HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES ON THE ERODING BEACHES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ANNUAL REPORT

Transcription

1 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES ON THE ERODING BEACHES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ANNUAL REPORT Prepared in Support of Indian River County s Incidental Take Permit (TE ) Prepared for: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SOUTH FLORIDA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES OFFICE ATTN: HCP PROGRAM TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA Prepared by: RICHARD M. HERREN, M.S. HCP SEA TURTLE COORDINATOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY th Street VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960

2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS th Street, Vero Beach, Florida Trish Adams HCP Coordinator U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office th Street Vero Beach, FL December 4, 2009 Ms. Adams, Enclosed is a copy of the 2008 Annual Report for Indian River County's Habitat Conservation Plan for Sea Turtles. This report, prepared by the County's HCP Coordinator, satisfies the requirement under Section J. of Indian River County's Incidental Take Permit TE As required by the ITP, the report contains the status and results of the sea turtle nest monitoring, predator control, light management and education programs. Let me know if you have any questions and thank you for your patience in getting this report to you. Richard M. Herren, M.S. Environmental Specialist / HCP Sea Turtle Coordinator Indian River County th Street Vero Beach, Florida (772) FAX (772) rherren@ircgov.com "Under penalty of law, I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, after appropriate inquiries of all relevant persons involved in the preparation of this report, the information submitted is true, accurate, and complete."

3 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN A PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES ON THE ERODING BEACHES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ANNUAL REPORT Prepared in Support of Indian River County s Incidental Take Permit (TE ) for the Take of Sea Turtles Causally Related to Emergency Shoreline Protection Activities Prepared for: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SOUTH FLORIDA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES OFFICE ATTN: HCP PROGRAM TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA Prepared by: RICHARD M. HERREN, M.S. HCP SEA TURTLE COORDINATOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY th Street Vero Beach, FL November 2009

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 INTRODUCTION... 5 HCP ADMINISTRATION... 6 HCP TRAINING... 6 EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS... 7 COORDINATION BETWEEN COUNTY AND STATE AGENCIES... 7 COUNTY-AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS... 7 SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM... 7 BIOLOGICAL GOAL... 7 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES... 8 SURVEY AREAS... 8 SURVEY METHODOLOGY Personnel and Daily Monitoring Procedures Nest Marking, Monitoring and Evaluation DATA MANAGEMENT Organization Analysis RESULTS NEST TOTALS, TRENDS AND CRAWL CHARACTERISTICS Nesting and Nesting Success Spatial Patterns Temporal Patterns Crawl Characteristics Crawl Obstructions RESULTS NEST FATE AND REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS Overall Nest Fate Loggerhead Reproductive Success Green Turtle Reproductive Success Leatherback Reproductive Success POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NESTING Disruptive Human Activities Human and Animal Tracks on Fresh Crawls SENTINEL NESTS MONITORING AT HCP EMERGENCY PROJECT SITES CONCLUSION NEST MONITORING PROGRAM LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTERS NIGHT-TIME LIGHTING EVALUATIONS DISORIENTATIONS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 1

5 CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS LIGHTING EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE EDUCATION PROGRAM PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM RACCOON PREDATION PLAN INTENTION CANINE PREDATION HUMAN PREDATION NEST POACHING MITIGATION STATUS OF CONSERVATION AREA AND RECREATION LAND PROPERTIES CUMULATIVE TAKE SUPPORTING GRANTS AND PROJECTS MOBILE GIS GRANT TRIMBLE AND ESRI NESTING HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS GRANT NFWF FLORIDA LICENSE PLATE GRANT EDUCATION MATERIALS LOGGERHEAD AND GREEN TURTLE GENETICS STUDY UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM ASSESSMENT LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT EDUCATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT UNFORESEEN AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES LITERATURE CITED ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS TABLES 1 16 FIGURES 1 14 APPENDIX A MARINE TURTLE PERMIT # 166 APPENDIX B MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH STATE APPENDIX C NEST MONITORING PROCEDURES APPENDIX D NESTING SURVEY DATA SHEET APPENDIX E MAPS OF SENTINEL AREAS APPENDIX F PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTER APPENDIX G LIGHTING WORKSHOP FLYER APPENDIX H DOG PREDATION FLYER INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 2

