How artificial light affects sea turtles is not entirely understood, and it will be important work to better understand and facilitate through our own redevelopment the most responsible way to build on the coast. We hope to be a model for coastal development that minimizes the impact on the environment inclusive of sea turtle nesting and hatching.

As with the Sydney Lanier Bridge, different lighting techniques that include certain spectrums of color light can be used that apparently does not impact the nesting sea turtle or the hatchlings. I will let the sea turtle experts speak to that, but ultimately it was the cost of retrofitting lights on the bridge that caused that not to go through.

The intended area for our beach village project is already developed, and there is already light pollution in this area. By redeveloping it, we can deploy solutions that will improve this situation. Also, by reversing the declining trend in visitation, we can bring more people to the island who can visit the Sea Turtle Center, learn about conservation measures and be more mindful of how we can reduce the negative impact we have on the species. With additional revenue flowing to the Jekyll Island Authority, we can look at nesting habitat rehabilitation and address what we know to be the number one impediment to sea turtle nesting - the rock armoring placed on the beach in the 1960’s.

The comment about “big money” demonstrates your cynicism, which is unfortunate. And if you think the solution is to do nothing, or to tear down all development and return the area to a natural state, then you are not being realistic. An important part of the Jekyll Island Authority’s mission is conservation of our natural resources, and we see that revitalization and bringing more guests to the island as the best way for us to best accomplish this.

Isn’t this a blatant conflict with Jekyll selling itself as a sea turtle sanctuary? What happened? Big money shoved the turtles out of the way?