Loading...
Understanding, Assessing and Resolving Light-Pollution Problems on Sea Turtle Nesting BeachesFlorida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute TECHNICAL REPORTS Understanding, Assessing, and Resolving Light -Pollution Problems on Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission MyFWC.com Rick Scott Governor of Florida Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Nick Wiley Executive Director The Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) is a division of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). The FWC is "managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit of people." The FWRI conducts applied research pertinent to managing fishery resources and species of special concern in Florida. Programs at FWRI focus on obtaining the data and information that managers of fish,wildlife,and ecosystem resources need to sustain Florida's natural resources. Topics include managing recreationally and commercially important fish and wildlife species; preserving, managing, and restoring terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats; collecting information related to popula- tion status, habitat requirements, life history, and recovery needs of upland and aquatic species; synthesizing ecological, habitat, and socioeconomic information; and developing educational and outreach programs for classroom educators, civic organizations, and the public. The FWRI publishes three series: Memoirs of the Hourglass Cruises, Florida Marine Research Publications and FWRI Technical Reports. FWRI Technical Reports contain information relevant to immediate resource -management needs. Gil McRae, FWRI Director Bland Crowder, Shad Run Word and Graphic, Editor Understanding, Assessing, and Resolving Light -Pollution Problems on Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches Blair E. Witherington* Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 9700 South A1A Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 R. Erik Martin Ecological Associates, Inc. P. 0. Box 405 Jensen Beach, Florida 34958 and Robbin N. Trindell Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Division of Habitat and Species Conservation 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 2014 • Current address listed after acknowledgments Cover Photographs Green turtle hatchling (R. Erik Martin) and tracks of disoriented hatchlings (Blair Witherington) Hatchling art, page vii: © 1987 by Flying Turtle Productions NOTE In 2004, the Florida Marine Research Institute became the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. Copies of this document may be obtained from http://research.MyFWC.com Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 100 Eighth Ave. SE St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5020 USA Attn: Librarian 727-896-8626 Document Citation Witherington, B. E., R. E. Martin and R. N. Trindell. 2014. Understanding, assessing, and resolving light - pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches, revised. Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Technical Report TR -2. vii + 83 p. Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v INTRODUCTION 1 PROBLEMS: THE EFFECTS OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING ON HUMANS AND SEA TURTLES 2 Photobiology 2 Sea Turtle Nesting 2 The Nesting Process 2 Disruption of Nest -Site Selection 2 Nesting Behavior Abandonment and Abbreviation 3 Disruption of Sea -Finding 5 Hatchling Sea Turtle Orientation 6 The Act of Sea -Finding 6 How Hatchlings Recognize the Ocean 6 Brightness Cues 7 Turning Toward Brightness 7 A Model for Measuring Brightness 7 Spectral properties of the brightness detector 7 Directional properties of the brightness detector 9 Color Cues 11 Shape Cues 11 Other Light Cues 12 When Cues Conflict 12 Disruption of Sea -Finding 13 Observations of Sea -Finding Disruption 13 Misorientation and Disorientation 13 Differences Between Natural and Artificial Lighting 14 Effects of Moon Phase and Moonlight 15 Swimming Orientation 16 Artificial Lighting and Humans 16 Optimal Light for Human Vision 16 Effects of Artificial Lighting on Human Health 17 Effects of Artificial Lighting on Human Safety 18 Lighting and an Aging Population 18 Economic Cost of Wasted Light 19 Conclusion 19 ASSESSMENTS: DISCERNING PROBLEMS CAUSED BY ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING 20 Lighting Inspections 20 What is a Lighting Inspection? 20 Which Lights Cause Problems? 20 How Should Lighting Inspections Be Conducted? 20 Gather Background Information 20 Preliminary Daytime Inspections 20 Nighttime Inspections 21 When Should Lighting Inspections Be Conducted? 21 Who Should Conduct Lighting Inspections? 21 What Should Be Done with Information from Lighting Inspections? 21 Technical Advances in Recording, Storing, and Sharing Spatial Information about Lights 22 Monitoring Sea Turtle Behavior 22 Sea Turtle Nesting 22 Hatchling Orientation 22 Hatchling Orientation Surveys 22 Hatchling Disorientation Reports 22 Laws, Regulations, and Standards for Lighting 22 Need for Improvements 23 Effective Training and Code Enforcement 23 Special Considerations for Lighting in Coastal Areas 23 Seeking a Variance 24 Florida Building Code 24 Meeting Code Requirements without Affecting Sea Turtles 24 Florida Department of Transportation 25 SOLUTIONS: SOLVING PROBLEMS CAUSED BY ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING 26 Light as a Pollutant 26 Using the Best Available Technology 26 Effective Methods for Managing Light 26 Current Status 26 Lessons Learned 27 Addressing Problem Lights 27 Use Alternative, Long -Wavelength Light Sources 28 Long -Wavelength LEDs 28 Low -Pressure Sodium Vapor 28 Yellow Filters and Gel Coatings 28 Minimize Beach Lighting from Outdoor Sources 29 Methods for Reducing Light Trespass for Specific Outdoor Light Sources 30 Pool Lighting 30 Parks 30 Piers, Sidewalks, Walkways, and Bikeways 31 Streetlights 31 Parking Facilities 32 Sports Fields 32 Decorative Lighting 32 Sign Lighting 33 Minimize Beach Lighting from Indoor Sources 33 How to Choose an Alternative Light Source 33 Use Light Screens and Enhance the Dune Profile 34 A Comprehensive Strategy for Minimizing Effects of Artificial Lighting 34 OVERVIEW: CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE STRATEGY 35 Assessment of Past Efforts 35 Nesting Trends 35 Communities with Lighting Ordinances 35 Success Stories 35 Lighting Retrofit Programs 35 SR Al Boca Raton 37 ii Future Strategy 38 Outreach and Education 38 Exploring New Technologies 38 Information for Lighting Design Professionals 38 LITERATURE CITED 40 APPENDIX A. Rating Light Sources by their Effects on Sea Turtles 50 APPENDIX B. Lamp Types and their Efficiency 53 APPENDIX C. Acceptable Lamps, Bulbs, and other Light Sources 54 APPENDIX D. Acceptable Fixtures 55 APPENDIX E. Diagrams of Commonly Available Luminaires and Solutions to Common Lighting Problems 58 APPENDIX F. Laws and Regulations Protecting Sea Turtles 67 APPENDIX G. Distributors of Lighting Products 71 APPENDIX H. Conservation Organizations 73 APPENDIX I. Comments and Responses to Common Questions about Sea Turtles and Lighting 75 APPENDIX J. Glossary 79 iii Acknowledgments Earlier editions were funded by Florida's Marine Turtle Protection Trust Fund and grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. This revision was funded by Deepwater Horizon NRDA Early Restoration. Partial funding of publication was contributed by an anonymous benefactor. We offer special thanks to Anne Meylan, Barbara Schroeder, Mike Sole, Karen Williams, Meghan Koperski, Tonya Long, Luke Davis, and Ann Marie Tavares for their review and contributions to the manuscript and to Alan Huff and David Arnold for their assistance with the publication process. The current revision was overseen by Dr. Nisar Khan, Erdman Anthony & Associ- ates, Inc. We gratefully acknowledge the information provided by the companies listed in Appendix G. In the text and appendices, we list lighting products that are acceptable for use near sea turtle nesting beaches. This listing of products and the companies that offer them is not meant to be complete; additional products and companies are presented at http://www.myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats /managed/sea-turtles/lighting/. *Blair Witherington s current address: University of Florida and Disney Animal Kingdom, 129 Delvalle Street, Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951. iv Understanding, Assessing, and Resolving Light -Pollution Problems On Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches Executive Summary Sea turtle populations have suffered declines worldwide, and their recovery largely depends upon managing the effects of expanding human populations. One of these effects is light pollution—the presence of detrimental artificial light in the environment. Of the many ecological disturbances caused by humans, light pollution is among the most manageable. Light pollution on nesting beaches is detrimental to sea turtles be- cause it alters critical nocturnal behaviors, namely, their choice of nesting sites, their return path to the sea after nest- ing, and how hatchlings find the sea after emerging. Circumstantial observations and experimental evi- dence show that artificial lighting on beaches tends to deter sea turtles from leaving the sea to nest. As a result, effects of artificial lighting on nesting are not likely to be revealed just by a ratio of nests to false crawls (tracks showing abandoned nesting attempts on the beach) because it does not account for those turtles who, discouraged by the artificial lights, never left the sea. Although turtles do tend to prefer dark beaches, many nest on lighted shores, but when they do so, hatchlings' lives are jeopardized. This threat comes from the way in which artificial lighting disrupts a critical nocturnal behavior of hatchlings—crawling from their nest to the sea. On natu- rally lighted beaches, hatchlings escaping from nests show an immediate and well -directed orientation toward the water. This robust sea -finding behavior is innate and is guided by visual cues that include brightness, shape, and, in some spe- cies, color in the horizon. On artificially lit beaches, hatchlings are misdirected by light sources, and they are left unable to find the water and vulnerable to high mortality from dehydration and predators. Hatchlings become misdirected because they tend to move in the direction with the brightest light and away from darker silhouettes, especially when the brightness in one direction is overwhelmingly greater than that of other directions. Artificial lighting on beaches is strongly attractive to hatchlings and can cause them to move in the wrong direction (misorientation) and interfere with their ability to orient in a constant direction (disorientation). Understanding how sea turtles interpret light cues in choosing nesting sites and how hatchlings locate the sea has helped conservationists develop ways of identifying and mini- mizing problems caused by light pollution. Light conditions on nesting beaches are complex, and measuring light pollution in a way that effectively captures the impacts to sea turtles is dif- ficult. But quantifying light pollution is not necessary to the diagnosis of a problem. We offer this simple rule: If light from an artificial source is visible to a person standing on a beach, that light is likely to cause problems for sea turtles that nest there. Because there is no single minimum measurable level of artificial brightness on nesting beaches that is accepta- ble in sea turtle conservation plans, the most effective conservation strategy is simply to use "best available technol- ogy" (BAT: a common strategy for reducing pollution using the best available pollution -reduction technologies) to reduce effects of lighting as much as practicable. Best available tech- nology includes many light -management options that have been used by lighting engineers for decades and others that are unique to protecting sea turtles. The simple strategy of "keep it long, keep it low, and keep it shielded" can be implemented on nesting beaches to help protect sea turtles. Light sources emitting low levels of long -wavelength light—sources that appear deep red or yel- low—affect both hatchlings and nesting adults less than do sources emitting higher levels of short -wavelength light— sources that appear whitish or any color other than deep red or yellow. Light sources can be repositioned behind structures, shielded, redirected, lowered, or recessed so that their light does not reach the beach. While timers and motion detectors can be installed to ensure that lights come on only when needed, installing the correct lights only where needed for hu- man safety is the best strategy for protection of sea turtles and people. Interior light levels can be reduced by moving lamps away from windows, drawing blinds after sundown, and tint- ing windows. To protect sea turtles, artificial lighting need not be prohibited if it can be properly managed. Light is being properly managed when it cannot be seen from the beach. The most recent version of this FWC technical re- port, its third and revised edition, was published in 2003. This 2014 revision provides a brief account of recent research in sea turtle behavior and lighting and summarizes data regard- ing the status of endangered sea turtles in Florida. The four sections in the current report include Prob- lems, Assessments, Solutions, and Overview. The Problems section describes the effects of artificial lights on humans and FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 V Sea Turtles and Lighting Executive Summary Witherington, Martin and Trindell sea turtles. The impact of artificial lighting on sea turtles and the development of good lighting management practices to re- duce these impacts is the primary focus of this Technical Report. However, light pollution is harmful to humans also. In fact, a growing body of research in photobiology indicates that humans, wildlife, and plants are affected by artificial lighting. The Assessment section includes updated infor- mation on lighting inspections and monitoring sea turtle behavior, as well as a brief discussion about laws regulating lights in Florida. The Solutions section underscores the use of BAT to manage lights from indoor and outdoor sources. Amber light emitting diodes (LEDs), red neon, and low-pressure sodium- vapor luminaires are good substitutes for more disruptive lighting near sea turtle nesting beaches. Effective Methods for Managing Light includes an overview of the current status and lessons learned. Solutions are provided for several cate- gories of common light -pollution problems: swimming pools, parks, piers, sidewalks, walkways, bikeways, streetlights, parking facilities, decorative lights, and illuminated signs. Making the public aware of light pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches is a fundamental step toward dark- ening beaches. Many of those responsible for errant lighting are unaware of its detrimental effects and are generally willing to correct such problems once they are made aware of them. Nonetheless, legislation requiring light management is often needed, and on many nesting beaches it may be the only means of fully resolving light pollution problems. The Overview section includes a brief assessment of past efforts of managing artificial lighting on the nesting beaches and information on the nesting trends. Success sto- ries involving retrofitting problematic lighting for public and private buildings and streetlights are included. Future strate- gies, involving outreach to students and employing new technologies, are discussed. The last portion of this section at- tempts to address questions commonly raised by lighting design professionals involved in projects in coastal areas. Appendices provide additional information on ap- propriate lamp types, lamp colors, fixture designs, and fixture mounting for various applications near sea turtle nesting beaches. They also provide information for contacting light- ing companies that offer appropriate lighting fixtures and governmental and nongovernmental organizations that can help with sea turtle conservation. Last, they suggest responses to commonly encountered questions and comments regarding sea turtles and artificial lighting. vi FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 TRUST The sea produced an ancient form with aquatic wings for soaring that gouged the sand away from tide above the ocean's pouring. She abandoned hope to trust the past, heaved forth the future and at last, buried it and left. Now, two moons hence, little turtles pip, with soft struggling bodies hatching. The sands ensconce as eggs are ripped by contorted masses scratching. The siblings toil at a common chore to whittle ceiling into floor, until at sand's surface just short of sky, the unsettled lie, becalmed. The tangled turtles wait as heat of day abates and cool of night prods their reluctance away. At dusk the fits and starts begin and then through claw and strain, above their heads sand rains again, and yields to sky of night. This army boiling in the night gains might, and in waves, pours forth to see the sight. Soft flippers patter and wipe sand from view that eyes might seize upon the cue that betrays the sea. And then, eyes do, they catch the glow and every hatchling keen rushes on to the goal they know but they have never seen. As if clockwork toys tightly wound they keep pace and bearing tight, for unless the sea is quickly found, they will not survive the night. They choose their erring paths with neither doubt nor anticipation, and their consistency deals them life or death with quiet resignation. Thus, night wanes and sights of light remaining scatter throngs persistent and about the dune abundant obstacles restraining, divide the dying from the spent. Weakened few reach the sight they sought, a deceptive brightness reassuring where trusting forms are caught by the sight of lights alluring. Dawn now dries their searching eyes and death now rests the weary. Might fate have been more kind to travelers more leery? Were these turtles to awaken, could they sense their mother's plight having left her young forsaken owing confidence in light? Past's light offered not such bitter seas nor played such deadly roles to guide hatchlings on to sights like these electric lights on poles. Might we masters of the light adapt, forgo complete control, and lessen obsolescence lest our presence take its toll? To tread on earth with darkness soft leaves not the night asunder and preserves the stars and moon aloft, and obsoleted wonders. —BEW vii Understanding, Assessing, and Resolving Light -Pollution Problems on Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches Introduction Sea turtles are marine reptiles that have declined from their historical abundance due to a variety of anthro- pogenic effects. Of the seven species of sea turtles, six are found in U.S. waters: green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea). The seventh species, the flatback (Natator depressus), is found only in Australia. All six species found in U.S. waters are listed in the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 as being threatened (i.e., likely to become an endangered spe- cies within the foreseeable future) or endangered (in danger of extinction). State and local laws affording protection to sea turtles also exist and are enforced. The flatback sea turtle species is also listed as vulner- able by the Australian government. Sea turtle conservation requires solutions to threats in both the marine and terrestrial environments. Major threats to sea turtles in the United States include destruction and alteration of nesting and foraging habitats; incidental capture in commercial and recreational fisheries; entanglement in marine debris; and vessel strikes. International conventions and U.S. regulations have been enacted as well to reduce incidental capture. Humans and sea turtles share ocean beaches. On these narrow strips of sand, humans live, recreate, and conduct commerce—and sea turtles nest. The con- sequences of the profound environmental changes triggered by human actions can be severe for sea turtles. While all aspects of habitat alteration deserve serious attention, our focus in this manual is the distinctive and particularly damaging type of habitat alteration that aff- ects sea turtles at the nesting beach, namely, light pollution—the introduction of artificially produced, detrimental light into the environment. Light pollution is an important problem with achievable solutions that benefit humans by reducing exposure to the harmful effects of artificial lighting such as sleep deprivation, glare, and the possible connection to certain type of cancers. Reducing light pollution also saves energy and reduces sky glow which is defined as added sky brightness caused by the scattering of artificial light into the atmosphere. At high enough levels of scattered lights, the sky will appear as a self -luminous body, and will glow. Light from artificial sources differs markedly from other pollutants both in its form and in its effect on sea turtles. Light pollution is not a toxic material, but it has great potential to disrupt behaviors such as the selection of nesting sites by adult turtles and the movement off the beach by hatchlings and adults, with profound effects on sea turtle survival. This manual is intended to help conservation field workers, lighting design professionals, govern- mental and agency decision makers, and the general public, especially residents and business owners in coastal areas. Light management, if carefully devel- oped and implemented, does not involve choosing between human safety and security and sea turtle sur- vival. Techniques, products, and practices that help ensure sea turtle survival are also beneficial for hu- mans in the coastal environment. While the primary area of coverage for this manual is Florida, the concepts and details presented here are universal to any beach on which humans and sea turtles interact. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 1 Sea Turtles and Lighting Problems Witherington, Martin and Trindell Problems: The Effects of Artificial Lighting on Humans and Sea Turtles PHOTOBIOLOGY The impact of artificial lighting and the development of good light -management practices for sea turtles are the pri- mary foci of this technical report. But inappropriate nighttime lighting also impacts humans—the wrong type or amount of night lighting can affect human health as well (Holker et al., 2010). Prudent light -management strategies for coastal communities therefore require understanding impacts to and needs of humans as well as of sea turtles. Photobiology combines the studies of light and bi- ology. Humans, wildlife, and plants evolved under a distinct pattern of light and dark that influenced many basic biological functions. Almost all species of plants and ani- mals operate under an inherent circadian cycle, or rhythm, over a 24-hour day/night cycle. Shifts between daylight and darkness in turn influence important internal physical processes as well as the functioning of natural communities and animal behavior. Artificial lighting disrupts this natu- ral cycle for animals and people. The impacts of light pollution on humans can be divided into those that affect human health, such as sleep disruption, and those that impact safety, such as interference with normal night vision. Light pollution affects both nesting female and hatchling sea tur- tles during their short but critical time on the nesting beach. Sea Turtle Nesting THE NESTING PROCESS Sea turtles are marine reptiles that deposit their eggs above the high -tide line on sand beaches. Sea turtle nesting in Florida is seasonal and for most populations begins in late spring and concludes in late summer. Although more than one sea turtle species may nest on a given beach, their nest- ing seasons are often slightly offset. In Florida, for instance, leatherbacks begin nesting in mid-March and conclude in mid-July, loggerheads begin nesting in early May and conclude in late August, and green turtles begin nesting in early June and conclude by mid-September (Meylan et al., 1995). Depending upon the species, females reach sexual maturity in 10-50 years. Nesting occurs from two to eight times in a season, at intervals ranging between 9 and 14 days. The nesting cycle is repeated in another 2-5 years. While nesting is widespread in Florida, the beaches of greatest nesting density for three species—loggerhead, green, and leatherback—are located along the southeast coast, suggesting that common selection pressures determine their choice. These sites are all close to the Florida Current (the western portion of the Gulf Stream). Since hatchlings are strong but slow swimmers, this prox- imity to favorable oceanic currents is believed to be one of many factors influencing the choice of a nesting beach by females (Salmon, 2003). Except for the flatback turtle (B. Prince, personal communication), Kemp's ridley (Pritchard and Marquez, 1973), and some populations of hawksbills (Brooke and Garnett, 1983), sea turtle nesting occurs almost exclusively at night. All sea turtle species have in common a series of stereotyped nesting behaviors (descriptions given by Carr and Ogren, 1959; Carr et al., 1966; Bustard, 1972; Ehrenfeld, 1979; Hirth and Samson, 1987; Hailman and Elowson, 1992; Hays and Speakman, 1993; Salmon, 2003), although there are subtle differences between spe- cies and some elements of this behavior may vary between individuals and between nesting attempts. For example, nesting behavior may vary with regard to where turtles emerge onto land; where on the beach they begin to con- struct their nests; whether they abandon their nesting attempts and, if so, at what nesting stage they abandon it; and the directness of their paths as they return to the sea. These variations in nesting behavior can affect the success of egg deposition and hatchling production and the well- being of nesting turtles. During nesting, an adult female sea turtle: 1) emerges from the surf zone; 2) crawls up the beach to a point typically between the high -tide line and the primary dune; 3) prepares the nest site by pushing or digging sur- face sand away to form a body pit; 4) digs an egg cavity within the body pit using the rear flippers; 5) deposits eggs within the egg cavity; 6) covers the eggs with sand; 7) cam- ouflages the nest site by casting sand, principally with front -flipper strokes; 8) turns toward the sea; and 9) crawls into the surf (Hailman and Elowson, 1992, include an ad- ditional wandering phase). For the most part, the pattern of each of these behaviors (how they are performed) is not af- fected as greatly by external stimuli (such as the presence of humans or lights) as are the decisions that determine the timing, duration, and accuracy of the behaviors. Function- ally, these decisions affect the selection of a nest site, the abandonment or abbreviation of nesting behaviors, and the accuracy of sea -finding. DISRUPTION OF NEST -SITE SELECTION Sea turtles select a nest site by deciding where to emerge from the surf and where on the beach to put their eggs. The most clearly demonstrated effect of artificial lighting on nesting is to deter turtles from emerging from the water. 2 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Problems Sea Turtles and Lighting Evidence for this has been given by Raymond (1984b), who reported a dramatic reduction in nesting attempts by loggerheads at a brightly lighted beach site in Florida. Else- where in Florida, Mattison et al. (1993) showed that there were fewer loggerhead nesting emergences at locations at which lighted piers and roadways were close to beaches. Mortimer (1982) described nesting green turtles at Ascension Island as shunning artificially lighted beaches. Other authors have noted a relationship between lighted beach development and reduced sea turtle nesting: Worth and Smith (1976), Williams -Walls et al. (1983), Proffitt et al. (1986), and Martin et al. (1989) for loggerheads in Florida; Witherington (1986), Worth and Smith (1976), and Ehrhart (1979) for green turtles in Florida; and Dodd (1988), Witham (1982), and Coston-Clements and Hoss (1983) in reviews of human impacts on sea turtle nesting. Salmon et al. (1995a) found that loggerheads that do nest on beaches where the glow of urban lighting is visible be- hind the dune tend to prefer the darker areas where buildings are silhouetted against the artificial glow. Other authors have mentioned reduced nesting activity at lighted and developed beaches (Kamrowski et al., 2012; Ziskin et al., 2008) or nesting in spite of lighted development (Mann, 1977), but in some areas other contributing factors such as increased human activity near developed areas may also have an impact on nesting (Mazor et al., 2013; Talbert et al., 1980). In addition to evidence pointing to a correlation between lighted beaches and reduced nesting, evidence from experimental field work directly implicates artificial lighting in deterring sea turtles from nesting (Witherington, 1992a). In these experiments, undeveloped nesting beaches were left dark or were lighted with one of two types of commercial light sources. Both green turtles and logger- heads showed a significant tendency to avoid stretches of beach lighted with white mercury-vapor luminaires (Fig- ures 1 and 2). But any effect of yellow low-pressure sodium-vapor luminaires on loggerhead or green turtle nesting could not be detected. Because the mercury-vapor luminaires reduced both nesting and nonnesting emer- gences, it seems that the principal effect of artificial lighting on nesting is to deter turtles from leaving the wa- ter. Thus, we cannot rely on a ratio of tracks of nesting turtles to those of nonnesting turtles to reveal effects of ar- tificial lighting. The reason that artificial lighting deters nesting emergences is not known. Turtles may perceive ar- tificial lighting on a beach as daylight, which may suppress a behavior that is usually nocturnal. Once on the beach, sea turtles select a place to make a nest. In the field experiments by Witherington (1992a), artificial lighting had no effect on the distance from the dune at which sea turtles placed their nests. Nest placement on the beach may depend most heavily on nonvisual cues such as temperature gradients (Stoneburner and Richardson, 1981; Salmon et al., 2005) or beach slope (Wood and Bjorndal 2000). The illumination of sea turtle nesting beaches can be considered a form of habitat loss. When lighting deters sea turtles from approaching nesting beaches, they may se- lect less appropriate nesting sites. Worth and Smith (1976) reported that loggerheads deterred from nesting re- emerged onto beaches outside their typical range. Murphy (1985) found that loggerheads, repeatedly turned away as they made nesting attempts, chose increasingly distant and inappropriate nesting sites in subsequent nesting attempts. If we assume that sea turtles choose nesting sites based upon favorable conditions for safe nesting and the produc- tion of fit offspring, then light pollution can be said to force some turtles into suboptimal nesting habitat. In the Caribbean, adult female turtles held in pens during the nest- ing season often drop their eggs without nesting (A. Meylan, personal communication). NESTING BEHAVIOR ABANDONMENT AND ABBREVIATION Sea turtles that emerge onto beaches often abandon their nesting attempts before putting their clutches of eggs into the sand. Nesting success (the number of nests divided by attempts) varies among beaches and among species. Among 28 Florida nesting beaches surveyed in 1994, nest- ing success for loggerheads was 53% (n = 52,275 nests), 52% for green turtles (n = 2,804 nests), and 83% for leatherbacks (n = 81 nests) (Florida Department of Envi- ronmental Protection, Index Nesting Beach Survey Program). Nesting success for Florida loggerheads in 1994 was 61% (n = 3,704 nests) at the undeveloped beaches of the Canaveral National Seashore and 45% (n = 6,026 nests) at the residential and heavily armored beaches of Jupiter Island. The Florida Statewide Nesting Beach Survey data for the 2012 season reported a total of 98,601 loggerhead nests statewide with 99,535 non -nesting emergences (50% nesting success). Green turtles created 9,617 nests and 11,312 nonnesting emergences were documented (46% nesting success). The numbers for leatherback turtles were 1,712 and 350, respectively, indicating 83% nesting suc- cess. Similar to the trend reported above for 1994, nesting success for loggerheads at the relatively darker beaches of Brevard County was 60% (n = 24,630) and 46% (n = 16,986) for the Palm Beach County beaches. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 3 Sea Turtles and Lighting Problems Witherington, Martin and Trindell 20 15- 10 0 20 (1) W 10 C.� z_ (1) z 0 20 DARK ❑ FALSE CRAWL • NEST 15- 5 - LOW -PRESSURE SODIUM 15- 10 - MERCURY VAPOR I i m BEACH LOCATION Figure 1. The distribution of loggerhead nesting attempts on a 1,300-m stretch of beach at Melbourne Beach, Florida. The beach locations were divided into 50-m sections. The horizontal bars show the section of beach where luminaires were set up— either lighted mercury-vapor luminaires (open bar), lighted low-pressure sodium-vapor luminaires (shaded bar), or luminaires that were not lighted (dark bars). Data are from Witherington (1992a). NESTING ATTEMPTS 25 20 - 15- 10- 0 25 DARK -T ❑ FALSE CRAWL ❑ NEST T 20 - 10- 5- 0 25 LOW-PRESSURE SODIUM Fr 20 - 15 - MERCURY VAPOR BEACH LOCATION Figure 2. The distribution of green turtle nesting attempts on a 1,450-m stretch of beach at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Identifications are as in Figure 1. 4 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Problems Sea Turtles and Lighting Sea turtles will abandon nesting attempts when they en- counter digging impediments, large structures, unsatis- factory thermal cues, or human disturbance; when there are injuries to the rear flippers; or when other influences rec- ognized thus far only by the turtles deter them (B. Witherington and R. Martin, unpublished data; Stone- burner and Richardson, 1981; Fangman and Rittmaster, 1993). Sea turtles are most vulnerable to human disturb- ance during the initial phases of nesting (i.e., from emergence from the sea through egg -cavity excavation; Hirth and Samson, 1987), and during this period, green tur- tles are reported to be deterred by people with flashlights (Carr and Giovannoli, 1957; Carr and Ogren, 1960). For nesting loggerheads and green turtles, the presence of peo- ple moving within the field of view of a turtle may cause abandonment just as often as—and perhaps more often than—hand-held lighting, but this has yet to be studied ex- perimentally. Witherington (1992a) reported that stationary lighting did not cause loggerheads and green turtles to abandon their nesting attempts on the beach. In that study, however, so few turtles emerged onto the mercury vapor– lighted portion of the beach that too few nesting attempts were recorded to allow a proper test of nesting success. Although sea turtles are less likely to abandon nesting attempts once they have begun to deposit eggs, the normal post -oviposition behavior of covering the eggs and camouflaging the nest site can be abbreviated if a turtle is disturbed. Johnson et al. (1996) measured the behavior of loggerhead turtles observed by turtle -watch ecotourism groups and found that watched nesting turtles had shorter - than -average bouts of nest covering and camouflaging. During similar observations of turtles watched by unor- ganized groups of people with flashlights, a green turtle illuminated by a bright flashlight covered its eggs, cast sand, and began a return to the sea less than five minutes after oviposition (green turtles normally take approxi- mately 50 minutes for these behaviors; B. Witherington, personal communication; Hirth and Samson, 1987). No studies have attributed an abbreviation of nesting behavior to the effects of stationary lighting near nesting beaches. DISRUPTION OF SEA -FINDING After a sea turtle has camouflaged her nest, she must orient toward the sea and return there. Experiments with blind- folded green turtles that had finished nesting (Ehrenfeld and Carr, 1967; Ehrenfeld, 1968), experiments with blind- folded immature green turtles (Caldwell and Caldwell, 1962), and observations of orientation in nesting leather - backs (Mrosovsky and Shettleworth, 1975) indicated that these turtles rely on vision to fmd the sea. The blindfolding experiments allowed Ehrenfeld (1968) to determine how the light reaching each eye of an adult turtle influenced the direction it would turn and which way it would travel rela- tive to the sea. The mechanism for this phototropotaxis— literally, turning and movement with respect to light— seemed to match the way that other, much simpler, organ- isms orient toward light. In essence, the turtles appeared to turn so that perceived light intensity was balanced between their eyes, a balance that seemed to guarantee orientation toward the brightest direction. Given an adult sea turtle's reliance on brightness for correct seaward orientation, it is not surprising that ar- tificial lighting disrupts this sea -finding behavior. But it is surprising how rarely this occurs. Turtles attempting to re- turn to the sea after nesting are not misdirected nearly as often as are hatchlings emerging on the same beaches. In the lighted -beach experiments described by Witherington (1992a), few nesting turtles returning to the sea were mis- directed by lighting; however, those that were (four green turtles and one loggerhead) apparently spent a large portion of the night wandering in search of the ocean. An unprece- dented number of misoriented female leatherback turtles and hatchlings were reported during the 2006-2007 nesting season on a beach in Gabon, on the west -central coast of Africa. The misoriented females and hatchlings were found in the nearby savanna away from the ocean. This was con- sidered a direct impact of increased artificial lighting from new coastal construction. The same study also reported that the influence of artificial lights was often offset by silhou- ettes created by logs (lost during commercial timber transport) and escarpments resulting from beach erosion. Artificial and natural cues are precariously balanced. Over- all the attraction to artificial lights was greater than the effect of landward silhouette cues. The landward silhouette cues were more effective during a full moon (Bourgeois et al., 2009). Because misdirected nesting turtles may not be able to re-enter the ocean because of topography and ob- stacles, disruption of sea -finding may mean much more than a simple delay. At Jumby Bay, Antigua, a hawksbill that had nested was found far from the beach and crawling toward distant security lighting (C. Ryder, personal com- munication). At Hutchinson Island, Florida, adult loggerheads have left the beach and been found crawling toward parking lot lights near a busy highway or floun- dering in shallow ponds near condominium lighting (R. Martin, personal observation). At Melbourne Beach, Florida, a green turtle wandered off the beach in the direc- tion of mercury-vapor lighting and was found in a roadside parking lot (B. Witherington, personal observation). Ob- servers believed that none of these turtles would have been able to return to the sea without help. A number of nesting females have been struck and killed by vehicles after wan- dering onto the road. At Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, assistance came too late for a nesting loggerhead that had wandered toward a high-pressure sodium-vapor floodlight and onto a nearby highway, where it was struck and killed by a passing car (S. Johnson, personal communication). In 2014, a female loggerhead was struck and killed by a car at Gulf Islands National Seashore after moving away from the FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 5 Sea Turtles and Lighting Problems Witherington, Martin and Trindell beach toward landward lights (R. Trindell, personal com- munication). Hatchling Sea Turtle Orientation THE ACT OF SEA -FINDING One of the most critical acts a sea turtle must perform takes place immediately after it views the world for the first time, as a hatchling. From one to seven days after hatching be- neath the sand (Demmer, 1981; Christens, 1990), hatch- lings emerge from their nest en masse and in normal circumstances quickly orient toward the sea. This emer- gence of hatchlings and subsequent sea -finding takes place principally at night (Hendrickson, 1958; Carr and Hirth, 1961; Bustard, 1967; Neville et al., 1988; Witherington et al., 1990; Moran et al., 1999; Bourgeois et al., 2009; Berry et al., 2013; Peterson et al., 2013), although some early - morning (Chavez et al., 1968) and late -afternoon (Witzell and Banner, 1980) emergences have been reported. Loggerhead hatchlings in Florida emerge between dusk and dawn, with peak emergence near midnight (Witherington et al., 1990), Figure 3. ZU z - w in • 15- W - U - z _ LU W • 10- w - w z J 5 2 U S II I—II-1 O O O 0 O CV CV 0 N O N O 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 O CV 07 0 (O 1� 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 3. The timing of 157 loggerhead hatchling emergence events from natural nests at Melbourne Beach, Florida, between 29 July and 1 September 1988. An emergence event was defined as the movement of 10 or more hatchlings from nest to sea. Data are from Witherington et al. (1990). Hatchlings emerge at night, which allows them to avoid predation and to prevent overheating. The most prob- able thermal cue controlling hatchling emergence is change of temperature at superficial sand depth (Moran et al., 1999; Glen et al., 2006). Hatchling emergence is inhibited when subsurface temperatures are increasing. So long as night is relatively cooler than day, this mechanism ensures predominantly nocturnal hatchling emergence regardless of sand albedo (proportion of incident light or radiation reflected by a surface), seasonality, or latitude (Glen at al., 2006). Under natural conditions, hatchling sea turtles that have just emerged from the sand crawl in a frenzy di- rectly from nest to sea. The zeal characterizing this seaward crawl is justified given the consequences of delay—death. Hatchlings that are physically kept from the sea or whose sea -finding is disrupted by unnatural stimuli often die from exhaustion, dehydration, predation, or other causes (McFarlane, 1963; Philibosian, 1976; Hayes and Ireland, 1978; Mann, 1978; Glen et al., 2006; Bourgeois et al., 2009; Berry et al., 2013; Peterson et al., 2013). HOW HATCHLINGS RECOGNIZE THE OCEAN The first authors to study the sea -finding behavior of sea turtle hatchlings focused on associations between observed behavior and potential environmental cues (Hooker, 1907, 1908a, b) and later verified which of a hatchling's senses were necessary for sea -finding (Hooker, 1911; Parker, 1922; Daniel and Smith, 1947a, b; Carr and Ogren, 1960). A major conclusion of these early studies was that hatch- lings rely almost exclusively on vision to recognize the sea. There are a number of supporting observations: 1. Hatchlings with both eyes blindfolded circle or re- main inactive and seem to be unable to orient directly to the sea (Daniel and Smith, 1947a; Carr and Ogren, 1960; Mrosovsky and Shettleworth, 1968, 1974; Mrosovsky, 1977; Rhijn, 1979). 