6 Indian River County Sea Turtle Habitat Conservation Plan 2008 Annual Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2004, Indian River County received an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The ITP authorized the incidental take of five species of threatened and endangered sea turtles causally related to shoreline protection measures initiated under the County s emergency authorization to protect coastal properties. As a requirement for the ITP Application, the County developed a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Sea Turtles. Among other things, the HCP describes measures that will be undertaken to minimize impacts to sea turtles during emergency shoreline protection activities and implements a series of conservation programs to offset unavoidable take. This annual report describes the efforts that have been undertaken to carry out the HCP in The County authorized no emergency shoreline protection projects in 2008, therefore, most of the effort focused on the nest monitoring, lighting, predator control and education programs. This was the fourth year sea turtle nest monitoring covered the County's entire coastline. Standard Operating Procedures were essentially the same as those developed previously and monitoring personnel were provided with training to improve data collection. Nesting activity was summarized within six survey zones and methodology adhered closely to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Marine Turtle Guidelines. A total of 7,738 sea turtle emergences were recorded during the 2008 nesting season. Loggerheads (Caretta caretta) were the most abundant nesting sea turtle accounting for 86% of all emergences (3,720 nests). This represented a relatively small increase in loggerhead nesting compared to the recent downward trend. Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) and leatherbacks (Dermochelys coriacea) had less nesting this year, but it was relatively high for a low season and consistent with a long-term trend of increased nesting for both species. As in years past, there were far more nests deposited in the northern half of the County. Nesting began on March 26 and ended on October 6, Nesting success was approximately 55% for both loggerhead and green turtles and much higher for leatherbacks (87%). There were 964 nests marked for reproductive success (22% of the total). Overall, the mean emerging success was 84% for loggerhead and 67% for green turtle nests, however, when tidal wash outs and nest predations were included it dropped to 59% and 42%, respectively. Leatherback emerging success was relatively high for this species (61%). Potentially disruptive human activities recorded this nesting season included beach fires, unauthorized vehicles, illegal construction and tent camping. There were dozens of cases where human tracks during the night were associated with abandoned nesting INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 3

7 attempts. There were also numerous cases of dog tracks on top of nests. This year only two nests were excavated by a dog in the southern part of the county, but there were 18 nests dug up in the ACNWR, possibly by a coyote. However, as in years past, beachfront lighting was the largest problem. Lights caused thousands of hatchlings to travel in the wrong direction. The highest number of disorientations were observed in the southern half of the county, which was, not surprisingly, also where the largest number of night-time lighting violations occurred. On the positive side, most of the disruptive public lights were resolved in 2008 through a grant. In addition, the work of the Code Enforcement Officers in the City of Vero Beach and the County's Environmental Planning Department seemed to be more effective in solving the worst private lighting issues. The Predator Control Plan has evolved into a multidisciplinary approach. Raccoon predation has remained at a fairly low level (0.6% countywide and 1.7% in the ACNWR). However, canine predation, whether by domestic dog or coyote, has become more of a concern. Increased education and wildlife enforcement efforts have played a crucial role. Therefore, the PCP, informally, contains three main areas for controlling predators: 1) education; 2) enforcement; and 3) trapping. Limited trapping has been done by refuge staff on federally managed lands. Next year, the ACNWR plans to hire professionals to trap predators on those lands in the refuge. The county has committed to help with this plan. Education has come primarily through brochures, newspaper articles, news radio and beach signs. Direct discussions with beachgoers have been very successful. Many hours were spent during the nesting season speaking with beachgoers who had questions about sea turtles. Brochures describing the HCP, coastal processes and sea turtle biology and conservation were set up in display cases in public buildings and handed out to people on the beach. In addition, a county sponsored lighting workshop had numerous presentations and displays to educate the public. Education is clearly needed as there is a general lack of knowledge regarding sea turtle biology in this area. As there were no temporary or permanent armoring structures authorized by the County during 2008, there remains a balance of 2,676 linear feet of take remaining for the life of the ITP. However, the ITP does not account for FDEP issued armoring structures. Seawalls placed on the beach outside the nesting season have instead gone through the state FDEP CCCL permitting process. These seawalls and county initiated nourishment projects have temporarily eliminated some of the vulnerable and eligible structures on the beach. At the same time, the HCP program's that benefit sea turtles continue to be more effective each year. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 4

