Cases / Natural-capital land · United States · 2011–2025
Beach nourishment and armoring on Florida's loggerhead nesting beaches
Nature's voice · report
Nesting success on my nourished Florida beaches is about 10–34% lower in the first year, the US Fish and Wildlife Service stated in 2015. US Fish and Wildlife Service
Did nature suffer? Yes. Harm is on record.
Recorded
- On beaches where sand has been placed, my nesting success is about 10–34% lower in the first year, according to the FWS opinion of 13 March 2015. US Fish and Wildlife Service
- On armored beaches, my loggerheads make fewer nesting attempts, according to Rizkalla and Savage (2011). Journal of Coastal Research 27(1)
What the record lacks: 2 none on record See the gaps
A 2015 US Fish and Wildlife Service opinion on Army Corps of Engineers sand placement in Florida found no jeopardy for the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead population and stated that nesting success is about 10–34% lower on nourished beaches in the first year. A 2011 study found fewer nesting attempts on armored beaches.
About 10–34% lowerNesting success on nourished beaches in the first year, relative to other beaches
Stated in the US Fish and Wildlife Service Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion of 13 March 2015.
Stated in the US Fish and Wildlife Service Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion of 13 March 2015.
Status As of January 2025, the latest dated item on record: the FWS opinion of 13 March 2015 found no jeopardy for the Northwest Atlantic DPS, and Florida DEP reported $50,000,000 for beach and inlet projects across FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25.
What?
The FWS Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion of 13 March 2015 for Army Corps sand placement in Florida found no jeopardy for the Northwest Atlantic DPS and stated that nesting success is about 10–34% lower on nourished beaches in the first year. A 2011 study found fewer nesting attempts on armored beaches. US Fish and Wildlife Service
Where?
Florida, United States, statewide: beaches receiving Army Corps sand placement and beaches with armoring. US Fish and Wildlife Service
When?
Rizkalla and Savage in 2011; FWS opinion on 13 March 2015; Florida DEP funding in FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25. US Fish and Wildlife Service
Who?
Gained
- Florida Department of Environmental Protection — Received $50,000,000 for beach and inlet projects in FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25 (Laws of Florida ch. 2023-239, ch. 2024-231) Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Lost
None on recordHarmed
- Loggerhead nesting on nourished and armored beaches — Nesting success about 10–34% lower on nourished beaches in the first year; fewer nesting attempts on armored beaches US Fish and Wildlife Service
Why?
The FWS opinion states that beachfront development has had "the greatest impact on nesting sea turtles in Florida". US Fish and Wildlife Service
How?
Sand placement by the Army Corps of Engineers on nesting beaches (nourishment) and armoring of beaches, including seawalls. Journal of Coastal Research 27(1)
6 of 6 questions answered from the record
What happened
The record, in order.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion on 13 March 2015 for sand placement by the US Army Corps of Engineers in Florida. It found no jeopardy for the Northwest Atlantic distinct population segment (DPS) of the loggerhead. The opinion states that nesting success is about 10–34% lower on nourished beaches in the first year and that beachfront development has had "the greatest impact on nesting sea turtles in Florida".
Rizkalla and Savage (2011), in the Journal of Coastal Research, found fewer nesting attempts on armored beaches.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) received $50,000,000 for beach and inlet projects in FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25 (Laws of Florida ch. 2023-239 and ch. 2024-231), according to its January 2025 financial summary and accountability report.
- 2011Rizkalla and Savage report fewer nesting attempts on armored beaches
- 2015FWS Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion for Army Corps sand placement finds no jeopardy for the Northwest Atlantic DPS (13 March)
- 2025Florida DEP's report records $50,000,000 for beach and inlet projects in FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25 (January)
What was said
Claims, in the words of those who made them.
“the greatest impact on nesting sea turtles in Florida”
How it looked
What was shown, beside what was recorded.
Shown
Recorded
- FWS (13 March 2015): no jeopardy for the Northwest Atlantic DPS from Army Corps sand placement; nesting success about 10–34% lower on nourished beaches in the first year.
- Rizkalla and Savage (2011): fewer nesting attempts on armored beaches.
- Florida DEP received $50,000,000 for beach and inlet projects in FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25 (Laws of Florida ch. 2023-239, ch. 2024-231).
Who gained
Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.