2. Visual stimuli such as light shields (Hooker, 1911; Parker, 1922; Carr and Ogren, 1959, 1960; Mrosov- sky and Shettleworth, 1968, 1975) and artificial lighting (Daniel and Smith, 1947a; Hendrickson, 1958; McFarlane, 1963; Mann, 1978) greatly inter- fere with hatchling sea -finding performance. 3. Placing hatchlings where the ocean horizon cannot be seen but where other, nonvisual, cues should be de- tectable typically prevents seaward orientation (Hooker, 1908b; Daniel and Smith, 1947a; Carr and Ogren, 1960; Carr et al., 1966; Mrosovsky, 1970). Although studies suggest that hatchlings may be able to respond to beach slope, such nonvisual cues appear to have a small influence on directional movement and probably do not come into play when light cues are availa- ble (Rhijn, 1979; Salmon et al., 1992). 6 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Problems Sea Turtles and Lighting BRIGHTNESS CUES A great deal of evidence suggests that brightness is an im- portant cue used by hatchlings in search of the ocean. Hatchlings move toward bright artificial light sources in both laboratory and field settings (Berry et al., 2013; Daniel and Smith, 1947a; Harewood and Horrocks, 2008; Hendrickson, 1958; Lorne and Salmon, 2007; Mrosovsky and Shettleworth, 1968) and toward reflective objects on the beach (Carr, 1962). The role of brightness in sea-fmding has two basic aspects. The first aspect is the mechanism by which hatch- lings use their eyes and brain to point themselves in the brightest direction how they turn toward brightness. The second aspect is a model that describes the properties of brightness of importance to a hatchling—how we might predict where a hatchling will go. TURNING TOWARD BRIGHTNESS Two mechanisms have been proposed to explain how hatchling sea turtles turn toward the brightest direction. Ev- idence for the first mechanism comes from experiments that have capitalized on the odd turning or "circus move- ments" made by partially blindfolded hatchlings (Mrosovsky and Shettleworth, 1968). In this mechanism, hatchlings are described as having many light -intensity comparators within each eye that would give them a way to compare the light intensity reaching them from different directions. Thus, if the comparator aimed posteriorly within the left eye of a hatchling (a comparator that would be near the nasal margin of the curved retina of the left eye) detects the brightest input of light, the hatchling would "know" to turn left in order to orient in the brightest direc- tion. Similarly, after turning toward the brightness until the light -intensity inputs between the eyes are balanced, the hatchling would "know" that it has reached an orientation in the brightest direction. This mechanism has been called a complex phototropotaxis system (Mrosovsky and Kings- mill, 1985). Complex refers to the many comparators involved, and phototropotaxis (photos = light, tropos = a turning, tasso = to arrange) refers to a turning and move- ment toward light. In a second proposed mechanism, hatchlings are described as having an integrated array, or "raster system," of light sensors within both eyes that would allow them to instantaneously interpret the brightest direction. Rather than sensing detail, this hypothesized raster system would integrate a measure of brightness over a broad area. This mechanism is referred to as a telotaxis system (Verheijen and Wildschut, 1973; Mrosovsky and Shettleworth, 1974; Mrosovsky et al., 1979). Telotaxis (telopos = seen from afar, tasso = to arrange) refers to a fixation on and move- ment toward a target stimulus. Unfortunately, the differences between these pro- posed mechanisms are too subtle to allow them to be separated by the experimental evidence at hand. The more "complex" a phototropotaxis mechanism becomes, the more it functionally resembles a telotaxis mechanism (Schone, 1984). The actual visual -neural system that hatch- lings use to turn toward the brightest direction and maintain that orientation may incorporate aspects of each of the pro- posed mechanisms. 1.0 RELATIVE RESPONSE 0 ■•_ ® s -"N r `1...•• • • Orientation Response • ERG Response f ■ ■ 4 ■ ■ UV VIOLET BLUE GREEN YELLOW RED 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 WAVELENGTH (nm) Figure 4. A comparison of the orientation and physio- logical (ERG) responses of green turtle hatchlings to colored light. The orientation response curve shows how attractive the light is to green turtle hatchlings, and the ERG response curve gives an approximation of how bright the light appears to them. Orientation data are from Witherington (1992b), and ERG data are adapted from Granda and O'Shea (1972). Figure adapted from Witherington (1997); used with permission. A MODEL FOR MEASURING BRIGHTNESS To determine the brightest direction, hatchlings must be able to "measure" brightness. Knowing the properties of the "brightness detector" used in this measurement is es- sential to our understanding a hatchling's response to its world. Although simplistic, modeling hatchlings as biolog- ical brightness detectors is a useful way to introduce the properties of light that most affect hatchling orientation. Spectral properties of the brightness detector.—The spec- tral properties of a detector—or an eye—reveal its sensitiv- ity to different wavelengths of light. In bright light, we see different wavelengths and combinations of wavelengths as FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 7 Sea Turtles and Lighting Problems Witherington, Martin and Trindell colors. But independent of color, some wavelengths appear brighter to us than others, just as there are some wave- lengths that we cannot see. The term "brightness" is often used in the sea tur- tle orientation literature and generally refers to the intensity and wavelength(s) of light relative to the spectral sensitiv- ity of an individual (Ehrenfeld and Carr, 1967; Mrosovsky, 1972; Rhijn, 1979; Mrosovsky and Kingsmill, 1985). Brightness is undoubtedly in the eye of the beholder. The different -colored photopigments and oil droplets within the retina of a sea turtle's eye (Granda and Haden, 1970; Liebman and Granda, 1971; Granda and Dvorak, 1977) provide a unique set of conditions that influence how sea turtles make their determination of brightness. Researchers have learned much about sea turtles' perception of bright- ness by using a procedure called electroretinography (ERG) to measure the relative electrical potential across retinas of turtles exposed to different wavelengths of light. ERG data show that green turtles are most sensitive to light in the violet to orange region of the visible spectrum, from 400 to 640 nm (Figure 4; Granda and O'Shea, 1972; Levenson et al., 2006). In daylight, green turtles show a greater spectral sensitivity within the shorter -wavelength (blue) region of the spectrum than humans do. Although ERG data provide important physiolog- ical information, the most direct way to determine the effects of spectral light on orientation is to conduct behav- ioral experiments. The earliest studies on hatchlings' responses to light wavelengths employed broadband (mul- tiple wavelength transmission) filters to vary the wavelengths that reached orienting hatchlings (Mrosovsky and Carr, 1967; Mrosovsky and Shettleworth, 1968). Alt- hough reactions to specific wavelengths could not be determined, the green turtle hatchlings studied were clearly more strongly attracted to blue light than to red light. In later experiments, researchers used narrow- band (monochromatic) filters to vary the wavelengths reaching loggerhead, green turtle, hawksbill, and olive rid - ley hatchlings (Witherington and Bjorndal, 1991a; Witherington, 1992b, Fritsches, 2012). The use of mono- chromatic filters allowed a simple measure of light inten- sity so that researchers could determine the responses of hatchlings to a set number of photons at each of several wavelengths. As in previous experiments, hatchlings showed a preference for short -wavelength light. Green tur- tles, hawksbills, and olive ridleys were most strongly attracted to light in the near -ultraviolet to yellow region of the spectrum and were weakly attracted or indifferent to orange and red light (Figure 5). Loggerheads were most strongly attracted to light in the near -ultraviolet to green region and showed an unexpected response to light in the yellow region of the spectrum. At intensities of yellow light comparable to a full moon or a dawn sky, loggerhead hatchlings showed an aversion response to yellow light sources (Figure 5: Lohmann et al., 1996; Witherington, 1997), although subsequent assays for Australian logger- heads did not find a similar aversion to yellow light (Fritsches, 2012). At low, nighttime intensities, logger - cc 0 0 CC 0 0 0 0 CC • 20 X u = 350 uv ATTRACTION O LOGGERHEAD ❑ GREEN TURTLE 0 OLIVE RIDLEY A FIAWKSBILL INDIFFERENCE AVERSION 400 450 500 550 600 VIOLET BLUE GREEN YELLOW WAVELENGTH (nm) 650 700 RED Figure 5. Orientation responses of four species of sea turtle hatchlings to colored light sources. Responses were measured as the proportion of hatchlings that chose a window lighted with a colored light source over a similar but darkened window (Witherington, 1992b). The loggerhead differed from the other species in that it showed an aversion to light in the yellow region of the spectrum. Figure adapted from Witherington (1997) and Lohmann et al. (1996); used with permission. heads were weakly attracted to yellow light (Figure 6). It may be that the hatchlings cannot discriminate color at low light levels. This is common for animals (such as turtles) that have rod -and -cone retinas (Granda and Dvorak, 1977). Figure 12 (on page 17) presents the human range of photopic and scotopic vision and the range of wave- lengths suited for human vision. Figures 5 and 6 show the range of wavelengths suited for vision in sea turtles. It should come as no surprise that humans and sea turtle hatchlings see the world differently. For most of their lives, sea turtles see the world through a blue ocean filter (water selectively absorbs reddish, long -wavelength light), so it makes sense that sea turtles would be most sensitive to short -wavelength light. Because sea turtle hatchlings respond to ultravio- let light that humans cannot see and are only weakly sensitive to red light that we see well, instruments that quantify light from a human perspective (such as most light meters) cannot accurately gauge brightness from the per- spective of a sea turtle. Humans also cannot assess color exactly as a sea turtle would. Although we can see colors, we cannot tell what assortment of wavelengths may make up those colors. For example, a light source emitting both 8 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Problems Sea Turtles and Lighting 10-9 10-10 a 10-13 x W m 10-14 10-15 300 1111.111111 ,1111,1111. 350 400 450 500 550 800 650 700 UV VIOLET BLUE GREEN YELLOW WAVELENGTH (nm) Figure 6. Behavioral sensitivity of loggerhead hatchlings to low -intensity colored light, represented as the inverse of the light -source radiance required to evoke significantly directed orientation in groups of hatchlings (n = 30 per wavelength). At the low light levels represented here (approximately the radiance of the sky on a full -moon night, and dimmer), there was orientation toward the light source at all wavelengths. The ordinate is a log scale of the units (photons/s/m2/sr)-1. Data are from Witherington (1992b). Figure adapted from Witherington (1997) and Lohmann et al. (1996); used with permission. RED 525 -nm (green) and 645 -nm (red) light, a source highly at- tractive to hatchlings, appears to a human observer to emit yellow light comparable to a 588 -nm monochromatic source, which would be only weakly attractive to hatch- lings (Rossotti, 1983). Directional properties of the brightness detector.—Just as a hatchling has sensitivity to specific light wavelengths, it is also sensitive to light direction. The directional proper- ties of a detector determine how much of the world the detector measures at any one instant. These properties are described by a specific "cone of acceptance" or by bi- dimensional (horizontal and vertical) "angles of ac- ceptance." The height and breadth of a detector's acceptance cone critically influences brightness measure- ments and the determination of brightest direction (Figure 7). This conceptual acceptance cone may be only a portion of a turtle's complete field of view. The horizontal component of the acceptance cone for green turtle and olive ridley hatchlings (Verheijen and Wildschut, 1973) and for loggerhead hatchlings (Witherington, 1992b) has been deduced from the way hatchlings orient in controlled -light fields. In these studies, light fields were artificially controlled so that detectors with different acceptance -cone widths measured different brightest directions. Hatchlings of each species typically oriented in the brightest direction as it would be measured with a wide acceptance cone, approximately 180° horizontally. + Figure 7. The consequences of measuring the brightest direction with a wide (A) or a narrow (B) angle of acceptance. Hatchlings A and B both orient toward the center of the brightest portion of the horizon within their angle of acceptance (shown by dotted lines). Hatchling B 's path to the water would be considerably longer. Figure adapted from Witherington (1997); used with permission. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 9 Sea Turtles and Lighting Problems Witherington, Martin and Trindell To determine the vertical component of the acceptance cone, the same researchers measured the orientation of hatchlings presented with light sources positioned at various vertical angles. The angular height of this vertical component was approximated to be "a few degrees" for green turtles and olive ridleys (Verheijen and Wildschut, 1973) and between 10° below and 30° above the horizon for loggerheads (Salmon and Wyneken, 1990; Witherington, 1992b). Although the measures are approx- imate, it is clear that light closest to the horizon plays the greatest role in determining orientation direction. In field assessments of brightness, silhouette, and elevation on hatchling movement, test animals oriented to the lowest horizon visible but chose the lowest, brightest horizon if multiple cues were present (Limpus and Kamrowski, 2013). The detector model for hatchling orientation pre- dicts that hatchlings measure brightest direction by integrating the light they detect over a broad and flat ac- ceptance cone (Figure 8). Again, we see that the attributes of this hypothetical detector differ from those of most light meters. The most commonly found light meters, illumi- nance meters, measure light with an acceptance cone that is less flattened and not as wide as the acceptance cone that the hatchlings use. Another type of light meter, a lumi- nance or "spot" meter, measures light with a very narrow acceptance cone. Most light measuring instruments are not useful in determining the impact of distant lights on sea turtle orientation. Figure 8. A hypothetical cone of acceptance that describes the assessment of brightness by a sea turtle hatchling. The vertical angle of the cone (V) is 10°-30° from the horizon, and the horizontal angle of the cone (H) is approximately 180°. Light within this cone of acceptance is integrated into an assessment of brightness for the direction D. This description is based on data from studies of green turtles, olive ridleys, and loggerheads (Verheijen and Wildschut, 1973; Witherington, 1992b). Figure adapted from Witherington (1997); used with permission. 10 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Sea Turtles and Lighting Problems Witherington, Martin and Trindell COLOR CUES In addition to brightness cues, color may influence the di- rection in which a hatchling orients. Color discrimination (the ability to identify colored light) is different from spec- tral sensitivity. An animal may be able to detect many light wavelengths that it cannot tell apart. The fact that sea tur- tles have cones in their retinas is not sufficient evidence that they can distinguish colors, but there is some behav- ioral (Piovano et al., 2013) and physiological evidence (Horch et al., 2008; Levenson et al., 2006) that sea turtles can see colored light, and color may play some limited role in sea -finding. ERG assessments of hatchling loggerhead and leatherbacks found both species could detect a wide range of wavelengths, which may provide additional evi- dence for color perception by these species (Horch et al., 2008). In one of the first published discussions of sea - finding cues in hatchlings, Hooker (1911) suggested that the blue of the ocean itself may provide attraction. The ev- idence used to test this hypothesis should be weighed carefully. Green turtle hatchlings do tend to prefer the di- rections illuminated with blue light over directions illuminated with red light (Mrosovsky, 1972), but is this truly a color choice? Do hatchlings prefer the color blue, or are they simply selecting the brightest direction as deter- mined by a detector that is most sensitive to blue wavelengths? The answer may be that both are true. Conditioning experiments have shown that log- gerheads do have some ability to discriminate colors (Fehring, 1972). Whether loggerheads can and do use this ability in sea -finding, however, can best be determined by comparing the wavelengths a hatchling can detect best (as might be measured with ERG) with those it prefers in ori- entation experiments. ERG data for the green turtle show that red light must be approximately 100 times more in- tense than blue light for the two colors to elicit a similar magnitude of response at the retina (Granda and O'Shea, 1972). Yet in a series of behavioral experiments using broadband colors, Mrosovsky (1972) found that red light had to be approximately 600 times more intense than blue light in order for green turtle hatchlings to show an equal preference for the two colors. Such a bias against long - wavelength light was also demonstrated by behavioral studies using monochromatic light (Figure 4; Witherington and Bjorndal, 1991a). In this study, the greatest disparity between ERG response and color preference was found in the yellow-orange region of the spectrum, near 600 nm. Although it is apparent that green turtles see yellow light well, light of this color is relatively unattractive to orienting hatchlings. Loggerhead hatchlings' behavior toward some colored light sources indicates that they too may use color cues in sea -finding. Their aversion to yellow light, or xan- thophobia, sets them apart from other sea turtle species. Loggerhead hatchlings are weakly attracted to low -inten- sity yellow light sources but show an aversion to higher - intensity yellow light. Similar increases in the light inten- sity of near -ultraviolet, violet, and green light sources do not elicit a change in response from attraction to aversion, which indicates that the aversion to yellow light is related to color rather than brightness. Additional experiments with loggerheads have shown an interesting relationship between attraction to short -wavelength light and aversion to yellow light: the two responses appear to be additive. In evidence of this, Witherington (1992b) showed that adding high-intensity yellow light to an otherwise attractive light source (thereby making the light source brighter) will de- crease its attractiveness to loggerhead hatchlings. No empirical evidence suggests why both logger- head and green turtle hatchlings show little or no attraction to sources that are rich in yellow light. One hypothesis is that a reduced attraction to yellow -rich light sources en- sures hatchlings will not be misdirected by the sun or the moon. Because the rising or setting sun or moon lies within a hatchling's vertically flat acceptance cone, it can affect hatchling orientation to some degree. However, a universal characteristic of celestial light sources is that they become yellower and redder when they are near the horizon (a sun- set appears yellowish red because the blue light from the sun at dusk is attenuated by the thickness of the atmosphere that the light must pass through to reach an observer). Ac- tually, some controversy exists as to whether the rising sun does affect sea -finding in hatchlings. Whereas Parker (1922), Ehrenfeld and Carr (1967), and Rhijn (1979) re- ported that loggerheads, green turtles, and hawksbill turtles are affected insignificantly by the sun on the horizon, Mrosovsky (1970), Mrosovsky and Kingsmill (1985), and Witherington (1992b) reported that loggerhead, green, and hawksbill turtles are affected. By all accounts, given its brightness, the effects of the sun on hatchling orientation seem small. SHAPE CUES Many authors have suggested that the patterns of light and shadow associated with visible shapes help sea turtle hatch- lings find the sea. On beaches, hatchlings tend to orient toward open areas and open horizons and away from sil- houetted horizons, dune profiles, and vegetation (Hooker, 1911; Parker, 1922; Mrosovsky and Shettleworth, 1968; Limpus, 1971; Salmon et al., 1992, 1995b; Tuxbury and Salmon, 2005). Hatchling sea turtles' response to shape cues has been studied less extensively than has their response to brightness. To be sure, there is some debate as to how well hatchlings on a beach can discriminate shape. Based on the optical characteristics of a sea turtle's eye, one would ex- pect it to see most clearly in sea water and to be relatively myopic on land (Ehrenfeld and Koch, 1967; Bartol et al., 2002). But because hatchling eyes are small and their depth -of -focus is large, hatchlings may be able to distin- guish shape well (Northmore and Granda, 1982). In fact, the most recent evidence from laboratory studies suggests FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 11 Sea Turtles and Lighting Problems Witherington, Martin and Trindell that sea turtle eyes may be able to distinguish shape well enough to resolve individual stars in the sky (Northmore and Granda, 1991). Both Limpus (1971) and Salmon et al. (1992) have presented convincing evidence that loggerhead and green turtle hatchlings tend to orient away from silhouettes. On most beaches this tendency would direct hatchlings away from the profile of the dune and toward the ocean. But do hatchlings respond to the shape of the dune itself or to the way the dune influences the brightest direction? By their nature, dune silhouettes darken the horizon and would be expected to influence brightest direction as hatchlings measure it. Hatchlings oriented preferentially toward the lowest visible horizon and not necessarily the brightest horizon in a recent field assessment, although tall silhou- ettes and brightness were also found to influence orientation (Limpus and Kamrowski, 2013). Although some effects of shape and silhouette may be independent of brightness, isolating these effects is not a straightfor- ward process. In fact, our confidence in distinguishing shape -cue orientation from brightness -cue orientation should be only as great as our confidence in our ability to measure brightness as hatchlings do. Determining the specific roles of shape and brightness in hatchling orientation has been attempted in cue -conflict studies. In these studies, both green turtle (Rhijn and Gorkom, 1983) and loggerhead (Witherington, 1992b, c) hatchlings tended to orient away from sets of al- ternating black and white stripes and toward a uniformly illuminated direction, even when the striped direction was brightest. Orientation away from a horizon that has spatial patterns of light and shadow (i.e., shapes) could assist sea - finding by directing hatchlings away from the structure as- sociated with the dune (e.g., vegetation) and toward the comparatively flat and featureless ocean. However, the demonstration that hatchlings can orient with respect to shape cues does not necessarily mean that hatchlings re- quire them for sea -finding. The necessity of shape cues for sea -finding has been studied by depriving hatchlings of form vision (i.e., the ability to discern shape). Mrosovsky and Kingsmill (1985) disrupted the form vision of loggerhead hatchlings by fitting them with wax -paper goggles and concluded that because the animals still oriented seaward, shape was not a primary cue in sea -finding. In a similar test, Witherington (1992b) placed loggerhead hatchlings within transparent cylinders that were covered with wax paper or not covered. These hatchlings were observed as they attempted sea - finding under what might be considered challenging con- ditions—at moonset on an east -facing beach. Under these conditions, hatchlings with a clear view of their surround- ings oriented seaward, whereas hatchlings whose form vision was disrupted by wax paper oriented in the general direction of the setting moon. OTHER LIGHT CUES In addition to intensity, wavelength, shape, and direction, light can vary in time (have a certain periodicity) and in space and time (display motion) and can have a unique composition of polarized light. Motion has not yet been ex- plored as a potential sea -finding cue. Periodicity has been examined and found to have some influence on hatchling orientation, but only as it relates to a brightness measure. Evidence for this comes from a study (Mrosovsky, 1978) in which green turtle hatchlings preferred a constant light source over a flashing one only when the off -time of the flashing source was very long. This implies that hatchlings may integrate their measures of brightness over time. Because water tends to polarize light reflected from it, richness of polarized light has the potential to indi- cate the ocean direction. However, the experiments in which hatchlings viewed their world through wax paper but maintained a seaward orientation showed that hatchlings depend little, if at all, on polarity cues (Mrosovsky and Kingsmill, 1985). Wax paper, in addition to obliterating form, would also have depolarized the light that hatchlings saw. Additional laboratory evidence shows that, at least among loggerhead hatchlings, there is no orientation pref- erence between sources that are polarized and those that are unpolarized (Mrosovsky, 1978) or have different directions of polarity (e -vector direction; Witherington, 1992b). WHEN CUES CONFLICT Brightness cues, shape cues, and color cues (under high il- lumination only) all provide information to orienting sea turtle hatchlings. Because a hatchling's environment is complex and variable, having a compound set of cues to guide even the simplest of tasks makes sense. Any single cue could, under some conditions, be misleading. But do conflicting cues present a real problem in nature, and if so, how do hatchlings balance the information from these cues in order to make a correct orientation decision? In nature, cues do conflict. Brightness measure- ments made on nesting beaches where hatchlings orient to the sea show that the seaward direction is often brightest, but sometimes it is not (Rhijn, 1979; Wibbles, 1984; Witherington, 1992b). Measurements made under various conditions show that, although the ocean is brightest on clear, moonless nights, the direction of the moon is bright- est near moonrise and moonset (Witherington, 1992b). Although it is not completely clear how hatch- lings balance the information from conflicting orientation cues, experimental evidence indicates that this balance may be based on the comparative strengths of the cues. In the cue -conflict experiments (Witherington, 1992b), influ- ences of both brightest direction and shape were seen in some cases. Hatchlings tended to orient away from con- trasting stripes even when the striped direction was twice the brightness of the uniformly lighted direction. But, when the striped direction was made three times brighter than the 12 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Sea Turtles and Lighting Problems Witherington, Martin and Trindell opposing direction, hatchling orientation became undi- rected, and when the striped direction was five times brighter, most hatchlings oriented toward the stripes. It seems then that orientation either away from contrasting shapes, irrespective of brightest direction, or toward the brightest direction, irrespective of contrasting shapes, de- pends on how strong the brightest direction happens to be. This strength of the brightest direction is known as di- rectivity. As the directivity of the light field a hatchling sees increases, the brightest direction becomes more pro- nounced, less ambiguous perhaps, and seemingly a greater orientation stimulus. Are shape cues more important than brightness cues to orienting hatchlings? To answer this question, re- searchers will need to measure and compare the strengths of the two types of cues. At present, there is no common unit of measurement that can be used in making a compar- ison. For now, we can say that both shape and brightness cues are important for correct seaward orientation in a var- iably lighted world. DISRUPTION OF SEA -FINDING OBSERVATIONS OF SEA -FINDING DISRUPTION Accounts in the literature of the disruption of sea -finding do not properly represent the vast extent of the problem. Only the most conspicuous cases are observed and re- ported, such as when hatchlings have been crushed on roadways (McFarlane, 1963; Philibosian, 1976; Peters and Verhoeven, 1994; R. Martin and B. Witherington, personal observations), burned to death in an abandoned fire (Mortimer, 1979), or led onto the playing field of a baseball game in progress (Philibosian, 1976). More often than not, lost hatchlings are preyed upon by beach crabs or shorebirds or become exhausted and dehydrated deep in nearby dune vegetation (R. Martin and B. Witherington, personal observations). The discov- ery of hundreds of dead loggerhead hatchlings beneath a mercury-vapor light at Melbourne Beach, Florida, serves as one indication of the cryptic nature of the problem (L. M. Ehrhart, personal communication). The number of hatchlings found in this case indicated that the light had been left on and had attracted hatchlings over many nights. The discovery of the pile of dried hatchlings came as a complete surprise to the caretaker of the property. Disruption in sea -finding has been documented whenever sea turtles nest and hatchlings emerge at beaches affected by artificial lighting. Thevenard Island, off the coast of northwestern Australia, a known nesting site for green turtles, also supports an oil -production facility. The facility includes a flare tower built to shield the flame from nearby nesting beaches. A second pit flare exists for short -term use (e.g., when the primary shielded flare is undergoing maintenance). Surveys and routine inspections indicated that both the flares and the facility lights were potential sources of impact on the sea-fmding success of green turtle hatchlings. Experiments were carried out to de- termine whether the light sources were disorienting hatchlings emerging in the vicinity of the flares and over what distance the influence might extend. The results sug- gested that although the flares emitted light in a spectral range outside of that visible to green turtles, it caused dis- orientation of hatchlings during nights of a new moon, but this impact was reduced with distance from the source and as the moon phase progressed toward full (Pendoley, 2000). MISORIENTATION AND DISORIENTATION Newly emerged sea turtle hatchlings crawl almost inces- santly. For the most part, the effect of artificial lighting on hatchling behavior is not to alter latency, frequency, or in- tensity of crawling, but rather to alter its efficacy— hatchlings on artificially lighted beaches tend to crawl in the wrong direction. The duration of crawling also in- creases as hatchlings seek the ocean. Hatchlings that are oriented away from the most direct ocean path are said to be "misoriented." Hatchlings on lighted beaches are frequently misoriented, sometimes as entire groups. These groups of hatchlings leave rela- tively straight tracks that often stream across the beach parallel to the surf line toward an artificial light source. Hatchlings that are "unsure" about orientation di- rection demonstrate their uncertainty by frequently changing direction and circling. Hatchlings lacking di- rected orientation are said to be "disoriented." Similar "orientation circles" are also seen in hatchlings that have been blindfolded (Mrosovsky and Shettleworth, 1968) or placed in complete darkness (except for an infrared obser- vation source; B. Witherington, personal observation). Hatchlings often become disoriented by overhead light sources. Frequently, hatchlings that are misoriented toward an artificial light source become disoriented as they reach the source. Hatchlings also appear to become disoriented when they reach a boundary between an artificially lighted area and a shadow on the beach. Turtles in this situation exit the shadow and move toward the lighted beach sand, become exposed to the light from the artificial source, and move toward the light source back into the shadow, and they may repeat this cycle until they become exhausted. This often explains the curious circling tracks that observ- ers find in the center of the beach berm, away from any overhead light source. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 13 Sea Turtles and Lighting Problems Witherington, Martin and Trindell DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING Why are sea turtle hatchlings misdirected to such an extent by artificial lighting? Given the importance of light cues to hatchlings, the intuitive answer to this question is that light from artificial sources interferes with the "natural" light Figure 9. The directional brightness of a natural light field (A, one dominated by celestial sources) and an artificial light field (B, one dominated by a lighted luminaire) from the perspective of an observer on a beach. The length of each radiating line is pro- portional to the brightness of the direction. In the natural light field, the moon is conspicuous as a bright source, but it also illuminates the sky, water, and other objects. In the artificial light field, a glaring luminaire appears bright because of its closeness to the observer but does not provide enough light to illuminate other features. The luminaire produces a highly directed light field that has an overwhelming brightness in one direction. cues that hatchlings depend upon to orient seaward. Alt- hough hatchlings may possess a marvelous sea -finding mechanism that functions under almost any set of natural lighting conditions, this mechanism is rendered ineffective on an artificially lighted beach. But why does artificial lighting have a far greater effect on orientation than do bright celestial light sources like the sun or moon? Much of the answer to this can be found in the differences be- tween artificial and celestial light fields. A light field is produced by a light source (or sources) but is measured from the perspective of an ob- server. In essence, it is a directional picture of all the light an observer can detect. An important characteristic of light fields produced by celestial sources is that they are only moderately directed (Figure 9), which means that although there may be only one brightest direction, this direction is not tremendously brighter than other, competing, direc- tions. These natural light fields are moderated because both the observer and the illuminated features that the observer can see are a similar distance from the light source(s). Ce- lestial light has a distant origin and reaches an observer not only directly but also indirectly as it is scattered in the at- mosphere and reflected from the features on the Earth's surface (other competing directions). As a result, an ob- server experiencing a celestial light field can see brightness from many directions. Artificial light fields are produced by sources that are less intense than celestial sources, although they can appear very bright to an observer close to the light source (Verheijen, 1958, 1978). Other features that could contrib- ute to the brightness of the light field (sky, clouds, landscapes, etc.) are relatively distant, and the light re- flected from them is dim when compared to the brightness of the source. Consequently, an observer near an artificial light source experiences a highly directed light field that is overwhelmingly dominated by the light source. For a hatchling near a lighted luminaire on a beach, the over- whelming brightness of the light source provides a supernormal stimulus that overrides tendencies to orient to other visual cues. Consequences of misorientation and disorienta- tion are grim for hatchlings. With limited nutritional reserves, they quickly become dehydrated, exhausted, or victims of predation. While predation by raccoons, foxes, feral cats, ghost crabs, and birds occurs between the nest and the sea, quantification of hatchling depredation is rarely attempted. Available estimates report a varying number. On Sinai beaches, 45% to 99% of all hatchlings are consumed by ghost crabs. An experimental study on the developed Onslow Beach, North Carolina, reported that 24% of loggerhead hatchlings emerging from the nest on the beach were preyed upon by ghost crabs. In experi- mental trials (using freshwater sliders as a substitute for sea turtle hatchlings), a 2.6 -fold density increase in ghost crab population resulted in a five -fold increase in hatchling pre- dation (Peterson et al., 2013). 14 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 16 14- 12- EFFECTS OF MOON PHASE AND MOONLIGHT Some of the myths regarding the moon's effect on hatch- ling emergence and sea -finding are not valid. For the most part, hatchling sea turtles do not emerge from nests accord- ing to a lunar cycle. The date of emergence is determined by the date eggs were deposited in the nest and the length of the incubation period. Although nesting cycles corre- lated with specific moon phases have been detected in olive ridleys (Cornelius, 1986) and to a lesser extent in logger- heads (Burney et al., 1991), the timing of these cycles allows for hatchling emergence during all phases of the moon. Because hatchlings may emerge when the moon is not visible, they must not depend on the moon to lead them seaward. Perceptions that hatchlings emerge only during the full moon and are led seaward by its light probably orig- inated because hatchlings are most readily observed on bright, full -moon nights. 10- 8- 6- 4- Sea Turtles and Lighting Problems Witherington, Martin and Trindell Risk of mortality by predation does not abate when hatch- lings reach the ocean (Harewood and Horrocks, 2008). A study of near -shore predation rates on loggerhead hatch- lings at three locations in Florida reported a 5% predation level during the first 15 minutes of swimming in the ocean away from the nesting beach. Predation rates were higher on Florida's southeast coast than on the southwest coast and increased toward the end of the hatching season (August/September) (Whelan and Wyneken, 2007). Any increased time spent on land as a result of disorientation induced by artificial light also uses residual yolk energy reserves, so that when hatchlings do eventually reach the sea, they have less energy available for fueling the offshore swim. Additionally, when there are no waves on the beach, hatchlings use the direction of their beach crawl to direct their swimming offshore and out to sea (Lorne and Salmon, 2007). A prolonged disoriented land crawl disrupts the initial orientation process, which then decreases hatchlings' ability to swim directly offshore in the absence of waves (Berry et al., 2013). REPORTS OF SEA -FINDING DISRUPTION 2- 0 COa•IDOCID•IDOCIO•IDO EllflF111E1 ri ~ ti ti ao (11tiCOco co co r COLL) DATE 1992 co L, N N O Cr) O N O Figure 10. The timing of 201 reported cases of hatchling disorientation on Florida beaches in 1992. The circles above the histogram bars show the phases of the moon. Most cases occurred on nights on or near the new moon. The decrease in cases in September and October probably represent reduced survey effort at the end of the nesting season. Data are from Salmon and Witherington (1995). FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 15 Sea Turtles and Lighting Problems Witherington, Martin and Trindell The light of the moon does, however, affect the degree of sea -finding disruption caused by artificial lighting. Reports of hatchling disorientation events (including misorientation and disorientation) in Florida are most common on nights surrounding the new moon (Figure 10; Salmon and Witherington, 1995; Adamany et al, 1997; Lohmann et al., 1996; Tuxbury and Salmon, 2005; Berry et al., 2013). Compared to darker nights, higher levels of ambient light on moonlit nights may lessen the relative contribution of artificial light sources to the light fields that hatchlings perceive. By reducing light -field directivity, moonlight may allow hatchlings to rely on shape cues that correctly reveal the seaward direction. SWIMMING ORIENTATION A hatchling's best chance to survive its first few hours is to escape from the beach and swim directly out to sea, away from the predator -rich waters near the shore (Frick, 1976; Ireland et al., 1978; Salmon and Wyneken, 1987; Witherington and Salmon, 1992). Once in the open ocean, hatchlings can conserve energy by remaining inactive, and, because of their distance from shore, the risk of their being swept back onto land is small. How artificial lighting affects swimming hatch- lings is not well known. Hatchlings have been observed to exit the surf and return to land where there is nearby light- ing (Daniel and Smith, 1947a; Carr and Ogren, 1960; Witherington, 1986), but it is not clear how long those hatchlings had been in the water. Limpus (1991) reported that "thousands" of green turtle hatchlings were seen swim- ming in circles next to a brightly lighted boat anchored off the nesting beach at Raine Island, Australia. Hatchlings af- fected by such lighting may linger in the lighted water and be preyed upon by fish that are also attracted to the lighted area. There may be little or no evidence of these incidents. In laboratory settings with other cues absent, log- gerhead hatchlings will swim toward an artificial light source (O'Hara, 1980; Salmon and Wyneken, 1990). It is apparent from other laboratory work, however, that once hatchlings have entered the water they depend less on light cues and more on sea -wave and magnetic cues (Salmon and Lohmann, 1989; Lohmann et al., 1990; Salmon and Wyneken, 1990; Wyneken et al., 1990: Lome and Salmon, 2007). Witherington (1991) observed that loggerhead hatchlings swimming from a lighted beach had a wider pat- tern of dispersal than did hatchlings from unlighted beaches, but he did not see evidence of disrupted orienta- tion comparable to that seen on land. Further work is needed to determine how lighted ships and platforms may affect the survivorship of hatchlings and their dispersal from beaches. Evidence of similar use of visual cues to specific wavelengths of light has been investigated in an attempt to protect sea turtles from being caught on long fishing lines. Blue and green chemiluminescent lightsticks are commonly used in longline fisheries to attract targeted fish species. Though not targeted, sea turtles are also attracted to these lightsticks. Laboratory experiments have shown that juvenile loggerhead turtles significantly orient toward chemiluminescent blue (peak 400 nm), green (peak 510 nm), and yellow (peak 550 nm) lightsticks as well as flash- ing orange (peak 600 nm) LED lightsticks in the water (Wang et al., 2007). Artificial Lighting and Humans OPTIMAL LIGHT FOR HUMAN VISION Humans use a different vision system during the day than at night. A brief description of how human vision works is necessary to understand how much light we need (see Figure 11). Figure 11. (a) Cross section through a human eye. (b) Schematic view of the retina, including rod and cone light receptors (adapted from Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1994). Human vision consists of the physical compo- nents of the eyeball—the cornea, lens, iris, retina, and optic nerve. The retina, the light-sensitive part of the eye, lines the inside of the eyeball. It contains the light-sensitive rod and cone cells and the ganglion cells and nerve fibers that transmit visual information to the brain. The abundant rod cells are more light-sensitive than the cone cells and oper- ate over the entire visible spectrum. The three types of cone cells, which are sensitive in the red, green, and blue spec- tral ranges, contribute to color perception as well as to visual acuity. Human vision consists of three different regimes, photopic, scotopic, and mesopic. Photopic vision occurs at high ambient light levels (e.g., during daylight conditions) and is mediated by the cones. Photopic vision occurs under luminance levels >3 cd/m2 (0.3 cd/f12). (The candela [cd] is the basic international unit for luminous intensity. A com- mon candle emits light with a luminous intensity of roughly 1 cd.). Scotopic vision occurs at low ambient light levels (e.g., at night) and is mediated by rods. Rods have a much higher sensitivity to low light levels than the cones. But the sense of color is essentially lost in scotopic vision. At low light levels, human eyes cannot perceive color, and objects appear in grayish hues. The scotopic vision range applies to luminance levels <0.001 cd/m2 (0.0001 cd/f12). 16 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Sea Turtles and Lighting Problems Witherington, Martin and Trindell Mesopic vision relates to light levels between the photopic and scotopic vision regime (0.001 cd/m2 < mesopic luminance < 3 cd/m2). This is a combination of scotopic and photopic vision with both the rods and the cones contributing to the visual response. The majority of exterior night -lighting conditions fall in the mesopic vision range. Mesopic lighting applications include road and street lighting, outdoor area lighting, and other night-time traffic environments (IESNA RP 33, 1999). Figure 12 shows the range of human vision regimes. No moon Moonlight (overcast) (full moon) Early twilight Store Outdoors or office dull sun) Scotopic vision Pholop c vision Mesaplc vision Cone mad Rod medicated vision 10• 1 I F 1 1 1 1 I I 1 10' 10'4 10"' 9.01 0_1 1 10 100 10' 10' 14° Luminance (cdlm) 10° Figure 12. Approximate ranges of vision and receptor regimes. (Source: Osram Sylvania 2000). The question of optimal exterior lighting for hu- man vision is tricky. Humans see light wavelengths between 390 and 780 nm, and the sensitivity of the human eye to light of a certain intensity varies strongly over that range. During the day, humans are most sensitive to light at a wavelength of 555 nm (Pittendrigh, 1993). A predom- inance of green light at this wavelength produces a stronger impression of brightness when compared with light of other wavelengths. In low light conditions (with brightness at levels below 0.003 cd/m2), where vision is mainly sco- topic, maximum sensitivity is at 507 nm (in the blue-green region). Red light at a wavelength around 700 nm, while clearly visible to the human eye, has minimum impact on sea turtles and other animals. Since exterior lighting at night primarily falls in the mesopic vision regime, luminance in the 0.001-cd/m2 to 3-cd/m2 range works best for human vision at night. Within this range, the type of light source and the intensity (brightness) depend on the intended use and community goals. Standard industry recommendations (IESNA Lighting for Exterior Environments RP -33-99 [IESNA, 1999] and AASHTO Roadway Lighting Design Guide [AASHTO, 2005]) apply to exterior lighting as well as state and local standards or codes. But often these standards are applied uniformly across diverse landscapes with dif- ferent ambient lighting conditions, from highly illuminated urban cores to more natural beachfront areas, even though the uniform application of these standards may not be the best option for maximizing human vision. A measure of how a light source is perceived un- der daytime and nighttime conditions is the scotopic -to - photopic (S/P) ratio. An S/P ratio is independent of light level and expresses a property of the light's or lamp's spec- trum. In general, a light source with a higher S/P ratio pro- vides better overall lighting for conditions with ambient light. The intensity of light color, also referred to as the color temperature, and its color rendition quality are other important considerations in the selection of appropriate light sources for environmentally sensitive areas, including nesting beaches. Color temperature of a light source is tem- perature of an ideal black -body radiator that radiates light of comparable hue to that of the light source. It is measured in degrees Kelvin (K). Common household (tungsten in- candescent) lamps have a color temperature of 2900K that appears to be warm and yellow in color. Household fluo- rescents emit cool white light and have a color temperature range of 4300 to 4700K. LED lamps are available in the 3000-7000K range, with light color varying from warm yellow to cool (bluish) white. For comparison, noon sun- light has a color temperature of 5800K. Color rendition quality of a light source is its abil- ity to reveal the colors of various objects faithfully in comparison with an ideal or natural light source. The light- ing industry uses a color rendition index (CRI) to measure color rendition quality of a light source on a scale of 1-100, with 100 being the best possible rating. The current prac- tice is to employ sources having a CRI of at least 70 for most applications. LED light sources typically are availa- ble in the CRI range of 70 and above, and the CRI is higher as the color temperature goes up. Before the advent of am- ber and red LEDs, low-pressure sodium (LPS) was one of the primary sources for sea turtle—friendly lights. But LPS light sources do not provide good color rendition; LED light sources do. EFFECTS OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING ON HUMAN HEALTH Human sleep cycles are linked to daily shifts between day and night corresponding to the presence and absence of light. Only recent advances in technology have made it possible to keep our surroundings very brightly lit during nighttime. But the presence of bright lights during nighttime hours results in behavioral and nonbehavioral re- sponses in humans. These responses may include resetting of the circadian clock and disruption of the sleep cycle. Ex- posure to artificial white light at night can also affect biochemical and behavioral processes that impact alert- ness, performance, and the immune system (Redwine et al., 2000). Melatonin is a hormone that controls human sleep and waking periods. Low levels of white fluorescent light can disrupt or suppress melatonin secretion. Potential health issues related to melatonin suppression include can- cer, especially breast cancer. Laboratory models suggest that melatonin suppresses tumor growth, which may de- crease cancer risk. Other diseases that may be exacerbated FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 17 Sea Turtles and Lighting Problems Witherington, Martin and Trindell by circadian disruption include obesity, diabetes, depres- sion and other mood disorders, and reproductive problems (AMA, 2012). Yet few epidemiological studies have in- vestigated the impact of nighttime lighting on sleep cycles, cancer risk, and other diseases or conditions, including obesity (AMA, 2012). It is no longer just the environmentalist, the sea turtle conservation community, and the dark -sky promot- ers who recognize the impacts of nighttime lighting on human health. The American Medical Association (AMA, 2012) concluded that: Exposure to excessive light at night can disrupt sleep or exacerbate sleep disorders, especially in children and adolescents. This effect can be mini- mized by using dim red lighting in the nighttime bedroom environment. and; There is a need for developing and implementing technologies to reduce glare from vehicle head- lamps and roadway lighting schemes, and developing lighting technologies at home and at work that minimize circadian disruption, while maintaining visual efficiency. EFFECTS OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING ON HUMAN SAFETY The primary human safety concern with nighttime lighting includes glare, which affects drivers and pedestrian safety. Close to a strong light source, we may feel completely blinded, but even farther away our visual performance can be notably hampered. This experience, well-known to driv- ers, is called disability glare. Discomfort glare is caused by a level of light that is intense enough to result in a measur- able level of subjective pain or annoyance to the observer. Disability glare is stray light scattered within the eye that reduces the contrast of the primary image on the retina. This contrast reduction can be thought of as a veil of luminance over the objects, thus the term veiling luminance. Glare from streetlights, pedestrian lights, floodlights, and landscaping lights contributes to veiling luminance, as do extremely bright surfaces. While the negative impact of glare on human vision and on the ability to respond to visual cues increases with age (Vos, 2003), disability glare from bright light sources (e.g., high beams) occurs across all age classes (van den Berg et al., 2009). Discomfort glare does not necessarily reduce the ability to see an object, but it produces a sensation of discomfort. It is caused by the high contrast or non-uniform distribution of luminance in the field of view. Discomfort glare can be reduced by decreasing the luminance of the light source or by increasing the background luminance around the source to reduce contrast. These considerations led to the Texas Department of Transportation's requiring lower nighttime luminance for pedestrian signals than the prevailing industry standards specified by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Historically, pedestrian signal heads have been internally illuminated using incandescent lamps. But with the widespread use of LEDs in pedestrian signals, concerns regarding the visibility of LED devices have emerged. Research funded by the Texas Department of Transportation determined that the ITE - proposed minimum luminance values would cause discom- fort glare for approximately 60% of the study participants. The researchers recommended that pedestrian signal indications be dimmed at night to reduce glare. The lower luminance values match the ITE minimum dimmed luminance requirements (Finley et al., 2003). LIGHTING AND AN AGING POPULATION An area of particular concern is the impact of lighting on the elderly. The U.S population, as well as that of most other industrialized nations, is undergoing dramatic shifts toward older age. The population of people 65 years or older was over 40 million in 2010. The number of Ameri- cans over the age of 65 is estimated to be 72 million by 2030 and 88.5 million by 2050 (Vincent and Velkoff, 2010). As people age, many aspects of their sensory and cognitive functions deteriorate. With respect to visual cap- abilities, older adults experience reductions in visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, as well as increased sensitivity to glare, and therefore are more severely affected when exposed to bright short -wavelength light. Several changes in visual sensation and percep- tion have been noted as a result of the aging process. The yellowing of the lens interferes with color rendition and makes discrimination of short -wavelength colors such as violet, blue, and green quite difficult. Older adults are more vulnerable to the impact of glare and have somewhat re- duced visual acuity (particularly in the periphery) and increased visual blur. Therefore, ambient and task lighting must be carefully considered to provide the most appropri- ate lighting environments for older eyes. Light and dark adaptation takes longer, and the average scene appears darker for older people (Burdick, 2005). Disability glare and discomfort glare caused by poorly designed, overly bright lighting are serious issues, particularly for the elderly. The impact of disability glare for people over 70 (compared to those under 35 years of age) may be 2 to 3 times worse. To address this, the Com- mission Internationale de 1'Eclairage (CIE) has introduced a new age -sensitive formula (Vos, 2003) requiring better control for disability glare in areas with a significant senior population like Florida. Discomfort glare also affects older people worse than others. A Texas Department of Transportation study reported that ITE -proposed minimum luminance values 18 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Sea Turtles and Lighting Problems Witherington, Martin and Trindell would cause discomfort glare to approximately 60% of people older than 55. Based on these results, the depart- ment specified that pedestrian signal indications should be dimmed at night (Finley et al., 2003). ECONOMIC COST OF WASTED LIGHT In addition to the health and safety aspects discussed here, light pollution exacts an economic toll, in terms of wasted energy. Light pollution caused by bad lighting design gives rise to undesirable and harmful effects including glare, sky glow, and light trespass. Often such problematic lighting is perceived to provide safety and improve visibility—with little or no evidence to substantiate this perspective. Exces- sive, misdirected, or otherwise obtrusive lighting contri- butes to light pollution that affects wildlife, sleep habits, and professional astronomy. In addition, light pollution also wastes a significant amount of energy which in the U.S. alone, amounts to nearly $7 billion annually. While there are no dollar estimates for wasted energy worldwide, a strong relationship exists between population growth, especially urban population growth, and the extent of light pollution (Gallaway et al., 2010). CONCLUSION Reducing exposure to artificial lighting at night in coastal areas is critical for the survival of sea turtles. Managing ar- tificial lighting at night also benefits humans by promoting safety and good health and by saving energy. Light -man- agement options, such as the use of low-energy, long - wavelength lighting focused only where needed, reduces the potential for impacts to sea turtles and ensures adequate light for nighttime human activities without increasing the risk of health hazards and harmful situations due to overly bright nighttime lighting. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 19 Assessments: Discerning Problems Caused by Artificial Lighting Lighting Inspections WHAT IS A LIGHTING INSPECTION? The goals of a lighting inspection are to locate lighting problems and to identify the property owner, manager, caretaker, or tenant who can resolve any lighting problems found. During a lighting inspection, a complete census is made of the number, types, locations, and custodians of ar- tificial light sources that emit light visible from a beach. WHICH LIGHTS CAUSE PROBLEMS? Although the attributes that can make a light source harm- ful to sea turtles are complex, a simple rule has proved useful in identifying problem lighting under a variety of conditions: An artificial light source is likely to cause problems for sea turtles if its light can be seen by an observer standing anywhere on the nesting beach. If light can be seen by an observer on the beach, then the light is reaching the beach and can affect sea turtles. If any glowing portion of a luminaire (including the lamp, globe, or reflector) is directly visible from the beach, then this source is likely to be a problem for sea turtles. But light may also reach the beach indirectly by reflecting off buildings or trees that are visible from the beach. Bright or numerous sources, especially those directed upward, will illuminate sea mist and low clouds, creating a distinct glow visible from the beach. This urban skyglow is common over brightly lighted areas. Although some indirect lighting may be perceived as nonpoint-source light pollution, con- tributing light sources can be readily identified and include those that are poorly directed or are directed upward. Indi- rect lighting can originate far from the beach (Kyba et al., 2011). Although most of the light that sea turtles can de- tect can also be seen by humans, observers should realize that some sources, particularly those emitting near - ultraviolet and violet light (e.g., bug -zapper lights, white electric -discharge lighting) will appear brighter to sea turtles than to humans (Kawamura et al., 2009). Even though humans are considerably taller than hatchlings, an observer on a dry beach who crouches to the level of a hatchling may still not see some lighting that will affect turtles. Because of the way some lights are partially hidden by dunes, a standing observer is more likely to see light that is visible to hatchlings and nesting turtles in the swash zone. HOW SHOULD LIGHTING INSPECTIONS BE CONDUCTED? Lighting inspections to identify problem light sources may be conducted either under the purview of a lighting ordinance or independently. In either case, goals and methods should be similar. GATHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION Before walking the beach in search of lighting, it is im- portant to identify the boundaries of the area to be inspected. For inspections that are part of lighting ordinance—enforcement efforts, the jurisdictional boundar- ies of the sponsoring local government should be deter- mined. It will help to have a list that includes the name, owner, and address of each property within the inspection area so that custodians of problem lighting can be identified. Plat maps or aerial photographs will help surveyors orient themselves on heavily developed beaches. PRELIMINARY DAYTIME INSPECTIONS An advantage to conducting lighting inspections during the day is that surveyors will be better able to judge their exact location than they would at night. Preliminary daytime in- spections are especially important on beaches with restricted access at night. Property owners are also more likely to be available during the day than at night to discuss strategies for dealing with problem lighting at their sites. A disadvantage to daytime inspections is that fix- tures not directly visible from the beach will be difficult to identify as problems. Moreover, some light sources that can be seen from the beach in daylight may be kept off at night and thus present no problems. For these reasons, day- time inspections are not a substitute for nighttime inspections. Descriptions of light sources identified during daytime inspections should be detailed enough so that anyone can locate the lighting. In addition to a general de- scription of each luminaire (e.g., "HPS floodlight directed seaward at top northeast corner of the building at 123 Ocean Street"), photographs or sketches of the lighting may be necessary. Advancements in technology including digital photography and the ease with which digital photos can be taken (even high-resolution photos with cell phones) make this task easier. Standardized camera settings should be used and listed in the report. Similarly, with advance- ments in and the easy availability of GPS and mapping platforms (e.g., Google Earth street views), it is easier to locate features of interest even in remote areas. Keeping track of the information gathered at each property covered 20 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Assessments Sea Turtles and Lighting during the lighting inspection with GIS is easy and helpful for future references. Descriptions should also include an assessment of how the specific lighting problem can be resolved (e.g., "needs shielding"; "should be redirected 90° to the east"). These detailed descriptions will show property owners ex- actly which luminaires need what remedy. NIGHTTIME INSPECTIONS Nighttime inspections require visual assessments of the lights most likely to harm sea turtles. While instruments such as light meters can measure the amount of light reach- ing the beach, they do not measure light characteristics— wavelength, brightness, or direction—in a manner analo- gous to that of sea turtles. Any light visible from the beach can impact adult and hatchling sea turtles. Surveyors orienting themselves on the beach at night will benefit from notes made during daytime surveys. During nighttime lighting inspections, a surveyor walks the length of the nesting beach looking for light from artificial sources. There are two general categories of artificial light- ing that observers are likely to detect: Direct lighting.—A luminaire is considered to be direct lighting if some glowing element of the luminaire (e.g., the globe, lamp [bulb], reflector) is visible to an observer on the beach. A source not visible from one location may be visible from another farther down the beach. When direct lighting is observed, notes should be made of the number, lamp type (discernible by color; Appendix A), style of fix- ture (Appendix E), mounting (pole, porch, etc.), and location (street address, apartment number, or pole identification number) of the luminaire. If exact locations of problem sources were not determined during preliminary daytime surveys, this should be done during daylight soon after the nighttime survey. Photographing light sources (using long exposure times) is often helpful. Indirect lighting.—A luminaire is considered to be indirect lighting if it is not visible from the beach but illuminates an object (e.g., building, wall, tree) that is visible from the beach. Any object on the dune that appears to glow is prob- ably being lighted by an indirect source. When possible, notes should be made of the number, lamp type, fixture style, and mounting of an indirect -lighting source. Mini- mally, notes should be taken that would allow a surveyor to find the lighting during a follow-up daytime inspection (for instance, which building wall is illuminated and from what angle?). WHEN SHOULD LIGHTING INSPECTIONS BE CONDUCTED? Because problem lighting will be most visible on the dark- est nights, lighting inspections are ideally conducted when there is no moon visible. Except for a few nights near the time of the full moon, each night of the month has periods when there is no moon visible. Early -evening lighting in- spections (probably the time of night most convenient for inspectors) are best conducted during the period of 2-14 days following the full moon. Although most lighting problems will be visible on moonlit nights, some problems, especially those involving indirect lighting, will be difficult to detect on bright nights. A set of daytime and nighttime lighting inspec- tions before the nesting season and a minimum of three ad- ditional nighttime inspections during the nesting–hatching season are recommended. The first set of day and night in- spections should take place just before nesting begins. The hope is that managers, tenants, and owners made aware of lighting problems will alter or replace lights before they can affect sea turtles. A follow-up nighttime lighting in- spection should be made approximately two weeks after the first inspection so that remaining problems can be iden- tified. During the nesting -hatching season, lighting problems that seemed to have been remedied may reappear because owners have been forgetful or because ownership has changed. For this reason, two midseason lighting inspections are recommended. The first of these should take place approximately two months after the beginning of the nesting season, which is the approximate time that hatchlings begin to emerge from nests. To verify that lighting problems have been resolved, another follow-up inspection should be conducted approximately one week after the first midseason inspection. WHO SHOULD CONDUCT LIGHTING INSPECTIONS? Although no specific authority is required to conduct light- ing inspections, property managers, tenants, and owners are more likely to be receptive if the individual making recommendation represents a recognized conservation group, research consultant, or government agency. When local ordinances regulate beach lighting, local government code -enforcement agents should conduct lighting inspections and contact the public about resolving prob- lems. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH INFORMATION FROM LIGHTING INSPECTIONS? Although lighting surveys serve as a means of assessing the extent of lighting problems on a nesting beach, the princi- pal goal of those conducting lighting inspections should be to ensure that lighting problems are resolved. To resolve lighting problems, property managers, tenants, and owners should be given the information they need to make proper alterations to light sources. This information should in- clude details on the location and description of problem lights, as well as on how the lighting problem can be solved. One should also be prepared to discuss the details of how lighting affects sea turtles. Understanding the na- ture of the problem will motivate people more than simply being told what to do. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 21 Sea Turtles and Lighting Assessments Witherington, Martin and Trindell TECHNICAL ADVANCES IN RECORDING, STORING, AND SHARING SPATIAL INFORMATION ABOUT LIGHTS Social media have begun to play an increasingly important role in sharing and spreading information. Forums like Facebook and Twitter have large followings. Effective use of these forums can be helpful in early identification of problem lights and timely reporting of inappropriate light- ing in coastal areas. Technological advances in the areas of data stor- age and sharing include the development of flash drives and several commercially available software programs (e.g., Newforma) for easy transfer of large data files. Monitoring Sea Turtle Behavior. In part, the behavior of nesting sea turtles and their hatch- lings on the beach can be monitored by studying the tracks they leave in the sand. This evidence can reveal how much and where nesting occurs and how well oriented hatchlings are as they attempt to find the sea from their nest. Monitor- ing this behavior is one way to assess problems caused by artificial lighting, but it is no substitute for a lighting inspection program as described above. Many lighting problems can affect sea turtles and cause mortality without the turtles' leaving conspicuous track evidence on the beach. SEA TURTLE NESTING On many beaches, sea turtle biologists make early -morning surveys of tracks made the previous night in order to gather information on nesting. With training, one can determine the species of sea turtles nesting, the success of their nest- ing attempts, and where these attempts have been made. These nesting surveys are one of the most common assessments made of sea turtle populations. Because many factors affect nest -site choice in sea turtles, monitoring nesting is a not a very sensitive way to assess lighting problems. But changes observed in the distribution or species composition of nesting can suggest that serious lighting problems exist and should be followed with a program of lighting inspections if one is not already in place. HATCHLING ORIENTATION Although hatchlings are more sensitive to artificial lighting than are nesting turtles, the evidence they leave behind on the beach is less conspicuous. Evidence of disrupted sea - finding in hatchlings (hatchling disorientation) can vastly underrepresent the extent of a lighting problem, but this ev- idence can be useful in locating specific problems between lighting inspections. There are two ways to use hatchling - orientation evidence to assess lighting problems: using hatchling orientation surveys and hatchling disorientation reports. HATCHLING ORIENTATION SURVEYS Of the two methods, the hatchling -orientation survey is the more accurate and involves measuring the orientation of hatchling tracks at a sample of sites where hatchlings have emerged. Because the jumble of hatchling tracks at most emergence sites is often too confused to allow individual tracks to be measured, simple measures of angular range (the width that the tracks disperse) and modal direction (the direction in which most hatchlings seem to have gone) are used instead. If the sampling of hatchling emergence sites is distributed appropriately across a specific stretch of beach or a particular time of the lunar cycle, data from these samples can be an accurate index of how well hatch- lings have been oriented (Witherington et al., 1996). HATCHLING DISORIENTATION REPORTS Although hatchling disorientation often goes unnoticed, some cases are observed and reported. Evidence of disori- entation includes numerous circling tracks, tracks that are directed away from the ocean, and carcasses of hatchlings that have succumbed to dehydration and exhaustion. Be- cause reporters often discover this evidence while conduct- ing other activities, such as nesting surveys, it is often only the most conspicuous cases that are reported. Despite such bias, such reports can still yield valuable information, though they do not provide accurate numerical estimates of the impact of inappropriate lighting on individual animals Reports of hatchling disorientation can help re- searchers immediately identify light -pollution problems. Although not every hatchling that is misled by lighting may be observed and reported, each report constitutes a docu- mented event. When reports are received by management agencies or conservation groups, action can be taken to cor- rect the light -pollution problem at the specific site recorded in the report. FWC provides a form (http://myfwc.com/ media/418156/Seaturtle Guidelines A LDIR_FillJn pdf) —for reporting disorientations. Laws, Regulations, and Standards for Lighting Lighting in Florida is regulated by multiple rules and reg- ulations including Florida statutes, the Florida Building Code and local lighting ordinances. In addition, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and local govern- ments have adopted lighting -design standards developed by professional organizations including the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) and the American Association of State Highway and Trans- portation Officials (AASHTO). These myriad rules, reg- ulations and standards are not always consistent. A detailed discussion of these laws, regulations and standards and specific examples of the inconsistencies among them is presented in Appendix F. 22 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Assessments Sea Turtles and Lighting NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS Regulating human behavior is difficult. Instead of relying on recent technological developments, approximately 70% of local sea turtle lighting ordinances in Florida primarily seek to regulate behavior (Barshel et al., 2013). Some of these ordinances require that residents close their curtains, move interior housing lights away from windows, and even turn off exterior lights during turtle nesting season. But proper design guidelines and new lighting technologies can eliminate much of the need for such behavioral regulation. Recently, 82 local ordinances enacted to mitigate the effects of artificial lighting on sea turtles in Florida were evaluated for their legal and functional effectiveness. The ordinances were analyzed for regulatory and enforcement contents, applicable to existing and new properties. The following recommendations were included in this report: Improve requirements for existing developments.