5 Species Covered by Plan

Transcription

1 5 Species Covered by Plan The Gulf County HCP includes federally listed species that occur in the coastal areas of Gulf County in beach, dune and scrub habitats. This section describes the process by which the species to be included in the Plan were chosen and general information on the species, their biology, habitat requirements, and needed protection measures. 5.1 Criteria for Inclusion in HCP Species were selected by a hierarchical review that included: 1. Current federal listing status or the likelihood of future federal listing during the 30-year duration of the HCP and associated incidental take permit; 2. Occurrence in coastal Gulf County and adjacent coastal waters; 3. Occurrence or potential within scrub, dune and beach habitats in Gulf County; and 4. Risk for conflicts between the species and development activities and the need for permitting to achieve compliance with the ESA. Those species meeting these screening criteria were further evaluated on the basis of their biology, population sizes and distributions within the plan area, and conservation needs Listed Species Whose Ranges Include Gulf County We prepared a preliminary list of listed wildlife species known to occur or to be potentially present within Gulf County from staff knowledge, literature reviews and available databases. We used databases from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) system. The results of this search identified 23 (including candidates for listing) federal and 16 state listed wildlife species as documented or likely to occur in Gulf County. A summary of these species, listing status and coastal habitat utilization is provided in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 Federal, Candidate and State Listed Wildlife Species Occurring in Gulf County, Florida Species Status Costal Habitat Use Scientific Name Common Name FWS FWC AMPHIBIANS Ambystoma bishopi reticulated flatwoods salamander E Beaches Dune s Lithobates capito gopher frog SSC X X REPTILES Alligator mississippiensis American alligator SAT Caretta loggerhead sea turtle T X X Chelonia mydas green sea turtle E X X Dermochelys coriacea leatherback sea turtle E X X Drymarchon couperi eastern indigo snake T X X Scrub

2 Species Status Costal Habitat Use Scientific Name Common Name FWS FWC Beaches Eretmochelys imbricata hawksbill sea turtle E X X Dune s Gopherus polyphemus gopher tortoise C T X X Graptemys barbouri Barbour's map turtle SSC Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's ridley sea turtle E X X Macrochelys apalachicolae Apalachicola alligator snapping turtle SSC Pseudemys suwanniensis Suwannee cooter SSC BIRDS Aramus guarauna limpkin SSC X X Calidris canutus rufa red knot T X X Charadrius melodus piping plover T X X Charadrius nivosus snowy plover T X X Egretta caerulea little blue heron SSC X Egretta thula snowy egret SSC X Egretta tricolor tricolored heron SSC X Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American kestrel T Haematopus palliatus American oystercatcher SSC X Mycteria americana wood stork T X Pelecanus occidentalis brown pelican SSC X Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E Rynchops niger black skimmer SSC X Sternula antillarum least tern T X Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis St. Andrew beach mouse MAMMALS Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee E INVERTEBRATES Amblema neislerii fat three-ridge E Elliptio chipolaensis Chipola slabshell T Elliptoideus sloatianus purple bankclimber T Lampsilis subangulata shinyrayed pocketbook E Medionidus penicillatus Gulf moccasinshell E Pleurobema pyriforme oval pigtoe E FISH Scrub E X X Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf sturgeon T

3 Species Status Costal Habitat Use Scientific Name Common Name FWS FWC Beaches Dune s Scrub Alosa alabamae Alabama shad P Pteronotropis welaka bluenose shiner SSC E=endangered, T=threatened, P=proposed, C=candidate for listing, SSC=species of special concern, Petition= has been petitioned for listing, SAT: threatened due to similarity of appearance Species that have been delisted, such as American bald eagle and Florida black bear, are not included in the above list though they may continue to be afforded protection under regulations other than the ESA. The American bald eagle is still afforded protection by both the FWC under Rule 68A F.A.C. and by the USFWS through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Florida black bears are protected under the Florida Black Bear Conservation Rule, Rule 68A-4.009, F.A.C List Refinement From the list of federal and state listed species whose ranges include Gulf County, we used the following additional assessment criteria to further refine the list. Presence of known occupied beach, dune, and coastal scrub habitats, historically occupied habitats, or areas that could potentially be re-occupied over the 30-year duration of the HCP and associated ITP; Presence of USFWS-designated critical habitat; Likelihood of incidental impact associated with human activities; Coverage under other permitting programs Species occurring in Gulf County but not occupying coastal beaches, dunes, and scrub habitats were eliminated. These species included totally aquatic species, such as mussels and fish, and a variety of species occurring in upland and freshwater wetland habitats away from the coast, e.g., red-cockaded woodpecker and Suwannee cooter. The hawksbill sea turtle was eliminated because it is not known to use beaches and dunes in Gulf County for nesting. Species listed only by the State of Florida, e.g., little blue heron and brown pelican, were excluded from further consideration unless they were candidates for listing by the USFWS, e.g., gopher tortoise.. The eastern indigo snake and gopher tortoise were given additional consideration based on current and historic distribution. The eastern indigo snake is federally listed as threatened. The gopher tortoise is a candidate for federal listing as threatened and also is listed as threatened by the State of Florida. Both species may use coastal dune and scrub habitats. Gopher tortoise populations throughout the panhandle have been impacted by past human harvest for food (Mushinsky et al. 2006). Gopher tortoises occur in areas near the coast of Gulf County, but have not been specifically documented in the Plan area. The last sighting of a gopher tortoise within St. Joseph Peninsula State Park was in 2011 (Mark Knapke, personal communication, September 16, 2014). According to the FWC, only a single gopher tortoise permit has been issued in Gulf County under the current gopher tortoise permitting guidelines implemented by the FWC in 2008 (Eric Seckinger, personal communication, January 12, 2015). As gopher tortoises appear rare or absent within the Plan area, and the census of private lands within the Plan area was unavailable, they were excluded from the HCP. Gopher tortoises will continue to be protected under current state law until such time as they may be listed by the USFWS.

4 In 1982, only a few populations of the eastern indigo snake remained in the Florida panhandle (Moler 1985). In the Florida panhandle, tortoise burrows are important overwintering refugia for the eastern indigo snake during colder temperatures. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation have likely impacted eastern indigo snake populations over much of their range, and the decline of gopher tortoise populations in the panhandle may account for the scarcity and likely extirpation of eastern indigo snakes (Enge et al. 2013). Enge et al. (2013) provide the most recent synopsis of the historical and current distribution of the eastern indigo snake. The last reported observation of an eastern indigo snake in Gulf County was prior to 1954 and was from the northern part of the county (Krysko et al. 2011). The most recent panhandle observation of an eastern indigo snake confirmed by the Enge et al. (2013) was a record from Eglin Air Force Base in Okaloosa County in More recent but unconfirmed reports have come from Bay, Jackson and Santa Rosa Counties. As the eastern indigo snake has apparently been extirpated from the coastal portions of Gulf County, it has not been included in the Plan. Eight state-listed wading or shore birds occur in Gulf County. Coastal habitats provide resting, nesting and foraging habitats for these species. These species have not been included in the Plan but can be expected to benefit secondarily from the protections that are afforded to beach and dune habitats through the implementation of this Plan. Federal and state listed plant species are known to occur in Gulf County. However, no federally listed plant species are known to occur within the Plan area. Therefore, no federally listed plants are included in the Plan. State listed species have not been included in the plan, but can be expected to benefit from protections that are afforded to beach and duke habitats through implementation of the plan. 5.2 Covered Species From the above analysis, seven species were selected for inclusion in this HCP. All seven species are currently listed as federally threatened or endangered. Additionally, all seven species are restricted to the use of sandy coastal habitats during some part of their life cycle and are subject to potential impacts from coastal development and other activities. The species covered by the HCP are: 1. St. Andrew beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis); 2. piping plover (Charadrius melodus); 3. red knot (Calidris canutus rufa); 4. loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta); 5. green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas); 6. leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea); and 7. Kemp s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). The following sections provide information on each covered species St. Andrew Beach Mouse (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis) Listed Status and Reason The St. Andrew beach mouse (SABM) was federally listed as endangered on December 18, 1998 (63 FR 70053). As summarized from the USFWS recovery plan (2010), the range of the St. Andrew Beach mouse is limited, and contractions of its range (Figure SABM-1) were considered to be a major reason for listing of the subspecies as Endangered. The historic range was limited to approximately 41 linear miles (66 kilometers (km)) of suitable habitat. By the mid-1990s, less than 15 mi (24 km) of occupied habitat remained, all on the St. Joseph Peninsula (Gore 1994, James 1992). This reduction represented an

5 estimated 68% of the historic habitat and was assumed to represent a comparable loss of population. Subsequent reintroduction efforts in reestablished a population on East Crooked Island. As of 2008, 27.6 miles (44.5 km) of suitable habitat (measured by shoreline distance, not acreage) was estimated to be occupied (Loggins et al. 2008). In addition to habitat loss, threats to beach mouse habitat include severe storms, coastal land development, natural shoreline erosion, predation by free-ranging domestic and feral cats and displacement by house mice. Critical Habitat Beach mice are dependent on the coastal dune ecosystem from the frontal dunes closest to the beach to older more inland dunes. The USFWS designated three units as critical habitat for the SABM: (1) East Crooked Island, (2) Palm Point, and (3) St. Joseph Peninsula, Figure 5-1 (71 FR 60238). The Palm Point and St. Joseph Peninsula units occur in Gulf County, and the East Crooked Island unit is in Bay County, Florida. The USFWS provides the following descriptions of the critical habitat units (USFWS 2010). The East Crooked Island Unit consists of 826 ac (335 ha) in Bay County. Beach mouse habitat in this unit consists of primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitats. SABM were known to inhabit the unit until 1989 (James 1992), when the population was presumably extirpated by impacts from hurricanes. Subsequently, mice were re-introduced using donors from the St. Joseph Peninsula State Park. Studies in indicated that the mice have successfully established a population on East Crooked Island (USFWS 2010). Since the reintroduction, beach mice have been found on Tyndall Air Force Base property and also on private lands southeast of the base (Loggins et al. 2008). The Palm Point unit consists of 162 ac (65 ha) of primarily private lands in northern Gulf County. This unit encompasses habitat from the mean high water level (MHWL) to the seaward extent of the maritime forest. The USFWS considered this unit to be occupied at the time of listing, based on documentation of the species by Bowen (1968). The unit was also heavily impacted by storms in This unit is on the mainland and somewhat buffered from the effects of storm events making this unit potentially important to the reduction of the threats of stochastic events to this subspecies. This area provides frontal and scrub dune habitat but lacks connectivity to known occupied habitats. Threats specific to this unit include habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, artificial lighting, high levels of feral cats and other predators, and high levels of human use that may result in soil compaction, damage to dunes, or other decreases in habitat quality. The St. Joseph Peninsula unit consists of 1,502 ac (607 ha) in Gulf County. This unit encompasses beach mouse habitat within the boundary of St. Joseph Peninsula State Park and private lands south of the Park to the peninsula s constriction north of Cape San Blas (also known as the Stumphole). The unit includes the area from the MHWL to the seaward extent of the maritime forest and open dune ridges that extend the width of the peninsula. The habitat in this unit consists of primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitats. The northern portions of this unit within the state park provide a relatively contiguous expanse of habitat within the historic range of the St. Andrew beach mouse. Other areas of critical habitat in the southern portion of this unit are located within a mosaic of developed lands. Threats specific to this unit include artificial lighting, habitat fragmentation and habitat loss, high levels of feral cats and other predators, and high levels of human use that may result in soil compaction, damage to dunes, and other decreases in habitat quality. The population inhabiting this unit may be particularly susceptible to hurricanes due to its setting on a relatively thin, low peninsula.