Reached nature or the ground
Not published
No figure published.
Gained elsewhere
Not totalled
Funds received by Florida DEP for beach and inlet projects (Laws of Florida ch. 2023-239, ch. 2024-231)—
$50,000,000, as stated in the Florida DEP report.
Currency: USD · Window: FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25. All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.
In court and with insurers
Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.
Lawsuits and rulings
No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.
Insurers
No insurer decision on record.
What nature saw
Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.
Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.
Nesting success on nourished beaches, first year
About 10–34% lower
FWS Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion, 13 March 2015
What we don't know
Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
Money
- None on record Funds received by Florida DEP for beach and inlet projects (Laws of Florida ch. 2023-239, ch. 2024-231) — $50,000,000, as stated in the Florida DEP report.
Record
- None on record No source on record for: Florida nest counts of 52,374–98,602 a year in 2009–2013, and a 25% fall in Index Nesting Beach counts in 1998–2010.
Did the harm stop?
The sources reviewed report lower first-year nesting success on nourished beaches and fewer nesting attempts on armored beaches, and the FWS opinion identifies beachfront development as having had the greatest impact on nesting sea turtles in Florida. They do not report that either pattern has ended.
Who paid?
Florida DEP received $50,000,000 for beach and inlet projects in FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25. No payment connected to the effects on nesting is on record in the sources reviewed.
Sources
Voices on record: — Company or project✓ Government and regulators— Courts— Press and investigations— Communities and civil society✓ Researchers
Government and regulators
- Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion for US Army Corps of Engineers sand placement in Florida (13 March 2015)US Fish and Wildlife Service · 2015-03-13
- FY2024-25 BMFA Financial Summary and Accountability Report (January 2025)Florida Department of Environmental Protection · 2025-01
Researchers
- Rizkalla and Savage (2011), Impact of Seawalls on Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) NestingJournal of Coastal Research 27(1) · 2011
Connected cases
Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
- African Parks Odzala-Kokoua abuses (Republic of Congo) Republic of Congo · 2010–2025
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (Government agency) — here: Issued the Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion of 13 March 2015; there: Funder (2024)
- Black-footed ferret cloning (Antonia) and wild plague United States · 1988–2024
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (Government agency) — here: Issued the Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion of 13 March 2015; there: Federal agency; project partner
- CAMPFIRE and elephant trophy hunting Zimbabwe · 2010–2015
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (Government agency) — here: Issued the Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion of 13 March 2015; there: Trophy-import regulator
- Colossal Biosciences: de-extinction ventures, funding and the Burgum remark United States · 2022–2026
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (Government agency) — here: Issued the Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion of 13 March 2015; there: Signed a memorandum of understanding with Colossal; co-author of the July 2026 harm-definition rule
- Hawaii shallow-set longline swordfish fishery: loggerhead interaction limits, Ninth Circuit ruling and 2018 closure United States · 2004–2020
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (Government agency) — here: Issued the Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion of 13 March 2015; there: Defendant agency (Interior)
- Kivalina village in Alaska still awaits relocation after 2008 suit against ExxonMobil United States · 1992–2026
- US Army Corps of Engineers (Government) — here: Sand placement covered by the 2015 opinion; there: Federal engineers who estimated erosion timelines and relocation costs
- Lumber Liquidators Lacey Act guilty plea over Russian Far East oak flooring Russia · 2010–2024
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (Government agency) — here: Issued the Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion of 13 March 2015; there: Co-investigator; recipient of community service payment
- Removal of the Endangered Species Act 'harm' definition United States · 2025–2026
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (Government agency) — here: Issued the Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion of 13 March 2015; there: Agency that removed the definition from its regulations
- Starbase launch site, Boca Chica, Texas: environmental review, penalties and Starship debris United States · 2022–2025
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (Government agency) — here: Issued the Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion of 13 March 2015; there: Federal wildlife agency; reported the fire after the first flight
- US bans DDT in 1972; bald eagle breeding pairs rebound United States · 1972–2019
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (Government agency) — here: Issued the Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion of 13 March 2015; there: published bald eagle population data
- Volusia County, Florida: beach driving and lighting, Endangered Species Act suit with sea turtles as named plaintiffs United States · 1995–1998
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (Government agency) — here: Issued the Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion of 13 March 2015; there: Named among the parties; role not described in the sources reviewed