—In many cases the requirements for existing developments tended to be less restrictive than for new development. • Most ordinances require shielding lights, more often for new developments than for existing developments. • Fewer than half of the ordinances require that lights not be visible from the beach for existing developments, whereas most (90%) do so for new developments. Require lower lumens.—Researchers and the sea turtle– conservation community has been advocating the need for lower lumens for better lighting regulation near nesting beaches, but few ordinances mandated low lumens. Mandate long -wavelength light.—Research has establish- ed that light sources with longer -wavelength light (560 nm or more) have less impact on sea turtles. Only Walton County's lighting ordinance requires that lights be exclu- sively long wavelength. Require compliance inspections.—Regular lighting inspec- tions are believed to improve compliance with lighting regulations. Only a few ordinances require mandatory compliance inspection, though most have penalties for noncompliance. Emphasize public education.—There is growing consensus that public education helps achieve better compliance with laws and regulations, including lighting ordinances, but only 20% of existing local lighting ordinances have provi- sions for educating the public. EFFECTIVE TRAINING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT Many local governments in coastal areas have adopted lighting ordinances, and a number of those lack the funding to properly enforce them. As a result, many important nesting beaches in Florida still have inappropriate beach- front lighting, which affects nesting and hatchling sea turtles. Improving the implementation of lighting regula- tions requires training programs for those who enforce local code governing lighting on and near sea turtle nesting beaches. To be effective, such programs need to be hands- on and field -oriented to train personnel to identify types of lighting sources and fixtures that can negatively impact sea turtles. Such training will enable code -enforcement offic- ers to educate property owners and recommend sea turtle friendly lighting alternatives while meeting the safety and visibility needs of the public. The training should include field trips to view coastal properties with problematic light- ing and to assess lighting retrofits that eliminate impacts to sea turtle nesting habitat. Since new coastal developments are required to adhere to stringent State -approved lighting plans for the protection of sea turtles, the ability to systematically fix lights at older, existing developments presents an important opportunity to achieve long-lasting conservation benefits for Florida's sea turtle nesting populations. Replacing or retrofitting problem lights can be expensive, and owners are often unaware of the options. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIGHTING IN COASTAL AREAS Lighting professionals and public agency staff involved in designing, reviewing, and issuing permits for lighting pro- jects need to be familiar with the need to consider sea turtles when designing projects adjacent to coastal nesting beaches. Laws, regulations, and standards developed to regulate lighting primarily in noncoastal areas should be applied to coastal areas with caution. Not only is it incon- sistent, but legal issues are also involved. While it is important to comply with lighting requirements of the Florida Building Code, compliance must be done in a way that does not violate local lighting ordinances or the Endangered Species Act (see discussion in Appendix F). Those designing, installing, and operating lighting along Florida's sea turtle nesting beaches face the challenge of ensuring that their plans do not violate those environmental laws, especially when applying other lighting standards (such as IESNA recommendations) that are not required by law. The good news is that there are ways to provide lighting that ensures safety, security and efficiency without causing harm to sea turtles. First and foremost, there is simply no substitute for naturally dark habitat. Removing unnecessary lights is the simplest, most effective, and most energy-efficient solution to this issue. But when artificial lighting is absolutely required for safety and security, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recommend a simple and effective approach which FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 23 Sea Turtles and Lighting Assessments Witherington, Martin and Trindell requires that the elements of lighting design and luminaire should: 1. Keep it low. Mount the fixture as low as possible to minimize light trespass, and use the lowest amount of light needed for the task. 2. Keep it shielded. Fully shield the light so that bulbs or glowing lenses are not visible, minimizing light tres- pass. 3. Keep it long. Use long -wavelength light sources (am- bers and reds) in appropriate lighting fixtures. FWC and USFWS have teamed up to develop the Wildlife Lighting Certification Program. This program was de- signed to educate the public, the building industry, and government officials on how to minimize impacts of artificial light on wildlife by using proper lighting methods and identifying appropriate lighting fixtures, shields, and lamps. SEEKING A VARIANCE Sometimes a lighting design meets all the noted recom- mendations for sea turtle protection yet still does not meet the lighting requirements of the Florida Building Code, the Florida Department of Health, or the Florida Department of Transportation. Most agencies have a process for such situations that involves seeking a variance from the stand- ards due to irresolvable constraints. FLORIDA BUILDING CODE Certain requirements in the current versions of Florida Building Code 2010 (with amendments in 2012 and 2013) pertaining to the illumination levels for egress points may cause unintended impacts to nesting and hatching sea tur- tles. Section 1006.1.3 of the code requires a minimum illumination level of 10 foot-candles for new stairs and 1 foot-candle for the floors and other walking surfaces in an exit and exit access and discharge areas. Where exits open onto a beach, maintaining this high level of illumination may negatively impact the nesting beaches. In this situa- tion, property owners may seek a variance to the code. In compliance with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) requirements, a large number of coastal governments in Florida have beach light- ing ordinances that require no lighting or low levels of lighting near nesting beaches. Efforts to comply with the building code, disregarding the special status it grants to structures in coastal areas, require illumination levels that may constitute a violation of the local lighting ordinance. Section 3109 refers to the requirement of obtaining an en- vironmental permit for structures in coastal areas and states that: ... the environmental permit may condition the nature, timing and sequence of construction activities to provide protection to nesting sea turtles and hatchlings and their habitat, including review, submittal and approval of lighting plan. The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America develops national lighting standards for North America including "IESNA G-1-03: Guidelines for Security Lighting for People, Property, and Public Spaces." The following excerpt from these guidelines points to an- other aspect of such security lighting: Impact on Surrounding Area. Stray light from a security installation may be considered as light trespass by neighbors. Stray light or over -lighting may also have effects on safety on nearby roads and railroads. Where signal lights are used to con- trol traffic on roads, railroads, rivers, or at sea, care should be taken to avoid confusion caused by disability glare from the security lighting system. Lighting can also have an environmental impact on nocturnal animals, migratory birds and nesting sea turtles. Local lighting ordinances should be consulted prior to design work for any limitations on mounting height, source type, wattage, shield- ing, and other local requirements that must be followed. Permission for variances should be obtained from the authority having jurisdiction. MEETING CODE REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT AFFECTING SEA TURTLES Even though the Florida Building Code's requirements regarding illumination levels are stringent and not sup- ported by national and local standards, these levels can be achieved for new buildings, in some cases without affecting sea turtle populations on nearby nesting beaches. This requires the use of innovative lighting design and ap- propriate luminaires and fixtures. For example, it is essential that stairs for new buildings be kept indoors behind doors or other opaque el- ements that obstruct light spillage. The luminaires for such stairs should be located such that the light is focused on the stairs, landings, and immediate surrounding areas and with minimal spread of light. Light fixtures recessed in the slabs or walls and equipped with luminaires that have desirable spectral distribution help meet these objectives. Stairways (and elevator shafts) within sight of the beach should be fully enclosed with no glass windows or walls. If glass is required, inside -to -outside light transference should not ex- ceed 10-15%. Installation of motion sensor—equipped lights helps reduce the amount and duration of exposure to light- ing when complete control of stairway lighting is not feasible. When conflicts arise between the requirements of the building code and lighting to reduce impacts to sea tur- tles, designers can seek a declaratory statement or a variance to ensure that there are no impacts for sea turtles. A declaratory statement is the administrative process by which the Commission resolves controversy or answers questions concerning the applicability of a statute, rule, or 24 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Assessments Sea Turtles and Lighting order, to the petitioner's particular situation per Florida Administrative Code—Chapter 28-105. Under certain strictly defined conditions, the Florida Building Com- mission can authorize local governments to amend re- quirements such that they are more stringent than stated in the code. The Florida Building Commission may issue official code clarifications using procedures of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. To obtain such a clarification, a request for a declaratory statement must be made to the Building Commission in a manner that establishes a clear set of facts and circumstances and identifies the section of the code in question. Requests are analyzed by staff, re- viewed by the appropriate technical advisory committee, and sent to the commission for action. Approval has been granted to both administrative and technical amendments. For such a process to be followed, lighting design profes- sionals must work with local government officials who have a responsibility to implement both the commission's rules and the local sea turtle–protection lighting ordinance. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The Florida Department of Transportation also has a design variation and exception process. If compliance with FDOT lighting -design criteria could harm sea turtles, the FDOT design variation process may be used. A detailed analysis is required to demonstrate that using the lower illumination level necessary to protect sea turtles will have no negative impact on pedestrian and driver safety and traffic operations. (FDOT Plans Preparation Manual, Ch. 23, 2014). While this process requires a rigorous analysis and may involve several rounds of review, FDOT has issued such variances for roadway lighting in coastal areas. At least one FDOT district (District 4) has developed alterna- tive lighting–design standards for coastal roadways along sea turtle nesting beaches (FDOT D4, 2009). Those involved in lighting design and permitting need to know about alternatives. National and local light- ing standards and rules also must be met. At a minimum, any conflict the code's requirements may have with these national and local standards must be brought to the atten- tion of local permitting agencies. This may be followed by offering an alternative design that meets local or national standards. When necessary, variances from the appropriate agency may be requested. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 25 SOLUTIONS: Solving Problems Caused by Artificial Lighting Light as a Pollutant Light pollution has widespread effects. The terms light pollution and photopollution were originally used by astronomers (Dawson, 1984; Eakin, 1986) to describe light that obliterates our scientific and recreational views of the night sky. Many of the same light sources that interfere with our enjoyment of the heavens on nightly beach walks also deter nesting and disrupt ori- entation in sea turtles. The biological effects of light pollution are just beginning to be realized and are not limited to sea turtles. Many animals—such as migrat- ing birds and night -flying insects—depend on the natural night sky for cues that guide their orientation; these species are well-known victims of artificial light- ing (Verheijen, 1985; Witherington, 1997; Rich and Longcore, 2013; Davies et al., 2013; Davies et al., 2014). Impacts from artificial lighting are not limited to wildlife and vegetation, and photopollution can have profound impacts on humans as well. Solving problems caused by light pollution can be very different from solving problems caused by other pollutants. For instance, in theory, harmful light can be eliminated instantaneously by flipping a switch at the source. Light does not linger in the environment as do many polluting substances. But some difficulty lies in recognizing light pollution and in agreeing upon which artificial lighting constitutes problem lighting. One person's environmental threat may be another person's safety and security. It may help to think of light pollution as arti- ficial light that is out of place. More often than not, light that is located in the area it was meant to illuminate causes little harm. This is certainly true for sea turtle nesting beaches: artificial light that illumi- nates dune properties without reaching the nesting beach is not a threat to sea turtles. The most readily accepted strategy for solv- ing light -pollution problems is to manage light rather than prohibit it. In most cases, light that causes prob- lems for sea turtles has spilled over from the sites it was intended to illuminate; this light spillage does not serve a useful purpose and should be managed. A pro- gram of light management can make it possible to solve light -pollution problems without resorting to "just say no" policies that may be intimidating to the public. USING THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY Light management for conserving sea turtles must have an identifiable goal; that is, light must be man- aged to some level that can be recognized. Unfor- tunately, there is no single level of light intensity that one may use as a criterion. The level of artificial brightness necessary to deter nesting or misorient hatchlings varies greatly with the level of ambient light (moonlight) and the availability of other visual cues (e.g., the amount of dune). Consequently, there is no one acceptable level of light for every sea turtle nesting beach under every set of lighting conditions. Given the uncertainty over how to measure acceptable light, it is most productive to simply mini- mize light pollution as best we can. This is the concept behind the use of best available technology (a common strategy for reducing other forms of pollution by using the best of the pollution -reduction technologies available). Best available technology forms the basis of light management methods that reduce the effects of artificial lighting to the greatest extent practicable. Although there is no single turtle -friendly luminaire that would be best for all applications, there are meth- ods one can use and a set of characteristics that light sources should have that will minimize the threat of light pollution for sea turtles. As presented below, these light -management tactics include removing lights not needed for safety and security, retrofitting necessary lights with appropriate fixtures and lamps, controlling light so that the level of light reaching the beach is minimized, and ensuring that the light that does reach the beach is of the least disruptive color. Turning lights off when not in use is also important, but clearly, extinguishing lights for the entire nesting season is not the best option if the light is necessary for human security and safety. Effective Methods for Managing Light CURRENT STATUS Considerable progress has been made in regulating lighting in coastal areas since the first version of this manual was published in 1996, when the concept of lighting ordinances for the protection of sea turtles was in its infancy. A total of 82 municipalities in Florida have adopted lighting ordinances to minimize the im- pact of lighting on adjacent sea turtle nesting beaches. Advances in our understanding of sea turtle biology, coupled with advances in lighting technology, 26 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Solutions Sea Turtles and Lighting reinforce the need to update the existing ordinances in- cluding the statewide Model Lighting Ordinance (Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-55). During 2014, the Florida Department of En- vironmental Protection (FDEP) has begun to promul- gate an updated set of best management practices for the lighting of beachfront buildings, other structures, and parking lots to better protect nesting sea turtles and hatchlings from artificial light pollution. Once adopt- ed, the DEP guidelines will be implemented as a condition of the department's Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) permitting program for development along Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and inlet beaches. But the proposed guidelines apply only to new construction and CCCL permitting does not cover all development that could contribute to illumination on the beach at night (Barshel et al., 2013). More than 82 local governments in Florida that have adopted beach lighting ordinances have based them on the 1993 DEP Model Lighting Ordi- nance. Yet, many turtle disorientation events are documented annually on Florida beaches. In 2012, 2,101 disorientations were reported to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. LESSONS LEARNED Regulating artificial lighting can incorporate two ap- proaches: mandating sea -turtle -friendly lighting tech- nologies and addressing human behavior. In 2010-2012, problem lights on 65 large beachfront properties were replaced with more appro- priate lights and bulbs, darkening approximately 45,000 linear feet of beach. Disorientations from arti- ficial lighting reported during the 2011 nesting season decreased significantly and remained low on that beach during the 2012 nesting season. In addition to the ecological benefits, some retrofitted property owners reported significant savings on their outdoor electricity bills as a direct result of the retrofit, which included very energy-efficient LED lights (Barshel et al., 2013). ADDRESSING PROBLEM LIGHTS Any strategy for reducing light pollution should begin with identifying the problem light sources (as defined previously in "Assessments"). Unnecessary lights should be eliminated. Lights necessary for human safety should be retrofitted or replaced with turtle - friendly fixtures. Many light sources illuminate areas that do not need to be lighted. These unnecessary light sources include the following: 1. Light sources that illuminate areas that require no security. This includes the beach itself in most cases. Ocean beaches are more often in public, not private ownership, and are not areas where prop- erty should normally be stored. 2. Light sources that illuminate areas that are vacant or have no foot traffic. 3. Decorative lighting that has limited use other than aesthetic enhancement. Decorative lighting near nesting beaches may be much more harmful to sea turtles than it is useful to people. 4. Light sources that provide more than adequate illu- mination for a particular function. The amount of light needed depends on its appropriateness in the context of the overall environ- ment and surrounding community. Lighting for com- mercial and residential areas in an urban setting has different requirements than that in rural and envi- ronmentally sensitive areas where glare and light trespass can affect adjacent natural communities. The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America recommends using appropriate envi- ronmental zones that range from intrinsically dark (El) to high ambient brightness (E4). Most parks, beaches, and natural areas fall in the category of zone E1. Due to strict light trespass requirements for such areas, the recommended illuminance level is 1.0 fc (IESNA, 1999). In other areas, illuminance levels nec- essary for safety and security are also rather low (0.2- 1.0 fc or 2-11 lux, recommended for areas with security fencing and for parking areas) (Kaufman and Christensen, 1987). Unnecessary light sources near sea turtle nesting beaches should be eliminated, and the number and brightness (lamp intensity, typically expressed in watts) of light sources that provide more than adequate illumination should be reduced. Lighting that is neces- sary for safety or security can be used when needed during early evening and switched off for the remainder of the night (see notes on timers and motion detectors below). Items valuable enough to require se- curity lighting should be removed from the beach. Switching lights off when not in use can be the simplest, cheapest, and most straightforward way to solve lighting problems. Turning off lights will re- sult in energy and sea turtle conservation. Usually, property owners are able to switch lighting off on their own, but large outdoor luminaires mounted on poles are sometimes leased from a power company and must be extinguished by authorized company personnel at the request of the customer who pays the electricity bill. Despite being simple and straightforward, successfully managing beachside lights by regulating human behavior—turning lights off or drawing the curtain—has proved to be difficult. But light manage- ment strategies with proper design guidelines and new lighting technologies can help achieve desired results without the need for much behavioral regulation. Where pedestrian activity requires some lighting, low- FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 27 Sea Turtles and Lighting Solutions Witherington, Martin and Trindell mounted (preferably bollards, path lights, or embed- ded lights) and low -wattage lights in the acceptable long -wavelength range, as described in the following section, and color can be provided. Internally illuminated pavement -embedded markers can be in- stalled along roadway lane lines to help delineate the pavement. Apps that run on cell phones and other personal electronic devices to control home appliances and lights remotely (at a scheduled time or on demand) are available at a modest price. USE ALTERNATIVE, LONG -WAVELENGTH LIGHT SOURCES Where efforts to dim, redirect, or block light have not been entirely effective, some errant light may reach the beach. An additional strategy for reducing effects of artificial lighting is to ensure that the spectral qualities of any light that does reach the beach make it mini- mally disruptive to sea turtles. Minimally disruptive light sources have a spectral distribution that excludes short -wavelength (ultraviolet, violet, blue, and green) light. These long -wavelength light sources will have a minimal effect on sea turtles but, because they are not completely harmless, they should not be used without light -management techniques (e.g., shielding, cutoff, or directional fixtures). Unfortunately, long wave- length lights alone do not eliminate the risk to see turtles, but a low wattage, long -wavelength lamp in a fully shielded, downward -directed fixture provides the best option available for lighting along the nesting beach. The following section describes types of long - wavelength light sources available in the market. LONG -WAVELENGTH LEDs Light -emitting diode (LED) lamps are one of the best available technologies that can work well for humans and sea turtles. LEDs are highly directional and can be manufactured to produce long -wavelength light in the amber, orange, and red color range. As these LEDs be- come more widely available, costs are decreasing, making them an attractive option for beachfront property owners. From airports to headlights, the small size, faster response time and durability of LEDs make them a viable replacement for variety of light sources. Initially LED lights were available only in a small wattage range, limiting their use to smaller areas. But in the past 10 years the technology has developed sig- nificantly, and LED lamps are available in an increasing range of wattages. The unique quality of LED lamps to produce light in a wide spectrum of colors and wave- lengths makes it particularly suitable for various uses, including near sea turtle nesting beaches. LED lamps producing amber, red, or yellow lights are available that produce light consistently in the narrow band of wavelength around 560 nm. Lights in amber/red /yellow colors with 560 nm or longer wavelength are less disruptive to sea turtles. In addition, LED lights in the above colors do not degrade the night vision of people visiting the beach. As people walk to the beach along a pathway lighted with amber/red/yellow LED lamps, their eyes can adjust to the darkness, leaving them better able to see by moonlight and starlight once they reach the unlighted beach. LOW-PRESSURE SODIUM VAPOR The spectral properties of low-pressure sodium-vapor (LPS) lighting make this type of lamp minimally dis- ruptive to sea turtles for applications requiring a high- intensity -discharge light source, such as parking lots, roadways, and parking garages. Light from this lamp type is widely dispersed across a broad area. While light emanating from an LPS fixture tends to reduce or eliminate shadow zones, making it suitable for secu- rity lighting, the widely scattered light also tends to illuminate any nearby vertical surface or object. This increase in indirect lighting can reduce the benefits of using a long -wavelength light source in many beach- front applications where lights are installed adjacent to other structures. The determination that LPS lighting can, in certain situations, have minimal impact on sea turtles comes from studies of nesting and hatchling logger- head and green turtles, along with limited evidence from studies of hatchling hawksbills and olive ridleys. Because light from LPS sources is not completely ig- nored by sea turtles, LPS should be considered as a substitute for more disruptive light sources rather than as a replacement selected for beach -darkening efforts. LPS light has greater effects on some species than on others. Sea -finding in loggerhead hatchlings has not been observed to be substantially disrupted by LPS lighting in the field, whereas green turtle hatch- lings are substantially affected under some conditions. Although LPS lighting is predicted to have a minimal effect on loggerhead hatchlings, mere presence of LPS lights does not reduce the attraction of other, adjacent, lights on the nesting beach. YELLOW FILTERS AND GEL COATINGS Lamps that are tinted yellow to reduce the emission of insect -attracting short -wavelength light (bug lights) have been found to be disruptive to sea turtles. There are no standard spectral requirements for the term bug bulb. Thus, while these lamps appear yellow or amber, 28 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Solutions Sea Turtles and Lighting most still contain significant amounts of short -wave- length light. The Best Available Technology (BAT) for sea turtle protection currently does not include incandescent or compact fluorescent bug lights. There are some long -wavelength tubes available (http://www.myfwc.com/conservation/you-conserve /lighting/certified/bulbs/) that do produce predomin- ately long -wavelength light; these can be used instead of white fluorescent tubes, in conjunction with proper shielding, when other replacement options are not available. Research on white incandescent or fluore- scent lamps covered with filters or gels has shown that the filters and gels are not effective in filtering out short -wavelength light or reducing impacts to sea turtles. With the increased availability of better quality LED lamps that produce pure amber, red, or yellow light, they have become the most commonly recom- mended light source for use near sea turtle nesting beaches. MINIMIZE BEACH LIGHTING FROM OUTDOOR SOURCES Beach lighting from outdoor sources can be managed in a number of ways that allow the function of the lighting to be retained or even enhanced. When con- sidering appropriate lighting adjacent to a sea- turtle nesting beach, it is appropriate to "Keep it low, keep it long, and keep it shielded," as follows. Keep It Low • Reduce the wattage of problem lighting. For a given lamp type, reducing the wattage of the lu- minaire will reduce the amount of light emitted. When changing lamp types or fixture styles, the manufacturer's data on luminance (typically given in lumens) should be consulted. A table out- lining efficiency (lumens/watt) of various light sources is given in Appendix B. • Use lower pole -mounted luminaires or low - mounted luminaires (such as louvered, bollard - type fixtures or path -light fixtures) as a substitute for pole -mounted lighting. Low -mounted lumi- naries that are better focused concentrate light where it is most needed; the lower a light source is mounted, the smaller the area it will illuminate. In addition, sources mounted lower will tend to have a greater degree of shielding from the beach by objects on the dune (vegetation, buildings, etc.). Sources mounted high on poles near the beach can be difficult to shield from the beach. The post -like stature of bollard luminaires with light -directing louvers is ideal for keeping light focused on the ground and off the beach. 1. Full Cutoff 2. Cutoff No Nom at or above 90' r 90° Candela .110 percent of rated lumens Candela o2.5 percent of rated Iurr,onb Candela c10 p.roent of rated lumens Candela c5 percent rated lumens 3. Semicutofi goo Sao Candela -420 percent of rated hunters O. 4. Nc ncutoft 90° No intensity limits so. Figure 13. Cutoff classifications for standard outdoor or roadway luminaires Figure 13 graphically depicts light distribu- tion characteristics of luminaires. Candela is the basic, international unit for measuring luminous intensity. Lumen is a unit of light output or flux. Cutoff lumin- aires control upward spread of light. Full cutoff luminaires, in addition to controlling upward spread, also reduce the spread of light on the back and sides of the luminaire. Non -cutoff luminaires have no such controls, allowing light to stray. Keep It Long • While not invisible to sea turtles, long- wave- length light in the orange to red color range is less likely to impact nesting females and hatchlings. Monochromatic long -wavelength light sources such as amber or red LEDs that produce light at 560 nm or longer are less likely to impact sea tur- tles. Keep It Shielded • Replace unshielded fixtures with full -cutoff, fully shielded luminaires to focus light where it is most needed. • Replace higher -wattage multidirectional luminar- ies with lower -wattage directional luminaires. Luminaires should not be directed onto the nesting beach or any object visible from the beach (see Appendices C—E). Many fixtures have beach or house -side shields that block light on one or more sides and focus it where needed for human safety. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 29 Sea Turtles and Lighting Solutions Witherington, Martin and Trindell • Shield existing light sources from the nesting beach. To be effective, light shields should be opaque, sufficiently large, and positioned so that light from the shielded source does not reach the beach. Replace poorly shielded fixtures with full - cutoff, opaque shields. Light shields can be fash- ioned from inexpensive and easily obtained materials. Good shielding should provide a cutoff angle of 90° or more (Figure 13). Shields for many light fixtures are commercially available. Customized light shields are often needed because luminaires come in so many different designs. However, changing a light fixture to a more direc- tional style is almost always a more efficient and permanent solution than shielding. • Install louvers or baffles to direct light away from the beach and focus it where needed for human safety. • Recess luminaires into the underside of architec- tural features of the roof such as a beam, arch, ceiling, or vault, where available. Recessed sources will be more directional and, if directed downward, will be less visible from the beach than multidirectional lighting (see Appendices D and E). • Shield light from the beach by redirecting lumi- naires away from the nesting beach. Even sources that are poorly directional can be redirected so that most of their brightness is pointed away from the beach. • Reposition luminaires to take advantage ofnatural light screens. Necessary luminaires should be po- sitioned on the landward side of any buildings or vegetation and the light focused so it does not reflect off walls, structures, or vegetation. • Create natural light shields by planting native dune vegetation as a light screen. Planting light - blocking vegetation on the primary dune can alleviate problems caused by light that is not man- aged by the techniques outlined above. To be most effective, vegetation should be near the crest of the dune closest to the beach, which is where woody, well-established vegetation normally grows. Salt -tolerant, bushy, densely leaved native plants are the most suitable. METHODS FOR REDUCING LIGHT TRESPASS FOR SPECIFIC OUTDOOR LIGHT SOURCES POOL LIGHTING Outdoor swimming pools pose some unique beach - lighting issues. The Florida Depat Intent of Health (DOH) sets lighting standards for public swimming pools. DOH has a "no light swimming" category im- plying no use of the pool after daylight hours. But if this option is used, the pool must be closed at night, with posted notices and often locked gates to prevent entry. For properties that choose to allow nighttime use of their pools or pool decks, DOH requires both deck and underwater lighting. The required illumina- tion level for the deck surface within four feet of the pool is 3.0 fc. Underwater lights are required at 0.5 watt per square foot. These required lights, especially the underwater lights, can pose a problem for sea tur- tles, particularly if white halogen light is used, as the glow from such lights can reflect onto adjacent structures and be seen from the beach. Because shield- ing these underwater luminaires would block light from areas where it is needed for human safety, using multiple lower -wattage luminaires that produce light at greater than 560 nm wavelength can reduce the im- pact of pool lighting on adjacent nesting beaches. But this will not eliminate the light's spreading out from the underwater luminaires. Similarly, using low -mounted fixtures such as bollards, step lights, embedded lights, and pathway lights can reduce visibility from the nesting beach while providing the required amount of lighting on the pool deck. Using lower -wattage lights that produce light in long -wavelength range and with distribution focused down helps reduce uplighting. Pole lights are not required and should not be used to light any pool on the landward side of a building or within sight of the beach. Pool lights often reflect up the side of adja- cent structures, so screens and other light -blocking options should also be used. If meeting the DOH lighting requirements while using the above options still results in an unac- ceptable level of lighting on the nesting beach, a design variation can be submitted for DOH process- ing. The documentation for the design variation should include an analysis of the safety, security, and func- tional impacts of the desired lower levels of illumi- nation. It should also include a reference to the implications of potential violations of the local lighting ordinance and state and federal laws protecting sea turtles as a result of compliance with the DOH lighting requirements. PARKS Several public parks are located close to the beach in Florida. Most of these parks are open to the public dur- ing the day only, but some are also open at night. These parks require lighting only when public access to trails, pathways, or bikeways is required. If not absent entirely, artificial lighting for maintenance rooms, restrooms, and adjacent parking lots should re- main at very low levels. If lighting is provided, the luminaires should be well shielded, taking full 30 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Solutions Sea Turtles and Lighting advantage of existing natural vegetation. Even if natu- ral vegetation provides adequate visual shielding from the beach, luminaires should be shielded with commercially available fixtures to minimize their con- tribution to sky glow. Much of the discussion provided below for piers, sidewalks, walkways, and bikeways is also applicable to parks. PIERS, SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS, AND BIKEWAYS Most public beaches have one or more piers, side- walks, walkways, or bikeways where lighting may be needed for safety and security. National, state, and local lighting standards for these facilities are availa- ble, but most do not address constraints for lighting near sea -turtle nesting beaches. With the exception of commercial areas, the following illumination levels are recommended, but not required, for these facilities, and vary from 0.5 to 0.2 fc (IESNA, 1999). Table 1. Recommended maintained illuminance levels for walkways and bikeways (IESNA, 1999) Classification Minimum average horizontal illuminance levels (fc) Sidewalks (roadside); Type A bikeways Commercial areas 1.0 Intermediate areas 0.5 Residential areas 0.2 Walkways distant from roadways and Type B bikeways Walkways and bikeways 0.5 Pedestrian stairways 0.5 Pedestrian tunnels 2.0 Other options for minimizing impacts of artificial lighting on nearby or adjacent beaches include the fol- lowing: • Restrict use of these facilities to daylight hours only, if feasible. • Control amount of light. If access is provided at night, the amount of lighting should be propor- tional to the distance of the facilities from the beaches and take into account the presence of dunes and vegetation cover between these facili- ties and the beach. • Avoid pole -mounted lights. Pole mounted lights are not a good choice for pathway or pedestrian crossings near beaches. Pavement -embedded LED markers, low -height bollards, step lights, and low pathway lights are preferred. • Keep mounting height low. If the desired illumi- nation levels cannot be achieved without pole - mounted lights, the mounting height should be kept to a minimum, not exceeding 12 ft. • Reduce wattage. Luminaires should be of lower wattage, fully shielded, preferably amber or red LEDs with a wavelength of 560 nm or more. Occupancy or motion sensors can be used to min- imize the duration of unnecessary illumination. Some sensors also adjust amount of light based on available ambient light. STREETLIGHTS Roadways in Florida fall under state (FDOT), county, or municipal jurisdiction. FDOT has its own lighting - design criteria. Most counties and local governments use the Manual of Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance of Streets and Highways, commonly known as the Florida Greenbook (Greenbook, 2011) for street design, in- cluding lighting. Both FDOT and Florida Greenbook standards of street lighting are based on standards of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, which, in turn, are derived from IESNA standards. Due to their high intensity (wattage) and mounting height, pole -mounted street lights can be difficult to shield from the beach. The recommended approaches to dealing with street light- ing are: • Minimize new or additional lights. Unless justified for safety by rigorous crash analysis, clearly establishing that the absence of lighting is contributing to a number of accidents greater than the statewide average for a comparable section of road, no new or additional street lighting should be allowed near beaches. • Consider a lighting calendar. Many coastal areas observe a lighting calendar, requiring that all pole -mounted lights be turned off during the sea - turtle nesting season. Low -height and low -inten- sity bollards and internally illuminated, pavement -embedded LED markers are more appropriate solutions in such areas. In other areas, replacing existing pole -mounted fixtures with lower, fully shielded, long- wavelength LED lights may be appropriate. • Use lowest acceptable illumination levels. If new or additional lighting is justified for safety consid- erations, as discussed above, the FDOT (or county or local) standards must be reviewed carefully. For roadways under FDOT's jurisdiction, the lighting standards do not consider limitations and constraints along sea -turtle nesting beaches. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 31 Sea Turtles and Lighting Solutions Witherington, Martin and Trindell • Seek Variance. In most cases, lower illumination levels can be requested for FDOT roadways. To request this, a design variation must be prepared by a lighting design professional and submitted to FDOT. For roadways under local government jurisdiction, a wider array of land -use and intensity -of -use combinations must be consider- ed. In these cases, a variance may be available from the local government. • Keep mounting height low. Mounting height for luminaires is another important consideration. The minimum pole height per FDOT standards is 25 ft. This is based primarily on economics. But poles as short as 17.5 ft. can be used for lighting without creating safety issues. A design variation from FDOT is required to allow use of shorter poles. • Use low -wattage luminaires. Low -wattage lumi- naires (90 watts or less) are preferred near nesting beaches, although 150 -watt luminaires are often used. Luminaires in such areas should be full cut- off and completely shielded, preferably also with a vegetative screen if facing the beach. As has been stated, LED luminaires are fast gaining acceptance in the industry as they are highly efficient. When used near the beach, LED luminaires must emit light in the 560 nm or greater wavelength range to minimize the impact on sea turtles. • Provide buffer zones. Dunes and taller vegetation such as sea grapes provide an essential buffer be- tween streets and beaches and should be provided and maintained wherever possible. PARKING FACILITIES These facilities may be open parking lots or unen- closed areas in buildings. In coastal areas, parking lots and garages located close to the beaches are not uncommon. Lights from these facilities are often di- rectly visible from the beach and pose a serious risk to marine -turtle nesting. • Parking lot lights are, in general, regulated under local ordinances. For example, parking lot lights in Miami -Dade County are regulated by the Mi- ami -Dade Parking Lighting Ordinance. Illumina- tion levels required by the ordinance vary depending upon the land -use of adjacent areas and the type of facility (open parking lot or unen- closed building) and range from 0.5 to 1.0 fc. The ordinance allows for reducing these illumination levels 50% on nonbusiness days, commencing 30 minutes after closing on business days. • Although required light levels are typically low, achieving these levels through overhead lighting sometimes results in light -trespass that is not eliminated despite the use of full -cutoff lumi- naires when the parking lots are located very close to the beach. Lowering pole heights, strategically placing poles with fully shielded, long - wavelength luminaires, or using multiple low - height (2-4 ft.) bollards instead of pole -mounted lights may reduce impacts to nesting beaches. In- ternally illuminated amber LED markers are good for pedestrian path lighting in the parking lots. • Use of long -wavelength, full -cutoff, and fully shielded fixtures; motion sensors; and screens are all options, but when possible parking garages should not be placed in sight of a beach. • Parking spaces should be oriented along the beach so that headlights do not shine directly toward the water. Spaces should be placed behind dunes and vegetation to block headlights. SPORTS FIELDS In some cases, such as athletic fields, lowering the lights or using long -wavelength light is not an option. Stadium lighting—intense broad-spectrum lighting that is typically mounted as multiple units on tall poles—can pose lighting problems that are particu- larly difficult to solve. This type of lighting should not be used near sea -turtle nesting beaches during the nesting–hatching season. Because stadium lighting tends to be both outwardly directed and intense, it can produce a glow that affects nesting beaches many kilometers away. These lights can be shielded and the glow can be reduced by fitting individual luminaires with louvers or visors that reduce the amount of light shining upward and laterally. DECORATIVE LIGHTING Decorative lights are not necessary for improvement of nighttime vision. These nonessential light sources are not required for security and safety or to help peo- ple perform routine nighttime functions. They include accent lights, uplights, many rope lights, and string lights. One way to address this issue is to use full - cutoff, fully shielded, long -wavelength fixtures. Func- tionality and attractiveness need not be mutually exclusive. For example, path lights may provide required light levels for a walkway but can also be an attractive part of the overall aesthetic. Because lights installed solely for aesthetic purposes can and do impact sea turtles, they should not be installed on the seaward or shore- perpendicular sides of buildings near nesting beaches or at other locations from which they may be visible from the beach. For example, light from decorative uplights is often visible from the beach, even when the fixture is on the landward side of the building. Limited decorative lighting may be acceptable behind (i.e. 32 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Solutions Sea Turtles and Lighting landward of) taller structures provided the fixture and any illuminated surface is not directly or indirectly visible from the beach and the light does not contribute to glow. All such fixtures should be long -wavelength, red or amber, fully shielded, low -wattage, and low - mounted. Examples of such limited decorative lights include tree -strap amber LED downlights mounted low and pointed toward the ground on the landward side of the trunk. SIGN LIGHTING Illuminated signs, especially in urban areas, are a sig- nificant part of the night skyline. Billboards and neon and other lighted signs are commonly installed on buildings or poles for advertising or identification and can be difficult to shield from the beach. While an important part of the commercial activity in such ar- eas, these lights, like any other visible light source, can interfere with sea -turtle nesting and hatchling activity. • Use amber, orange, or red LEDs and true red neon for exit and emergency signs that cannot be hidden from the beach. • Install illuminated signs landward of existing structures where they are not within sight of a nesting beach. • Use low -mounted illuminated signs if they are in sight of a beach. They should be close to the ground, with full cutoff fixtures mounted above the sign and shining downward with long -wave- length amber, orange, or red directional LEDs. Backlighting using long -wavelength sources is preferred. • Use a dark background with light text to improve visibility. Minimizing the amount of light or using reflective lettering on a sign can also reduce im- pacts to marine turtles. • Provide no external lighting to signs. Signs on FDOT roadways may use retroreflective sheeting (FDOT, 2013) eliminating the need for external lighting. Signs along sharp horizontal curves where visibility may become an issue due to line - of -sight obstructions must still have external lighting. MINIMIZE BEACH LIGHTING FROM INDOOR SOURCES Light from indoor sources can also cause problems for sea turtles. The criteria for identifying problems caused by indoor lighting are the same as those for identifying problems caused by outdoor lighting. Indoor light is a problem if it is visible from the beach. Indoor lighting from buildings that are close to the beach, are very tall, or have large seaside windows causes the greatest problem for sea turtles. Because in- door lighting is usually not meant to light the outdoors, its unwanted effects can be eliminated without com- promising its intended function by doing the following: • Turning off lighting in rooms that are not in use. Reminder notices placed on switches in ocean- front rooms can help in this effort. • Relocating movable lamps away from windows visible from the beach. • Tinting or applying window treatments to win- dows visible from the beach so that light passing from inside to outside can be substantially reduced. A good tinted glass or window -tinting treatment will reduce visible light from the inside to 45% or less (transmittance < 45%). Tints are now available that reduce light transmittance 85%. Window glass may be either tinted during its manufacture or tinted later with an applied film. Window treatments (shading materials) are less permanent and can reduce light transmittance more than tints and films can. Complete blockage of light is ideal. See Appendix G for companies offering tinted glass and window treatments. • Closing opaque curtains or blinds after dark to completely cover windows visible from the beach. Most windows have curtains or blinds to provide privacy to the occupants. Reminder no- tices on windows or sliding glass doors in oceanfront rooms can help in this effort. HOW TO CHOOSE AN ALTERNATIVE LIGHT SOURCE For example, which would be least harmful to sea tur- tles and more cost effective, a 15 -watt white bulb or a 35 -watt LPS luminaire? Unfortunately, we have no reliable formula for calculating how much a light source will affect sea turtles. We do know, however, that if spectral emissions are equivalent, reducing in- tensity will reduce effects, and if intensities are similar, substituting less attractive sources (like LPS) will also reduce effects. A sound strategy, therefore, would be to reduce effects on sea turtles by manipulating both intensity and color. As few lights as practicable should be used, and for lighting applica- tions that are deemed essential, long- wavelength light sources (e.g., LEDs) should replace more disruptive light sources, and intensity should be reduced by using lamps of minimal wattage housed within well -directed fixtures aimed down and away from the beach. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 33 Sea Turtles and Lighting Solutions Witherington, Martin and Trindell USE LIGHT SCREENS AND ENHANCE THE DUNE PROFILE Both laboratory and field experiments have suggested that the dune silhouette can influence sea -finding in hatchlings (Limpus, 1971; Salmon et al., 1992), and it is clear that sea -fording problems are exacerbated where the dune profile is low or the dune is sparsely vegetated (Ferris, 1986; Witherington, 1990; Reiners et al., 1993). Whether by providing visual cues, block- ing light, or both, enhancing the silhouette of the dune can reduce lighting problems. Methods include the following: • Planting native vegetation on the dune. Unlike ar- tificial light screens, vegetation will grow and enhance the dune habitat for other animals, and it may provide more natural orientation cues for hatchlings. • Erecting artificial light screens on the dune where immediate, short-term light blocking is needed. Artificial screens should be positioned so that they do not impede nesting. Sturdy shade cloth and privacy fencing can make effective light screens. Artificial light screens can be used to block light until planted vegetation thickens to fill in gaps. • Filling in and replanting dune cuts, pathways, and washout areas. Misoriented hatchlings and adult turtles often exit the beach through these lighted gaps in the dune. A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY FOR MINIMIZING EFFECTS OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING There are many options for lessening the effects of ar- tificial lighting on sea turtles, but in order to employ them, a comprehensive strategy is needed to educate stakeholders, pass legislation, enforce laws, and monitor the nesting beach. 1. Education. Efforts should begin with making those able to solve lighting problems (individuals, corpo- rations, or governments) aware of the problems and possible solutions. Public awareness is a prerequi- site for legislative action and can encourage results that exceed what can be mandated by government. Many of the organizations listed in Appendix H are authorities on educating the public on conservation issues. Stories in the news media, distribution of pamphlets or fliers presentations at community gatherings, and door-to-door campaigns can make the public aware of the need for darker nesting beaches (Limpus et al., 1981; Witherington, 1986). Well-rounded and long-term educational efforts should include the next generation of sea tur- tle conservationists. Nurturing appreciation of sea turtles and other features of the natural world in school-age children is a vital conservation invest- ment. 2. Legislation. While public awareness is important in beginning beach -darkening efforts, light -manage- ment legislation is often necessary to complete the task. Light -management laws represent serious commitment to protecting sea turtles from artificial lighting and ensure that this conservation effort will be communitywide. 3. Prevention and enforcement. It is far easier to solve light -pollution problems during preliminary plan- ning, before projects are constructed and before lighting is installed. Legislation should require that a central, knowledgeable authority review develop- ment plans so that any new lighting near a nesting beach does not become a problem for sea turtles. Solutions to existing lighting problems should also be sought and implemented. Where existing lighting problems are complex or difficult to solve, grace pe- riods can be granted, but flagrant lighting problems caused by easily identifiable sources should be remedied quickly. Issuing warnings and levying fines can ensure that lighting problems are solved promptly. Ideally, warnings should be issued before the nesting and hatchling seasons so that problems can be solved before nesting is deterred and hatch- lings are killed. 4. Assessment. Lighting problems can be detected more quickly if observers are familiar with the act- ivities of sea turtles and humans on the beach. Results of lighting inspections, nesting surveys, and hatchling disorientation reports should be assessed regularly. 34 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Overview: Current Status and Future Strategy Assessment of Past Efforts NESTING TRENDS As part of the State's program for promoting the recovery of sea turtles, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) oversees the state- wide collection of data on nesting sea turtles. The monitoring program was initiated by the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI), then the Florida Bureau of Marine Research, in 1979. FWRI has two separate but complementary sea turtle monitoring pro- grams: the Statewide Nesting Beach Survey (SNBS) and the Index Nesting Beach Survey (INBS). The SNBS program was initiated in 1979 to document the total distribution, seasonality, and abun- dance of sea turtle nesting in Florida. Nesting data are collected for all species of sea turtles, the loggerhead, the green turtle, and the leatherback that nest regularly on Florida beaches, as well as the rare Kemp's ridley and the hawksbill. The latest available statewide nesting data for 2012 and 2013 are summarized in Table 2: Table 2. Updated Statewide Nesting Data Year Loggerhead Green Leatherback 2012 98,602 9,617 1,712 2013 77,975 36,195 896 Source: FWC Unpublished. Data (http: //myfwc. com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/ nesting/). Since 1989, the INBS has coordinated a detailed monitoring program in conjunction with SNBS. This program was established to measure trends in nest counts. Of the 207 SNBS-surveyed ar- eas, 32 are included in the INBS program. Since the inception of the INBS program, annual observed loggerhead nest counts on these beaches varied from a peak of 59,918 in 1998 to a low of 28,074 in 2007. Green turtle nest counts have in- creased approximately 100 -fold since counts began in 1989, a trend that differs from that of the loggerhead. The INBS green turtle nest count for 2013 (25,553) was more than twice the count from the next highest year. Surveyors counted 322 leatherback nests on core index beaches in 2013. Similar to nest counts for green turtles, leatherback nest counts have been increasing exponentially. The overall nesting trend for three species has been positive. Despite the decrease in nest numbers documented in 2007, loggerhead nest counts have kept a generally upward trend since, while previously there were concerns about a possible decline in loggerhead nest counts (Witherington et al., 2009). COMMUNITIES WITH LIGHTING ORDINANCES More than 82 municipalities and counties in the state of Florida have adopted lighting ordinances to regulate lighting on sea -turtle nesting beaches (http://www. myfwc.com/conservation/you-conserve/lighting /ordinances/). Areas with ordinances include the entire east and west coasts of Florida with the exception of the Big Bend area, which has few sandy beaches available for nesting. While each local lighting ordinance is unique in its requirements and the degree to which sea turtles are protected (Barshel et al., 2013), they all provide a framework by which local governments can manage artificial lighting harmful to sea turtles. The number and size of beachfront build- ings and infrastructure -related development has increased steadily in Florida's coastal counties and municipalities. It is not difficult to imagine that, with- out these ordinances, impacts to marine turtles, including disorientation, could have been much greater than is being documented. SUCCESS STORIES While new coastal developments are required to install lighting appropriate for the protection of sea turtles, lights at older developments present an important chal- lenge. Fixing these lights provides an opportunity to achieve long-lasting conservation benefits for Florida's sea turtle nesting populations. LIGHTING RETROFIT PROGRAMS A number of projects around Florida have worked to retrofit problematic lights with shielding or replace them with sea turtle—friendly fixtures. In the past few years a number of projects have received funding ear- marked for helping property owners identify app- ropriate options for retrofitting lights. Table 3 provides a summary of these programs. Lighting retrofit programs focus on identifying problematic lights, then developing a plan for reducing their visibility from the beach. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 35 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Overview Sea Turtles and Lighting TABLE 3 - Summary of Lighting Retrofitting Programs Project Name St. George Island Sea Turtle Friendly Lighting Project Sarasota County Roadway Lighting Replacement Project Lighting Modifications and Educational Sea Turtle Walks in Palm Beach County South Lido Lighting Improvement Project Florida Artifi cal Light Mitigation/ 1Vfinimizing Light Impacts on Sea Turtles: ShieldLoan Program Street Light Pollution - Reduction Sarasota County Partnership for Lighting Improvement Sarasota County Partnership for Lighting Improvement - Phase B Embedded Roadway Lighting Program Enhancements City of Venice Artificial Light Abatement Bonita Beach Roadway Lighting Improvement Priority Nesting Beaches in Deerfield Beach and Venice Municipalities of Broward and Sarasota Counties in Florida. Maximizing Florida Sea Turtle Nesting Success by RetrofittingPproblem Beachfront Lights on FL Nesting Beaches Reducing Light Pollution on Florida's Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches by Retrofitting Lights on Problem Properties Year County Organization Funding Entity Amount 2001 Franklin Apalachicola Bay and River Keeper ea Turt e Licens e Plate Grant 2002 Sarasota Sarasota County Sea Turtle License Plate Grant $2,850 1 Palm Beach County Palm Beach County Sea Turtle License Plate Grant $12,500 2004 Sarasota County Sarasota County Sea Turtle License Plate Grant $10,008 2006 Brevard, Charlotte, Collier, Indian River, Lee, Martin St. Lucie Counties, Town of Jupiter Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission National Fish and Wildlife Foundation $1,160.12 2006 Brevard County City of Cape Canaveral Sea Turtle License Plate Grant $8,920 Sarasota County Sarasota County Sea Turtle License Plate Grant $8,617 2008 Sarasota County Sarasota County Sea Turtle License Plate Grant $10,900 Palm Beach County City o f Boca Raton Sea Turtle License Plate Grant $13,910 2009 Sarasota County City of Venice Sea Turtle License Plate Grant $5,647 2010 Lee County Lee County Sea Turtle License Plate Grant $ 1,702 2010 Broward, Sarasota Wildlife Foundation of Florida/ City of Deerfield Beach and Venice Beach National Fish and Wildlife Foundation/Recovered Oil Fund $450,000 Statewide Sea Turtle Conservancy National Fish and Wildlife Foundation - Recovered Oil Fund for Wildlife $371,377 2011 Statewide Sea Turtle Conservancy National Fish and Wildlife Foundation- $344,512 Recovered Oil Fund for Wildlife 36 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 $150,000 $81,912 Sea Turtles and Lighting Overview Witherington, Martin and Trindell TABLE 3 Cont'd- Summary of Lighting Retrofitting Programs Project Name Shell Marine Habitat Program Reducing Light Pollution on Florida's Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches by Retrofitting Lights on Problem Properties Maximizing Florida Sea Turtle Nesting Success by RetrofittingPproblem Beachfront Lights on FL Panhandle Nesting Beaches Himinating Light Pollution by Retrofitting Lights on Private Beachfront Properties (FL Panhandle) Year County Organization Funding Entity Amount 2012 Florida's Golf co: from the Wes tem Panhandle to Tampa Bay ea Turtle Conservancy National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 2012 Select Counties Sea Turtle Conservancy USFWS $18,961 All Counties from Panhandle to Tampa Bay Sea Turtle Conservancy National Fish and Wildlife Foundation - Shell Marine Habitat Program 2014 Franklin, Gulf, Walton Sea Turtle and other Gulf Conservancy Counties National Fish and Wildlife Foundation- $722,500 Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission Overly bright and unshielded lights, directly visible from the beach. An example of bad lighting on one Florida beach. (Photo provided by B. E. Witherington) These and other retrofit programs have cor- rected lighting problems at single family homes, large multi -family condos and resorts, and commercial sites around Florida, creating darker beaches for sea turtle nesting. SR A1A BOCA RATON In an experimental project in 2001, the Florida Depatttnent of Transportation installed lighting for sea -turtle protection on a small (<0.25 mi) section of State Road (SR) A1A just south of Spanish River Boulevard in the city of Boca Raton. The roadway sec- tion, which is adjacent to a nesting beach, has pole Shielded fixtures with minimum light directly visible from the beach. An example of appropriate lighting on another Florida beach. (Photo provided by B. E. Witherington) mounted street lights with some light spilling over to the beaches. The City agreed to turn off the pole - mounted lights for the nesting season, March 1— Octo- ber 31, and FDOT funded installation of pavement - embedded LED markers. The experimental section also included low -mounted bollards installed on the edge of unpaved shoulders. In 2004 the City of Boca Raton and FDOT decided to extend the turtle -friendly embedded roadway lighting to approximately 1.25 miles. The internally illuminated LED markers installed on the roadway lane lines in place of standard retroreflective pavement markers provide good delineation for motorists. This FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 37 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Overview Sea Turtles and Lighting project has been well received by local residents and roadway users. It won the Florida Institute of Consult- ing Engineers Excellence in Engineering Design Award for 2009. SR AIA, Boca Raton, Florida: Internally illuminated LED pavement markers provide delineation at night when pole mounted lights are turned off during sea turtle nesting season (Photo by Erdman Anthony & Associates, Inc.). No hatchling disorientations were reported from the adjacent beach the year after the embedded lights were installed and street lights were extin- guished during nesting season (Rusenko et al., 2003). Future Strategy OUTREACH AND EDUCATION Community outreach and education have always been a tool in sea turtle conservation efforts worldwide. In Florida, these efforts range from contacting and edu- cating coastal property owners to FWC-authorized sea turtle walks for the community at large. Many coastal communities host festivals to celebrate sea turtle days and highlight the community's role in conservation. Typically a conservation agency and interested citi- zens prepare the program, provide the venue, and contact sponsors for various events. Local marine turtle conservation groups develop and implement programs specific to their communities and beaches. These programs include hosting booths at local events, presenting educational programs at schools, and host- ing social media programs. The Sea Turtle Conservancy has developed and implemented a number of educational initiatives in Florida and the wider Caribbean basin (http: //www. conserveturtles.org/education.php).These efforts inclu- de development and distribution of outreach materials, lesson plans, and distance -learning programs. EXPLORING NEW TECHNOLOGIES Technology continues to impact every aspect of our lives. Sea turtle conservation and sea turtle—friendly lighting have benefited and will continue to benefit from such technological advancements. The rapid pace of progress in smart phones and tablets offers a particularly promising field. While such devices are valuable for recording information on nests, disorientations, and lights observed in the field, the light associated with the devices must be managed if used on the beach at night. Still, the ability to trans- mit information in real time has positive implications for marine turtle conservation. Programs in Florida and other states are using smart phones and tablets for sea turtle conservation efforts (Davis, 2013). Such de- vices, along with social media, are invaluable in allowing conservation volunteers to collect and store nesting, stranding, and disorientation data. INFORMATION FOR LIGHTING DESIGN PROFESSIONALS Good lighting design must address lighting require- ments for humans as well as economic and environmental issues. This includes the requirement that design meet local, state, and federal laws prohib- iting adverse impacts to marine turtles and their hatchlings, nests, and nesting habitat. Impacts on nesting or hatchling sea turtles from light visible from or illuminating a nesting beach from a beachfront building could be considered a violation of the laws protecting threatened and endangered sea turtles. While a detailed discussion of the lighting de- sign process and requirements is not the objective here, lighting professionals must be able to develop designs that address both sea turtles and safety stand- ards. National, state, and local governments and professional organizations like IESNA and AASHTO standards include specific illumination levels for ordinary circumstances. Lighting design professionals may have concerns about meeting these standards using the luminaires, fixtures, and techniques recom- mended for lighting near nesting beaches. Designing outdoor lighting poses a particular challenge. Impro- perly designed lights contribute to light trespass, a form of light pollution. In such cases light travels from one property to another where it is unwanted. Using technology that is already available, and a growing understanding of the special lighting requirements in environmentally sensitive areas including nesting beaches, it is possible to design lighting systems that focus light properly to address human safety while limiting impacts to natural areas (Gaston et al., 2012), including adjacent sea turtle nesting beaches. 38 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Sea Turtles and Lighting Overview Witherington, Martin and Trindell Advancements in lighting technology have made it easier to design a lighting system satisfying all of the above objectives using low wattage luminaires. LED luminaires have a much better lumen to watt ratio, producing more light for a given amount of energy (watt) than incandescent and CFL luminaires. LED luminaries are capable of producing light in the more desirable yellow -amber color and wavelength range. For outdoor lights, keeping the mounting height low may require the use of additional fixtures or luminaires, which creates a conflict with the most economical design. Lighting designers are expected to provide recommended illumination levels to ensure desirable quantity of light. The other aspect of lighting design that plays a significant role in the selection and place- ment of luminaires is the quality of light. Quality of light provided, to a great extent, depends on the purpose for which lights are to be used. For exterior lights, visual acuity—a measure of the ability to dis- tinguish fine details—is often cited as a desirable feature. Typically white light sources that produce light in shorter wavelength ranges, closer to the blue color spectrum, work better for that. However, that does not work well near nesting beaches as sea turtles are sensitive to the short- wavelength light produced by these sources. Lighting designs that employ light sources with lower wattage, producing light in a longer wavelength (> 560nm) range and installed at low to medium mounting heights, work better in such envi- ronments. This may result in a relatively greater number of lights for the desired illumination levels and a little less visual acuity than is achievable in other situations, but that is considered to be an acceptable tradeoff. In most cases an optimal lighting design com- plying with all requirements is feasible. In situations where lighting design standards conflict with designs that limit impacts to sea turtles, a variance from the lighting design standards can be requested. An acceptable lighting system for these areas can have lights that provide illumination levels that meet applicable codes and standards as long as no light reaches or is directly visible from the nesting beach. There is no acceptable amount of light that can actu- ally be allowed to shine on the nesting beach (less than 0 footcandles is the goal). Several steps can be taken to avoid or minimize light trespass and light pollution: • Plan development along nesting beaches so that areas that require higher levels of light for safety are appropriately sited. When outdoor lighting next to the nesting beach is unavoidable, utilize low overall light levels and optics that reduce or confine the light to critical areas. Implement the FWC's recommendations to keep it low, keep it shielded, and keep it long. • Use night lighting only when and where neces- sary. Design exterior lighting to meet, but not exceed, IESNA lighting standards when possible, understanding that the standards are recommen- dations. Seek variances from local requirements where necessary to avoid impacts to sea turtles while lighting for human safety. Use the minimum amount of light needed. Provide uniform lighting with good distribution that avoids wasteful hot spots. Over -lighting directly contributes to light pollution and is often tied to light trespass. • Use luminaires with BUG ratings appropriate for the area. BUG, an abbreviation for Backlight, Up - light and Glare refers to a measuring system developed by IESNA to compare and evaluate outdoor luminaires. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 39 Literature Cited AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS. 2005. Roadway Lighting Design Guide, Washington, D.C. 67 p. AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. 2012. Light Pol- lution: Adverse Health Effects of Nighttime Lighting, Report 4 of the Council on Science and Public Health. http://www atmob. org/library/resources/AMA%20Health%20Effects% 20Light%20at%20Night.pdf ANONYMOUS. 1983. Guide to High Intensity Discharge Lamps. North American Philips Lighting Corporation, Bloomfield, New Jersey. 23 p. ANONYMOUS. 1989. Light Sources, Monochromators, De- tection Systems. Oriel Corporation, Stratford, Connecticut. 335 p. BARSHEL, N., R. BRUCE, D. HAGGITT, B. LICHTER, and J. MCCRAY. 2013. Sea Turtle Friendly Lighting: A Model Ordinance for Local Governments and Model Guide- lines for Incorporation into Governing Documents of Planned Communities: Condominiums, Cooperatives and Homeown- ers' Associations. The Conservation Clinic, University of Florida Levin College of Law, on behalf of the Sea Turtle Conservancy, Florida. 43 p. BARTOL, S. M, and J. A. MUSICK. 2002. Sensory Biology of Sea Turtles. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 472 p. BERRY, M., D. T. BOOTH, and C. J. LIMPUS. 2013. Arti- ficial lighting and disrupted seafmding behaviour in hatchling loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) on the Woongarra Coast, southeast Queensland, Australia. Austral- ian Journal of Zoology. 61:137-145. BERTOLOTTI, L., and M. SALMON. 2005. Do embedded roadway lights protect sea turtles? Environmental Manage- ment. 36: 702-710. BROOKE, M. DE L., and M. C. GARNETT. 1983. Survival and reproductive performance of hawksbill turtles Eretmo- chelys imbricata L. on Cousin Island, Seychelles. Bio- logical Conservation 25: 161-170. BOURGEOIS, S., E. GILOT-FROMONT, A. VIALLEF- ONT, F. BOUSS AMBA, and S.L. DEEM. 2009. Influence of artificial lights, logs and erosion on leatherback sea turtle hatchling orientation at Pongara National Park, Gabon. Biological Conservation 142: 85-93. BULLOUGH, J. D., E. T. DONNELL, and M. S. REA. 2013. To illuminate or not to illuminate: roadway lighting as it af- fects traffic safety at intersections. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 53: 65-77. BURDICK, D. C. 2005. The aging imperative: Designing for an aging population. Proceedings of the mini -conference on human factors in complex sociotechnical systems. Federal Aviation Administration, Atlantic City, New Jersey 13-1, 5 p. BURNEY, C. M., C. MATTISON, and L. FISHER. 1991. The relationship of loggerhead nesting patterns and moon phase in Broward County, Florida. Pp. 161-164 in T. H. Richardson, J. I. Richardson, and M. Donnelly, eds. Proceed- ings of the Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS SEFC-278. BURNS, K. P., R. REISBECK, K. VAUGHAN, A. RABON, and E. BOYS. 2013. Integrating Sea Turtle Research into In- formal Education. Pp. 67-68 in T. Tucker, et al., eds. Proceedings of the thirty-third annual symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, Baltimore, Maryland. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-645. BUSTARD, H. R. 1967. Mechanism of nocturnal emergence from the nest in green turtle hatchlings. Nature 214:317. BUSTARD, H. R. 1972. Sea Turtles. Natural History and Conservation. Taplinger, New York. 220 p. CALDWELL, M. C., and D. C. CALDWELL. 1962. Factors in the ability of the northeastern Pacific green turtle to orient toward the sea from the land, a possible coordinate in long- range navigation. Contributions in Science 60: 5-27. CARR, A. 1962. Orientation problems in the high seas travel and terrestrial movements of marine turtles. American Scientist 50: 358-374. 40 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Literature Cited Sea Turtles and Lighting CARR, A., and L. GIOVANNOLI. 1957. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles. 2. Results of field work in Costa Rica, 1955. American Museum Novitates 1835: 1-32. CARR, A., and H. HIRTH. 1961. Social facilitation in green turtle siblings. Animal Behaviour 9: 68-70. CARR, A., H. HIRTH, and L. OGREN. 1966. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles. 6. The hawksbill turtle in the Caribbean Sea. American Museum Novitates 2248: 1-29 CARR, A., and L. OGREN. 1959. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles. 3. Dermochelys in Costa Rica. American Museum Novitates 1958: 1-29. CARR, A., and L. OGREN. 1960. The ecology and migra- tions of sea turtles. 4. The green turtle in the Caribbean Sea. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 121: 1-48. CHAVEZ, H., M., G. CONTRERAS, and T. P. E. HER- NANDEZ D. 1968. On the coast of Tamaulipas, part two. International Turtle and Tortoise Society Journal 2: 16-19, 27-34. CHRISTENS, E. 1990. Nest emergence lag in loggerhead sea turtles. Journal of Herpetology 24: 400-402. CORNELIUS, S. E. 1986. The Sea Turtles of Santa Rosa Na- tional Park. Fundacion de Parques Nacionales, Costa Rica. 64 p. COSTON-CLEMENTS, L., and D. E. HOSS. 1983. Syn- opsis of data on the impact of habitat alteration on sea turtles around the southeastern United States. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-117. 57 p. DANIEL, R. S., and K. U. SMITH. 1947a. The sea -approach behavior of the neonate loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). Joumal of Comparative Physiology and Psychology 40: 413-420. DANIEL, R. S., and K. U. SMITH. 1947b. The migration of newly -hatched loggerhead turtles toward the sea. Science 106: 398-399. DAVIS, H. 2013. Enhancing sea turtle conservation using mobile apps. Master's of Environmental Management thesis, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 135 p. DAVIES, T. W., J. BENNIE, R. INGER, N. HEMPEL IBARRA, AND K.J. GASTON. 2013. Artificial light poll- ution: are shifting spectral signatures changing the balance of species interactions? Glob Chang Biol. 19: 1417-1423. DAVIES, T. W. J. P. DUFFY, J. BENNIE, AND K. J. GASTON. 2014. The nature, extent, and ecological implica- tions of marine light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12: 347-355. DAWSON, D. W. 1984. Light pollution and its measure- ment. Pp. 30-53 in R. C. Wolpert, R. M. Genet, and J. Wolpert, eds. Advances in Photoelectric Photometry. Vol. 2. Fairborn Observatory, Patagonia, Arizona. DEMMER, R. J. 1981. The hatching and emergence of log- gerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) hatchlings Master's thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando. 40 p. DICKERSON, D. D., and D. A. NELSON. 1988. Use of long wavelength lights to prevent disorientation of hatchling sea turtles. Pp. 19-21 in B. A. Schroeder, ed. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Con- servation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC- 214. DICKERSON, D. D., and D. A. NELSON. 1989. Recent re- sults on hatchling orientation responses to light wavelengths and intensities. Pp. 41-43 in S. Eckert, K. Eckert, and T. Richardson, eds. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Work- shop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232. DODD, C. K. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta (Linnaeus 1758). FAO Synopsis NMFS-149, Biological Report 88(14). 110 p. EAKIN, J. S. 1986. Tucson tackles sky glow: how one city is helping to protect astronomy. Light Magazine 1(2): 10-12. EHRENFELD, D. W. 1968. The role of vision in the sea - finding orientation of the green turtle (Cheloni mydas). II. Orientation mechanism and range of spectral sensitivity. Animal Behaviour 16: 281-287. EHRENFELD, D. W. 1979. Behavior associated with nest- ing. Pp. 417-434 in M. Harless and H. Morlock, eds. Turtles: Perspectives and Research. Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. EHRENFELD, D. W., and A. CARR. 1967. The role of vi- sion in the sea -finding orientation of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Animal Behaviour 15: 25-36. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 41 Sea Turtles and Lighting Literature Cited Witherington, Martin and Trindell EHRENFELD, D. W., and A. L. KOCH. 1967. Visual accommodation in the green turtle. Science 155: 827-828. EHRHART, L. M. 1979. Threatened and Endangered Spe- cies of the Kennedy Space Center. Part 1. Marine Turtle Studies. Final report to NASA/KSC: A Continuation of Baseline Studies for Environmentally Monitoring STS at JFK Space Center. 301 p. FANGMAN, M. S., and K. A. RITTMASTER. 1993. Ef- fects of human beach usage on the temporal distribution of loggerhead nesting activities. Pp. 222-227 in B. Schroeder and B. Witherington, eds. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conserva- tion. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-341. FEHRING, W. K. 1972. Hue discrimination in hatchling loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta caretta). Animal Be- haviour 20: 632-636. FERREIRA, S. N. M., G. C. M. FILHO, and V. J. PATIRI. 1992. The influence of artificial lighting on the reproduction of sea turtles. Unpublished report from the Eleventh Na- tional Seminar of Electrical Power Distribution, Bahia, Brazil. 20 p. FERRIS, J. S. 1986. Nest success and the survival and movement of hatchlings of the loggerhead sea turtle (Car- etta caretta) on Cape Lookout National Seashore. NPS- CPSU Technical Report 19.40 p. FINLEY, M. D, and A. J. Holick. 2003. Visibility performance requirements and testing procedures for pedestrian signal heads, FHWA Report No. FHWA/TX-04/0-4447-1. 64 p. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. 2010. Proposed Alternative Lighting Standards for Coastal Roadways Adjacent to Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches and Other Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Office of Planning and En- vironmental Management, District 4, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. 2014. Design Exceptions and Design Variations, Plans Prep- aration Manual, Vol. 1. Chapter 23. http://www.dot.state.fl. us/rddesign/PPMManual/2014PPM.shtm FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. 2013. External sign lighting on overhead signs, Roadway Design Bulletin13-12. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign Bulletin/RDB 13-12.pdf FLORIDA GREENBOOK, 2011. Manual of Uniform Mini- mum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways, Florida Department of Transportation. http://www. dot. state. fl.us/rddesign/FloridaGreenbook/FGB. shtm FRICK, J. 1976. Orientation and behavior of hatchling green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the sea. Animal Behaviour 24: 849-857. FRITSCHES, K.A. 2012. Australian loggerhead sea turtle hatchlings do not avoid yellow. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 45: 79-89. GALLAWAY, T., R. N. OLSEN, and D. M. MITCHELL. 2010. The economics of global light pollution. Ecological Economics 69: 658-665. GLEN, F., A. C. BOEDERICK, B. J. GODLEY, and G. C. HAYS. 2006. Thermal control of hatchling emergence patterns in marine turtles. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 334: 31-42. GRANDA, A. M., and K. W. HADEN. 1970. Retinal oil globule counts and distribution in two species of turtles: Pseudemys scripta elegans (Wied) and Chelonia mydas mydas (Linnaeus). Vision Research 10: 79-84. GRANDA, A. M., and P. J. O'SHEA. 1972. Spectral sensi- tivity of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas mydas) deter- mined by electrical responses to heterochromatic light. Brain Behavior and Evolution 5: 143-154. GRANDA, A. M., and C. A. DVORAK. 1977. Vision in tur- tles. Pp. 451-495 in F. Crescitelli, ed. Handbook of Sensory Physiology. Vol. VII/5. The Visual System in Vertebrates. Springer -Verlag, Berlin. HAILMAN, J. P., and A. M. ELOWSON. 1992. Ethogram of the nesting female loggerhead (Caretta caretta). Herpe- tologica 48: 1-30. HAREWOOD, A. and J. HORROCKS. 2008. Impacts of coastal development on hawksbill hatchling survival and swimming success during the initial offshore migration. Biological Conservation 141: 394-401. HAYES, W. N., and L. C. IRELAND. 1978. Visually guided behavior of turtles. Pp. 281-317 in D. I. Mostofsky, ed. The Behavior of Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms Academic Press, New York. 42 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Literature Cited Sea Turtles and Lighting HAYS, G. C., and J. R. SPEAKMAN. 1993. Nest placement by loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta Animal Behaviour 45: 47-53. HENDRICKSON, J. R. 1958. The green sea turtle, Che- lonia mydas (Linn.) in Malaya and Sarawak. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 130: 455-535. HIRTH, H. F., and D. A. SAMSON. 1987. Nesting behavior of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Caribbean Journal of Science 23: 374-379. HOLKER, F., T. MOSS, B. GRIEFAHN, W. KLOAS, C. C. VOIGT, D. HENCKEL, A. HANEL, P. M. KAPPELER, S. VOLKER, A. SCHWOPE, S. FRANKE, D. UHRLANDT, J. FISCHER, R. KLENKE, C.WOLTER, and K. TOCKNER. 2010. The dark side of light: a transdisciplinary research agenda for light pollution policy. Ecology and Society 15(4): 13 (online) URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org /vol15 /iss4/art13 HOOKER, D. 1907. Preliminary observations on the behavior of some newly hatched loggerhead turtles. Carnegie Institute Washington Yearbook 6: 111-112. HOOKER, D. 1908a. The breeding habits of the loggerhead turtle and some early instincts of the young. Science 27:490- 491. HOOKER, D. 1908b. Report on the instincts and habits of newly hatched loggerhead turtles. Carnegie Institute Washington Yearbook 7: 124. HOOKER, D. 1911. Certain reactions to color in the young loggerhead turtle. Papers from the Tortugas Laboratory, Carnegie Institute 132: 71-76. HORCH, K. W., J. P. GOCKE, M. SALMON, and R. B. FORWARD. 2008. Visual spectral sensitivity of hatchling loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) sea turtles, as determined by single -flash electro- retinography. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Phy- siology 41: 107-119. ILLUMINATING ENGINEERING SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA. 1999. Lighting for Exterior Environment, RP - 33 -99. New York. IRELAND, L. C., J. A. FRICK, and D. B. WINGATE. 1978. Nighttime orientation of hatchling green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in open ocean. Pp. 420-429 in K. Schmidt -Koenig and W. T. Keeton, eds Animal Migration, Navigation and Homing. Springer -Verlag, New York. JOHNSON, S. A., K. A. BJORNDAL, and A. B. BOLTEN. 1996. Effects of organized turtle watches on loggerhead (Caretta caretta) nesting behavior and hatchling production in Florida. Conservation Biology 10: 570-577. KAMROWSKI, R. L., C. LIMPUS, J. MOLONEY, and M. HARMANN. 2012. Coastal light pollution and marine tur- tles: assessing the magnitude of the problem. Endangered Species Research 19: 85-98. KAUFMAN, J. E., and J. F. CHRISTENSEN, eds. 1987. Pp. 2-15,2-16 in IES Lighting Handbook. Illuminating Engineer- ing Society of North America, New York. KAWAMURA, G., T. NAOHARA, Y. TANAKA, T. NISHI AND K. ANRAKU. 2009. Near -ultraviolet radiation guides the emerged hatchlings of loggerhead turtles (Caretta car- etta) from a nesting beach to the sea at night. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 42: 19-30. KYBA, C. C. M., T. RUHTZ, J. FISCHER, and F. HOLKER. 2011. Cloud coverage acts as an amplifier for ecological light pollution in urban ecosystems. PLoS One 6(3): e17307. doi:10.1371 /j ournal.pone.00173 07. LEACH, A. L. 1992. Sea turtle nesting summary report for Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. 1992. Unpublished report to Johnson Controls World Services Inc., Cape Canave- ral Air Force Station, Florida. 19 p. LEVENSON, D., S. ECKERT, M. CROGNALE, J. DEE- GAN, and G. JACOBS. 2006. Electroretinographic and genetic examination of sea turtle visual pigments. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-7, 117p. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/ LIEBMAN, P. A., and A. M. GRANDA. 1971. Micro - spectrophotometric measurements of visual pigments in two species of turtle, Pseudemys scripta and Chelonia mydas. Vision Research 11: 105-114. LIMPUS, C. J. 1971. Sea turtle ocean -finding behaviour. Search 2: 385-387. LIMPUS, C. J. 1991. Marine turtles of Raine Island, Australia. Unpublished paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, 26 February -2 March 1991, Jekyll Island, Georgia. LIMPUS, C., and R. L. KAMROWSKI. 2013. Ocean -finding in marine turtles: the importance of low horizon elevation as an orientation cue. Behaviour 150: 863-893. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 43 Sea Turtles and Lighting Literature Cited Witherington, Martin and Trindell LIMPUS, C., R. W. CARTER, and S. McLEAN. 1981. Lights and hatchling turtles: an education program. Marine Turtle Newsletter 19: 11. LOHMANN, K. J., M. SALMON, and J. WYNEKEN. 1990. Functional autonomy of land and sea orientation systems in sea turtle hatchlings. Biological Bulletin179: 214-218. LOHMANN, K. J., B. E. WITHERINGTON, C. M. F. LOHMANN, and M. SALMON. 1996. Orientation, naviga- tion, and natal beach homing in sea turtles. Pp. 107-135 in P. L. Lutz and J. A. Musick, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. LORNE, J. K., and M. SALMON. 2007. Effects of expo- sure to, artificial lighting on orientation of hatchling sea turtles on the beach and in the ocean. Endangered Species Research. 3: 23-30. MANN, T. M. 1977. Impact of developed coastline on nesting and hatchling sea turtles in southeastern Florida. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. MANN, T. M. 1978. Impact of developed coastline on nesting and hatchling sea turtles in southeastern Florida. Florida Marine Research Publications33: 53-55. MARTIN, R. E., R G. ERNEST, N. WILLIAMS-WALLS, and J. R WILCOX. 1989. Long-term trends in sea turtle nesting on Hutchinson Island, Florida. Pp. 111-113 in S. Eckert, K. Eckert, and T. Richardson, eds. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232. MATHGER, L. M., K. J. LOHMANN, C. J. LIMPUS, and K. A. FRITSCHES. 2011. An unsuccessful attempt to elicit orientation responses to linearly polarized light in hatchling loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Philosophical Trans- actions, the Royal Society, London Biological Sciences.366: 757-762 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC 3049016/ MATTISON, C., C. BURNEY, and L. FISHER. 1993. Trends in the spatial distribution of sea turtle activity on an urban beach (1981-1992). Pp. 102-104 in B. Schroeder and B. Witherington, eds. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conserva- tion. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-341. MAZOR, T., N. LEVIN, H. P. POSSINGHAM, Y. LEVY, D. ROCCHINI, A. J. RICHARDSON, and S. KARK. 2013. Can satellite -based night lights be used for conservation? The case of nesting sea turtles in the Mediterranean. Biological Conservation 159: 63-72. McFARLANE, R. W. 1963. Disorientation of loggerhead hatchlings by artificial road lighting. Copeia 1963: 153. MEYLAN, A., B. SCHROEDER, and A. MOSIER. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the state of Florida 1979-1992. Florida Marine Research Publications No. 52.51 p. MORTIMER, J. A. 1979. Ascension Island: British jeop- ardize 45 years of conservation. Marine Turtle Newsletter 10:7-8. MORTIMER, J. A. 1982. Factors affecting beach selection by nesting sea turtles. Pp. 45-51 in K. A. Bjorndal, ed. Biol- ogy and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. MROSOVSKY, N. 1970. The influence of the sun's position and elevated cues on the orientation of hatchling sea turtles. Animal Behaviour 18:648-651. MROSOVSKY, N. 1972. The water -finding ability of sea turtles. Brain Behavior and Evolution 5: 202-225. MROSOVSKY, N. 1977. Individual differences in the sea - finding mechanism of hatchling leatherback turtles. Brain Behavior and Evolution 14: 261-273. MROSOVSKY, N. 1978. Effects of flashing lights on sea - finding behavior of green turtles. Behavioral Biology 22: 85-91. MROSOVSKY, N., and A. CARR. 1967. Preference for light of short wavelengths in hatchling green sea turtles, Chelonia mydas, tested on their natural nesting beaches. Behaviour 28: 217-231. MROSOVSKY, N., A. M. GRANDA, and T. HAY. 1979. Seaward orientation of hatchling turtles: turning systems in the optic tectum. Brain Behavior and Evolution 16: 203-221. MROSOVSKY, N., and S. F. KINGSMILL. 1985. How tur- tles fmd the sea. Festschrift fur Tierpsychologie 67: 237-256. MROSOVSKY, N., and S. J. SHETTLEWORTH. 1968. Wavelength preferences and brightness cues in the water - finding behaviour of sea turtles. Behaviour 32: 211-257. MROSOVSKY, N., and S. J. SHETTLEWORTH. 1974. Further studies on the sea -finding mechanism in green turtle hatchlings. Behaviour 51: 195-208. 44 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Literature Cited Sea Turtles and Lighting MROSOVSKY, N., and S. J. SHETTLEWORTH. 1975. On the orientation circle of the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. Animal Behaviour 23: 568-591. MURPHY, T. 1985. Telemetric monitoring of nesting log- gerhead sea turtles subjected to disturbance on the beach. Unpublished paper presented at the Fifth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, 13-16 February 1985. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 259 p. NELSON, D. A. 1992. Night orientation in sea turtles. Pp. 83-86 in M. Salmon and J. Wyneken, eds. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- SEFSC-302. NEVILLE, A., W. D. WEBSTER, J. F. GOUVEIA, E. L. HENDRICKS, I. HENDRICKS, G. MARVIN, and W. H. MARVIN. 1988. The effects of nest temperature on hatchling emergence in the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Pp. 71-73 in B. A. Schroeder, ed. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-214. NORTHMORE, D. P. M., and A. M. GRANDA. 1982. Mecha- nisms of amphibious accommodation in turtles. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts 8: 699. NORTHMORE, D. P. M., and A. M. GRANDA. 1991. Ocular dimensions and schematic eyes of freshwater and sea turtles. Visual Neuroscience 7: 627-635. O'HARA, J. 1980. Thermal influences on the swimming speed of loggerhead turtle hatchlings. Copeia 1980: 773-780 PARKER, G. H. 1922. The crawling of young loggerhead turtles toward the sea. Journal of Experimental Zoology 6:323-331. PENDOLEY, K. 2000. The influence of gas flares on the ori- entation of green turtle hatchlings at Thevenard Island, Western Australia. Pp. 130-142 in N. Pilcher and I. Ghazally eds. Second ASEAN Symposium and Workshop on Sea Tur- tle biology and Conservation, Kotal Kinabalu., Malaysia, ASEAN Academic Press. PETERS, A., and K. J. F.VERHOEVEN. 1994. Impact of ar- tificial lighting on the seaward orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Journal of Herpetology28: 112-114. PETERSON, C. H., S. R. FEGLEY, C. M.VOSS, S. R. MARSCHHAUSER, and B. M. VANDUSEN. 2013. Con- servation implications of density -dependent predation by ghost crabs on hatchling sea turtles running the gauntlet to the sea. Marine Biology 160: 629-640. PHILIBOSIAN, R. 1976. Disorientation of hawksbill turtle hatchlings, Eretmochelys imbricata, by stadium lights. Copeia 1976: 824. PIOVANO S., A. FARCOMENI, and C. GIACOMA. 2013. Do colours affect biting behaviour in loggerhead sea turtles? Ethology Ecology and Evolution 25: 12-20. PITTENDRIGH, C. S, 1993. Temporal organization: Reflec- tions of a Darwinian clock -watcher, Ann. Review of Physiology 55: 16-54. PRITCHARD, P. C. H., and R. MARQUEZ M. 1973. Kemp's ridley turtle or Atlantic ridley, Lepidochelys kempii. IUCN Monograph No. 2. Marine Turtle Series. Morges, Switzerland. 30 p. PROFFITT, C. E., R. E. MARTIN, R. G. ERNEST, B. J. GRAUNKE, S. E. LECROY, K. A. MULDOON, B. D. PEERY, J. R. WILCOX, and N. WILLIAMS-WALLS. 1986. Effects of power plant construction and operation on the nesting of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta): 1971- 84. Copeia 1986: 813-816. RAYMOND, P. W. 1984a. Sea turtle hatchling disorienta- tion and artificial beachfront lighting. Center for Environmental Education, Washington, D.C. 72 p. RAYMOND, P. W. 1984b. The effects of beach restoration on marine turtles nesting in south Brevard County, Florida. Master's thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando. 112 p. REDWINE, L., R. L. HAUGER, J. CHRISTIAN, and M. IRWIN. 2000. Effects of sleep and sleep deprivation on Interleukin-6, growth hormone, Cortisol, and Melatonin lev- els in humans. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 85: 3597-3603. REINERS, R., M. SALMON, and C. LAVIN. 1993. Hatch- ling misorientation on an urban beach (Boca Raton, Florida). P. 146 in B. Schroeder and B. Witherington, eds. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- SEFC-341. RICH, C., and T. LONGCORE. 2013. Ecological conse- quences of artificial night lighting. Island Press. 479 p. ROSSOTTI, H. 1983. Colour. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 239 p. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 45 Sea Turtles and Lighting Literature Cited Witherington, Martin and Trindell RUSENKO, K., E. De MAYE, and A. CAMMACK. 2003. The first year of the Spanish River Park Embedded Roadway Lighting Project: response of sea turtle hatchlings Pp. 112- 113 in J.A. Seminoff, ed. Proceedings of the Twenty -Second Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-503.308 p. SALMON, M. 2003. Artificial night lighting and sea turtles. Biologist 5: 163-168. SALMON, M., and K. J. LOHMANN, 1989. Orientation cues used by hatchling loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta car- etta, L.) during offshore migration. Ethology 83: 215-228. SALMON, M., and B. E. WITHERINGTON. 1995. Artifi- cial lighting and seafinding by loggerhead hatchlings: Evidence for lunar modulation. Copeia 1995: 931-938. SALMON, M., and J. WYNEKEN. 1987. Orientation and swimming behavior of hatchling loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta L. during their offshore migration. Journal of Exp- erimental Marine Biology and Ecology109: 137-153. SALMON, M., and J. WYNEKEN. 1990. Do swimming log- gerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta L.) use light cues for offshore orientation? Marine Behavior and Physiology 17: 233-246. SALMON, M., R. REINERS, C. LAVIN, and J. WYNEKEN. 1995a. Behavior of loggerhead sea turtles on an urban beach. I. Correlates of nest placement. Journal of Herpetology 29: 560-567. SALMON, M., M. G. TOLBERT, D. P. PAINTER, M. GOFF, and R. REINERS. 1995b. Behavior of loggerhead sea turtles on an urban beach. II. Hatchling orientation. Journal of Herpetology 29: 568-576. SALMON, M., J. WYNEKEN, E. FRITZ, and M. LUCAS. 1992. Seafinding by hatchling sea turtles: role of brightness, silhouette and beach slope as orientation cues. Behaviour 122: 56-77. SALMON, M., J. WYNEKEN, and J. FOOTE, 2003. Impact of coastal roadway lighting 011 endangered and threatened sea turtles. Final Report BB -850. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, 108 p. SCHONE, H. 1984. Spatial Orientation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J. 347 p. STONEBURNER, D. L., and J. I. RICHARDSON. 1981. Observations on the role of temperature in loggerhead turtle nest site selection. Copeia 1981: 238-241. TALBERT, O. R., JR., S. E. STANCYK, J. M. DEAN, and J. M. WILL. 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in South Carolina. I. A rookery in transition. Copeia 1980: 709-719. THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. 2010-2013 Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulations. http: //ecodes.biz/ecodes support/Free Resources/2010Florida/2 010Florida main. TUXBURY, S. M., and M. SALMON. 2005. Competitive in- teractions between artificial lighting and natural cues during sea -finding by hatchling marine turtles. Biological Conserva- tion 121: 311-316. VAN DEN BERG, T. J. T.P, L. J VAN RIJN, R. KAPER- BONGERS, D.J. VONHOFF, H.J. VOLKER-DIEBEN, G. GRABNER, C. NISCHLER, M. EMESZ, H. WILHELM, D. GAMER, A SCHUSTER, L. FRANSSEN, G.C. DE WIT, and J. E. COPPENS. 2009. Disability glare in the aging eye. Assessment and impact on driving. Journal of Optometry, 02: 112-118. VAN METER, V. B. 1992. Florida's Sea Turtles. Florida Power and Light Company. 60 p. VAN RHIJN, F. A. 1979. Optic orientation in hatchlings of the sea turtle, Chelonia mydas. I. Brightness: not the only op- tic cue in sea -finding orientation. Marine Behavior and Physiology 6: 105-121. VAN RHIJN, F. A., and J. C. VAN GORKOM. 1983. Optic orientation in hatchlings of the sea turtle, Chelonia mydas. III. Sea-fmding behaviour: the role of photic and visual orientation in animals walking on the spot under laboratory conditions. Marine Behavior and Physiology 9: 211-228. VERHEIJEN, F. J. 1958. The mechanisms of the trapping ef- fect of artificial light sources upon animals Les Archives Neerlandaises de Zoologie 13: 1-107. VERHEIJEN, F. J. 1978. Orientation based on directivity, a directional parameter of the animals' radiant environment. Pp. 447-458 in K. Schmidt -Koenig and W. T. Keeton, eds. Animal Migration, Navigation, and Homing. Springer - Verlag, Berlin. VERHEIJEN, F. J. 1985. Photopollution: artificial light optic spatial control systems fail to cope with. Incidents, causa- tions, remedies. Experimental Biology 44: 1-18. VERHEIJEN, F. J., and J. T. WILDSCHUT. 1973. The pho- tic orientation of sea turtles during water finding behaviour. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 7: 53-67. 46 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Literature Cited Sea Turtles and Lighting VINCENT, G. K., and V. A. VELKOFF. 2010. The next four decades- The older population in the United States: 2010 to 2050. Population Estimates and Projections. U. S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C. 16 p. http://www.census.gov/prod /2010pubs/p25-113 8.pdf VOS, J. J. 2003. On the cause of disability glare and its de- pendence on glare angle, age and ocular pigmentation. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 86.6: 363-370. WANG, J. H., L. C. BOLES, B. HIGGINS, and K. J. LOHMANN. 2007. Behavioral responses of sea turtles to lightsticks used in longline fisheries. Animal Conservation 10: 176-182. WHELAN, C. L, and J. WYNEKEN. 2007. Estimating pre- dation levels and site-specific survival of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) from South Florida beaches. Copeia 2007 3: 745-754. WIBBLES, T. R. 1984. Orientation characteristics ofimma- ture Kemp's ridley sea turtles. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-131. 62 p. WILLIAMS-WALLS, N., J. O'HARA, R. M. GAL- LAGHER, D. F. WORTH, B. D. PEERY, and J. R. WIL- COX. 1983. Spatial and temporal trends of sea turtle nesting on Hutchinson Island, Florida, 1971-1979. Bulletin of Marine Science 33:55-66. WITHAM, R. 1982. Disruption of sea turtle habitat with emphasis on human influence. Pp. 519-522 in K. A Bjorndal, ed. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. WITHERINGTON, B. E. 1986. Human and natural causes of marine turtle clutch and hatchling mortality and their re- lationship to hatchling production on an important Florida nesting beach. Master's thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando. 141 p. WITHERINGTON, B. E. 1989. Beach lighting and the sea- ward orientation of hatchling sea turtles. Pp. 189-190 in S. Eckert, K. Eckert, and T. Richardson, eds. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232. WITHERINGTON, B. E. 1990. Photopollution on sea turtle nesting beaches: problems and next -best solutions. Pp. 43-45 in T. H. Richardson, J. I. Richardson, and M. Donnelly, eds. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-278. WITHERINGTON, B. E. 1991. Orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles at sea off artificially lighted and dark beaches. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 149: 1-11. WITHERINGTON, B. E. 1992a. Behavioral responses of nesting sea turtles to artificial lighting. Herpetologica 48: 31-39. WITHERINGTON, B. E. 1992b. Sea -finding behavior and the use of photic orientation cues by hatchling sea turtles. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. UMI Dissertation Information Service, Ann Arbor. 241 p. WITHERINGTON, B. E. 1992c. How are hatchling sea tur- tles able, and unable, to locate the sea? Pp. 127-130 in M. Salmon and J. Wyneken, eds. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-302. WITHERINGTON, B. E. 1997. The problem of photopol- lution for sea turtles and other nocturnal animals. Pp. 303- 328 in J. R. Clemmons and R. Buchholz, eds. Behavioral Approaches to Conservation in the Wild. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, England. WITHERINGTON, B. E., and K. A. BJORNDAL. 1991a. Influences of wavelength and intensity on hatchling sea turtle phototaxis: implications for sea -finding behavior. Copeia 1991:1060-1069. WITHERINGTON, B. E., and K. A. BJORNDAL. 1991b. Influences of artificial lighting on the seaward orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta). Biological Conservation 55:139-149. WITHERINGTON, B. E., C. CRADY, and L. BOLEN. 1996. A "hatchling orientation index" for assessing ori- entation disruption from artificial lighting. Pp. 344-347 in J. A. Keinath, D. E. Barnard, J. A. Musick, and B. A. Bell, eds. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-387. WITHERINGTON, B. E., P. KUBILIS, B. BROST, and A. MEYLAN. 2009. Decreasing annual nest counts in a globally important loggerhead sea turtle population. Ecological Applications 2009 19: 1, 30-54. WITHERINGTON, B. E., and M. SALMON. 1992. Preda- tion on loggerhead turtle hatchlings after entering the sea. Journal of Herpetology 26: 226-228. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 47 Sea Turtles and Lighting Literature Cited Witherington, Martin and Trindell WITZELL, W. N., and A. C. BANNER. 1980. The hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) in Western Samoa. Bulletin of Marine Science 30: 571-579. WOOD, D. W., K. A. BJORNDAL and S.T. ROSS. 2000. Relation of temperature, moisture, salinity and slope to nest site selection in loggerhead sea turtles. Copeia 1000: 119-128. WORTH, D. F., and J. B. SMITH. 1976. Marine turtle nesting on Hutchinson Island, Florida, in 1973. Florida Marine Research Publication 18: 1-17. WYNEKEN, J., M. SALMON and K. J. LOHMANN. 1990. Orientation by hatchling loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta L. in a wave tank. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 139: 43-50. ZISKIN, D., C. AUBRECHT, C. ELVIDGE, B. TUTTLE, K. BAUGH, and T. GHOSH. 2008. Encroachment of human activity on sea turtle nesting sites. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, Abstract B41A-0361, The Smith- sonian, NASA Astrophysics Data System, Washington D. C. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008 AGU FM .B41A0361Z 48 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 APPENDICES APPENDIX A The following is a list of artificial light sources grouped by the level of disruption they are likely to cause sea turtles. The criteria used to group the sources came from studies of physiological spectral sensitivity (Granda and O'Shea, 1972), hatchling orientation with respect to laboratory light sources (Mrosovsky and Carr, 1967; Mrosovsky and Shettleworth, 1968; Mrosovsky, 1972; With- erington and Bjorndal, 199la; Witherington, 1992b), and commercial light sources (Dickerson and Nelson, 1988, 1989; Wither- ington, 1989; Witherington and Bjorndal, 1991b; Ferreira et al., 1992; Nelson, 1992; Witherington, 1992b), and spectral profiles of commonly used lamps (Anonymous, 1983; Rossotti, 1983; Anonymous, 1989; Witherington and Bjorndal, 1991b). Effects are described as being extremely disruptive, highly disruptive, moderately disruptive, or minimally disruptive. White, broad-spectrum, short -arc lighting (extremely disruptive).—These light sources include xenon and mercury arc lamps and are the brightest and highest -energy light sources commonly used. They emit wavelengths rather evenly across the visible spectrum (which is why they appear white) and in the ultraviolet spectrum as well. They are used principally for temporary, intense lighting needs. White, broad-spectrum, electric -discharge lighting (extremely disruptive).—Mercury-vapor, metal -halide, and fluorescent -tube lighting are included in this group. Like sources in the preceding group, these sources emit wave- lengths across the visible spectrum. They are used both in- doors and out- doors. Fluorescent -tube lighting is becoming more common as an indoor source and is frequently used to light porches and outdoor signs. Color -phosphor and tinted -fluorescent lighting ("blacklight" ultraviolet, violet, blue, green, and mixtures of these colors) (extremely disruptive).—As revealed to some extent by their colors, these electric -discharge tube lamps emit light principally in the short -wavelength end of the visible spectrum. The so-called blacklight -type of fluo- rescent tubes, however, emit much of their light in the near - ultraviolet region. These blacklight tubes appear as a dim vi- olet color to humans but are very disruptive to sea turtle hatchlings. Blacklights are often used as insect attractants in insect -electrocuting bug zappers. Tubes of other colors are used principally for decorative applications. White, broad-spectrum, LED lighting (extremely dis- ruptive).—White LEDs are created either by mixing several different -colored light sources, including short -wavelength blue or green, or by combining shorter -wavelength blue light with phosphors. The latter method is preferred for better color rendition but produces a higher proportion of energy in the short -wavelength range, i.e., around 450 nm. LEDs pro- duce directional lighting that can be very bright and disrup- tive to marine turtles. White, broad-spectrum, incandescent lighting (ex- tremely disruptive).—Light emitted from incandescent sources comes from a glowing filament. This group in- cludes quartz–tungsten–halogen and simple tungsten -fila- ment sources. Without tinting, these sources emit wave- lengths throughout the visible spectrum but less short - wavelength light than the sources described above. Incan- descent sources are commonly used as outdoor flood- lights, as indoor lighting (i.e., the common light bulb), and as transient lighting (e.g., flashlights, lanterns, electric torches). Color -tinted incandescent lighting (blue and green) (extremely disruptive).—These colored sources are tinted so that they emit principally short -wavelength light; they are often used in decorative applications. White, pressurized -fuel, glowing -element lanterns (extremely disruptive).—These portable lanterns are used for camping, fishing, and other transient nighttime activi- ties. High-pressure sodium vapor (HPS) lighting (highly disruptive).—HPS sources emit light with minor wavelength peaks in the blue and green regions and major peaks in the yellow and orange regions of the visible spec- trum. The color of HPS sources is whitish golden to peach. Although less disruptive than the broad-spectrum white sources listed above, HPS is one of the most commonly used outdoor light sources in the United States and many other countries and is one of the most common causes of hatchling misorientation and mortality. Open fires (moderately to highly disruptive).—Alt- hough fires are temporary light sources and emit less short -wavelength light than the sources mentioned above, they have been documented as a significant source of hatchling mortality. Unlike other attractive light sources, fires can kill hatchlings quickly (hatchlings are known to crawl into fires and die). The size and temperature of a fire determine how attractive it is to hatchlings. Gas -flame 50 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Appendix A Sea Turtles and Lighting applications vary widely in color temperature (1800 — 3000 K) but in general bare flames are redder than most HID lamps (HPS, MH, MV). Flames are ineffi- cient in terms of both energy converted to visible light and in terms of light control, making them difficult to impossible to shield. Almost none of the conventional "good" light fixtures are usable for flame light. Yellow -phosphor and amber -tinted fluores- cent lighting and red tubes (moderately disrup- tive).—Yellow and amber fluorescent tubes emit prin- cipally red, yellow, and green wavelengths but do not exclude light in the blue region of the spectrum so well as do yellow incandescent bulbs. Yellow and am- ber fluorescent tubes are not generally marketed as bug lights. Although they are more disruptive to sea turtles than yellow incandescent bulbs, yellow and amber fluorescents are far better than white or other colored tubes for use near nesting beaches. But the hue of these yellow fluorescent lamps varies with manufacturer and so yellow florescent can have a range of effects on sea -finding in hatchlings. Red tubes are typically used for decoration and can be of two types: red (or reddish) phosphor -fluorescent tubes and red neon tubes. Reddish or red -purple fluo- rescent tubes can be very disruptive, depending upon the amount of short -wavelength light that they emit (purplish lights emit both blue and red light). Neon tubes are covered below. Lamps with yellow or orange dichroic long - pass filters (minimally to moderately disruptive).