8 INTRODUCTION Barrier islands in the southeastern United States are frequently battered and rearranged. Geologists describe this process as shoreface retreat, but in the context of coastal development, it is commonly called erosion. Approximately 71 percent of Indian River County's coastline is classified by the State of Florida as critically eroded. As structures close to the beach become increasingly vulnerable to physical damage, coastal property owners in Indian River County are seeking ways to protect their homes. Section 161, Florida Statutes (FS), and Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), set forth the rules and regulations governing the issuance of permits for shoreline protection activities along Florida s coastline. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, is the State agency that oversees this activity. However, if erosion resulting from a major storm threatens private structures or public infrastructure, and a permit for shoreline protection has not already been issued by FDEP, a political subdivision of the State may authorize its citizens to implement temporary protection measures. Indian River County was the first county in Florida to implement local emergency permitting authority under Section 161, FS. The County issued its first Emergency Permit in Each year threatened and endangered sea turtles deposit thousands of nests on the beaches of Indian River County. The nesting season, which officially starts on March 1 st and ends on October 31 st, lasts eight months in this part of Florida. Local beaches provide nesting habitat for at least three species of sea turtle and are extremely important on a global scale. The construction of seawalls, revetments and other erosion control devices during the nesting season will likely harm or harass these federally protected animals. The result is a prohibited take as defined under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of Federal authorization for incidental take can only be granted through an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) issued by the governing agency, which in this case is the U.S. Department of the Interior. In an effort to settle a disputed "take" of sea turtles, Indian River County made formal application to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2003 for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. In its application, the County requested the incidental take of five species of sea turtles causally related to shoreline protection measures initiated under the County s emergency authorization. As a requirement of its ITP Application, the County developed a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the protection of sea turtles. The HCP (a) describes the geographical boundaries of the Plan Area, (b) characterizes the social, economic and environmental conditions along the County s coastline, (c) identifies natural and human factors potentially affecting sea turtle nesting on County Beaches, (d) describes measures that will be undertaken to minimize impacts to sea turtles during emergency shoreline protection activities, and (e) proposes conservation measures to offset unavoidable take. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 5

9 After a review of the HCP and alternative actions to the proposed activities, the Service issued the County an ITP on December 1, The Permit is effective for 30 years and is conditioned upon implementation of minimization, mitigation, and other measures described in the HCP and ITP. Condition 11.J of the ITP requires the County to submit an annual report describing efforts undertaken to implement the HCP and identifying any areas of material non-compliance with the Permit. HCP ADMINISTRATION Conditions 11.G.1 and 11.G.2 of the ITP require the County to establish and fund the positions of an HCP Coordinator and Coastal Engineer to oversee implementation of the HCP. The HCP coordinator position has been filled by Mr. Richard M. Herren since September 23, The HCP coordinator (official title is Environmental Specialist) is responsible for oversight of all of the activities identified within the HCP. Oversight of coastal construction activities is performed by the County s Coastal Engineer, a position currently occupied by Mr. James Gray. Mr. Gray had been hired prior to issuance of the ITP and primarily implements the County's Beach Management Plan and oversees other County owned shoreline stabilization projects. Both of these individuals are employees of Indian River County. In the absence of any emergency shoreline protection projects, the administration of the HCP principally involves management of the County's nest monitoring program, beachfront lighting program, education program and predator control program. Section of the HCP mandates that the County is responsible for obtaining permitted personnel, if necessary, to fulfill the requirements of the nest monitoring program. Since there were no previous nest monitoring projects on the South County Beaches, and the City of Vero Beach and Town of Indian River Shores asked the County to manage their respective nesting projects, the HCP Coordinator became directly involved in the field work as well as the overall HCP management. In late 2005, the HCP Coordinator applied for and received a Marine Turtle Permit (#166) through the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to conduct nesting surveys that cover roughly half of the County's Beaches (Figure 1; Appendix A). HCP TRAINING During development of the HCP, the County held several meetings with Principal Permit Holders, FWC and the USFWS to discuss the proposed countywide monitoring program, including anticipated HCP monitoring requirements, logistical needs, and standardization of data collection and reporting. It became clear that it would require several years to fully convert to a standardized monitoring program. Thus, the focus INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 6