6 Figure 5-1 Historic Range of the St. Andrew Beach Mouse (USFWS 2010). Designation Critical habitat was designated for SABM on October 12, 2006 (71 FR 60238). An area was classified as critical habitat based on the USFWS assessment that: (1) St. Andrew beach mice occupied the area at the time of listing; (2) the area contained the primary constituent elements essential for conservation of SABM and that may require special management; and (3) the area was found to be essential to the conservation of the species. Constituent Elements

7 Based on the current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain the essential life history functions of the species, the USFWS determined that the critical habitat primary constituent elements (PCE) for Gulf Coast beach mice include: 1. A contiguous mosaic of primary, secondary and scrub vegetation and dune structure, with a balanced level of competition and predation and few or no competitive or predaceous nonnative species present, and that collectively provide foraging opportunities, cover, and burrow sites. 2. Primary and secondary dunes, generally dominated by sea oats that despite occasional temporary impacts and reconfiguration from tropical storms and hurricanes that provide abundant food resources, burrow sites, and protection from predators. 3. Scrub dunes, generally dominated by scrub oaks, that provide food resources and burrow sites, and elevated refugia during and after intense flooding due to rainfall and/or hurricane induced storm surge. 4. Functional, unobstructed habitat connections that facilitate genetic exchange, dispersal, natural exploratory movements, and recolonization of locally extirpated areas. 5. A natural light regime within the coastal dune ecosystem, compatible with the nocturnal activity of beach mice, necessary for normal behavior, growth and viability of all life stages. Designation Exclusions When designating SABM critical habitat, the USFWS did not exclude any areas from designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. Biological Information General Description All beach mice are characterized by white feet, large ears, and large black eyes. The St. Andrew beach mouse has a pale, buff/brown color on its head and back with extensive pure white coloration on its underparts, sides, feet, face, and tail. They have two distinct rump color patterns, tapered or squared. Their average size is: head and body length, 2.95 in (75 mm); tail length, 2.05 in (52 mm); and hind foot length, 0.73 in (18.5 mm) (James 1992). Beach mouse subspecies can be differentiated from each other by the non-overlapping geographic distributions of the subspecies and pelage coloration. The St. Andrew beach mouse is more similar in appearance to the Santa Rosa beach mouse (P. p. leucocephalus) than the other Gulf coast subspecies, but it is darker in coloration on its ears and back. Food and Diet The St. Andrew beach mouse diet is comprised primarily of the seeds and fruits of plants within their dune habitat with insects providing seasonal supplements when seeds are limited (Moyers 1996 as cited in USFWS 2010). They appear to forage on foods based on availability and have little specificity for specific seeds and fruits within their dietary palate. According to many studies, the frontal dunes provide a diverse and high energy food resource for the beach mouse, although the food is cyclic in its availability. Scrub dunes provide a more stable, but less diverse, food source and are believed to provide a food source for times when food resources in the frontal dune systems are low. Diets are driven by the availability of food within the habitat and food item shifts both seasonally and yearly (FFWC undated). More recent studies have shown that the habitats are different but comparable in availability of food resources (Sneckenberger 2001). Species Demography and Reproduction

8 Demographic characteristics for all beach mice (Peromyscus polionotus) subspecies are believed to be similar (FFWCC undated), and there is no data to suggest that there would be significant exceptions for the St. Andrew beach mouse subspecies. Breeding activity is greatest during the fall and winter months, but can occur year around with adequate food availability. The total gestation period for a beach mouse is 23 days with an average of four pups per litter. Beach mice are nocturnal. They have been trapped most commonly on nights with half to new moons and cloudy skies. Beach mice activity levels decrease during periods of strong moonlight. Beach mice usually maintain several burrows, which are typically located on dune slopes near the bases shrubs, grass clumps or other vegetative cover. Habitat Requirements The St. Andrew beach mouse inhabits the primary, secondary, and scrub dunes within the coastal ecosystem. Beach mice require well developed dune systems in which to live out their life cycle. They dig their burrows into the face of the dunes near vegetative cover. Older literature cited in the USFWS Recovery Plan (2010) considered primary and secondary dunes to be optimal beach mice habitat since that is where the highest densities of mice were found in trapping studies. More interior scrub dunes appeared to support lower densities of beach mice, and consequently it was believed to be of lower quality and not of great importance to beach mice. The description of St. Andrew beach mouse habitat in the USFWS final listing (USFWS 1998) is as follows: The foreslope of primary dunes grades into the developing frontal dunes on the open beach. Frontal dunes on the Gulf Coast are sparsely vegetated, usually by sea oats (Uniola paniculata), bluestem (Schizachyrium maritimum), beach grass (Panicum amarum), and sea rocket (Cakile constricta). Primary dunes also support stands of these species and include other broad-leaved plants such as seaside pennywort (Hydrocotyle bonariensis), seashore elder (Iva imbricata), and beach morning glory (Ipomea stolonifera) (Clewell 1985). Secondary dunes consist of one or more dune lines landward of the primary dune with a similar, though denser, vegetative cover. Interdunal swales are wet or dry depressions between primary and secondary dunes, while intradunal swales occur within primary dunes as a result of wave action, storm surges, and wind erosion. Wet swales are those whose water table is at or near the surface. Swale vegetation includes plants found on primary and secondary dunes as well as salt meadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), rushes (Juncus sp.), sedges (Cyperus sp.), and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). Scrub dunes are the oldest of the dune habitat types and are dominated by woody plants including saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), myrtle oak (Quercus myrtifolia), sand live oak (Q. geminata), sand pine (Pinus clausa), slash pine (P. elliottii), seaside rosemary (Ceratiola ericoides), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), and bush goldenrod (Chrysoma pauciflosculosa). Reindeer moss (Cladonia leporina) often covers otherwise bare dune surfaces. Some primary and secondary dune vegetation is also present but at reduced densities (Blair 1951, Gibson and Looney 1992). Size and density of understory and overstory vegetation may vary. More recent research has shown that beach mice use interior scrub habitats, and that this habitat is critical to the persistence of beach mouse populations since it provides refugia during extreme storm events (Swilling et al. 1998, Sneckenberger 2001, Falcy 2011). These more recent studies have shown that the habitats are comparable in availability of resources and that survival rates, reproductive rates, and home range sizes are comparable, suggesting that these inland habitats are equally suitable to the mice (Sneckenberger 2001). These inland habitats are also critical to survival of natural disturbances. Pries et al. (2011) studied the effects of Hurricane Ivan and predictors of habitat use before and after the hurricane on beach mice. The hurricane caused the loss of 68% of the frontal dune area occupied by beach mice but only 15% of the inland scrub dunes. Occupancy of frontal dunes by beach mice dropped

9 from 100% before to the storm to 60% after the hurricane. Occupancy of inland scrub habitat was lower than occupancy of frontal dune habitat before the hurricane (75% occupancy) but did not change with the storm. Recovery after the storm was directly related to availability of inland occupied habitats and their sizes. Distribution General Species Distribution The St. Andrew beach mouse is the eastern-most beach mouse subspecies occurring along the northern Gulf coast. Historically this species occurred from the eastern entrance of St. Andrew Bay, Bay County, to Money Bayou east of Cape San Blas, Gulf County. Currently, this subspecies occupies only the St. Joseph Peninsula in Gulf County and East Crooked Island in Bay County (FNAI 2001). Historic and Current Occurrence in Plan Area Historic collections document SABM as having occurred on St. Andrew Point (now Crooked Island), Cape San Blas, St. Joseph Spit, locations near Port St. Joe, and near Money Bayou. Bowen (1968 as cited in USFWS 2010) constructed the currently accepted historic range for the St. Andrew beach mouse depicted in Figure SABM-1. Its historic range is defined as extending from the East Pass of St. Andrew Bay (Crooked Island) in Bay County, Florida, southward along the mainland coastline adjacent to St. Joseph Bay, to St. Joseph Peninsula and east to Money Bayou along the Gulf of Mexico in Gulf County, Florida (Bowen 1968, James 1992). Assessment of beach mouse populations by Loggins et al. (2008) identified the St. Andrew beach mouse to be distributed throughout much of the St. Joseph Peninsula and all of East Crooked Island, formerly known as St. Andrew Point Peninsula. Loggins et al. (2008) corroborated older reports that beach mice have not been present for more than 20 years in parcels of suitable habitat between the St. Joseph Peninsula and East Crooked Island (USFWS 2010 for summary). This includes the Palm Point area that is designated by the USFWS as critical habitat. The absence of beach mice south of the Stumphole region of the St. Joseph Peninsula, and from Cape San Blas to Indian Pass has been hypothesized to be a result of storm events and resulting elimination of the historic population (Loggins et al. 2008). This habitat area has also been dissected by development, and connectivity with existing habitats has been reduced by erosion (such as the extreme narrowing of the only potential corridor at the Stumphole area), development, and presence of only small areas of potentially suitable habitat. Current public land ownerships on the St. Joseph Peninsula provide habitat for the St. Andrew mouse, especially the St. Joseph Peninsula State Park, which is adjacent to the Plan Area and which includes the majority of occupied beach mouse habitat. The State Park has an approved management plan which specifically addresses managing habitats occupied by the St. Andrew beach mouse to maintain that habitat in perpetuity. The habitats include both the coastal dunes and substantial acreage of interior dunes that can act as refugia during major storm events. Other public land ownerships include the St. Joseph Buffer Preserve State Park, most of which is not appropriate beach mouse habitat, and Eglin Air Force Base at Cape San Blas, much of which is appropriate habitat but which is believed to be unoccupied. Outside of these publicly owned areas, beach mouse has been documented to occupy habitat within a broad strip of beach front dunes that extends from the State Park south to the Stumphole and in high dune ridges that cross much of the peninsula (Loggins et al. 2008). The beach front habitat is generally continuous, and existing local ordinances have resulted in building placement that is set back from the dunes. The dunes themselves are generally accessed from these buildings via raised boardwalks across at least a portion of the dunes, and most paths extending from the dunes to the active beach are narrow.

