Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Statewide Nesting Beach Survey program coordinator 20140101 vector digital data St. Petersburg, FL Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute State of Florida http://geodata.myfwc.com/ The State of Florida, through the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, coordinates the Statewide Nesting Beach Survey program (SNBS). The SNBS was initiated in 1979 under a cooperative agreement between FWC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Its purpose is to document the total distribution, seasonality, and abundance of nesting by sea turtles in Florida. Three species of sea turtles, the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), the green turtle (Chelonia mydas), and the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), nest regularly on Florida's beaches. Two other species, Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and the hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) also nest but in very small numbers. All the species are listed as either Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Survey data are derived from observations of tracks and other nesting signs left on the beach by sea turtles. Species identifications and determinations of nesting vs. non-nesting emergences are based on the evaluation of visible features of the track and the nest. Data are gathered on more than 200beaches through a network of permit holders consisting of private conservation groups, volunteers, consultants, academics, local governments, federal agencies, and the Florida Park Service. Nest density classifications of low, medium and high were developed for loggerheads, green turtles and leatherbacks according to quartile ranks. For the loggerhead turtle, ranking was done within genetic subunits; ranks for green turtles and leatherbacks were on a statewide basis. Hawksbill turtles and Kemp’s ridleys are denoted only as present or absent on individual beaches. Surveys in the SNBS program may vary with respect to start/stop dates, frequency, duration and beach length between years for a particular beach, as well as between beaches. Survey results are used by managers to evaluate and minimize impacts to turtles and their nests due to human activities such as coastal construction, beach renourishment, and recreation, as well as to identify important areas for enhanced protection or land acquisition. The State of Florida, through the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, coordinates the Statewide Nesting Beach Survey program (SNBS). The SNBS was initiated in 1979 under a cooperative agreement between FWC (then DNR) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Its purpose is to document the total distribution, seasonality, and abundance of nesting by sea turtles in Florida. Three species of sea turtles, the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), the green turtle (Chelonia mydas), and the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), nest regularly on Florida's beaches. Two other species, Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and the hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) also nest but in very small numbers. All the species are listed as either Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Survey data are derived from observations of tracks and other nesting sign left on the beach by sea turtles. Species identifications and determinations of nesting vs. non-nesting emergences are based on the evaluation of visible features of the track and the nest. Data are gathered on more than 200 beaches through a network of permit holders consisting of private conservation groups, volunteers, consultants, academics, local governments, federal agencies, and the Florida Park Service. Annual nest counts for the state represent a minimum estimate because not all nesting activity is recorded on surveyed beaches and not all nesting beaches in Florida are surveyed. Nest density classifications of “low”, “medium” and “high” were developed for loggerheads, green turtles and leatherbacks according to quartile ranks. For the loggerhead turtle, ranking was done within genetic subunits; ranks for green turtles and leatherbacks were on a statewide basis. Hawksbill turtles and Kemp’s ridleys were denoted only as present or absent on individual beaches. Surveys in the SNBS program may vary with respect to start/stop dates, frequency, duration and beach length between years for a particular beach, as well as between beaches. This variability in the surveys, combined with the dynamic nature of sea turtle nesting activity, make the quartile ranking system for the beaches, rather than average nesting densities over a small number of years, a more appropriate measure of the level of nesting activity that takes place on a particular beach. Survey results are used by managers to evaluate and minimize impacts to turtles and their nests due to human activities such as coastal construction, beach renourishment, and recreation, as well as to identify important areas for enhanced protection or land acquisition. Direct contact by managers with the appropriate state data provider is highly recommended to obtain more detailed information about the surveys on a particular beach. FWC’s Statewide Nesting Beach Survey program encompassed an annual average of 