10 was placed on developing the minimum standards needed to support the HCP. This minimum was established in 2005 during the first full year of implementation. A presentation and workshop was held for all Principal Permit Holders and primary field personnel on February 11, The presentation was attended by 10 people, including all of the Principal Permit Holder s (PPH s) in the County, the HCP Coordinator, Coastal Engineer, Coastal Resources Manager and representatives from the USFWS. The workshop provided an overview of the 2007 nesting season, a review of the basic nest monitoring protocol, a discussion of field personnel for the upcoming season, an update on county beach restoration projects and status of the education, predator control and lighting programs. An emphasis was placed on providing accurate and timely data and encouraging permit holders to seek help from the HCP Coordinator, if needed. Lastly, new research projects and technologies were discussed for future nesting seasons. EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS COORDINATION BETWEEN COUNTY AND STATE AGENCIES The ITP authorizes take of marine turtles incidental to the emergency shoreline protection activities authorized by the Permit. The County s permitting relationship with the State was formalized by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), executed on February 9, The MOA establishes a streamlined mechanism by which property owners who install temporary emergency shoreline protection structures under County authorization can request State approval to modify the structures to make them permanent or to construct alternative shoreline protection. A fully executed copy of the MOA was transmitted to USFWS on February 14, A copy of the executed MOA is provided in Appendix B. COUNTY-AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS Between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008, the County received no written requests or applications from property owners seeking review of eligibility and vulnerability of a threatened structure. As such, the County authorized no emergency shoreline protection projects during the 2008 calendar year. SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM BIOLOGICAL GOAL The biological goal of the HCP is to increase the productivity of the County s beaches for sea turtle nesting. This requires monitoring the County s shoreline to record detailed INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 7

11 nesting data that can be analyzed and used in management decisions. Documenting natural and anthropogenic factors affecting nesting and reproductive success is equally important. Due to the large number of sea turtle emergences in the area, administration of the nest monitoring program requires the most time and effort of any portion of the HCP and, as such, it is the main focus of this report. As required by Condition 11.G.10 of the ITP, the entire Atlantic coastline of Indian River County was surveyed by research groups during the 2008 nesting season. The County coordinated the activities of these groups and maintained a countywide nesting database. Because of the high nesting densities, the database is divided up into permit holder areas, each comprised of thousands of individual nesting crawls with their own attributes. In order to obtain consistent and accurate data, the County developed Standard Operating Procedures (SOP s) and offered training to Principal Marine Turtle Permit Holders and their monitoring personnel. This section provides a description of the nest monitoring program and presents the results of the 2008 nesting season. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES Soon after the initiation of the HCP, the County developed a set of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) pursuant to Condition 11.G.10.a of the ITP and in accordance with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission s (FWC) Marine Turtle Conservation Guidelines. The SOP set forth the procedures for the implementation of a standardized countywide nest monitoring program to document spatial and temporal nesting patterns and identify factors affecting hatchling productivity. A copy of the SOP was sent to the USFWS for review and approval on April 7, The SOP has essentially remained unchanged through the 2008 nesting season. The main focus was on getting accurate, complete and timely nesting data from each survey area. A description of basic monitoring procedures was extracted from the SOP and given to all Principal Permit Holders in 2008 (Appendix C). Permit Holders were encouraged to use a standardized data collection sheet developed by the HCP Coordinator (see Appendix D). SURVEY AREAS Sea turtle monitoring within Indian River County was divided into six primary survey areas based on PPH jurisdictions and local municipalities (Figure 1). Most PPH's had one discrete survey area with the following exceptions. The southern half of the County, which is the HCP Coordinator's permit area, included Indian River Shores (IRS), the City of Vero Beach (Vero) and South Indian River County (SIRC). Beginning in 2007, the Indian River Shores survey area was split in half, allowing the Disney Group to cover the northern half and the County to cover the southern half. The result was Disney now had two survey areas: the core Disney area and the northern Indian River Shores area. For the purposes of this report, the data from the Disney-surveyed and the County-surveyed portion of Indian River Shores were combined. For a more INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 8