10 Back from the beach area, buildings and roads have been constructed through appropriate beach mouse habitat. On the St. Joseph Peninsula there are approximately 1659 private or county-owned parcels, of which approximately 757 are undeveloped. Approximately, 121 acres of beach, dune and scrub habitats occur on developed parcels and within rights-of-way. Approximately acres of beach, dune and scrub habitats occur on undeveloped parcels. Existing development patterns have maintained substantial amounts of native habitat within developed areas. While local ordinances have not required maintenance of natural vegetation, most land owners have maintained natural vegetation on their properties as a low-maintenance, cost-effective landscaping. On the St. Joseph Peninsula, approximately 35% of the mapped beach, dune, and scrub habitats mapped within the Plan area occur on developed parcels. Appendix 1 illustrates the distribution of beach, dune, and scrub habitats within the HCP Area. Of the five sections of coastal Gulf County covered by the HCP, 4 occur within the historic range of the St. Andrew beach mouse. The area east of Money Bayou is believed to be outside of the subspecies historic range (Bowen 1968). Only the St. Joseph Peninsula is occupied at this time (Loggins et al. 2008). Unoccupied habitats within the HCP area have the potential to be recolonized as a result re-establishment of SABM populations on adjacent public and private lands. Table 5-2 summarizes the distribution of habitats suitable to St. Andrew beach mice within the Plan area. Table 5-2 Summary of Distribution of Habitats Suitable to St. Andrew Beach Mice within the Plan Area Plan Area HCP Acres Beach Acres Dune Acres Scrub Acres Beacon Hill ST. Joseph Shores ST. Joseph Peninsula West Money Bayou East Money Bayou Totals The plan area east of Money Bayou is outside of the historic range of the St. Andrew beach mouse. Threats The USFWS identifies primary threats to the St. Andrew beach mouse as habitat loss/alteration from land development and associated human use, hurricanes and other tropical storm events, non-native predators, and recreational activities associated with development and tourism that weaken and encroach on the dune ecosystem. Other potential threats include shoreline erosion, feral hogs, competition from house mice, intra-specific crossbreeding with Choctawhatchee beach mice, artificial lighting, and catastrophic events. Population expansion may be limited by available habitat following catastrophic natural or human related events (USFWS 2010). The threats as identified by the USFWS include all areas of beach mouse habitat, and not all apply equally to all areas covered by the HCP. The major threats applicable to the Plan Area, paraphrased from the USFWS (2009 and 2010), are as follows: Land Development. Land development tends to degrade or destroy the secondary and scrub dunes. Of significance to mice, loss of storm refugia is a significant threat resulting from land development. Major storms can erode the primary dunes, leaving broad swaths of sand where dunes once existed, and frontal dunes can be completely flooded during the storm event. Beach

11 mice appear to take refuge on the secondary dunes and scrub dunes in the interior. Secondary and interior dunes appear to be critical to repopulation of the frontal dunes after the impact. When development destroys or degrades secondary and interior dunes, beach mice lose their storm refugia. Furthermore, land development can segregate the population into small groups isolating them from one another. Destruction of secondary dunes and fragmentation of overall dune habitat creates a greater likelihood that the population may be extirpated or reduced in numbers to a point that they may not be able to recover. Several entities (Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Gulf County) have rules intended to minimize development impacts in the frontal dune areas. Dune Encroachment. Dune encroachment by vehicles and pedestrians, in the form of driving on or walking over dunes, has been identified as a threat. These activities destroy or degrade dune habitat, kill vegetation and/or compact the soil potentially leading to blowouts in the dunes. The degree or severity to which this occurs is dependent upon the type of activity and the inherent susceptibility of the system. Current management, attributed by the USFWS to local government regulation in the area of the plan, including beach driving regulations, regulations requiring dune walkovers, and educational signage appears to have reduced the extent of encroachment and degradation. Natural Shoreline Erosion. Throughout the range of the St. Andrew beach mouse, shoreline erosion is seen to some degree but is greatest from Cape San Blas to St. Joseph State Park. Approximately 485,000 cubic yards (370,809 m 3 ) per year of beach erodes annually along St. Joseph Peninsula and is re-deposited either at the tip of the Peninsula or at Cape San Blas. This is one of the highest rates within the State. Shoreline erosion is a natural process, and the mice are adapted to it. However, when combined with loss of habitat, this natural threat is exacerbated. The beach mice would naturally move further inland as the effects of erosion are seen in the frontal dune systems. When development destroys this inland habitat, the mice do not have anywhere to move. Tropical Storms. Tropical storms, including hurricanes, are natural disturbances that beach mice have evolved with. Wind and storm surges may result in significant erosion, blow out dunes and impact existing vegetation communities. While storms may result in localized extirpations, mice populations may recover from individuals that have recolonized impacted areas from refugia, often on interior, higher elevation scrub dunes. As discussed above, the fragmentation of habitat by land development may exacerbate the negative effects of this natural threat by limiting access to refugia or routes for recolonization of areas impacted by storms. Artificial Lighting. The effects of artificial lighting within the habitat of the beach mouse have not been extensively studied. Natural illumination of the dune systems due to moon phases is known to have a direct effect on beach mouse activity. As natural illumination increases beach mice activity levels decrease. Beach mouse foraging behavior has been documented to be altered by artificial light. Mice reduced the use of habitat around illuminated areas and reduced their harvest of seeds. It has also been suggested that artificial lights may cause habitat fragmentation due to altered movement patterns. Gulf County has an artificial lighting ordinance, oriented to protect shoreline habitats, that likely reduces lighting impacts to mouse habitats in the frontal dunes (Gulf County 2001). Predation. Various researchers have reported that they found fewer beach mice in areas with abundant cat tracks (for example, Gore and Schaefer 1993), and cats are well documented predators of small mammals. Cat predation may have the potential to extirpate entire mouse populations (Loss et al. 2013), and removal of cats has been associated with significant increases in population size for beach mice (Frank and Humphrey 1996). Other non-native predators, such as red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and coyotes (Canis latrans), are thought to be potential predators of

12 beach mice and their tracks have been seen in known occupied beach mouse habitats. Gulf County (2008) has an animal control ordinance that forbids domestic animals from running loose. Recovery Plan The USFWS recovery goal for the St. Andrew beach mouse is to perpetuate the long-term viability of the subspecies in the wild. The recovery plan identifies that through population reestablishment, habitat protection, minimization or removal of known threats, and public education and stewardship, this subspecies could be down-listed from endangered to threatened and eventually removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The recovery plan identifies multiple action items needed to achieve delisting: 1. Monitor status of existing populations, and reestablish populations of St. Andrew beach mice. 2. Identify, protect, evaluate and restore St. Andrew beach mouse habitat. 3. Remove or investigate non-native predator threats to St. Andrew beach mice populations. 4. Increase protection of beach mice through the creation, strengthening, and enforcement of regulatory mechanism s to protect coastal dunes and minimize or remove identified threats to the St. Andrew beach mouse on private lands. 5. Remove, minimize, or investigate other natural or manmade threats. 6. Facilitate stewardship of St. Andrew beach mouse recovery through increased public awareness and education. All six action items are relevant to this Gulf County HCP Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Listed Status and Reason Piping plover populations were federally listed as threatened or endangered, depending on the population, in January 10, 1986 (50 FR 50726). The Northern Great Plains and Atlantic Coast populations, as well as piping plovers throughout their wintering range, are listed as threatened, and the Great Lakes population is endangered. Great Lakes population declines are attributed to impacts to breeding habitat from shoreline development, recreation and predation (USFWS undated). The piping plover is also protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Critical Habitat Designation The piping plover is migratory and spends the greater part of the year on its wintering range used for up to 10 months of the year. Both breeding and wintering ranges are critical to persistence and recovery of the species. Most research has been conducted in breeding habitats, but recent research suggests that survival is also highly dependent on conditions in the non-breeding and stopover habitats that likely are a primary driver of population dynamics (Roche et al. 2010). The USFWS designated critical habitat for the Great Lakes (66 FR 22938; May 7, 2001) and Northern Great Plains breeding populations (67 FR 57637; September 11, 2002), and for wintering piping plovers from all three breeding populations (66 FR 36038; July 10, 2001). Critical habitat for wintering piping plovers currently comprises 141 units totaling 256,513 acres along the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has identified 34 units of Critical Habitat for piping plovers in Florida. Two occur in Gulf County at the northern tip of the St. Joseph Peninsula and adjacent to Cape San Blas.

13

14 Figure 5-2 Piping Plover Critical Habitat A summary of critical habitat ownership within Gulf County is provided in Table 5-3. Table 5-3 Summary of Critical Habitat Ownership within the Plan Area Federal State Private 390 acres 449 acres -- Subsequent to the USFWS identification of critical habitat in the United States, additional key wintering habitat was identified in the Bahamas (Stap 2014). The number of birds wintering in the Bahamas has not been tallied in detail, but the habitat includes extensive mud and sand flats with documented use. Constituent Elements The USFWS identifies that primary constituent elements for the piping plover wintering habitat are found in coastal areas with intertidal beaches and flats (between annual low tide and annual high tide) and associated dune systems and flats above annual high tide. Important components of intertidal flats include sand and/or mud flats with no or very sparse emergent vegetation. Adjacent unvegetated or sparsely vegetated sand, mud, or algal flats above high tide are also important, especially for roosting piping plovers. Such sites may have debris, detritus (decaying organic matter), or micro-topographic relief (less than 20 in (50 cm) above substrate surface) offering refuge from high winds and cold weather. Important components of the beach/dune ecosystem include surf-cast algae, sparsely vegetated back beach (beach area above mean high tide seaward of the dune line, or in cases where no dunes exist, seaward of a delineating feature such as a vegetation line, structure, or road), spits, and washover areas. Washover areas are broad, unvegetated zones with little or no topographic relief, which are formed and maintained by the action of hurricanes, storm surge, or other extreme wave action. Several of these components (sparse vegetation, little or no topographic relief) are mimicked in artificial habitat types used less commonly by piping plovers (e.g., dredge spoil sites) (USFWS 2001). Designation Exclusions The USFWS did not exclude any areas from designation as critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. Biological Information General Description The piping plover is a small, pale-colored shorebird native to North America. It weighs 1.5 to 2.3 ounces (63 grams) and is 6 to 8 inches (17 to 18 centimeters) long. During the breeding season the legs are bright orange and the short, stout bill is orange with a black tip. There are two single dark bands, one around the neck and one across the forehead between the eyes. Plumage and leg color help distinguish this bird from other plovers. The female's neck band is often incomplete and is usually thinner than the male s neck band. In winter, the bill turns black, the legs fade to pale orange, and the black plumage bands on the head and neck are lost. Chicks have speckled gray, buff, and brown down, black beaks, orange legs, and a white collar around the neck. Juveniles resemble wintering adults and obtain their adult plumage the spring after they fledge. Food and Diet On the Gulf Coast, preferred foraging areas are associated with wide beaches, mudflats, and small inlets (USFWS 2001). Mudflats and sandflats provide foraging areas where piping plovers feed primarily on