1,318 km of nesting beach during the referenced period. This included most, but not all, of the nesting beaches in the state, with the most significant gap in coverage in the Everglades region of Monroe County. Annual nest counts for the state represent a minimum estimate because not all nesting activity is recorded on surveyed beaches and not all nesting beaches in Florida are surveyed. It should be noted that sea turtles may use any sandy beaches for nesting. There are limitations to the use of the SNBS database imposed by the data collection methodology employed. Surveys in the SNBS program may vary with respect to start/stop dates, frequency, duration and beach length between years for a particular beach, as well as between beaches, making the data inappropriate for assessing population trends. Trend evaluation is the goal of a complementary FWRI program, the Index Nesting Beach Survey program (INBS) where consistency in survey effort is accomplished by following a regime of 7 days/week monitoring during a set 109-day window, and maintaining consistent survey boundaries. With some exceptions, including surveys on geographically remote beaches, SNBS surveys typically capture the majority of nesting activity on a particular beach. Surveys with less than 7 day/week frequency may result in underestimated nest totals; however, most surveyors count all new nests observed when surveys are resumed, thus reducing the error. Tracks are marked as having been evaluated when the surveys are conducted. Determination of nesting success, i.e., whether an emergence has resulted in eggs being deposited, or in a "false crawl", is made using the visible features of the track and nest. This can be challenging in areas where nest densities are high or in situations where weather has erased the marks left in the sand by the turtle. However, in a test on INBS beaches of the accuracy of surveyors correctly distinguishing between nests and false crawls, the probability that a nest counted by a surveyor was actually a nest was 96%. Nest density classifications of “low”, “medium” and “high” were determined for each species for each survey area based on average nest densities during the five-year period to which these data apply. Nest density was defined as the number of nests per kilometer of surveyed nesting beach habitat. Quartile break values at 25 and 75 percent of the observations were used in assigning nesting beaches to the three density categories. Categories were assigned as follows: “low” = density values less than or equal to the lower 25%, “medium” = nest density values greater than 25% and less than or equal to 75%, and “high” = nest density values greater than 75%. Beaches with zero density values were excluded from the quartile ranking calculations. Density classifications for loggerheads (Caretta caretta) were calculated for each of the seven Florida genetic subunits, after Shamblin et al. (Genetic structure of the southeastern United States loggerhead turtle nesting aggregation: evidence of additional structure within the peninsular Florida recovery unit, 2011, Marine Biology 158:571-587). Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting data were both classified relative to all statewide nesting beaches because unique genetic subunits within Florida have not yet been described for those species. Nest density values were not calculated for Kemp’s ridleys and hawksbills because of the rareness of nesting by these species. Use of the quartile-based ranks (low, medium, high) to compare the level of nesting activity across beaches is recommended over the use of average nesting densities due to the variation of survey parameters (e.g., frequency, duration) and the dynamic nature of sea turtle nesting. 20090101 20200722 ground condition Complete Annually -87.531847 -79.884879 30.728029 24.504588 ISO 19115 Topic Category biota None sea turtle nesting None All data must be verified by Principle Investigator or Group Database Analyst prior to release. It is strongly recommended that these data are directly acquired from FWC and not indirectly through other sources which may have changed the data in some way. FWC makes no claims as to suitability of these data for other purposes. Acknowledgment of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute as the data source would be appreciated in any products developed from these data. Such acknowledgment as is standard for citation and legal practices for data source is expected by users of these data. Please cite the original metadata when using portions of the record to create a similar record of slightly altered data, such as reprojection. If any data are modified or adjusted, please share the edited information with FWC. Users should be aware that comparison with other data sets for the same area from other time periods may be inaccurate due to inconsistencies resulting from changes in mapping conventions, data collection, and computer processes over time. FWC shall not be liable for improper or incorrect use of these data. These data are not legal documents and are not to be used as such. It should be noted that shapefiles consisting of Statewide survey areas are general representations. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Beth Mongiovi Assistant Research Scientist mailing and physical

100 8th Avenue SE

