 Marine mammals West coast of FL NMFS 

1995 Red drum West coast of FL NMFS 

1995-1996 Fisheries South FL FMRI Fisheries Dependent Monitoring Group 

ongoing Sharks, manatees, others Southwest FL Mote Marine Laboratory 

ongoing Right whales Northeast FL FWRI 

ongoing Manatees South FL FWRI 

13 McCoy, A.J., and W.N. Witzell. 1995. Incidental aerial sightings of sea turtles in Florida Bay, Florida 

1984-1985. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-372, 8 pp. 14 Reynolds, J.E. III, B.B. Ackerman, I.E. Beeler, B.L. Weigle, and P.F. Houhoulis. 1991. Assessment and 

management of manatees (Trichechus mantus) in Tampa Bay. In: Treat, S.F., and P.A. Clark (eds.). 

Proceedings of the Second Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, pp. 289-306.

Satellite-Telemetry-Tracking of Sea Turtles

Many projects attach satellite transmitters to adult females who come ashore to nest on 

sandy beaches. Some of the in-water projects presented in this report also outfit captured 

turtles with transmitters. Many sea turtles are tracked from Florida waters, but there are 

also numerous turtles that have been tracked into Florida from outside the state. Some of 

these turtles took up residency in the state, but others continued to other locations. We 

identified 31 organizations that have tracked sea turtles in Florida waters, 13 of which 

have released turtles from Florida. A summary of sea turtles tracked into or from Florida 

is presented in Tables 16 and 17. However, there are likely additional projects that have 

tracked sea turtles from or into Florida that were not discovered during our literature 

searches. 
232

Table 16. Sea turtle satellite-telemetry studies involving turtles released from Florida. 

Dates Species Deployments Organization Release Location(

2001-2006 juvenile Cm 5 Disney several Northeast and Northw1988-1989 adult Cc 1 FWS Indian River Shore

2005 adult Dc 3 Marinelife Center Juno Beach 

2005-2006 adult Cc, juvenile Cm 14 Mote Marine Lab Anna Maria Island and Ca2000-2003 adult Cc, adult Cm 7 National Park Service several Northwest loca1998-2000 adult Cc 38 NMFS, FWC Archie Carr NWR, Southwest an1996-2004 adult Cc 24 NMFS, FWC Florida Bay 1994-2000 adult Cm 23 NMFS, FWC, UCF Archie Carr NWR and St. Lu

2006 adult Cc 9 South Carolina DNR Cape Canaveral Ar

2001-2006 juvenile and subadult Cm 15 UCF several East Coast loca

2000 adult Dc 1 UCF, Sea World Archie Carr NWR 2004 juvenile Cm 7 University of Florida St. Joseph Bay 

1997-1998 juvenile, subadult, and adult Cc 14 USACE Northeast and Tampa 

2000 adult Cc 1 Whalenet Anna Maria Island 
233

Table 17. Sea turtle satellite-telemetry studies involving turtles tracked into Florida waters from other locations*One of 38 turtles tracked during this time period (James et al. 2005)

Dates Species Deployments Organization Release Location 

2005-2006 adult Dc 3 

CCC Caribbean Leatherback 

Tracking Project Chiriquí Beach, Panama 

1998-1999 adult Cm 1 Crip, NMFS Isla Mujeres, Mexico 

1999-2003* Dc 1 Dalhousie University Nova Scotia, Canada 

2003 juvenile Cm, subadult Cc and Cm 4 Duke Marine Lab North Carolina, USA 

2004-2005 adult Cc 6 Georgia DNR Georgia, USA 

1998 juvenile Cc 1 Gray's Reef NMS Georgia, USA 

2004-2006 adult Cc 3 Marine Turtle Research Group North Carolina, USA 2005-2006 adult Cm 1 Marine Turtle Research Group Cayman Islands 2005-2006 juvenile Cc 1 

National Environmental Research 

Institute, Denmark Azores 

1995 Lk 1 NMFS, TAMUG Texas, USA 2005 juvenile Cc 2 North Carolina Aquariums North Carolina, USA 2001 adult Cc 2 Oceanic Resource Foundation Lechuguillas, Mexico 

1998-2006 juvenile and adult Cc 5 South Carolina DNR South Carolina, USA 

1999 Dc 1 Universite Louis Pasteur French Guiana 

2001 juvenile Cc 1 University of Alabama Alabama, USA 1999 subadult Cc 1 USACE Georgia, USA 

2003-2004 juvenile Lk 1 VIMS Virginia, USA