15 marine and freshwater invertebrates which they find in the seaweed and other flotsam along the edge of the water. Other feeding areas include the edges of coastal lagoons and salt marshes. Foraging occurs primarily during daylight hours. Species Demography and Reproduction Although piping plovers do not breed in Florida, an overview of their demography and reproduction is provided. Piping plovers breed in the northern Great Plains, around the Great Lakes, and along the Atlantic coast. Piping plover pairs generally raise one brood per year, with both sexes incubating the eggs. Eggs are laid in a depression in the sand close to the dunes. The most common size of a clutch is four eggs. Both parents brood the chicks, although the female may cease brooding within five to 10 days after hatching. Brooding is infrequent after 21 days post hatching. The young generally remain within the territory of the male parent (Wilcox 1959, Haig 1992). The average lifespan of the piping plover is less than 5 years (Wilcox 1959). However, Wilcox (1959) found several birds that were at least 11 years of age. Habitat Requirements Piping plovers nest above the high tide line on coastal beaches, sand flats at the ends of sand spits and barrier islands, gently sloping fore dunes, blowout areas behind primary dunes, sparsely vegetated dunes, and wash-over areas cut into or between dunes. Feeding areas include intertidal portions of ocean beaches, wash-over areas, mudflats, sandflats, wrack lines, and shorelines of coastal ponds, lagoons, and salt marshes. Wintering plovers on the Atlantic Coast are generally found at the accreting ends of barrier islands along sandy peninsulas and near coastal inlets (USFWS 1996). At sites on the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts, piping plover habitat includes beaches, mudflats, and sandflats, as well as barrier island beaches and spoil islands (Haig 1992). Distribution General Species Distribution The Atlantic Coast piping plover population breeds on coastal beaches from Newfoundland to North Carolina (and occasionally in South Carolina) and winters along the Atlantic Coast from North Carolina south, along the Gulf Coast, and in the Caribbean. Piping plovers do not breed in Florida; however, individuals from the three breeding populations winter in Florida. Approximately 35 percent of the total breeding population of piping plovers winters along the gulf coast from Florida to Texas (NatureServe 2014). Piping plovers begin arriving on the wintering grounds in July, with some late-nesting birds arriving in September. A few individuals can be found on the wintering grounds throughout the year, but sightings are rare from late May through early July. The distributions of piping plovers are patchy along the coasts of Florida and correlated with the availability of suitable, open beach habitat. The numbers of piping plovers have declined or are vulnerable to declines with loss and degradation of habitat (Doonan et al. undated). Historic and Current Occurrence in Plan Area Winter surveys are conducted by the International Piping Plover Census once every 5 years with general data available from 1991 to The table below provides estimated numbers of birds for the Florida Gulf Coast and, where available, Gulf County.

16 Table 5-4 Piping Plover Observations in Wintering Bird Surveys Years Area Indian Pass to Cape San Blas and Stump Hole 1 0 SE St. Joe Bay Shoreline 0 St. Joseph Peninsula north 2 St. Joseph Peninsula south 0 St. Joseph Peninsula State Park 26 Florida Gulf Total Florida Total Data source(s) Haig et al., 2005 Haig et al., 2005 Ferland and Haig. 2002; Elliott- Smith et al USFWS 2012 Haig et al., 2005 Complete data for 2011 not been published. As noted in the table, in 2006, the surveyed areas in Gulf County represent a relatively small fraction of the total observations of total wintering piping plovers on the Florida Gulf Coast. The surveyed areas within the Plan Area had no reported birds. Recent studies (USFWS 2012) indicate that this survey likely underestimates the number of birds using Florida shorelines as it is conducted within a limited, one-week time period in January-February; and it does not cover all areas of appropriate shoreline. The survey is not necessarily consistent in surveyed areas from year to year. Threats The main wintering threat to piping plovers is habitat loss. Development on beaches has reduced the amount of suitable wintering areas available. Disturbance by humans and domestic animals forces wintering and migrating birds to increase their energy expenditure, and can also cause breeding plovers to abandon nests and young (USFWS 2011). Other threats include predation from raccoons, skunks, and foxes (USFWS 2011). Recovery Plan The USFWS goal of the recovery plan is to increase and stabilize the number of breeding pairs in the Great Lake states and provide long-term protection of breeding and wintering plovers and their habitat. Assuming the breeding populations increase in size, the number of birds that the wintering grounds need to support should also increase. Therefore, maintaining sufficient habitat throughout the wintering grounds is essential to insure survival. Wintering habitats also need to provide adequate quality foraging and roosting sites to ensure that adequate numbers of adults survive, migrate back to breeding sites and successfully nest. The actions cited by the USFWS required to achieve goals identified in the piping plover recovery plan are: 1. Manage breeding piping plovers and habitat to maximize survival and productivity. 2. Monitor and manage wintering and migration areas to maximize survival and recruitment into the breeding population. 3. Undertake scientific investigations that will facilitate recovery efforts.

17 4. Develop and implement public information and education programs. 5. Review progress towards recovery annually and review recovery efforts as appropriate Only those measures that related to wintering habitats are applicable to Gulf County (monitoring, research, public information) Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) Listed Status and Reason The rufa red knot was listed as Threatened by the USFWS on December 11, The rufa red knot was listed due to loss of both breeding and nonbreeding habitat; potential for disruption of natural predator cycles on the breeding grounds; reduced prey availability throughout the nonbreeding range; and increasing frequency and severity of asynchronies ( mismatches ) in the timing of the birds' annual migratory cycle relative to favorable food and weather conditions. The rufa red knot is also protected under the MBTA. The rufa red knot population has decreased an estimated 80% over the past 25 years (Niles et al. 2008). Niles et al. (2008) identify the main threat to the rufa red knot population as the reduced availability of horseshoe crabs eggs in Delaware Bay arising from elevated harvest of adult crabs for bait in the conch and eel fishing industries. Similarly, declining trends are also exhibited by the rufa red knot population wintering in Florida (as cited in Schwarzer et al. 2012). Red knot habitats along the Atlantic coast of New Jersey, Virginia, and the Carolinas and along the Gulf coast west of Florida are at risk from sea level rise and habitat alteration through development and shoreline stabilization. Critical Habitat Designation Currently, no critical habitat has been designated for this species. Biological Information General Description The rufa red knot is a medium-sized shorebird about 9 to 11 inches (23 to 28 cm) in length with black legs and bill. It has a relatively small head and short neck with small dark eyes. The red knot has a red breast and a dark, russet back. Its winter plumage is a dull gray with white underside. Underparts of some individuals show traces of the "red" of spring. Food and Diet The red knot diet includes mollusks, snails, small fishes, horseshoe crab eggs, marine worms, and insects (especially flies and beetles), seeds and vegetation (Sperry 1940 in Terres 1995). The primary prey of the rufa red knot in non-breeding habitats include blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) spat (juveniles); Donax and Darina clams; snails (Littorina spp.), and other mollusks, as well as polychaete worms, insect larvae, and crustaceans. Species Demography and Reproduction Although red knots are only winter residents in Florida, an overview of their demography and reproduction is provided. Red knots breed in the Canadian Arctic and nest in dry tundra areas. Red knots almost always raise one clutch of four eggs per breeding season. Both parents incubate the eggs. After hatching, care of hatchlings is carried out by the male. The oldest confirmed age for banded rufa red knots is 19 years.

18 Habitat Requirements The red knot breeds in drier tundra areas, such as sparsely vegetated hillsides. Outside of breeding season, it is found primarily in intertidal, marine habitats, especially near coastal inlets, estuaries, and bays. On wintering grounds in north Florida, habitat types utilized by foraging red knots include sandy beaches, tidal mudflats, salt marsh and brackish lagoon/impoundments (Niles et al. 2008). Wintering areas for the red knots include the Atlantic coasts of Argentina and Chile, the north coast of Brazil, the Northwest Gulf of Mexico from the Mexican State of Tamaulipas through Texas to Louisiana, and the Southeast United States from Florida (particularly the central Gulf coast) to North Carolina. Distribution General Species Distribution The red knot is a long-lived migratory sandpiper species that occurs worldwide and is divided into six recognized subspecies (Harrington 2001). The red knot migration is one of the longest in the New World. The southeastern breeding limit of the North American race (C. c. rufa) is Southampton Island in northern Hudson's Bay (Abraham and Ankney 1986). The rufa red knot (Calidris c. rufa) occurs in the Western Hemisphere. In addition to the rufa red knot (C.c. rufa), one other red knot subspecies, C.c. roselaari, occurs in the United States. The subspecies C.c. roselaari migrates along the Pacific Coast to breed in Alaska and Wrangel Island, Russia. It has been suggested that red knots wintering in Florida conceivably may include C. c. roselaari and use a mid-continental route to reach Alaska breeding grounds (Harrington 2001). Niles et al (2008) states however, that there is no good evidence that supports or refutes this idea. The rufa red knot migrates annually between its breeding grounds in the Canadian Arctic and several wintering regions, including the Southeast United States, the Northeast Gulf of Mexico, northern Brazil, and Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of South America. During both the northbound spring and southbound fall migrations, red knots use staging and stopover areas to rest and feed. During the winter, rufa red knots principally occupy two areas. The larger group of approximately 100,000 birds is distributed along the Patagonian Atlantic coast. The smaller group of about 10,000 along Florida's Gulf coast (Harrington et al.1988). Red knots have been documented in Florida in all months of the year but are seen most frequently from November through May. During November through February, they are most commonly observed on the west coast (Niles et al. 2008). The red knot population that winters mainly on the west coast of Florida was counted by aerial surveys in the 1980s, and was estimated at between 6,500 and 10,000 individuals by Morrison and Harrington (1992), but counts in the winter suggest a population of no more than about 4,000 (Sprandel et al. 1997). Niles et al. (2008) speculate that the Florida population of red knots may be near 7,500. There is no reliable evidence of a trend for the size of the Florida wintering population. The count data are very erratic from year to year, probably because of the difficulty of finding red knots along Florida s lengthy coastline (Niles et al. 2008). Historic and Current Occurrence in Plan Area The red knot is known to use beaches in Gulf County. Based on its 2014 management plan, the St. Joseph Peninsula State Park is anticipating that portions of the park will be included in a future designation of wintering habitat for the red knot. At the park, the red knot likely uses the beaches as a stopover during migration, and a few birds remain at the park during the winter. Threats The threats to red knots include loss of both breeding and nonbreeding habitat; potential for disruption of natural predator cycles on the breeding grounds and reduced prey availability throughout the nonbreeding range. In Florida, nearly all documented predation of wintering red knots has been by avian and not terrestrial, predators. The most common predators of red knots while away from breeding grounds are peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), harriers (Circus spp.), other accipiters, merlins (Falco columbarius),

19 shorteared owls (Asio flammeus), and great blackbacked gulls (Larus marinus) (Niles et al. 2008). In Florida, Niles et al. (2006), identify the most immediate and tangible threat to migrant and wintering red knots as chronic disturbance. Other threats to red knots wintering in Florida include shoreline hardening, dredging and deposition, beach nourishment activities and beach-raking (Niles et al. 2008). The USFWS identifies additional, but less significant, threats to include hunting, predation, human disturbance, oil spills, red tides, algal blooms and wind turbines (USFWS 2014). Recovery Plan The USFWS has not yet developed a Recovery Plan for the rufa red knot Sea Turtles The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share federal jurisdiction for sea turtles, with the USFWS having lead responsibility for habitats and the NMFS for marine habitats. Due to the terrestrial focus of this HCP, only the terrestrial nesting aspects of sea turtle life cycles are addressed by the Plan. Four species of sea turtles are included in this Plan. At a national and global level, these species differ in their biology and a number of their protection needs. A state level, and especially in regards to their terrestrial nesting habitats, the habitat requirements and threats to the species are highly similar. Thus, the turtles are discussed together in regards to available data, general nesting requirements, threats, and management needs. They are discussed individually in terms of species biology, critical habitat, and other factors that affect the HCP and incidental take. Available Data Gulf County sea turtle utilization data were obtained from state and federal agencies and programs including the USFWS, NMFS, the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI), the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Statewide Nesting Beach Survey (SNBS) and the Florida Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (FLSTSSN). The majority of the data applicable to Gulf County comes from the SNBS. The SNBS program was initiated in 1979 under a cooperative agreement between the FWC and USFWS. The purpose of this program is to document the total distribution, seasonality and abundance of sea turtle nesting in Florida. Gulf County sea turtle record data utilized in this report were provided by the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute in St. Petersburg, FL. A summary Gulf County beaches included in the annual SNBS survey and associated survey lengths are provided in Table 5-5. Table 5-5 Beaches Surveyed for Sea Turtle Nesting and Average Survey Length in Gulf County, Florida ( ) Beach Average Survey Length (km) Bay County Line to Gulf County Canal 9.4 St. Joseph Peninsula State Park 14.4 St. Joseph Peninsula outside of the State Park 11.0 Cape San Blas Eglin Air Force Base 4.8 Eglin Air Force Base to Indian Pass 10.5 Unless otherwise specified, data gathered are by beach, and there are no location data within the beach areas. Occurrence and nest counts are by individual species, but data on disturbances are all species