— Because these filters are very good at attenuating short wavelengths, the type of lamp used with them matters little. Consequently, these filters may allow the use of lamps like metal -halide and HPS that have small and easily focused elements i.e., part of the lamp actually producing light. These lamps can be used in more directional fixtures to reduce stray light. Dichroic filters are not standard off-the-shelf accesso- ries for commercial fixtures but they have been used in some outdoor applications near nesting beaches. Color -tinted incandescent lighting (yellow and red) (minimally to moderately disruptive). Yellow or amber incandescent light bulbs (bug lights) are generally only weakly attractive to hatchlings for the same reason that they attract few insects—they emit low amount of light, in short -wavelength range. Alt- hough they are minimally disruptive for the most part, bug lights can interfere with sea -finding if they are numerous, of high wattage, or close to the nesting beach. Red -tinted incandescent sources are more var- iable in color than bug lights. Some red sources can turn purple or pinkish over time and become more at- tractive to hatchlings. Low-pressure sodium vapor (LPS) lighting (minimally disruptive).—LPS is by far the least dis- ruptive light source among those commonly used. LPS sources emit a light that is pure (i.e., monochro- matic) yellow, a region of the spectrum that is only weakly attractive or even aversive (for loggerheads, and only at greater intensities) to orienting hatchlings. Because LPS sources have poor color rendition, they are used principally for outdoor applications. Amber- and red -LED) lighting (minimally dis- ruptive).—LED lamps are now available for a variety of exterior uses, from embedded roadway lights, to pathlights, to bollard and pole lights. Red LEDs come close to being ideal for use near sea turtle nesting beaches. Red LEDs emit a pure -red light that does not vary in color over the life of the lamp. Amber LEDs are also available, but some may emit short -wave- length light. Only amber LED lamps that emit light in the 560 -nm range or greater are appropriate for use adjacent to a sea turtle nesting beach when used in a full cut-off, well -shielded downward -directed fixture. LEDs are small and directional and typically light only a limited area. They are easy to hide from the beach and have a very long life. Green and amber LEDs are marketed but are much less strongly pre- ferred than red. Neon tubes (minimally disruptive).—True neon tubes (not tinted tubes) are a pure -red light source. Neon is used almost exclusively for decorative pur- poses. Neon tubes can be difficult to shield, but their color makes them minimally disruptive. Potential ap- plications include pathway and ground- level lighting. Transient light sources (flashlights, electric torches, flash photography) (disruptive characteris- tics vary).—This lighting is placed in a separate cate- gory because it is generally in use for relatively short time periods. Most of these sources have white incan- descent lamps and can be expected to affect sea turtles as the incandescent sources above do. Transient sources are well-known disruptors of sea -finding be- havior in hatchlings and adults, but researchers are less certain about how transient sources may affect nesting turtles or those emerging from the ocean to nest. Many workers in the field believe that flashlights and flashes from cameras can turn emerging turtles back to the sea and alter the behavior of nesting tur- tles. Until additional evidence suggests otherwise, transient light sources should be used sparingly on sea turtle nesting beaches. If hand-held lighting is to be used, red LED flashlights should be used during nest- ing season and only when ambient light is not suffi- cient for human vision. As an alternative, deep -red FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 51 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix A Witherington, Martin and Trindell filters can be fastened over the lens of the source. Red light appears much brighter to humans than it does to sea turtles and does not degrade the night vision of people using it. People using red light can acclimate to the dark, and most are surprised by how well they can see by starlight and moonlight alone. 52 Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 APPENDIX B A table of lamp types and their efficiency. Information sources were the lighting manufacturers and distribu- tors listed in Appendix G. General suitability is based upon the lamp characteristics that may affect sea turtle nesting and hatchling orientation. Lamp Type General Suitability Efficiency for Sea (lumens Turtle per watt, Directional Nesting lamp Common Control of Beaches only) Wattages Light Initial Fixture Cost White incandescent (including tungsten halogen) poor 15-25 15-1,500 excellent low Red or amber LED good 17-98 4-28 excellent moderate high White fluorescent poor 55-100 9-219 fair moderate Metal -halide poor 80-100 70-1,000 good high Mercury-vapor poor 20-60 40-1,000 good moderate high High- pressure sodium vapor poor—fair 67-140 35-1,000 good high Low-pressure Sodium vapor good 180 18-180 fair high FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 53 APPENDIX C ACCEPTABLE LAMPS, BULBS AND OTHER LIGHT SOURCES Long wavelength lamps, e.g., those that produce light at 560 nm or greater, are appropriate for use adjacent to sea turtle nesting beaches. In general, the following types of lamps can be used in full cut-off, well shielded downward directed fixtures mounted as low as possible in coastal areas adjacent to sea turtle nesting beaches. ACCEPTABLE LAMPS • Red, orange or amber LED (true red, orange or amber diodes, not filters) • True red neon • Low Pressure Sodium (LPS) 18W, 35W • Other lighting sources that produce light of 560 nm or longer FWC-recommended lamps are listed at http://www.myfwc.com/conservation/you-conserve/lighting /certified/bulbs/. Lamps are properly employed if they are not visible from the beach. Many amber or red LED bulbs can be used in place of white light bulbs in egress fixtures (e.g., porch, balcony, doorway, walkway, stairway, and security lighting) and can be used in conjunction with motion -detecting fixtures. Bright white—light lamps (metal halide, halogen, fluorescent, mercury vapor, and incandescent lamps) are extremely disruptive to adult and hatchling sea turtles and should not be used either directly adjacent to the beach or in areas where even their glow might be visible from the beach. Filters and other types of lenses placed over full -spectrum white lights are unreliable and do not reduce the potential of impacts on nesting and hatchling marine turtles. Incandescent lamps, including yellow, bug - light bulbs, are not suitable for use near nesting beaches, because yellow or amber color alone does not ensure protection for hatchling orientation. 54 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 APPENDIX D ACCEPTABLE FIXTURES The following table describes common styles of light fixtures that may be suitable for use near sea turtle nesting beaches if they are employed properly. Fixtures are properly employed if their light is not directly or indirectly vis- ible from the beach. Low-pressure sodium lamps are considered conditionally acceptable for use near nesting beaches if they can be positioned so that their light is not directly or indirectly visible from the beach. In all cases, LPS fixtures are greatly preferred to comparable incandescent or HID (high-intensity discharge) fixtures if red or amber LEDs are not available for an application. All exterior fixtures on the seaward side and on the sides of the building perpendicular to the shore (and on the landward side of the building if they are visible from the beach) should be well shielded, full cut-off, downward directed fixtures. All exterior fixtures on the landward side of the building should be downward directed only. Fixture type Mounting type and height Location Comments Ceiling mount cylinder (with interior black baffles) Ceiling surface If located on the side of structure perpendicular to or facing the beach, use on ground floor only. Matte -black non - reflective interior baffles are recommended. Wall mount cylinder down light (with interior black baffles) Wall mount downward directed 8 ft. from floor. If located on the side of structure perpendicular to or facing the beach, use on first habitable floor only. Matte -black non - reflective interior baffles are recommended. Hex -cell (honeycomb) louvers may be required to decrease wall wash. Recessed -ceiling canister Recessed ceiling If located on the side of structure perpendicular to or facing the beach, use on ground floor only. Interior black baffles Hex -cell (honeycomb) louver. Recessed and wall -mounted step lights (louvered or downward directed) Wall mount maximum height 24 in. on ground floor only; above ground floor maximum height 12 in. Ground floor and second level, and pool deck. If on perimeter of pool deck, must be mounted directed away from beach. Bollard (with downward -directed non -reflective louvers) Maximum height 42 in, Parking areas, commercial walkway, landscape, pathway and pool deck. 180° to 270° external beach side shields on any fixture on perimeter of pool deck or immediately adjacent to beach. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 55 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix D Witherington, Martin and Trindell Fixture type Mounting type and height Location Comments HID full cutoff pole lights Pole, maximum height 12 ft. Parking area, landward side of structure only. Beach side shields or louvers for any fixture within line of sight of beach. Paver lights In -ground mount Parking areas, driveways, pathways, pool decks. Landscape/pathway lighting Ground mount at 12 in. Ground level, landscape Signage Must be mounted with light directed down onto sign; or, use backlit channel lettering. Sign should be on landward side of structure when possible and mounted perpendicular to the beach. Garage lighting Garage ceiling Garage If parking garage is open so that the interior is visible from any section of beach, only LPS or amber/orange LED lamps may be used. Additional shields may be necessary if parking is above ground level. Water feature lighting Light must be downward or horizontally directed and not directed up. Submerged lights are only recommended on landward side of structure and only if fully shielded from beach by structure. Emergency egress lighting Short -wavelength - tamped emergency egress fixtures should be on a separate circuit that will illuminate fixtures only during a power outage. Channel/rope lighting Must be mounted recessed under steps, bar, etc., and directed downward. Rail lighting and Tivoli lighting can be used for lighting stairways, steps, pool decks, pool bars and handrails. 56 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Appendix D Sea Turtles and Lighting Remarks: • All fixtures should be positioned so that vegetation, topography, or buildings screen the light from the beach, or the fixture should be equipped with shields so that light sources are not visible from the beach. • For illuminating stairways and walkways, lighting hidden within hand rails or recessed at foot to waist level within walls is generally preferred over elevated lighting. • Linear strip lighting mounted at foot level along walking paths or stairways is greatly preferred over ele- vated lighting. • HID (high-pressure sodium, metal halide) fixtures are not recommended for applications within 50 m of a nesting beach or for which luminaires are visible from a nesting beach. Red- or amber -LED and LPS fix- tures are greatly preferred over HID fixtures for applications near nesting beaches. • Full -cutoff luminaires are preferred to less -directional luminaires that include globe -style, cube -style, and cobra -head lighting. • Specific reflectors can be used with any fixture to still better direct light. • Arm -mounted LPS fixtures are greatly preferred over HID fixtures for the same applications. • Floodlighting should only be used where absolutely necessary for crowd control or other high -usage areas. Floodlighting is properly directed if it faces away from the beach and is mounted at an elevated position facing downward rather than mounted low and facing upward. All floodlights must be fully shielded and downward directed. • In all cases, care should be taken not to brightly illuminate buildings and other large objects visible from the nesting beach. • Lighting fixtures outfitted with a motion detector illuminate when approached by a moving object and re- main on for a specified time, which can be set at the fixture. This specified time should be 30 seconds or less for a fixture near a nesting beach. To maximally reduce impacts to sea turtles, long -wavelength bulbs, such as red or amber LEDs, should be used with these fixtures. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 57 APPENDIX E Diagrams of common lighting fixtures showing mounting position, light distribution, and overall suitability for use near sea turtle nesting beaches. For purposes of recommending suitable mounting distances from nesting beaches, the crest of the primary dune is considered to be the landward limit of the beach. Fixtures are assessed for their suitability in minimizing direct and indirect lighting of the beach. For all fixtures, glowing portions of luminaires (including reflectors and globes) should not be visible from the nesting beach. WALL -MOUNTED AREA LIGHTING MOUNTING SUITABILITY Poor; very poor when mounted on upper stories. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Poor. OVERALL SUITABILITY Poor; not suitable for the beach sides of buildings. WALL -MOUNTED AREA LIGHTING; WALL PAK MOUNTING SUITABILITY Poor; very poor when mounted on upper stories. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Poor. OVERALL SUITABILITY Poor; not suitable for the beach sides of buildings. DECORATIVE CUBE LIGHT MOUNTING SUITABILITY Fair if mounted at heights lower than 6 ft.; poor if mounted higher. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Very poor. OVERALL SUITABILITY Very poor. This fixture is difficult to shield and should not be used near nesting beaches. 58 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Appendix E Sea Turtles and Lighting POLE -MOUNTED FLOODLIGHTING WITH FULL VISOR MOUNTING SUITABILITY Good if directed downward and away from the beach. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Good. OVERALL SUITABILITY Good if directed downward and away from the nesting beach and if light does not illuminate objects visible from the beach. POLE TOP -MOUNTED CUTOFF LIGHTING, SHOEBOX FIXTURE MOUNTING SUITABILITY Good to poor, depending on mounting height. Mounting height should be no more than 15 ft. within 300 ft. of a nesting beach. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Fair to good, as determined by reflectors. OVERALL SUITABILITY Fair to good when mounting heights are low. DECORATIVE GLOBE LIGHT MOUNTING SUITABILITY Fair if mounted at heights lower than 6 ft.; poor if mounted higher. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Very poor. OVERALL SUITABILITY Very poor. This fixture is difficult to shield and should not be used near nesting beaches. LIGHTING BOLLARD WITH HIDDEN LAMP MOUNTING SUITABILITY Good if mounting height is near 3 ft. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Poor to fair. OVERALL SUITABILITY Fair; good if additional shields on the beach side of the fixture are used. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 59 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix E Witherington, Martin and Trindell LOW -HEIGHT (SHORT) MUSHROOM LIGHTING MOUNTING SUITABILITY Good if mounted at foot level. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Poor. OVERALL SUITABILITY Fair; good to excellent if used so that vegetation and topography block its light from the beach. LOW -HEIGHT (SHORT) TIER LIGHTING MOUNTING SUITABILITY Good if mounted at foot level. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Poor but can be good if the fixture has louvers that eliminate lateral light. OVERALL SUITABILITY Fair; good to excellent if used so that vegetation and topography block its light from the beach. LIGHTING BOLLARD WITH LOUVERS MOUNTING SUITABILITY Good if mounted at foot level. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Poor but can be good if the fixture has louvers that eliminate lateral light. OVERALL SUITABILITY Fair; good to excellent if used so that vegetation and topography block its light from the beach. GROUND -MOUNTED FLOODLIGHTING MOUNTING SUITABILITY Poor, because of its upward aim DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Fair to good. OVERALL SUITABILITY Fair to poor if directed away from the beach, wry poor if directed toward the beach. 60 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix E Witherington, Martin and Trindell POLE -MOUNTED FLOODLIGHTING MOUNTING SUITABILITY Fair if directed downward and away from the beach. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Fair to good. OVERALL SUITABILITY Fair to good if aimed downward and directly away from the nesting beach and if light does not illuminate objects visible from the beach. Otherwise, poor to very poor. ARM -MOUNTED AREA LIGHTING, OPEN -BOTTOM OR BARN -LIGHT FIXTURE MOUNTING SUITABILITY Poor to very poor, depending upon mounting height. Should not be mounted higher than 15 ft. within 500 ft. of a nesting beach. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Poor if unshielded; fair if shielded. OVERALL SUITABILITY Poor. ARM -MOUNTED AREA LIGHTING; DECORATIVE PENDANT FIXTURE MOUNTING SUITABILITY Poor to very poor, depending upon mounting height. Should not be mounted higher than 15 ft. within 500 ft. of a nesting beach. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Poor. Difficult to shield properly. OVERALL SUITABILITY Poor. DECORATIVE CARRIAGE LIGHTING MOUNTING SUITABILITY Fair if mounted at heights lower than 6 ft; poor if mounted higher. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Very poor; fair if properly shielded. OVERALL SUITABILITY Poor FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 61 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix E Witherington, Martin and Trindell ARM -MOUNTED CUTOFF LIGHTING; SHOEBOX FIXTURE MOUNTING SUITABILITY Good to poor, depending on mounting height. Mounting height should be no more than 15 ft. within 300 ft. of a nesting beach. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Fair to good, as determined by reflectors. OVERALL SUITABILITY Fair to good when mounting heights are low and fixtures are aimed directly downward. ARM -MOUNTED AREA LIGHTING; COBRA -HEAD FIXTURE MOUNTING SUITABILITY Poor to very poor, depending on mounting height. Mounting height should be no more than 15 ft. within 300 ft. of a nesting beach. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Poor. Difficult to shield properly. OVERALL SUITABILITY Poor. ARM -MOUNTED AREA LIGHTING; FLAT -FACE CUTOFF FIXTURE MOUNTING SUITABILITY Good to poor, depending on pole height. Mounting height should be no more than 15 ft. within 300 ft. of a nesting beach. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Fair to good, as determined by reflectors. OVERALL SUITABILITY Fair to good when mounting heights are low. SIGN LIGHTING; BOTTOM-UP STYLE MOUNTING SUITABILITY Poor, because of its potential for producing uplight scatter. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Poor to good. OVERALL SUITABILITY Poor. Signs near nesting beaches should be lighted from the top down. In no case should lighted signs be visible from the beach. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix E Witherington, Martin and Trindell SIGN LIGHTING TOP-DOWN STYLE MOUNTING SUITABILITY Good. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Poor to good. OVERALL SUITABILITY: Generally good if the sign is not visible from the beach and if the lighting is well aimed. ARM -MOUNTED AREA LIGHTING, FIXTURES WITH REFRACTING GLOBES OR CONVEX LENSES MOUNTING SUITABILITY Poor to very poor, depending upon mounting height. Mounting height should be no more than 15 ft. within 500 ft. of a nesting beach. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Poor. Fair to good if shielded properly. OVERALL SUITABILITY Poor. CEILING -MOUNTED AREA LIGHTING, FIXTURES WITH REFRACTING GLOBES OR CONVEX LENSES MOUNTING SUITABILITY Poor if mounted on the beach sides of buildings or on upper stories. Good if shielded from the beach by buildings. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Poor. OVERALL SUITABILITY Poor to fair, depending upon mounting location. CEILING -RECESSED DOWNLIGHTING WITH BAFFLES TO ELIMINATE LATERAL LIGHT MOUNTING SUITABILITY Good to excellent when mounted in lower -story ceilings and soffits. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Excellent. OVERALL SUITABILITY Good to excellent. 111 1 FMRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 63 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix E Witherington, Martin and Trindell WALL -MOUNTED AREA LIGHTING, "JELLY -JAR" PORCH LIGHT FIXTURE MOUNTING SUITABILITY Poor. Very poor when mounted on upper stories. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Poor. OVERALL SUITABILITY Poor. LINEAR TUBE LIGHTING MOUNTING SUITABILITY Excellent if mounted at foot level. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Fair to poor, but this lighting is of concern only if mounted high or if large numbers of high -wattage (>3 W) lamps are used. OVERALL SUITABILITY Excellent if low -wattage strips are used sparingly in recessed areas. LOUVERED STEP LIGHTING MOUNTING SUITABILITY Excellent if mounted at foot level. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Excellent. OVERALL SUITABILITY Excellent. WALL -MOUNTED DOWNLIGHTING MOUNTING SUITABILITY Good to excellent when mounted on lower -story walls. DIRECTIONAL SUITABILITY Excellent. OVERALL SUITABILITY Good to excellent. 64 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Appendix E Sea Turtles and Lighting Diagrams depicting solutions to two common lighting problems near sea turtle nesting beaches balcony or porch lighting and parking -lot lighting. BALCONY OR PORCH LIGHTING POOR Poorly directed balcony lighting can cause problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. BETTER Completely shielding fixtures with a sheet of metal flashing can reduce stray light reaching the beach. BEST Louvered step lighting is one of the best ways to light balconies that are visible from nesting beaches. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 65 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix E Witherington, Martin and Trindell PARKING -LOT LIGHTING POOR Poorly directed parking lot lighting can cause problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. BETTER Fixtures with 90°cutoff angles can reduce the amount of stray light reaching the beach. MUCH BETTER Fully hooded floods can direct light accurately and reduce stray light even more. BEST 66 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 APPENDIX F LAWS AND REGULATIONS PROTECTING SEA TURTLES Several local, state, and federal laws and regulations have been enacted to protect sea turtles. Some of these, especially at the local level, specifically address the issue of the nega- tive impact of lighting on the sea turtle nesting and hatching habitats by mandating measures to avoid or minimize these impacts. Current laws and regulations are summarized below. FEDERAL LAW The five species of sea turtles found in Florida waters—the loggerhead, leatherback, green turtle, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley—are all protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as endangered, except the loggerhead, which is listed as threatened. About 90% of all loggerheads nesting in the United States nest in Florida. One of the pur- poses of the ESA is to enable the preservation of the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend. The ESA also requires developing a program for the conservation of such species through implementation of re- covery plans. The ESA makes it unlawful to take a listed animal without a permit. To take is defined as "to harass, harm, pur- sue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." Through regulations, harm is the result of "an act which actually kills or injures wildlife." Such an act may include "significant habitat modification or degradation when it kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavior pat- terns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering." (Federal Register, 1999) Through the ESA, the National Oceanic and At- mospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have been directed to develop and implement conservation plans, known as recovery plans. A recovery plan has been implemented for each of the five species of sea turtles found in Florida waters. Pursuant to a memoran- dum of agreement between NOAA and the FWS, the juris- diction over listed sea turtles is shared: FWS has responsibility for sea turtles primarily in the terrestrial environment, while NMFS has responsibility for sea turtles primarily in the marine environment. FLORIDA LAWS Florida has its own Marine Turtle Protection Act (Florida Statutes 379.2431 (1). Following are the excerpts from the law: 379.2431 Marine animals; regulation (1) PROTECTION OF MARINE TURTLES. (a) This subsection may be cited as the "Marine Turtle Protection Act." (b) The Legislature intends, pursuant to the provisions of this subsection, to ensure that the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has the appropriate authority and resources to implement its responsibilities under the recovery plans of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for the following species of marine turtle 1. Atlantic loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). 2. Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas). 3. Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). 4. Atlantic hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). 5. Atlantic ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempi). (c) As used in this subsection, the following phrases have the following meanings A "properly accredited person" is: a. Students of colleges or universities whose studies with saltwater animals are under the direction of their teacher or professor; or b. Scientific or technical faculty of public or private colleges or universities; or c. Scientific or technical employees of private research insti- tutions and consulting firms; or d. Scientific or technical employees of city, county, state, or federal research or regulatory agencies; or e. Members in good standing or recognized and properly chartered conservation organizations, the Audubon Society, or the Sierra Club; or f. Persons affiliated with aquarium facilities or museums, or contracted as an agent therefor, which are open to the public with or without an admission fee; or g. Persons without specific affiliations listed above, but who are recognized by the commission for their contributions to marine conservation such as scientific or technical publica- tions, or through a history of cooperation with the commission in conservation programs such as turtle nesting surveys, or through advanced educational programs such as high school marine science centers. h. "Take" means an act that actually kills or injures marine turtles, and includes significant habitat modification or deg- radation that kills or injures marine turtles by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. (d) Except as authorized in this paragraph, or unless other- wise provided by the Federal Endangered Species Act or its implementing regulations, a person, firm, or corporation may not: 1. Knowingly possess the eggs of any marine turtle species described in this subsection. 2. Knowingly take, disturb, mutilate, destroy, cause to be destroyed, transfer, sell, offer to sell, molest, or harass any marine turtles or the eggs or nest of any marine turtles de- scribed in this subsection. 3. The commission may issue a special permit or loan agreement to any person, firm, or corporation, to enable the holder to possess a marine turtle or parts thereof, including nests, eggs, or hatchlings, for scientific, education, or exhibi- tion purposes, or for conservation activities such as the relocation of nests, eggs, or marine turtles away from construction sites. Notwithstanding other provisions of law, the commission may issue such special permit or loan agree- FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 67 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix F Witherington, Martin and Trindell ment to any properly accredited person as defined in paragraph (c) for the purposes of marine turtle conservation. 4. The commission shall have the authority to adopt rules pursuant to chapter 120 to prescribe terms, conditions, and restrictions for marine turtle conservation, and to permit the possession of marine turtles or parts thereof. (e)1. Any person, firm, or corporation that commits any act prohibited in paragraph (d) involving any egg of any marine turtle species described in this subsection shall pay a penalty of $100 per egg in addition to other penalties provided in this paragraph. 2. Any person, firm, or corporation that illegally possesses 11 or fewer of any eggs of any marine turtle species de- scribed in this subsection commits a first degree misdemeanor, punishable as provided in §§. 775.082 and 775.083. 3. For a second or subsequent violation of subparagraph 2., any person, firm, or corporation that illegally possesses 11 or fewer of any eggs of any marine turtle species described in this subsection commits a third degree felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. 4. Any person, firm, or corporation that illegally possesses more than 11 of any eggs of any marine turtle species de- scribed in this subsection commits a third degree felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. 5. Any person, firm, or corporation that illegally takes, dis- turbs, mutilates, destroys, causes to be destroyed, transfers, sells, offers to sell, molests, or harasses any marine turtle species, or the eggs or nest of any marine turtle species as described in this subsection, commits a third degree felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. 6. Notwithstanding s. 777.04, any person, firm, or corpora- tion that solicits or conspires with another person, firm, or corporation, to commit an act prohibited by this subsection commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. 7. The proceeds from the penalties assessed pursuant to this paragraph shall be deposited into the Marine Resources Con- servation Trust Fund. (f) Any application for a Department of Environmental Protection permit or other type of approval for an activity that affects marine turtles or their nests or habitat shall be subject to conditions and requirements for marine turtle pro- tection as part of the permitting or approval process. (g) The Department of Environmental Protection may con- dition the nature, timing, and sequence of construction of permitted activities to provide protection to nesting marine turtles and hatchlings and their habitat pursuant to the provi- sions of s. 161.053(5). When the depot tment is considering a permit for a beach restoration, beach renourishment, or inlet sand transfer project and the applicant has had an active ma- rine turtle nest relocation program or the applicant has agreed to and has the ability to administer a program, the department must not restrict the timing of the project. Where appropriate, the department, in accordance with the applica- ble rules of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, shall require as a condition of the permit that the applicant relocate and monitor all turtle nests that would be affected by the beach restoration, beach renourishment, or sand transfer activities. Such relocation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in a manner that ensures successful hatching. This limitation on the department's authority applies only on the Atlantic coast of Florida. (h) The department shall recommend denial of a permit ap- plication if the activity would result in a "take" as defined in this subsection, unless, as provided for in the federal Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations, such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carry- ing out of an otherwise lawful activity. (i) The department shall give special consideration to beach preservation and beach nourishment projects that restore habitat of endangered marine turtle species. Nest relocation shall be considered for all such projects in urbanized areas. When an applicant for a beach restoration, beach renourish- ment, or inlet sand transfer project has had an active marine turtle nest relocation program or the applicant has agreed to have and has the ability to administer a program, the depart- ment in issuing a permit for a project must not restrict the timing of the project. Where appropriate, the department, in accordance with the applicable rules of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, shall require as a condition of the permit that the applicant relocate and monitor all turtle nests that would be affected by the beach restoration, beach re - nourishment, or sand transfer activities. Such relocation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in a manner that ensures successful hatching. This limitation on the depart- ment's authority applies only on the Atlantic coast of Florida. This Statute gives FWC the authority to implement its re- sponsibilities under the recovery plans of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition to the above Florida Statute, Chapter 62B-55 of Florida Administrative Code (FAC) directly ad- dresses the issues concerning negative lighting impacts on sea turtles and includes the Model Lighting Ordinance for Marine Turtle Protection. It states that the statute "is intended to guide local governments in developing ordinanc- es which will protect hatchling marine turtles from the adverse effects of artificial lighting, provide overall improvement in nesting habitat degraded by light pollution, and increase nesting activity and production of hatchlings." It also contains model standards for new as well as existing beachfront lighting; this law is being considered for updating to reflect more recent technologies. LOCAL LAWS As of July 2013, 21 Counties have adopted lighting ordi- nances to protect nesting sea turtles and hatchlings from 68 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Appendix F Sea Turtles and Lighting artificial lighting. In addition, 82 municipalities have also passed lighting ordinances. OTHER FEDERAL and STATE LAWS Development along coastal regions is regulated by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), which recognizes the importance of coastal habitats to sea turtles and other wildlife and establishes the Coastal Barrier Resources System. The CBRA does not prohibit private development, but restricts federal funding that may directly or indirectly encourage development within these areas. This includes flood insurance, disaster relief, beach renourishement pro- jects, or the construction of new federal highways or other infrastructure. Through the Coastal Zone Management Act, the federal government supports coastal states in the develop- ment and implementation of management programs to achieve the best use of coastal lands. These management plans consider ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values and promote compatible economic development. The Florida Beach and Shore Preservation Act, Florida Statute 161, and the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) program administered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) also regu- lates development along the coastline of Florida. The purpose of the CCCL is to protect the coastal system from structures and construction practices that may negatively impact beaches, dunes, sea turtles or other natural resources. Chapter 62B-33.005 (11) and (12), Florida Administrative Code, require protection of dunes, native vegetation, and marine turtles. This includes special conditions for construction activities that include shielding lighting and tinting windows from which lighting might reach the beach and alter sea turtle nesting behavior. General conditions in Chapter 62B-34-050 (4) specify appropriate exterior lighting for single family homes and require protection of dunes and native vegetation. ENFORCEMENT The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) are the two agencies responsible for enforcing the conservation and recovery of sea turtle populations in Florida. USFWS has the authority to pursue civil penalties against the owners of the lights that are identified to harm sea turtles and can refer the case to the Department of Justice to pursue criminal penalties. Although the role of the light- ing custodian (typically a private property owner, municipality or private utility) is important, the party ultimately responsible to the USFWS for resolving the prob- lem may be the entity responsible for funding the lighting service, permitting the light, or the owner of the light. The FWC is responsible for enforcing Florida's Marine Turtle Protection Act and for assisting with national sea turtle recovery efforts through a cooperative agreement with USFWS. Under this agreement, FWC permits qualified individuals to conduct sea turtle conservation activities inc- luding those on nesting beaches in the state. Whenever obvious signs of hatchling disorientation are observed, a report including the potential light source that may have caused the disorientation is sent to the FWC by local inspec- tors. If a lighting ordinance is in effect, either the FWC- authorized permit holder or the FWC furnishes a copy of the report to the local code enforcement department for action. If no lighting ordinance is in effect, the property owner may be notified directly. If the violation is not addressed within a reasonable timeframe, records of such persistent lighting problems may be furnished to the USFWS for federal prose- cution under the ESA. Regulating agencies prefer first to work with individual and institutions involved in lighting impacts to resolve the issues. However, failing voluntary compliance, these agencies may proceed with enforcement, including prosecution. In addition to the state agencies responsible for enforcing the ESA, concerned citizens and other interested groups can also pursue a legal course against state, county, or municipality for failure to act. LAWS REGULATING LIGHTS IN FLORIDA Lighting in Florida at the state level is regulated by multiple rules, regulations and agencies. Florida Statute (FS), Chapter 553, Building Construction Standards, applies to buildings and structures not related to transportation. FS Chapter 553, Part IV — Florida Building Code (FBC) contains the bulk of state lighting requirements for non -transportation related buildings and structures. The Department of Health (DOH), under Chapter 514 FS, Chapter 64E-9 FAC and FBC Section 424.1 regulates indoor and outdoor public pools, including lighting. Florida Statute 334, as part of the Florida Transportation Code, provides the legal basis for lighting for all transportation facilities. Florida Statutes 334.044 (10) (a) and 334.045 establish the legal basis for the Florida Department of Transportation to set criteria and standards for lighting on transportation facilities. The Florida Building Code is primarily enforced by municipal governments. The Florida Depaitment of Transportation (FDOT) sets lighting standards for all State roads under Sections 20.23(4) a, 334.048(3) of Florida Statutes. In addition to the laws referenced, the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) recom- mends guidelines, often considered as standards, for indoor, outdoor, and roadway lighting under the rules and proce- dures of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) issues guidelines for roadway lighting design, which primarily rely on IESNA recommendations, but are a little more conservative and cov- er a greater range of roadway functional classifications. FDOT like the Departments of Transportation in most US states complies with AASHTO standards for lighting. The FBC, in general, complies with ANSI standards. However some FBC standards (especially those concerning egress FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 69 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix F Witherington, Martin and Trindell lighting) are more stringent than and not consistent with IESNA standards. COMPATIBILITY ISSUES The myriad rules, regulations and standards discussed previ- ously are not always consistent. Coastal lighting is a good example where consistency is lacking. Most state and professional organization standards are detailed, with specif- ic illumination levels. The Florida Building Code has the Egress Lighting requirements ranging from 1.0 foot candle for the walkway floors to 10 footcandles for the stairs The DOH requirements for outdoor swimming pools include 3 footcandle of illumination at pool deck sur- face. For indoor pools 10 footcandle of illumination is required. Comparing the above FBC and DOH requirements with the illuminance levels for safety recommended by IESNA (IESNA, 2000)), reveals that the FBC minimum illumination requirements are twice as high as the highest recommended by IESNA (5 foot candles for high level of activity at locations with high levels of hazards requiring visual detection). No illumination requirements for outdoor pools are provided by IESNA. For indoor pools, IESNA recommends illumination levels similar to DOH, or higher. Unlike the specific illumination level requirements for various situations required by FBC, DOH, FDOT, AASHTO, and IESNA, most local sea turtle lighting ordi- nances do not specify required/desired illumination levels. In most cases, these local ordinances restrict the intensity (wattage), mounting height, light trespass and loca- tion/position features for lights provided in these areas and emphasize shielding the luminaires. Very few lighting ordinances specify acceptable illumination levels; Cape Canaveral is perhaps the only example with an ordinance that actually states that "no more than 0.5 footcandles of artificial illumination shall be cast upon the beach". However if the spectral distribution of the light bandwidths is between 560 and 620 nanometers, the ordinance allows artificial illu- mination levels of "no more than two (2.0) foot candles on the beach". (no endorsement of these illumination levels is implied here). Unfortunately allowing any illumination on the beach is likely to harm nesting marine turtles or their hatchlings. 