St. Petersburg FL 33701 (727) 502-4738 Beth.Brost@MyFWC.com Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Statewide Nesting Beach Survey program coordinator Version 6.2 (Build 9200) ; Esri ArcGIS 10.7.1.11595 Sea Turtle Nesting: https://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/ GeoPlan relied on the integrity of the attribute information within the original data. This data is provided 'as is'. GeoPlan relied on the integrity of the original data layer's topology This data is provided 'as is' by GeoPlan and is complete to our knowledge. This data is provided 'as is' and its horizontal positional accuracy has not been verified by GeoPlan This data is provided 'as is' and its vertical positional accuracy has not been verified by GeoPlan 0 onLine Spatial and Attribute Information GeoPlan received this data in shapefile format from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute via email on July 23, 2020. The FWC contact for this dataset is Beth Mongiovi (Beth.Brost@MyFWC.com). The data was received as a shapefile in projection: PCS_Albers. The dataset was then projected from PCS_Albers to NAD_1983_HARN_Florida_GDL_Albers. - Added the field DESCRIPT based on BEACH. - Added the field FGDLAQDATE based on date downloaded from source. - Upcased all text in the attribute table. - Data set was renamed sea_turtle_bch_jul20 from fwcSeaTurtleNestDensityClassification20152019_20200722. Field change notes (July 2019): Removed fields: ccMeanDens ccCofVar nYearsSurv ccCount cmMeanDens cmCofVar cmCount dcMeanDens dcCofVar dcCount eiCount lkCount Field changes: meanSurvLe is now mSurvLen cmGenSubUn is now genSubcm ccGenSubUn is now genSubCc GeoPlan 20200727 Vector String 218 NAD 1983 HARN Florida GDL Albers 24.0 31.5 -84.0 24.0 400000.0 0.0 coordinate pair 0.0001 0.0001 meter D North American 1983 HARN GRS 1980 6378137.0 298.257222101 SEA_TURTLE_BCH_JUL20 SEA_TURTLE_BCH_JUL20.DBF FFWCC-FWRI OBJECTID Internal feature number. Esri Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated. Shape Feature geometry. Esri Coordinates defining the features. County The Florida county in which the beach survey occured. FWC-FWRI Beach The name of the nesting beach survey. FWC-FWRI genSubCc The genetic subunits identified for loggerheads nesting within Florida after Shamblin et al. (Genetic structure of the southeastern United States loggerhead turtle nesting aggregation: evidence of additional structure within the peninsular Florida recovery unit, 2011, Marine Biology 158:571-587). FWC-FWRI nYearsSurv The number of years, during the last five, that the beach segment was surveyed (<=5). FWC-FWRI mSurvLen The average length of the nesting beach survey effort (values in meters). FWC-FWRI ccDensClas Nest density classifications of low, medium and high were determined for each species for each survey area based on average nest densities during the five-year period to which these data apply. Nest density was defined as the number of nests per kilometer of surveyed nesting beach habitat. Quartile break values at 25 and 75 percent of the observations were used in assigning nesting beaches to the three density categories. Categories were assigned as follows: “low” = density values less than or equal to the lower 25%, “medium” = nest density values greater than 25% and less than or equal to 75%, and “high” = nest density values greater than 75%. Beaches with zero density values were excluded from the quartile ranking calculations. Density classifications for loggerheads (Caretta caretta) were calculated for each of the seven Florida genetic subunits (three on the east coast), after Shamblin et al. (Genetic structure of the southeastern United States loggerhead turtle nesting aggregation: evidence of additional structure within the peninsular Florida recovery unit, 2011, Marine Biology 158:571-587). FWC-FWRI genSubCm The genetic subunits identified for green turtles nesting within Florida after Shamblin et al. (2015). FWC-FWRI cmDensClas Nest density classifications of low, medium and high were determined for each species for each survey area based on average nest densities during the five-year period to which these data apply. Nest density was defined as the number of nests per kilometer of surveyed nesting beach habitat. Quartile break values at 25 and 75 percent of the observations were used in assigning nesting beaches to the three density categories. Categories were assigned as follows: low = density values less than or equal to the lower 25%, medium = nest density values greater than 25% and less than or equal to 75%, and high = nest density values greater than 75%. Beaches with zero density values were excluded from the quartile ranking calculations. Density classifications for green turtles (Chelonia mydas) were calculated for each Florida genetic subunits after Shamblin et al. (2015). FWC-FWRI dcDensClas Nest density classifications of low, medium and high were determined for each species for each survey area based on average nest densities during the five-year period to which these data apply. Nest density was defined as the number of nests per kilometer of surveyed nesting beach habitat. Quartile break values at 25 and 75 percent of the observations were used in assigning nesting beaches to the three density categories. Categories were assigned as follows: low = density values less than or equal to the lower 25%, medium = nest density values greater than 25% and less than or equal to 75%, and high = nest density values greater than 75%. Beaches with zero density values were excluded from the quartile ranking calculations. Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting data were classified relative to all statewide nesting beaches because unique genetic subunits within Florida have not yet been described for the species. FWC-FWRI eiPresent Eretmochelys imbricata (Hawksbill) occurrence during the five-year survey period. Occurrence is represented as yes (nesting by this species was observed) or no (nesting by this species was not observed). FWC-FWRI lkPresent Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp's ridley) occurrence during the five-year survey period. Occurrence is represented as yes (nesting by this species was observed) or no (nesting by this species was not observed). FWC-FWRI DESCRIPT FGDL added field based on BEACH GeoPlan FGDLAQDATE FGDL added field based on date downloaded from source. GeoPlan AUTOID SHAPE.LEN Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL) mailing and physical

431 Architecture PO Box 115706

Gainesville Florida 32611-5706 Web site: http://www.fgdl.org Mailing list for FGDL: http://www.fgdl.org/fgdl-l.html For FGDL Software: http://www.fgdl.org/software.html Technical Support: http://www.fgdl.org/fgdlfeed.html FGDL Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.fgdl.org/fgdlfaq.html DOWNLOADABLE DATA The Florida Geographic Data Library is a collection of Geospatial Data compiled by the University of Florida GeoPlan Center with support from the Florida Department of Transportation. GIS data available in FGDL is collected from various state, federal, and other agencies (data sources) who are data stewards, producers, or publishers. The data available in FGDL may not be the most current version of the data offered by the data source. University of Florida GeoPlan Center makes no guarantees about the currentness of the data and suggests that data users check with the data source to see if more recent versions of the data exist. Furthermore, the GIS data available in the FGDL are provided 'as is'. The University of Florida GeoPlan Center makes no warranties, guaranties or representations as to the truth, accuracy or completeness of the data provided by the data sources. The University of Florida GeoPlan Center makes no representations or warranties about the quality or suitability of the materials, either expressly or implied, including but not limited to any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. The University of Florida GeoPlan Center shall not be liable for any damages suffered as a result of using, modifying, contributing or distributing the materials. A note about data scale: Scale is an important factor in data usage. Certain scale datasets are not suitable for some project, analysis, or modeling purposes. Please be sure you are using the best available data. 1:24000 scale datasets are recommended for projects that are at the county level. 1:24000 data should NOT be used for high accuracy base mapping such as property parcel boundaries. 1:100000 scale datasets are recommended for projects that are at the multi-county or regional level. 1:125000 scale datasets are recommended for projects that are at the regional or state level or larger. Vector datasets with no defined scale or accuracy should be considered suspect. Make sure you are familiar with your data before using it for projects or analysis. Every effort has been made to supply the user with data documentation. For additional information, see the References section and the Data Source Contact section of this documentation. For more information regarding scale and accuracy, see our webpage at: http://geoplan.ufl.edu/education.html 20200807 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Statewide Nesting Beach Survey program coordinator mailing and physical

100 8th Avenue SE

St. Petersburg Florida 33701 Beth.Brost@MyFWC.com FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998 local time All data must be verified by Principle Investigator or Group Database Analyst prior to release. It is strongly recommended that these data are directly acquired from FWC and not indirectly through other sources which may have changed the data in some way. FWC makes no claims as to suitability of these data for other purposes. Acknowledgment of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute as the data source would be appreciated in any products developed from these data. Such acknowledgment as is standard for citation and legal practices for data source is expected by users of these data. Please cite the original metadata when using portions of the record to create a similar record of slightly altered data, such as reprojection. If any data are modified or adjusted, please share the edited information with FWC. Users should be aware that comparison with other data sets for the same area from other time periods may be inaccurate due to inconsistencies resulting from changes in mapping conventions, data collection, and computer processes over time. FWC shall not be liable for improper or incorrect use of these data. These data are not legal documents and are not to be used as such. It should be noted that shapefiles consisting of Statewide survey areas are general representations.