20 grouped. The great majority of the data (>98%) relate to the loggerhead sea turtle, and disturbance data should be assumed to primarily represent the loggerhead (Table 5-6). Table 5-6 Number of Recorded Sea Turtle Nests by Species in Gulf County, Florida ( ) Habitats Year Loggerhead Green Leatherback Kemp s Ridley Total Average The nesting habitats for all of the covered sea turtles are similar. The loggerhead is the only sea turtle species with designated critical habitat within Gulf County. The general nesting habitat features required by all species, based on the critical habitat designation by the USFWS for the loggerhead are as follows: 1. Suitable nesting beach habitat that has (a) relatively unimpeded near shore access from the ocean to the beach for nesting females and from the beach to the ocean for both post-nesting females and hatchlings; and, (b) is located above mean high water to avoid being inundated frequently by high tides. 2. Sand that (a) allows for suitable nest construction, (b) is suitable for facilitating gas diffusion conducive to embryo development, and (c) is able to develop and maintain temperatures and moisture content conducive to embryo development. 3. Suitable nesting beach habitat with sufficient darkness to ensure nesting turtles are not deterred from emerging onto the beach, post-nesting females re-orient back to the sea and emerging hatchlings orient correctly towards the sea. 4. Natural coastal processes or artificially created or maintained habitat mimicking natural conditions. This includes artificial habitat types that mimic the natural conditions described in the PCEs above for beach access, nest site selection, nest construction, egg deposition and incubation, and hatchling emergence and movement to the sea. Threats (to all Sea Turtles) Sea turtles face threats both in their marine environments and in their terrestrial nesting areas. Sea turtles are hunted for their meat, shells, and eggs; and their nesting beaches are often degraded by condominiums, seawalls, and other structures. Hatchlings are lured to their deaths by the artificial lights on developed beaches. Juveniles and adults may die after consuming discarded plastic bags, balloons,

21 and other marine debris, and turtles of all sizes and ages may be drowned in shrimp trawls and gill nets. Sea turtles may be stunned or killed by extreme cold temperatures in winter. Threats on Beaches and Dunes Loss or degradation of nesting habitat resulting from erosion control through beach nourishment and armoring, beachfront development, artificial lighting, and non-native vegetation is a serious threat affecting nesting females and hatchlings. Although beach nourishment, or placing sand on beaches, may provide more sand, the quality of that sand, and hence the nesting beach, may be less suitable than preexisting natural beaches. Sub-optimal nesting habitat may cause decreased nesting success, place an increased energy burden on nesting females, result in abnormal nest construction, and reduce the survivorship of eggs and hatchlings. Beach armoring (e.g., bulkheads, seawalls, soil retaining walls, rock revetments, sandbags, and geotextile tubes) can impede a turtle's access to upper regions of the beach/dune system, thereby limiting the amount of available nesting habitat. Impacts also can occur if structures are installed during the nesting season. For example, unmarked nests can be crushed or uncovered by heavy equipment, nesting turtles and hatchlings can get caught in construction debris or excavations, and hatchlings can get trapped in holes or crevices of exposed riprap and geotextile tubes. In many areas of the world, sand mining (removal of beach sand for upland construction) seriously degrades and destroys nesting habitat. Artificial lighting on or near the beach adversely affects both nesting and hatchling sea turtles. Specifically, artificial lighting may deter adult female turtles from emerging from the ocean to nest and can disorient newly emerged hatchlings (Peters and Verhoeven 1994, Witherington 1992). Hatchlings have a tendency to orient toward the direction with the brightest lights, which on natural, undeveloped beaches is commonly toward the broad open horizon of the sea. On beaches with adjacent development, the brightest direction may be away from the ocean and toward lighted structures. Hatchlings unable to find the ocean, or delayed in reaching it, are likely to incur high mortality from dehydration, exhaustion, or predation. Hatchlings lured into lighted parking lots or toward streetlights can get crushed by passing vehicles. Non-native vegetation has invaded many coastal areas and often out competes native species. Nonnative vegetation is usually less-stabilizing and can lead to increased erosion and degradation of suitable nesting habitat. Exotic vegetation may also form impenetrable root mats that can prevent proper nest cavity excavation, invade and desiccate eggs, or trap hatchlings. At the time of listing of each species, the USFWS identified the primary threats applicable to those species. They are highly duplicative. For loggerhead sea turtle terrestrial habitat, FFWS identified 12 categories of threats essential to prioritizing recovery actions. These primary threats are categories of activities that may impact the habitat and its physical or biological features, and may require special management considerations or protection. 1. Recreational beach use (beach cleaning, human presence (e.g., dog beach, special events, piers, and recreational beach equipment)); 2. Beach driving (essential and nonessential off-road vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, and recreational access and use); 3. Predation (depredation of eggs and hatchlings by native and nonnative predators); 4. Beach sand placement activities (beach nourishment, beach restoration, inlet sand bypassing, dredge material disposal, dune construction, emergency sand placement after natural disaster, berm construction, and dune and berm planting);

22 5. In-water and shoreline alterations (artificial in-water and shoreline stabilization measures (e.g., inwater erosion control structures, such as groins, breakwaters, jetties), inlet relocation, inlet dredging, nearshore dredging, and dredging and deepening channels); 6. Coastal development (residential and commercial development and associated activities including beach armoring (e.g., sea walls, geotextile tubes, rock revetments, sandbags, emergency temporary armoring); and activities associated with construction, repair, and maintenance of upland structures, stormwater outfalls, and piers); 7. Lights on land or in the adjacent water, which can deter nesting and disorient hatchlings and nesting females, direct or indirect lighting visible from the nesting beach, including skyglow and bonfires, particularly artificial lighting that has an unshielded lamp and a short wave length (below 540 nm). 8. Beach erosion (erosion due to aperiodic, short-term weather-related erosion events, such as atmospheric fronts, northeasters, tropical storms, and hurricanes); 9. Climate change (includes sea level rise); 10. Habitat obstructions (tree stumps, fallen trees, and other debris on the beach; nearshore sand bars; and ponding along beachfront seaward of dry beach); 11. Human-caused disasters and response to natural and human-caused disasters (oil spills, oil spill response including beach cleaning and berm construction, and debris cleanup after natural disasters); and 12. Military testing and training activities (troop presence, pyrotechnics and nighttime lighting, vehicles and amphibious watercraft usage on the beach, helicopter drops and extractions, live fire exercises, and placement and removal of objects on the beach). Threats in the Plan Area The threats to sea turtles in the Plan area include both natural and human disturbances. Based on the relative abundance of the different sea turtle species, the data relate predominantly to the loggerhead sea turtle. Recorded disturbances included weather, predation, human disturbance, and light disorientation. Disturbances did not necessarily result in complete destruction of the nest. The table below shows the number of nests disturbed annually in the Plan area and the adjacent state park and Eglin AFB property. The data indicate the number of nests affected relative to the total number in the section of beach (if available). Beginning in 2012, the nests in all areas except the area between the Bay County line and Gulf County Canal were flagged when located, and the numbers presented in the table are the number of disturbed nests followed by the total number of nests. The most common disturbance documented was weather. The number of nests disturbed by weather was well over 50% in most areas in 2012, and much lower in appears to have been a year of both very high nesting and high storm disturbance (likely Tropical Storm Debbie). Most of the disturbance relates to erosion or over washing of nests. Table 5-7 Year Weather Disturbance Bay County Line to Gulf County Canal St. Joseph Peninsula State Park St. Joseph Peninsula excluding the park Eglin AFB at Cape San Blas Eglin AFB to Indian Pass /? 4/? 22/? 9/? 12/?

23 Year Bay County Line to Gulf County Canal St. Joseph Peninsula State Park St. Joseph Peninsula excluding the park Eglin AFB at Cape San Blas Eglin AFB to Indian Pass /? 35/? 71/? 35/? 1/? /? 91/? 70/? 15/? 2/? /? 7/? 27/? 3/? 2/? /? 22/? 22/? 13/? 0/? /? 25/? 63/? 42/? 19/? /? 20/? 42/? 18/? 10/? /? 14/? 43/? 15/? 4/? /? 24/? 36/? 25/? 25/? /? 121/ /227 48/54 51/ /? 12/116 30/96 9/48 4/31 Animals were another key source of disturbance. Predation was attributed primarily to coyotes, dogs, and raccoons. Coyotes are referenced in the St. Joseph Peninsula State Park Management Plan (FDEP 2014) as increasing and problematic in the park. The same scenario likely applies to predation in the other sections of beach as well. Table 5-8 Year Predation Disturbance Bay County Line to Gulf County Canal St. Joseph Peninsula State Park St. Joseph Peninsula excluding the park Eglin AFB at Cape San Blas Eglin AFB to Indian Pass /? 1/? 7/? 18/? 0/? /? 0/? 8/? 13/? 0/? /? 0/? 1/? 0/? 0/? /? 0/? 0/? 0/? 0/? /? 0/? 1/? 13/? 0/? /? 0/? 3/? 1/? 0/? /? 7/? 0/? 5/? 1/? /? 22/? 0/? 5/? 0/? /? 3/? 7/? 13/? 3/? /18 3/187 1/227 14/54 27/ /11 27/116 11/96 20/48 1/31 The following table summarizes human-caused disturbances to nests. In general, it appears to be a minor source of disturbance. Disturbances can be described as inadvertant, or in a very small number of cases, deliberate vandalism. The data suggest that recreational beach use is being managed in ways that are successfully minimizing impact.