70 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 APPENDIX G The following is a list of lighting and window -treatment manufacturers and distributors. For current information, go to www.myFWC.com/seaturtle. AFG Industries Inc. (tinted glass) 1400 Lincoln Street P.O. Box 929 Kingsport, Tennessee 37660 USA TEL: 423-229-7200 or 800-251-0441 FAX: 423-229-7459 WEBSITE: www.afgglass.com E-MAIL: (access through website) General Electric (lamps) GE Lighting 1975 Noble Road Cleveland, Ohio 44112 USA TEL: 216-266-2653; 800-435-4448 FAX: 216-266-8437 WEBSITE: www.gelighting.com Genlyte Thomas (lamps, fixtures) 10350 Ormsby Park Place, Suite 601 Louisville, Kentucky 40223 USA TEL: 502-420-9500 FAX: 502-420-9540 WEBSITE: www.genlytethomas.com E-MAIL: (access through website) Heath -Zenith (lamps, fixtures) Desa International 2701 Industrial Drive P.O. Box 90004 Bowling Green, KY 42101 USA TEL: 270-781-9600 FAX: 270-781-9400 WEBSITE: www.desaint.com E-MAIL: (Access through Web site) Hubbell Lighting Inc. (lamps, fixtures, shields) 2000 Electric Way Christiansburg, Virginia 24073-2500 USA TEL: 540-382-6111 FAX: 540-382-1526 WEBSITE: www.hubbell-ltg.com Hydrel (lamps, fixtures) 12881 Bradley Ave Sylmar, California 91342 USA TEL: 818-362-9465 FAX: 818-362-6548 WEBSITE: www.thelightingcenter.com Intermatic Inc. (lamps, fixtures) Intermatic Plaza Spring Grove, Illinois 60081-9698 USA TEL: 815-675-2321 FAX: 815-675-7055 WEBSITE: www.intermatic.com Janmar Lighting (lamps, fixtures) 730 W. Golden Grove Way Covina, California 91722 USA TEL: 626-858-6776 FAX: 626-967-0314 WEBSITE: www.janmar.com E-MAIL: sales@janmar.com LEDTronics (lamps) 23105 Kashiwa Court Torrance, California 90505 USA TEL: 310-534-1505; 800-579-4875 FAX: 310-534-1424 WEBSITE: www.ledtronics.com Lithonia Lighting (lamps, fixtures) P.O. Box A Conyers, Georgia 30012 USA TEL: 770-922-9000 FAX: 770-483-2635 WEBSITE: www.lithonia.com E-MAIL: lithonia@lithonia.com Osram Sylvania Inc. (lamps) 100 Endicott St. Danvers, Massachusetts 01923-3623 USA TEL: 978-777-1900 or 800-544-4828 FAX: 978-777-2152 WEBSITE: www.osram.co.za E-mail: webmaster@osram.de FWRI Technical Report TR -2 71 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix G Witherington, Martin and Trindell Patch Works (shields) 216 NE 14th Ave. Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 USA TEL: 954-784-2314 FAX: 954-946-6052 Phifer Sunscreen (window light shades) P.O. Box 1700 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35403 USA TEL: 205-345-2120 or 800-633-5955 FAX: 205-391-0799 PPG Industries (tinted glass) Flat Glass Technical Services P.O. Box 11472 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238 USA TEL: 412-820-8500 FAX: 412-820-8025 Quality Lighting (lamps, fixtures) 11500 Melrose Avenue P.O. Box 1389 Franklin Park, Illinois 60131 USA TEL: 847-451-0040 or 800-545-1326 FAX: 800-545-8250 WEBSITE: www.qualitylighting.com E-mail: sales@qlty.com SOL, Solar Outdoor Lighting Inc. (solar lighting) 3210 SW 42nd Ave. Palm City, Florida 34990 USA TEL: 561-286-9461; 800-959-1329 FAX: 561-286-9616 Solargard (window tint) 2400 W. Copans Road, Suite 7 Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 USA TEL: 800-282-9031 FAX: 954-960-0297 Southwall Technologies (tinted glass) 1029 Corporation Way Palo Alto, California 94303 USA TEL: 650-962-9111 FAX: 650-967-8713 WEBSITE: www.southwall.com E-mail: webmaster@southwall.com Spaulding Lighting (lamps, fixtures) 1736 Dreman Ave. Cincinnati, Ohio 45223 USA TEL: 513-541-3486 FAX: 513-541-1454 Starfire Lighting (lamps, fixtures) 7 Donna Drive Wood Ridge, New Jersey 07075-1915 USA TEL: 201-438-9540 or 800-443-8823 FAX: 201-438-9541 Website: wwwstarfirelighting.com Sterner Lighting Systems Inc. (lamps, fixtures) 351 Lewis Ave. West P.O. Box 805 Winsted, Minnesota 55395-0805 TEL: 320-483-2148 or 800-328-7480 FAX: 320-485-2881 Website: www.sternerlighting.com E-mail: adman@sternerlighting.com Supreme Lights fixtures) 812 NW 8th Ave. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 USA TEL: 954-768-0044 FAX: 954-768-0645 Synergy Lighting (LED and solar lamps) 6015 28th Street East Bradenton, Florida 34203 TEL: 877-220-5483 FAX: 941-756-4866 WEBSITE: www.synergylightingusa.com Thomas Industries, Gardco Lighting (lamps, fixtures) 2661 Alvarado St. San Leandro, California 94577 USA TEL: 510-357-6900 or 800-227-0758 FAX: 510-357-3088 WEBSITE: www.sitelighting.com E-mail: webmaster@sightling.com Voigt Lighting (lamps, fixtures) 135 Fort Lee Road Leonia, New Jersey 07605 USA TEL: 201-461-2493 FAX: 201-461-7827 E-mail: voigtlight@aol.com 72 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 APPENDIX H The following is a list of conservation organizations, government agencies, and other groups that may be able to assist in resolving light -pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. ARCHELON Sea Turtle Protection Society of Greece' Rescue Center 3rd Marina, GR -166 75 Glyfada Athens, GREECE TEL/FAX: +30-210-89-82-600 E-MAIL: rescue@archelon.gr WEBSITE: www.archelon.gr/eng/whois.php Sea Turtle Conservancy' 4424 NW 13th Street, Suite B-11 Gainesville, Florida 32609 USA TEL: 352-373-6441 E-MAIL: STC@Conserveturtles.org WEBSITE: www.Conserveturtles.org/ Ecological Associates, Inc.' P.O. Box 405 Jensen Beach, Florida 34958 USA TEL: 772-334-3729 FAX: 772-334-4925 E-MAIL: info@ecological-associates.com WEBSITE: www.ecological-associates.com/ Florida Power and Light Company' Juno Beach, Florida USA Environmental Information WEBSITE: www.fpl.com/environment/ wildlife/sea_turtles.html Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission'''' 4 Tequesta Field Laboratory 19100 SE Federal Highway Tequesta, Florida 33469 USA TEL: 561-882-5975 FAX: 561-743-6228 E-MAIL: seaturtlelighting@MyFWC.com WEBSITE: www.MyFWC. com/seaturtle FWC Fish and Wildlife Research Institute'' 2, 4 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Wildlife Research, Marine Turtles 100 8th Avenue SE St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 USA TEL: 727-896-8626 FAX: 727-823-0166 WEBSITE: http://myfwc.com/research/ FWC Imperiled Species Management'' Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Habitat and Species Conservation 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 USA TEL: 850-922-4330 FAX: 850-922-4338 WEBSITE: www.MyFWC.com/seaturtle International Dark -Sky Associations 3225 North First Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85719 USA TEL: 520-293-3198 FAX: 520-293-3192 E-MAIL: ida@darksky.org WEBSITE: www.darksky.org Ogasawara Marine Center 4 Sea Turtle Association of Japan Byobudani, Chichi-jima Ogasawara-mura, Tokyo, JAPAN 100-21 E-MAIL: info@bonin-ocean.net WEBSITE: www.elna.or.jp/ 'May be able to assist in education and legislation efforts. 'Offers a pamphlet for distribution entitled "Sea Turtles and Lights" and a booklet on general sea turtle biology (Van Meter, 1992). 'Maintains worldwide contacts with sea turtle researchers and conservationists. °Compiles national or regional data gathered at sea turtle nesting beaches. 'Compiles and distributes information on causes and effects of light pollution; offers list of approved fixtures. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 73 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix H Witherington, Martin and Trindell Projeto Tamar/ICMBio''4 Praia do Forte, Base Mae Caixa Postal 2219, CEP 41950-970 Rio Vermelho, Salvador, Bahia, BRASIL TEL: (71) 3676-1020/1045 FAX: (71) 3676-1067 E-MAIL: protamar@tamar.org.br WEBSITE: www.tamar.com.br PRONATURA—Peninsula de Yucatan,A.0 4 Calle 32 No. 269 Colonia Pinzon II Merida, Yucatan—MEXICO C.P. 97207 TEL: 999-988-4436, 999-988-4437 E-MAIL: informacion@pronatura-ppy.org.mx WEBSITE: www.pronatura-ppy.org.mx Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Environment and Resource Management 160 Ann Street P.O. Box 155, Brisbane Albert Street Queensland 4002 AUSTRALIA TEL: +61 (7) 3227 8186 FAX: +61 (7) 3227 8749 WEBSITE: www.derm.gld.gov.au/wildlife- Ecosystems/wildlife/watching wildlife/turtles/ index The Ocean Conservancy' 1300 19th St. NW. 8th Floor, Washington DC 20036 USA TEL 800 519 1541 E-MAIL: info@oceanconservancy.org WEBSITE: www.oceanconservancy.org United States Fish and Wildlife Service' National Sea Turtle Coordinator 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 USA TEL: 904-731-3032 FAX: 904-731-3045 or 904-731-3048 E-MAIL: seaturtle@fws.gov WEBSITE: www.fws.gov/northflorida/ SeaTurtles/seaturtle-info.htm WIDECAST' 1348 Rusticview Drive Ballwin, Missouri 36011 USA TEL: (314) 954-8571 E-MAIL: keckert@widecast.org WEBSITE: www.widecast.org WIDECAST Latin American Office Didiher Chacon Chaverri Director Apdo. 2164-3000 Heredia, Costa Rica TEL: (506) 2 241-7431 MOBILE: (506) 8 838-9480 FAX: (506) 2 241-7149 E-MAIL: dchacon@widecast.org WEBSITE: www.latinamericanseaturtles.org/ World Wildlife Fund" 1250 24th Street NW. P. O. Box 97180 Washington, DC 20090-7180 USA TEL: 800-225-5993; 202-293-4800 E-MAIL: through Web site WEBSITE: www.worldwildlife.org 'May be able to assist in education and legislation efforts. 'Offers a pamphlet for distribution entitled "Sea Turtles and Lights" and a booklet on general sea turtle biology (Van Meter, 1992). 'Maintains worldwide contacts with sea turtle researchers and conservationists. 'Compiles national or regional data gathered at sea turtle nesting beaches. 'Compiles and distributes information on causes and effects of light pollution; offers list of approved fixtures. 74 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 APPENDIX I Comments and responses to common questions about sea turtles and lighting. When do hatchling sea turtles emerge from their nests? The first hatchlings of the season emerge from nests approximately eight weeks after the first nesting of the season. Thus, hatchlings continue to emerge approximately eight weeks after the final nesting. Outside the tropics, hatchlings generally emerge throughout the summer and early fall. In the southeastern United States, hatchlings emerge through- out the months of June, July, August, September, and October. It is a myth that hatchlings emerge only around the time of the full moon. Hatchlings ready to emerge wait just beneath the sand surface until conditions become cool. This temperature cue prompts them to emerge primarily at night, although some late -afternoon and early -morning emergences have been documented. How do hatchling sea turtles know where the ocean is when they emerge from their nests? Sea turtle hatchlings tend to move in the brightest direction. On a natural beach, the brightest direction is most often the open view of the night sky over, and reflected by, the ocean. Hatchlings also tend to move away from darkly silhouetted objects, such as the dune profile and vegetation. This sea-fmding behavior can take place during any phase and position of the moon, which indicates that hatchlings do not depend on lunar light to lead them seaward. Why do artificial light sources attract hatchling sea turtles? Hatchlings that crawl toward artificial light sources are following the same instinctive response that leads them sea- ward on naturally lighted beaches. The apparent brightness and glare of artificial lighting is what often leads hatchlings astray. To a hatchling on a beach, an artificial light source appears bright because it is relatively close by, yet it is not intense enough to brighten the sky and landscape. The resulting glare makes the direction of the artificial source appear overwhelmingly bright—so much brighter than the other directions that hatchlings ignore other visual cues and move toward the artificial light no matter where it is relative to the sea. There are other lights near my beachfront property that are visible from the beach. Why should I modify my lights? Any reduction in the amount of artificial light reaching the nesting beach helps sea turtles. Efforts need to be made to minimize existing artificial lights reaching nesting beaches and certainly not allow any new lights to add to the prob- lem. As lighting is reduced, hatchlings emerging on moonlit nights and at locations far from the lighted property will have a better chance of finding the sea. Can hatchlings be protected by increasing the number of lights on a nesting beach in order to prevent turtles from nesting? Although artificial lighting tends to deter sea turtles from nesting, many do nest on lighted beaches. Apparently, the level of artificial lighting necessary to misdirect hatchlings is well below the level necessary to deter nesting. But even if beaches were lighted to the extent that no nesting occurred, hatchlings on adjacent beaches would be harmed. Re- gardless, chasing sea turtles away from nesting beaches means that important habitat is lost to them; therefore, it is not a beneficial conservation strategy. How bright can a light be without affecting hatchlings or adult sea turtles on the beach? Unfortunately, no simple measure of light intensity can reveal whether a light source is a problem. The effects of artificial lighting on sea turtles may actually increase as ambient light levels decrease on darker, moonless nights. Because any visible light from an artificial source can cause problems, the most reliable "instruments" to use when making judgments about problem lighting may be the eyes of a human observer on the nesting beach. Any light source producing light that is visible from the beach is likely to cause problems for nesting sea turtles and their hatchlings. What should be done with misdirected hatchlings found on the beach? Hatchling sea turtles found wandering away from the ocean should be taken to a darkened portion of beach and allowed to walk into the surf on their own. Those that do not crawl vigorously can be placed in the water and allowed to swim away. In all cases, local natural resource or environmental protection agencies should be notified. Consult Appendix H for a list of governmental and nongovernmental conservation organizations. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 75 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix I Witherington, Martin and Trindell Whom should I notify about a light that is visible from a sea turtle nesting beach? Contact the owner or resident of the property where the light source is located. In most cases, people are simply unaware rather than uncaring. Local government conservation agencies should also be notified. A growing number of coastal communities have adopted ordinances that prohibit lighting on the beach during the nesting season and have offices that enforce them. If there is inadequate regulation of beach lighting in your area or if lighting problems persist, private conservation organizations may be able to help. Consult Appendix H for a list of governmental and nongov- ernmental conservation organizations. I do not have the ability to turn off a problem light that is located on my property. What can be done? Luminaires that do not have convenient on–off switches are most often controlled by the utility company. Property owners should contact the entity to whom electricity bills are paid or to whom lighting lease payments are made. Will lighting on a pier affect sea turtles on the adjacent beach? Yes. Lighting on piers is very difficult to shield from the beach. Hatchlings on adjacent stretches of beach may crawl for great distances in the direction of the lighted pier. Hatchlings that enter the water near the pier may linger in the glow beneath the lighted structure and fall prey to fish, which are also attracted to the light, rather than disperse offshore. Will placing bright lights on platforms offshore guide hatchlings into the water off lighted beaches? Apart from being an overly expensive and complicated solution, lighting the ocean to draw hatchlings offshore would probably create additional problems. Lighting on the water can interfere with hatchling dispersal and increase mortal- ity from predation by fish. There is not enough sea turtle nesting on this beach to justify beach -darkening efforts. Why is light -management legislation needed? Beaches on which small numbers of turtles nest can be important. The entire nesting range of a population may be made up of sparsely nested beaches. Hawksbill turtles, for instance, one of the most highly endangered sea turtles, never nest in great numbers. Moreover, any group of nesting turtles may constitute a genetically unique and vulnerable unit, and losing even a small population may mean the permanent loss of diversity. The irony in disregarding lighting problems at sparsely nested beaches is that artificial lighting may have caused the nesting to be so rare on those beaches. They may again attract more nesting turtles once they are darkened. Crime will increase if the beach is not lighted. Generally, beaches are not areas where there is a great need for crime prevention. Little valuable property is stored on beaches, and there is seldom much nighttime human activity to require security. Fortunately, areas adjacent to nesting beaches where people reside, work, recreate, and store valuables can be lighted for protection without affecting turtles on the nesting beach. Where this type of light management was legislated in Florida coastal communities, the Florida state attorney's office has found no subsequent increase in crime. Implementing a beach -darkening program will be prohibitively expensive. Darkening nesting beaches for sea turtles is one of the least expensive ways we can benefit the environment. The simplest solution to the problem—turning off lights visible from the beach during the nesting season—costs little or nothing and may actually save money in electricity costs. Most of the essential lighting that remains can easily be shielded so that the light performs its intended function without reaching the beach. Proper shields can be fashioned from inexpensive metal flashing and fastened with screws. Replacing fixtures is more expensive but is necessary only when an owner decides that greater lighting efficiency or aesthetics are a concern. Choosing well-designed fixtures and incorporating light -management techniques into the plans for coastal development are the most effective ways to fulfill lighting needs while protecting sea turtles. 76 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Appendix I Sea Turtles and Lighting Are there disadvantages to using sea turtle friendly lights? Advancements in LED lighting technology offers sea turtle—friendly lights with little or no disadvantage, and LEDs provide better light quality, use less energy, and have a lighter environmental footprint than most other light sources. Before the advent of LEDs, low-pressure sodium lights were preferred for the purpose. LPS lights had some disad- vantages including poor color rendition. As is true for any light source, there are both advantages and disadvantages to using LED lighting. The following is a list of issues specific to LEDs. Expense. The initial costs of LEDs are greater than for incandescent and fluorescent sources but are only slightly greater than costs for high-intensity discharge lighting (e.g., High Pressure Sodium). Operating costs, however, are generally much lower for LEDs because LED lamps are very efficient and produce significantly more light per watt of energy consumed than any other commercial source. Color. LEDs can produce light of many colors, and all of them have excellent color rendition. LEDs producing lights in amber or yellow shades are preferred as sea turtle—friendly lights because sea turtles are less sensitive to these lights Disposal. LED lamps, like most other commercially available lights, contain low amounts of lead, arsenic, nickel, and some other toxic materials, but, according to federal standards, they are not hazardous except for low -intensity red LEDs, which, after disposal (in landfills), leach lead at levels exceeding regulatory limits LEDs contain no mercury. Availability. Low -wattage LED luminaires are readily available in retail stores, and a variety of LED fixtures are available from a number of manufacturers (see Appendices D and G). Sea turtle nests on our beach are moved to darker areas to protect hatchlings from lighting. Are our lights still a problem? Yes. Although it may seem that moving nests out of harm's way will solve the problem, doing so only partially solves the problem and may create new ones. In moving nests, nothing is done to prevent lighting from deterring nesting turtles and interfering with their orientation on the beach. Moving nests also has its own negative consequences that stem from the limitations of this technique. 1. In nearly every effort to find nests, some are missed. Hatchlings from missed nests will suffer the effects of beach lighting. 2. Moved clutches of eggs often have poorer hatching rates. Moving eggs kills at least some of them, and often many die, depending upon how skillfully the moving is done. 3. Putting eggs in places other than those chosen by the nesting turtle can be detrimental. A specific nest en- vironment is critical, both for the survivorship of eggs and for the determination of the hatchlings' sex ratio. How can the sacrifice of human safety and security to save a few sea turtles be justified? Thankfully, no such choice is necessary. The safety and security of humans can be preserved without jeopardizing sea turtles. The goal of any program for reducing harassment and mortality of sea turtles caused by lighting is to manage light so that it performs the necessary function without reaching the nesting beach. Still, some may contend that any inconvenience is too much and that the concerns of humans should always outweigh those for turtles. People insistent on this generalization should not ignore the large and resolute constituency that values sea turtles. Sea turtles are valuable to people both ecologically and for pure enjoyment. In many ways, the protection of sea turtles is in our own best interest. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 77 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix I Witherington, Martin and Trindell What good are sea turtles? Measuring the true worth of anything is difficult, but it is especially difficult to make this measurement of a common resource. Although some may appreciate sea turtles more than others, sea turtles are of value to all. Short of a thorough discussion on the ecological place of sea turtles, suffice it to say that the world would be a poorer place to live without them. We just don't know how much poorer. With regard to sacrificing the diversity of life, Aldo Leopold wrote in his Sand County Almanac: "The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: `What good is it?'... If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering." 78 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 APPENDIX J Glossary A19 base: The most common size and shape of residential light bulbs used in most household fixtures. An A19 base bulb is pear-shaped and typically has a metal thread, or E, (Edison screw light base) type base. Acceptance cone: A solid angle that describes the apex of a geometrical cone containing the range of directions from which light can be measured by a detector (and perceived to be detected by an animal). Angle of acceptance: An angle, usually specified as horizontal or vertical, that describes the range of directions from which light can be measured by a detector (and perceived to be detected by an animal). Anthropogenic: Originating from the actions or devices of humans. Artificial lighting: Light sources produced by humans. Baffle: A structure used to reduce or deflect light or glare escaping from a fixture. Baffles can also reduce visibility of the lamp in a fixture. BAT: A common strategy for reducing pollution using the best available (pollution -reduction) technologies to reduce effects of lighting as much as practicable. Includes many light -management options used by lighting engi- neers to protect sea turtles. Beach: Dynamic coastal areas of sedimentary deposits, usually sand, between the primary dune and the water. Bollard lighting: A type of lighting fixture within a waist -level post or bollard. Bollard fixtures are generally designed to illuminate only the immediate area around the bollard. Brightest direction: The direction in which the perception or measurement of brightness is greatest. Brightness: The perception or measure that describes light intensity with respect to a specific spectral sensitivity and angles of acceptance. BUG: A luminaire classification system that classifies backlight (B), uptight (U) and glare (G). Bug light: An incandescent lamp that is tinted yellow to attenuate its emission of short -wavelength visible light and thus reduce its attractiveness to insects. Candela: The basic, international unit for measuring luminous intensity. Clutch: The group of eggs deposited in a nest. Color rendering: The effect of a light source on the color appearance of an object. Color: The sensation resulting from stimulation of the retina by light of certain wavelengths. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 79 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix J Witherington, Martin and Trindell Cone: A photoreceptor cell in the eye that is sensitive to color. Cone of acceptance: See Acceptance cone Crawl: The tracks and other disturbances left on a beach by a sea turtle that has attempted to nest. Cut-off angle: The angle between a vertical line through a luminaire and the first line of sight at which the glowing elements of the luminaire are no longer visible. Dichroic filter: A multi -layer coating that transmits certain wavelengths and reflects those not transmitted. Diffuser: Made of a translucent material, the part of a luminaire through which light is diffused. One of the elements of a luminaire that appears to glow. Also called a lens or globe. Direct lighting: Any combination of artificial lighting that includes a luminaire with a glowing element visible to an observer on the beach. Directional lighting: A luminaire that can be aimed so that its light reaches only specific areas. Disorientation: Loss of orientation. The inability to maintain constant directional movement. Downlighting: Generally canister or cylinder -shaped lighting fixtures that direct light predominately downward and that possess baffles to reduce lateral light. Efficiency: For a lamp, the ratio of light output (lumens) to electrical power (watts) consumed. Electroretinography (ERG): A method of determining spectral sensitivity in which the relative electrical potential is measured across a retina exposed to light at specific wavelengths and intensities. ERG spectrum: As measured by electroretinography, the spectral sensitivity of an animal. False crawl: An aborted nesting attempt (emergence onto a beach) by a sea turtle. Fixture: The device that holds, protects, and provides the optical system and power connections for a lamp. Floodlighting: High-intensity lighting that can be directed at various angles to illuminate large areas or objects. Fluorescent: An electric -discharge lamp containing argon, neon, mercury, and in some cases krypton, that is coated inside with phosphors that determine color appearance (most commonly, white) when lighted. Footcandle: The English unit for measuring illuminance; the illumination of a surface uniformly one foot from a point source of one candela; one lumen per square foot; equal to 10.76 lux. Globe: A diffuser, usually hemispherical, of a luminaire. One of the elements of a luminaire that appears to glow. Halogen: A type of incandescent lamp that combines a halogen gas and a tungsten filament to produce light. 80 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Appendix J Sea Turtles and Lighting Hatching success: The proportion of eggs in a nest that produce living hatchlings. Hatchling: A newly hatched sea turtle. High-pressure sodium vapor (HPS) lamp: An electric discharge lamp containing an amalgam of sodium and mercury, and rarefied xenon, that appears whitish golden or peach -colored when lighted. High-intensity discharge (HID) lamp: A type of lamps that emits high intensity light and includes high-pressure sodium-vapor, mercury-vapor, and metal -halide lamps. Illuminance: The density of luminous flux on a surface. Luminous flux includes only visible light. Measured in footcandles or lux. Incandescent: A lamp that produces light by means of an electrically heated glowing metal filament and that appears white when lighted. Includes quartz tungsten halogen (or simply tungsten halogen) sources. May be tinted to vary color (e.g., yellow bug lights). Indirect lighting: Lighting that is visible to an observer on the beach only after it is reflected by objects near the beach or scattered by mist. Irradiance: The density of radiant flux on a surface. Radiant flux may include light throughout the spectrum. Lamp: The source of light within a luminaire. LED: A light -emitting diode (LED) is a semiconductor device that emits visible light when an electric current passes through it. The light is not particularly bright, but in most LEDs it is monochromatic, occurring at a single wavelength. The output from an LED can range from red (at a wavelength of approximately 700 nanometers) to blue -violet (about 400 nanometers). LEDs are now increasingly being used in lighting products because of their low power consumption, high efficiency and long life. Lens: See Diffuser. Light: 1) Visible or near -visible radiant energy. 2) A term often used in place of "luminaire" or "light fixture." Light color: See Color. Light fixture: See Fixture. Light shield: Any opaque material fastened to a luminaire that makes the luminaire produce more directional lighting. Light meter: A detector used to measure levels of visible light, typically luminance or illuminance Light pollution: The introduction of detrimental artificially produced light into the environment. Similar to light trespass, i.e., the emission of light into areas where it is unwanted. Louver: One of a series of light -blocking baffles used to direct light coming from a luminaire FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 81 Sea Turtles and Lighting Appendix J Witherington, Martin and Trindell Low-pressure sodium vapor (LPS) lamp: An electric discharge lamp that contains sodium, neon, and argon and that appears amber yellow when lighted. Lumen: A unit of light output or flux, equal to the amount of light flow from one candela through a unit solid angle. Luminaire: A device that artificially produces and distributes light, including all parts, such as fixture, ballast, mounting, and lamps. Luminance: The luminous flux from a surface or light source, per unit area of the surface. Luminous flux includes only visible light. Lux: The metric unit for measuring illuminance; the illumination of a surface uniformly one meter from a point source of one candela; one lumen per square meter; equal to 0.0929 footcandle. Mercury-vapor Lamp: An electric -discharge lamp that contains mercury and argon and is sometimes coated with phosphors; appears whitish when lighted. Metal -halide lamp: An electric -discharge lamp that contains mercury, argon, sodium iodide, scandium iodide, and scandium; appears white when lighted. Misorientation: Orientation in the wrong direction. For hatchling sea turtles on the beach, travel in any direction other than toward the general vicinity of the ocean. Monochromatic: The description of a light source emitting a very narrow set of wavelengths (i.e., a single color). Mounting height: The vertical distance between a luminaire and the surface to be lighted. Nest: The area of disturbed sand on a beach where a sea turtle has buried a clutch of eggs. Nesting success: The proportion of nesting attempts by a sea turtle (emergences onto the beach) that result in the deposition of eggs. PAR: Parabolic Anodized Reflectors that collect and reflect light in a fixture via a shiny U-shaped piece of metal. PAR lights are described by the diameter of the bulb measured in eighths of an inch. Photobiology: The science that investigates and describes the impact of light on living organisms. Phosphors: Materials used in a light source to produce or modify its spectral emission distribution. Photometer: See Light meter. Photopigments: The light -absorbing chemicals within the rod and cone cells of the retina. Photopollution: See Light pollution. Phototropotactic: Pertaining to phototropotaxis. 82 FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 Witherington, Martin and Trindell Appendix J Sea Turtles and Lighting Phototropotaxis: Directional movement governed by a weighing of sensory excitation from stimuli received by separate light -sensing structures. Primary dune: Coastal areas of elevated sandy deposits closest to the water; generally has well-established vegetation if it has not been artificially cleared. Radiance: The radiant flux from a surface or light source, per unit area of the surface. Radiometer: An instrument that measures radiant energy (e.g., visible light). Recessed: (In this manual's context), a term describing a luminaire mounted within a ceiling opening in such a way that the glowing elements of the luminaire are hidden from view. Reflector: An element of a luminaire that directs light from the luminaire by reflection. Retina: The membrane lining the vertebrate eye that contains the pigmented cells (rods and cones) that are sensitive to light. Rod: A photoreceptor cell in the retina that is sensitive to low levels of light. Sea -finding behavior: The tendency to move in the direction of the ocean. Sex ratio: The proportion of females to males. Sex ratios of sea turtle hatchlings are determined by the envi- ronmental conditions (mostly temperature) under which the eggs incubate. Shield: See Light shield. Skyglow: The glow of light scattered by mist and clouds over densely lighted areas. Spectral light: Light composed of specific wavelengths. Swash zone: The beach zone in which advancing waves wash up the beach and recede. Tier lighting: Small light fixtures with louvers that restrict light to the immediate area around the fixture; generally mounted at ground level. Up -lighting: Lighting fixtures that are directed upward, usually onto objects (flags, monuments, signs, buildings, etc.). Urban skyglow: See Skyglow. Visible spectrum: The range of wavelengths visible to humans, generally between 380 (violet) and 760 (red) nm. Wavelength: The property of a photon of light that determines its energy and color, usually expressed in na- nometers. Xanthophobia: The tendency to orient away from sources rich in yellow light. A type of orientation seen in log- gerhead hatchlings. FWRI Technical Report TR -2, Version 2 83