Turtle lighting rule for naught?
The Bay County Tourist Development Council adopted a turtle lighting ordinance Friday during its second workshop on the matter this week.
It is doubtful, though, that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which holds sway over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and ensuing beach renourishment projects, will approve the ordinance.
“I’m telling you, they’re not going to accept it, but that’s OK,” TDC attorney Doug Sale told the board, assuring them the move would satisfy a Dec. 31 ordinance deadline.
Fish and Wildlife contends nesting turtles are disoriented by artificial light and wants it toned down at beachfront properties. Unless the agency is satisfied that local government is addressing that concern, it is unlikely the Army Corps will sign off on future renourishment projects. The service’s main opposition to the adopted ordinance concerns a provision that essentially grandfathers light sources of existing structures.
“That’s just too much light,” said Lorna Patrick of FWS. “The exemption is not acceptable.”
The grandfather provision incorporated suggestions from local businesswoman Julie Hilton. She distributed three-ring binders full of input Wednesday, and an alternate version of the ordinance Friday.
“Is this the one you sent last night at 1 in the morning?” Council Chairman Andy Phillips asked as the version was handed out.
Hilton said she had worked exhaustively on the matter because her family’s businesses stand to lose money if certain aspects of the originally proposed ordinance remained intact.
In addition to insisting on the grandfather provision, Hilton also suggested beachfront property owners simply turn off their lights during nesting events.
“I would personally be responsible to make sure we had those lights turned out,” she said. “We’re gonna do everything we can to get those hatchlings to the water.”
Businessman Charlie Hilton thanked the board for fighting certain aspects of the original ordinance, and said sea turtles currently have plenty of undeveloped beaches to nest.
Four hours into the workshop, the council sided with those representing business interests.
“I think we all want to save the turtles, even if there’s only three or four of them,” said Panama City Beach Mayor and TDC member Gayle Oberst. “But we really have a responsibility to the people of Bay County.”
The adopted ordinance also allows for lighting compromises in certain situations when safety might be a concern.
Rick Russell and Yonnie Patronis were the two dissenting members on the seven-person board.
The council’s basic argument, Sale said after the workshop, is that lights in place prior to renourishment do not have any differing effects following the project.
“This ordinance ensures that the nourishment project will not make the lighting environment worse,” he said. “Fish and Wildlife appears to be encouraging the Corps to require the ordinance to make the lighting environment better for the turtles as a condition to building the project.”
Council staff will spend the next month “tweaking” the language in the adopted ordinance before returning it to the board for final approval in February. Following that, the recommended ordinance will go to the Bay County Commission.
Sale said he did not know if an ordinance at odds with Fish and Wildlife Services would put beach renourishment planned for the spring in jeopardy.
See archived 'Panama City' Stories »
| It has been the unfortunate experience on Folly Beach, SC, that lighting existent before beach renourishment has even more negative effects after renourishment. The lighting itself hasn't changed, but renourishment generally produces a higher, wider, flatter beach, bringing the beach surface into more direct contact with lighting. Folly's post-renourishment lighting conditions had an increased negative effect on successful hatchling orientation toward the ocean. |
|
| Nancy Smith - Jan 03, 2008 10:49:41 PM | Remove Comment |