24 Table 5-9 Year Human Disturbance Bay County Line to Gulf County Canal St. Joseph Peninsula State Park St. Joseph Peninsula excluding the park Eglin AFB at Cape San Blas Eglin AFB to Indian Pass /? 1/? 1/? 1/? 0/? /? 0/? 0/? 0/? 0/? /? 0/? 0/? 0/? 0/? /? 0/? 0/? 0/? 0/? /? 0/? 0/? 1/? 0/? /? 1/? 0/? 0/? 0/? /? 0/? 1/? 0/? 0/? /? 0/? 0/? 0/? 0/? /? 0/? 0/? 0/? 0/? /18 0/187 1/227 0/54 0/ /11 0/116 0/96 0/48 0/31 Humans also contribute to disorientation of hatchlings. Table The data in the table reflect incidences of hatchling disorientation within each section of beach. These were typically reported to local authorities for investigation. The occurrence and number of disorientation events are greater for the beaches in the Plan area than for beaches on public lands at the state park or Cape San Blas. Current management policies on these public lands and adjacent land uses, appear to have largely eliminated these events on public lands. On beaches bordered by private lands, there are a small number of disorientation events in most years. Trends cannot be ascertained from these data. Specific causes of disorientation are not included in the data file. Table 5-10 Year Disorientation Incidents Bay County Line to Gulf County Canal St. Joseph Peninsula State Park St. Joseph Peninsula excluding the park Eglin AFB at Cape San Blas Eglin AFB to Indian Pass 2003 Yes No Yes Yes Yes 2004 Yes No Yes No Yes 2005 No No No No No 2006 Yes Yes Yes No No 2007 Yes No Yes No Yes 2008 No No Yes No Yes 2009 Yes No Yes No Yes 2010 Yes (1) No Yes (7) No Yes (2) 2011 No No Yes (9) No Yes (2) 2012 Yes (2) No Yes (2) No Yes (2) 2013 No No Yes (5) No No * The number of disorientation events is given in parentheses, if known.

25 Based on the data in Table 5-10, it appears that deliberate disturbance by humans is low, suggestive that local policies and ordinances that provide for public education and signs at beach entries appear to be appropriately protective. However, because tourism is an important part of the economy public education is a challenge because of the high turnover of tourists during the summer vacation season, which corresponds with the sea turtle nesting season. Most of the other general threats listed previously are not included in the disturbance data. Beach driving is excluded from this HCP and is being addressed by a separate HCP under review by the USFWS. Beach sand replacement does not appear to be a current issue within the Plan area. Shoreline alterations in the Plan area appear to be restricted to pathways across the dunes, whether from residential development or in parks, and existing county ordinances appear to be minimizing those disturbances. Some structures, such as sand fences, are present along some develop frontal dunes. The impact of these structures, if any, is not known Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) Listed Status and Reason The loggerhead is the most common of four species of sea turtle that are known to use beaches in Gulf County for nesting. Most of the data on sea turtles from the County is for the loggerhead or for mixed species studies, where the loggerhead accounts for almost all (>98%) observations. In 1978, the NMFS and USFWS listed the loggerhead sea turtle as Threatened throughout its range (43 FR 32800). Critical habitat was not designated for the loggerhead sea turtle at the time of initial listing. The USFWS and NMFS subsequently designated the Northwest Atlantic Ocean distinct population segment (DPS) of the loggerhead sea turtle as Threatened on September 22, 2011 (76 FR 58868). The Services identified the reasons for the current listing status to include loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development and beach armoring; disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront lighting; nest predation by native and non-native predators; degradation of foraging habitat; marine pollution and debris; watercraft strikes; disease; and incidental take from channel dredging and commercial trawling, longline, and gill net fisheries. The USFWS identified five recovery units for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea turtle. Four of these recovery units represent nesting assemblages in the southeastern United States and the fifth recovery unit includes all other nesting assemblages within the Northwest Atlantic. Gulf County is included within the Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (NGMRU), which is defined as loggerhead sea turtles originating from nesting beaches from Franklin County on the northwest Gulf coast of Florida west through Texas. Salt marsh in the Big Bend area east of Franklin County separates this recovery unit from the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit, Figure 5-3.

26 Figure 5-3 Location of the Four Identified Recovery Units in the U.S. (NRU = Northern Recovery Unit, PFRU = Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit, DTRU = Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit, NGMRU = Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit). Critical Habitat The Services issued final rules to designate critical habitat for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Distinct Population Segment (DPS) effective August 11, The NMFS designated critical habitat within marine environments, and USFWS designated critical habitat for terrestrial areas (nesting beaches). The USFWS identified about 685 miles ( km) of coastal beach habitat as important for the recovery of the threatened Northwest Atlantic Ocean population of loggerhead sea turtles, as directed by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (NMFS and USFWS 2008). The terrestrial critical habitat areas include 88 nesting beaches in coastal counties located in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi. These beaches account for 48 percent of an estimated 1,531 miles ( km) of coastal beach shoreline and about 84 percent of the documented number of nests within these six states. Land ownership of the critical habitat area consists of federal (21 percent), state (21percent), and private and others, including local governments (58 percent). The USFWS designates critical habitat based on the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the loggerhead sea turtle are the extra-tidal or dry sandy beaches from the mean high-water line to the toe of the secondary dune. These beaches are capable of supporting high densities of nests or serving as expansion areas for beaches with high densities of nests and that are well distributed within each State, or region within a State, and representative of total nesting (79 FR 39855). Important components of these beaches are as follows: Suitable nesting beach habitat that has (a) relatively unimpeded near shore access from the ocean to the beach for nesting females and from the beach to the ocean for both post-nesting

27 females and hatchlings; and, (b) is located above mean high water to avoid being inundated frequently by high tides. Sand that (a) allows for suitable nest construction, (b) is suitable for facilitating gas diffusion conducive to embryo development, and (c) is able to develop and maintain temperatures and moisture content conducive to embryo development. Suitable nesting beach habitat with sufficient darkness to ensure nesting turtles are not deterred from emerging onto the beach, post-nesting females re-orient back to the sea and emerging hatchlings orient correctly towards the sea. Natural coastal processes or artificially created or maintained habitat mimicking natural conditions. This includes artificial habitat types that mimic the natural conditions described in the PCEs above for beach access, nest site selection, nest construction, egg deposition and incubation, and hatchling emergence and movement to the sea. The Federal Register identifies eight critical habitat units occurring within the Florida panhandle, three of which occur in Gulf County. A summary of the critical habitat units within Gulf County is provided in Table A map depicting limits of each recovery unit within Gulf County is provided as Figure 5-3. Table 5-11 Designated Critical Habitat Units for the Loggerhead Sea Turtle within Gulf County, Florida Critical Habitat Unit LOGG-T-FL-39: Mexico Beach and St. Joe Beach, Bay and Gulf Counties LOGG-T-FL-40: St. Joseph Peninsula, Gulf County Length OF Coastline in Miles (Kilometers) Total Federal State Local Government & Private 11.7 (18.7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 11.7 (18.7) 14.6 (23.5) 0 (0) 9.7 (15.5) 4.9 (8.0) LOGG-T-FL-41: Cape San Blas, Gulf County 6.8 (11.0) 0 (0) 0.1 (0.1) 6.7 (10.8) Gulf County Totals 33.1 (53.2) 0 (0) 9.8 (15.6) 23.3 (37.5) [Beach length estimates reflect the linear distance along the nesting beach shoreline within critical habitat unit boundaries. All units are occupied by the loggerhead sea turtle. Note: Linear distances may not sum due to rounding. Loggerhead sea turtle recovery units within Gulf County include LOGG-T-FL-39, LOGG-T-FL-40 and LOGG-T-FL-41. LOGG-T-FL-39 includes 11.7 mi (18.7 km) of mainland shoreline between the Bay County line and the Gulf County canal. LOGG-T-FL-40 consists of 14.6 mi (23.5 km) on the St. Joseph Peninsula. This unit includes beaches and dunes private lands and on the T.H. Stone Memorial St. Joseph Peninsula State Park and part of the St. Joseph Bay Aquatic Preserve, both managed by the FDEP and not in the Plan area. This unit has high-density nesting by loggerhead sea turtles. The T.H. Stone Memorial St. Joseph Peninsula State Park Management Plan and the St. Joseph Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan cover protection of the loggerhead, and both areas are excluded from the HCP plan area. Those areas of LOGG-T-FL-40 outside of state managed lands are included in the Plan area.

28 LOGG-T-FL-41includes portions of Cape San Blas and consists of 6.8 mi (11.0 km) of mainland and spit shoreline along the Gulf of Mexico. The State-owned portion of LOGG-T-FL-41 is part of the St. Joseph Bay State Buffer Preserve, which is managed by FDEP and excluded from the Plan area. The Countyowned portion, Salinas Park, is included in the Plan area. The St. Joseph Bay State Buffer Preserve Management plan is currently in place within this unit. The Eglin Air Force Base, Cape San Blas Unit was excluded from the loggerhead sea turtle critical habitat designation pursuant to Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA because the Air Force Base has an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMP) in place that incorporates measures to manage the loggerhead sea turtle. The Air Force Base is excluded from the HCP Plan area. Total loggerhead sea turtle designated critical habitat in Gulf County equals 33.1 mi (53.2 km). With the exception of Eglin Air Force Base, this accounts for all areas of the County s sandy coastline. All areas included in the HCP include loggerhead sea turtle critical habitat. Loggerhead sea turtle critical habitat within the plan area is comprised of 29.6% state and 70.3% private/county/municipality ownership. Biological Information General Description Loggerhead sea turtles are long-lived, slow-growing animals characterized by a large head with blunt jaws. Adults grow to an average weight of about 200 pounds and an average length of 3 feet. The carapace and flippers are a reddish-brown color; the plastron is yellow. The carapace has five pairs of costal scutes with the first touching the nuchal scute. There are three large inframarginal scutes on each of the bridges between the plastron and carapace. Food and Diet Adult loggerhead sea turtles are carnivores, subsisting on crustaceans, fish, and other marine animals (Preen 1996). Hatchings probably feed on macroplantkon accumulated in drift lines (Carr 1987). Juveniles and adults eat mostly bottom dwelling invertebrates including mollusks, horseshoe crabs and sea urchins. Species Demography and Reproduction The U.S. nesting season occurs from April through September, with a peak in June and July. Nesting occurs primarily at night. Loggerhead sea turtles are known to nest from one to seven times within a nesting season at intervals of approximately 14 days. The mean clutch size varies from about 100 to 126 along the southeastern U.S. coast. Incubation duration ranges from about 42 to 75 days, depending on incubation temperatures, but averages days for most clutches in Florida. Hatchlings generally emerge at night. Nesting density in Florida reaches nearly 450 nests/km in some areas (Dodd 1992). In Florida, nesting on urban beaches was strongly correlated with the presence of tall objects (trees, buildings), which apparently shield the beach from city lights (Salmon et al. 1995). Remigration intervals of 2 to 3 years are most common in nesting loggerhead sea turtles, but remigration can vary from 1 to 7 years. Age at sexual maturity is very difficult to assess, and has been estimated between 20 and up to 45 years (Parham and Zug 1997, Scott et al. 2012). Distribution General Species Distribution The loggerhead sea turtle is widely distributed within its range and uses multiple environments including terrestrial, near shore, and open ocean habitats. This species may be found hundreds of miles out to sea, as well as inshore. Coral reefs, rocky places, and ship wrecks are often used as feeding areas. Nesting occurs mainly on open beaches or along narrow bays having suitable sand, often in association with other species of sea turtles. Most loggerhead sea turtle hatchlings originating from U.S. beaches are believed to lead a pelagic existence in the North Atlantic gyre for an extended period of time, perhaps as long as 7 to 12 years. Post-hatchlings have been found floating at sea in

29 association with Sargassum rafts. Juvenile loggerhead sea turtles move to coastal areas in the western Atlantic where they become benthic feeders in shallow coastal waters. Juveniles occupy coastal feeding grounds for about 13 to 20 years before maturing and making their first reproductive migration, the females returning to their birth beach to nest (NMFS 2014). In the U.S., loggerhead sea turtles nest from Texas to Virginia. The majority of nesting in the southeast U.S. currently occurs on over mi (2,400 km) of beaches over half of which are in Florida: North Carolina mi (531 km), South Carolina mi (303 km), Georgia mi (164 km), Florida mi (1,327 km), and Alabama 48.5 mi (78 km). The loggerhead sea turtle is the most common sea turtle in Florida. One of the most important nesting populations of the loggerhead in the Atlantic Ocean is situated in the southeastern coast of North America, with a main center located in the Florida Peninsula (Dodd 1988, Ehrhart et al. 2003). Eighty percent of the loggerhead turtles in the western Atlantic nest along 200 miles of Florida's east coast (Rudloe and Rudloe 1994) in six Florida counties (Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward counties) (NOAA 2014) with approximately 50 percent of loggerhead nesting occurring in Palm Beach County (FFWCC undated). Annual nest totals for the peninsular Florida recovery unit averaged 64,513 nests from , but there has been a decrease of 26% over the 20-year period from and a 41% decline since 1998 (NMFS and USFWS 2008). The Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit has shown a declining trend of 6.8% annually since index nesting beach surveys were initiated in 1997 (NMFS and USFWS 2008). A Florida Panhandle nesting subpopulation, occurring at Eglin Air Force Base and the beaches near Panama City, Florida totaled approximately 1,200 nests in 1998 (NMFS 2002). Historic and Current Occurrence in Plan Area The loggerhead sea turtle is the most common sea turtle recorded in Gulf County, Florida. Based on FWRI data, this species represents 98.41% of all recorded Gulf County sea turtle nesting observations from This species also accounts for 71.43% of dead, sick, or injured (i.e., stranded) sea turtles found in Gulf County as reported by FLSTSSN, A summary of loggerhead sea turtle nesting and false crawls within Gulf County is provided in Table Overall, the greatest density of nests from was from the tip of the St. Joseph Peninsula through the Eglin AFB property at Cape San Blas. The lowest nest density was along the beach from the Bay County line to the Gulf County Canal. That area also had the greatest number and greatest proportion of nesting attempts that resulted in false crawls. The lowest proportion of false crawls was on the St. Joseph Peninsula north of Cape San Blas Eglin AFB property. False crawls have been associated with disturbance, but it also appears from the data for Gulf County that there are proportionately fewer false crawls along areas with broader beaches. Table 5-12 Loggerhead Sea Turtle Nesting by Beach in Gulf County, Florida ( Beach Yearly Average Nests Density (nest/km) Yearly Average False Crawls Percent of Nesting Attempts that Resulted in False Crawls County Line to Gulf County Canal % St. Joe Peninsula State Park % St. Joseph Peninsula % Cape San Blas Eglin Air Force Base % Eglin to Indian Pass %

30 The data indicate that there are differences in site uses, and that there may be some trends in site usage over time. The highest nesting numbers occur on the St. Joseph Peninsula, both in the state park and on other beaches between the park and the Stump Hole. Lower numbers occur from Cape San Blas to Indian Pass and from the Bay County line to the Gulf County Canal. (Figure 5-4) With the exception of 2012, which was a year with very high nesting (and very high disturbance rates), there are no apparent trends with the possible exception of an increasing trend for the Eglin Cape San Blas to Indian Pass beach area. Figure 5-4 Numbers of nests, recorded by year, in the areas addressed by this HCP and on adjacent public lands. Nesting density provides a somewhat different view of the relative importance of each area independent of its length. (Figure 5-5). The St. Joseph Peninsula, the St. Joseph Peninsula State Park, and Eglin Cape San Blas appear to be equivalently important in terms of nesting density, suggesting that habitat quality is likely highest in these areas. The other areas have lower densities. The difference in habitat quality between peninsula and mainland locations has not been quantified.

31 Figure 5-5 Density of nests (nests/km), recorded by year, in the areas addressed by this HCP and on adjacent public lands. False crawls (crawls that do not end in nesting) also vary by location. They likely indicate both higher numbers of nesting attempts, and potentially, nesting attempts aborted by disturbance (Figure 5-5). Associated disturbances, if any, are not recorded in the data. Apparent trends tend to disappear if these data are considered in terms of density (false crawls per kilometer), Figure 5-6.

32 Figure 5-6 False crawls, recorded by year, in the areas addressed by this HCP and on adjacent public lands. Figure 5-7 Density of False Crawls (number of false crawls/kim)

33 Threats The threats protection needs, and avoidance and minimization measures are the same for all sea turtles included in this HCP. Recovery Plan The recovery goal for each recovery unit of the loggerhead sea turtle is for each unit to alleviate threats to the species so that protections under the ESA are no longer required. The second revision of the Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (NMFS and USFWS 2008) identified the following 13 recovery objectives: 1. Ensure that the number of nests in each recovery unit is increasing and that this increase corresponds to an increase in the number of nesting females. 2. Ensure the in-water abundance of juveniles in both neritic and oceanic habitats is increasing and is increasing at a greater rate than stranding of similar age classes. 3. Manage sufficient nesting beach habitat to ensure successful nesting. 4. Manage sufficient feeding, migratory, interesting marine habitats to ensure successful growth and reproduction. 5. Eliminate legal harvest. 6. Implement scientifically based nest management plans. 7. Minimize nest predation. 8. Recognize and respond to mass/unusual mortality or disease events appropriately. 9. Develop and implement local, state, Federal, and international legislation to ensure long-term protection of loggerheads and their terrestrial and marine habitats. 10. Minimize bycatch in domestic and international commercial and artisanal fisheries. 11. Minimize trophic changes from fishery harvest and habitat alteration. 12. Minimize marine debris ingestion and entanglement. 13. Minimize vessel strike mortality. Objectives 1, 3, 6, 7, and 9 are relevant to Gulf County. Continued and strengthened measures to minimize direct and indirect impacts to loggerhead nesting from development and recreational activities along Gulf County coasts are consistent with Recovery Plan objectives. Current and future monitoring of sea turtle nesting will provide data for use is assessing other recover objectives Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Breeding populations of green sea turtles in Florida and on the Pacific Coast of Mexico are listed as Endangered; all others are listed as Threatened (Federal Register, July 28, 1978). USFWS (2012) state a major factor contributing to the green sea turtle's decline worldwide is commercial harvest for eggs and meat. Fibropapillomatosis, a disease of sea turtles causing the growth of tumors on the skin and internal organs, is another significant mortality factor that s affected green sea turtle populations in Florida,

34 Hawaii, and other parts of the world. Nesting and feeding habitats are also being destroyed or degraded by pollution and development (NatureServe 2014). Critical Habitat Critical habitat was designated for the green sea turtle on September 2, 1998 (63 FR ). The USFWS identifies green sea turtle critical habitat to included Culebra Island, Puerto Rico Waters surrounding the island of Culebra from the mean high water line seaward to 3 nautical miles (5.6 km), including the outlying keys. These waters include Culebra s outlying Keys, including Cayo Norte, Cayo Ballena, Cayos Geniquí, Isla Culebrita, Arrecife Culebrita, Cayo de Luis Peña, Las Hermanas, El Mono, Cayo Lobo, Cayo Lobito, Cayo Botijuela, Alcarraza, Los Gemelos, and Piedra Steven. No critical habitat has been designated within Florida. Biological Information The green sea turtle grows to a maximum size of about 4 feet and a weight of 440 pounds. It has a heartshaped shell, small head, and single-clawed flippers. Color is variable. Hatchlings generally have a black carapace, white plastron, and white margins on the shell and limbs. The adult carapace is smooth, keelless, and light to dark brown with dark mottling; the plastron is whitish to light yellow. Adult heads are light brown with yellow markings. Juvenile green sea turtles are omnivores, and adults are herbivores. Juveniles eat a wide variety of plant and animal life, including insects, crustaceans, seagrasses and worms. Adult green sea turtles primarily consume seagrasses and algae (Mortimer 1982; Bjorndal 1985). Green sea turtle nesting in Florida occurs from June through late September. Females return to the same nesting beach every two to three years. Females lay an average of three to five clutches a season with about 12 days between nestings. Clutch size varies from 75 to 200 eggs, with an average clutch size of 136 eggs reported for Florida (FFWCC undated). Incubation ranges from about 45 to 75 days, depending on incubation temperatures. Hatching success is high for undisturbed nests but on some beaches, predators destroy a high percentage of nests (Stancky 1982); other nests are destroyed by inundation or erosion (NMFS and USFWS 1991). Hatchlings generally emerge at night. Age at sexual maturity is believed to be 20 to 50 years. Green sea turtle nesting occurs on beaches, usually on islands but also on the mainland (NatureServe 2014). Green sea turtles are generally found in fairly shallow waters (except when migrating) inside reefs, bays, and inlets (NMFS and USFWS 2007). The turtles are attracted to lagoons and shoals with an abundance of marine grass and algae. Green sea turtles nest on open beaches with a sloping platform and minimal disturbance. Green sea turtles have strong nesting site fidelity and often make long distance migrations between feeding grounds and nesting beaches. Hatchlings have been observed to seek refuge and food in Sargassum rafts (Ernst et al. 1994; USFWS 2014). Distribution General Species Distribution Green sea turtles are primarily restricted to tropical and subtropical waters. In U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters, green sea turtles are found from Massachusetts to Texas and in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. The major green sea turtle nesting colonies in the Atlantic occur on Ascension Island and Aves Islands and in Costa Rica and Surinam. Within the U.S., green sea turtles nest in small numbers in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and in larger numbers in Florida and Hawaii. Relatively small numbers of green sea turtles nest in Florida primarily in Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward counties (CSTC 1990) with rare nesting on the Gulf Coast (Ehrhart and Witherington 1992). The Florida green sea turtle nesting

35 aggregation is recognized as a regionally significant colony (USFWS undated). Nest numbers in Florida have ranged from 435 laid in 1993 to 13,225 in 2010, which likely represents over 5,000 females nesting in Although nesting activity has been recorded in almost every coastal county in Florida, most green sea turtle nesting is concentrated along the southeast coast of Florida (FFWCC undated). Historic and Current Occurrence in Plan Area Based on FWRI data, this species represents 1.52% of all recorded Gulf County sea turtle nesting observations from This species also accounts for 2.14% of dead, sick, or injured (i.e., stranded) sea turtles found in Gulf County as reported by FLSTSSN in A summary of green sea turtle nesting and false crawls within Gulf County is provided in Table 5-13 and Table 5-14 respectively. Table 5-13 Green Sea Turtle Nesting by Beach in Gulf County, Florida ( ) Beach Total Yearly Average Density (nest/km) St. Joe Beach St. Joe Peninsula State Park St. Joseph Peninsula Cape San Blas Eglin Air Force Base Cape San Blas Table 5-14 Green Sea Turtle False Crawls by Beach in Gulf County, Florida ( ) Beach Total Yearly Average Density (false crawls/km) St. Joe Beach St. Joe Peninsula State Park St. Joseph Peninsula Cape San Blas Eglin Air Force Base Cape San Blas Threats The USFWS identifies coastal development as the major threat to green sea turtle nesting habitat and populations. The threats discussed in Section apply to this species. Threats explicitly listed in the USFWS recovery plan for this species include beach erosion, beach armoring, beach nourishment, artificial lighting, beach cleaning, increased human presence, recreational beach equipment, beach vehicular driving, exotic dune and beach vegetation, nest predation, nest loss to abiotic factors, and poaching. An additional threat, fibropapilloma, a disease well documented in Florida's green sea turtles, causes tumorous growths thought to be viral in origin (Lackovichl et al. 1999). Based on information from the Florida Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) database, 22.2 percent of dead or debilitated (i.e. stranded) green sea turtles (sample size=6027) found in Florida between had fibropapilloma tumors (FFWCC undated). - FNT81 Fibropapilloma has been reported to affect 72.5 percent of the green sea turtle population in the Indian River Lagoon and Florida Bay (Lackovichl et al. 1999). Prevalence of this disease is associated with heavily polluted coastal areas, areas of high human density, agricultural runoff, and/or biotoxinproducing algae (Aguirre and Lutz 2004). This disease is also occasionally seen in loggerhead, Kemp s ridley, and Olive ridley sea turtles.

36 Recovery Plan The recovery plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic green turtle was approved in The goal of the recovery plan is to delist the species in the United States once recovery criteria are met. Recovery criteria include increasing nesting numbers in Florida, public acquisition of nesting beaches and decrease mortality in foraging grounds. The recovery plan lists six major actions needed to achieve recovery. 1. Provide long-term protection to important nesting beaches. 2. Ensure at least 60 percent hatch success on major nesting beaches. 3. Implement effective lighting ordinances or lighting plans on nesting beaches. 4. Determine distribution and seasonal movements for all life stages in marine environment. 5. Minimize mortality from commercial fisheries. 6. Reduce threat to population and foraging habitat from marine pollution. Actions 1 and 3 are relevant to Gulf County, and it is expected that actions implemented through this HCP will contribute to meeting these objectives Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) The leatherback sea turtle is federally listed as endangered throughout its range (Federal Register, June 2, 1970). The Pacific leatherback sea turtle population, once the world s largest population, is believed to have crashed primarily as a result of exploitation by humans for the eggs and meat, as well as incidental take in numerous commercial fisheries of the Pacific. Threats discussed for all sea turtles also apply to leatherback sea turtles. Status reviews for the leatherback sea turtle (Mager 1985, Plotkin 1995, NMFS and USFWS 2007, and NMFS and USFWS 2013) continue to recommend endangered status for this turtle. Critical Habitat In 1979, critical habitat was designated for leatherback sea turtles to include the coastal waters adjacent to Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (50 CFR ). NMFS designated additional critical habitat to provide protection for endangered leatherback sea turtles along the U.S. West Coast in January 2012 (77 FR 4170). No critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle has been designated in Florida. The USFWS identifies that the primary constituent element essential for conservation of leatherback turtles is the occurrence of prey species, primarily jellyfish of the order Semaeostomeae (Chrysaora, Aurelia, Phacellophora, and Cyanea), of sufficient condition, distribution, diversity, abundance and density to support individual turtles as well as population growth, reproduction, and development of leatherback sea turtles (50 CFR ). Biological Information The leatherback sea turtle is the largest, deepest diving, most migratory and wide ranging of all sea turtles. The adult leatherback sea turtle can reach 4 to 8 feet in length and 500 to 2000 pounds in weight. Its shell is composed of small bones covered by firm, rubbery skin. The skin is predominantly black with varying degrees of pale spotting including a notable pink spot on the dorsal surface of the head in adults. The paddle-like clawless limbs are black with white margins and pale spotting. Hatchlings are predominantly black with white flipper margins and keels on the carapace. Leatherback sea turtles feed primarily on jellyfish. They also will eat fish, mollusks, squid, sea urchins, blue-green algae, and floating seaweed. In the U.S., nesting occurs from about March to July. Female leatherback sea turtles nest an average of 5 to 7 times within a nesting season, with an observed maximum of 11 nests. The average inter-nesting interval is about 9 to 10 days. The nests are constructed at night in clutches with an average of 80 to 85 eggs. Typically incubation takes

37 from 55 to 75 days, and emergence of the hatchlings typically occurs at night. Most leatherback sea turtles return to their nesting beaches at 2 to 3-year intervals. Leatherbacks are believed to reach sexual maturity in about 16 years. The leatherback sea turtle is the most pelagic of the sea turtles. Nesting beach habitat is generally associated with deep water and strong waves and oceanic currents. Beaches with coarse-grained sand and free of rocks, coral or other abrasive substrates appear to be preferred (NMRS and USFWS 2013). Distribution General Species Distribution The leatherback sea turtle is distributed largely in tropical and temperate waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. It is also found in small numbers as far north as British Columbia, Newfoundland, and the British Isles, and as far south as Australia, Cape of Good Hope, and Argentina. The largest current nesting assemblages are found on the coasts of northern South America and West Africa. In the U.S., important leatherback sea turtle nesting areas include the Atlantic coast of Florida, Sandy Point in the U.S. Virgin Islands on the islands of St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John, Puerto Rico s Islands of Culebra and Vieques, and the Fajardo and Manuabo areas on the main island of Puerto Rico. In Florida, with a few exceptions on the west coast, leatherbacks nest almost exclusively on the east coast with the major nesting concentrations being in South Florida. In Florida, nest counts varied between 540 and 1,747 nests per year between 2006 and 2010, with the majority of nesting occurring along the southeast Atlantic coast in Brevard through Broward Counties (FFWCC, 2014). Between 1988 and 1992 the annual reported leatherback sea turtle nests varied between 98 and 188 statewide (USFWS 1999). Although rare, leatherbacks have been reported nesting in the panhandle of Florida on St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge (LeBuff 1999), St. Joseph Peninsula State Park and St. George Island (USFWS 1999). Historic and Current Occurrence in Plan Area Since 2004, only one nesting observation (2008) of the leatherback sea turtle has been recorded in Gulf County, Florida. Based on FWRI data, the leatherback sea turtle represents 0.04% of all recorded Gulf County sea turtle nesting observation from No observations of this species were reported in Gulf County in 2013 as reported by FLSTSSN. A summary of leatherback sea turtle nesting within Gulf County is provided in Table No false crawls for this species have been reported in Gulf County over the past 10 years. Table 5-15 Leatherback Sea Turtle Nesting by Beach in Gulf County, Florida ( ) Beach Total Yearly Average Density (nest/km) St. Joe Beach St. Joe Peninsula State Park St. Joseph Peninsula Cape San Blas Eglin Air Force Base Cape San Blas Threats Leatherback turtles face threats on both nesting beaches and in the marine environment. According to the NMFS, the primary threats adversely affecting leatherbacks recovery worldwide are long-term harvest

38 and incidental capture in fishing gear (NMFS 2013). The recovery plan identified threats to sea turtles in the marine environment to include: oil and gas exploration, development, and transportation; pollution; trawl, purse seine, hook and line, gill net, pound net, longline, and trap fisheries; underwater explosions; dredging; offshore artificial lighting; power plant entrapment; entanglement in debris; ingestion of marine debris; marina and dock development; boat collisions; and poaching (NMFS and USFWS 1992). In South Florida, the USFWS is focusing on the threats to nesting beaches, including beach erosion, shoreline armoring and beach nourishment; artificial lighting; beach cleaning; increased human presence; recreational beach equipment; exotic dune and beach vegetation; nest loss to abiotic factors; and poaching (USFWS 1999). These correspond closely to the threats discussed in Section Recovery Plan The recovery goal is to delist the leatherback sea turtle in the United States once recovery criteria are met. The Services identified the following action that are needed to recover the leatherback sea turtle. Provide long-term habitat protection for important nesting beaches. 1. Ensure at least 60 percent hatch success on major nesting beaches. 2. Determine distribution and seasonal movements for all life stages in marine environment. 3. Reduce threat from marine pollution. 4. Reduce incidental capture by commercial fisheries. Only items 1 and 2 are relevant to Gulf County. Given the extremely low use of the County for nesting, it would appear that measures to protect sea turtles, as a group, in Gulf County will also benefit leatherbacks during rare nesting Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) The Kemp s ridley sea turtle is listed as endangered throughout its range (Federal Register, December 2, 1970). The USFWS attributes the decline of this species primarily due to human activities, including harvest of adults and eggs as well as incidental capture by commercial fishing operations. Human predation on Kemp s ridley sea turtle eggs and nesting adults was initially the most important mortality source, but presently, drowning of adults in commercial fishing gear has become more important (NatureServe 2014). Overall, the status of the Kemp s ridley sea turtle has been improving in recent years. Both data for the primary nesting beaches in Mexico and data for Texas show similar patterns of consistent growth since about the late 1980s. However, periodic status reviews (Mager 1985, Plotkin1995, and NMFS and USFWS 2012) have all recommended continuing the endangered listing as threats continue to be present and since population levels are still very low relative to historic levels. Critical Habitat No critical habitat is currently designated. On February 17, 2010, NMFS and USFWS were jointly petitioned to designate critical habitat for Kemp's ridley sea turtles for nesting beaches along the Texas coast and marine habitats in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean (NoAA 2014). Biological Information The Kemp s ridley sea turtle is the most endangered of the sea turtles (USFWS undated). The Kemp s ridley sea turtle is one of the smallest of the sea turtles, with adults reaching about 2 feet in length and weighing up to about 100 pounds. It has a triangular-shaped head with a somewhat hooked beak with large crushing surfaces, an oval

39 carapace that is almost as wide as it is long and is usually olive-gray in color. The carapace usually has five pairs of costal scutes. The head has two pairs of prefrontal scales. Hatchlings are black on both sides. This turtle is a shallow water benthic feeder with a diet consisting primarily of crabs. Juvenile Kemp s ridley sea turtles feed on sargassum, mollusks, and fishes and shrimps probably discarded by anglers (Shaver 1991). Kemps ridley sea turtle nesting occurs from April into July. Females lay their eggs on coastal beaches where the eggs incubate in sandy nests. Clutch size averages 100 eggs. After days, the hatchlings emerge, swim offshore into deeper water and return to nearshore coastal habitats when larger in size. Sexual maturity is believed to be reached at about 12 years. The species occupies primary nearshore and inshore waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Preferred habitat includes nearshore areas that contain muddy or sandy bottoms where prey (crabs) can be found. Kemp s ridley sea turtles nest on well-defined elevated dune areas, especially on beaches backed up by large swamps or bodies with seasonal, narrow ocean connections (NatureServe 2014). Distribution General Species Distribution The range of the Kemp s ridley sea turtle includes the Gulf coasts of Mexico and the U.S., and the Atlantic coast of North America as far north as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Adults essentially are restricted to the Gulf of Mexico (NatureServe 2014). Nesting is essentially limited to the beaches of the western Gulf of Mexico, primarily in Tamaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico with a few historical records in Campeche, Mexico. Nesting also occurs regularly in Texas and infrequently in a few other U.S. states. Although Kemp s ridley does nest on Florida and Texas beaches, females are mainly found on the beaches of Rancho Nuevo, Mexico.