12 detailed discussion of the division of the Indian River Shores survey area, please see the 2007 Annual Report. Prior to the 2005 nesting season, county personnel placed 36 zone markers at one kilometer intervals throughout the entire 22.5 mile coastline. These were primarily used for sections of beach not previously surveyed or areas where old mile markers had not been maintained (such as in Indian River Shores). Historical zone markers were still used in the northern portion of the County to maintain consistency in data reporting to the state. A detailed description of each survey area from north to south follows: Sebastian Inlet State Park (SISP) Extending from Sebastian Inlet (FDEP Reference Monument R-1) south to monument R-11, SISP occupies the northernmost 3.2 kilometers (2 miles), or 8.9%, of the County s coastline. SISP consists entirely of State-managed public lands. This survey area was monitored by biologists from Ecological Associates, Inc. (EAI), a private consulting firm under contract to Indian River County. Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge (ACNWR) The ACNWR survey area extends from the southern boundary of SISP (R-11) south approximately 8.0 kilometers (5 miles) to monument R-38. This area comprises about 22.3% of the County s coastline and includes federal lands, county parks, lands owned or managed by the County, the Town of Orchid and numerous private properties in unincorporated Indian River County. Monitoring of this area was performed by refuge staff associated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Disney Vero Beach Resort (Disney) This area is now referred to as the core Disney area. It stretches from monument R-38 south to monument R-45, a distance of approximately 2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles) and encompasses 5.8% of the County s coastline. The area includes single-family residences with extensive seawalls, a county park, condominiums and a resort. Monitoring was performed by Disney Animal Kingdom staff. Indian River Shores (IRS) The Indian River Shores survey area extends from monument R-45 south to R-74 for a distance of approximately 8.9 kilometers (5.5 miles), or 24.6% of the County s total coastline. It is comprised of the Town of Indian River Shores, which is largely developed with a combination of single- and multi-family residential units. The northern half of this area was surveyed by Disney Animal Kingdom Staff (kilometer nesting zones 13.5, 14, 15, 16 and 17). The southern half was surveyed by the HCP Coordinator and the volunteers on his permit. The break in the two areas occurs at the kilometer 18 marker just south of the John's Island Beach Club. City of Vero Beach (Vero) This survey area begins at monument R-74 and continues to monument R-95 for a distance of approximately 6.3 kilometers (3.9 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 9

13 miles). The area comprises 17.4% of the County's total coastline. The City of Vero Beach survey area is a mix of heavily developed single- and multi-family residential units, hotels, resorts, restaurants and City Parks. Many of these properties have seawalls. Surveys in this area were conducted by the County's HCP Coordinator and his group of volunteers. South Indian River County (SIRC) South Indian River County extends from monument R-95 to the St. Lucie County Line (south of monument R-119), a distance of approximately 7.6 kilometers (4.7 miles), or 21.0% of the County s coastline. Included within this area are mostly neighborhoods with single-family homes (some with seawalls), a few multi-family condominium complexes and a County Park. A few open lands still remain in the very southern portion of this area. Surveys in this area were conducted by the HCP Coordinator and his group of volunteers. SURVEY METHODOLOGY Personnel and Daily Monitoring Procedures All sea turtle monitoring in the County was performed by individuals listed on Marine Turtle Permits issued by FWC s Imperiled Species Management Section. The permits are issued to Principal Permit Holders (PPH) who are responsible for training the individual monitoring personnel listed on their permits and for ensuring adherence to FWC guidelines. Each permit holder is responsible for a discrete survey area (see Figure 1). In 2008, there were four PPH's overseeing nesting surveys in the County. Erik Martin (EAI) in Sebastian Inlet State Park, Paul Tritaik/Nick Wirwa (USFWS) in the Archie Carr NWR, Anne Savage (Disney) in the core Disney area and northern Indian River Shores and Rick Herren (IRC) in southern Indian River Shores, Vero Beach and South Indian River County. Each permit holder had individuals listed on their permit that conducted nesting surveys. Disney Animal Kingdom had the largest number of individuals conducting surveys in 2008 (14 different people). Nesting surveys were conducted daily on all beaches from March 1 to September 30, Monitoring continued periodically after September 30 at the discretion of each PPH. During the surveys all nesting and non-nesting emergences (false crawls) visible from the previous night were recorded on data sheets by species and survey zone. GPS waypoints were collected at the location of every nest and at the apex of every false crawl. Handheld units were used for obtaining waypoints and the precision ranged from less than a meter to approximately 6 meters (depending on the equipment and satellite geometry). Crawls were defined as to whether they were above or below the most recent high tide line. False crawls were classified as either continuous, abandoned body pits and/or abandoned egg cavities. Nests or false crawls that came up against obstacles were INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 10

14 recorded (e.g., scarps, seawalls, beach furniture) as well as any disturbances observed by predators or people. The crawl data for all survey areas was sent to the County s HCP Coordinator at the end of the season for inclusion into a nesting database. Nest Marking, Monitoring and Evaluation Sentinel nests Sentinel nests were marked in accordance with Condition 11.G.10.d (1) of the ITP to note the location of nests high on the beach in critically eroded areas. This provided a means of assessing the extent of nesting habitat should an emergency shoreline protection project be initiated at that location. Prior to the 2008 nesting season, the coastal engineer provided maps to permit holders showing the properties in critically-eroded areas that would be eligible for a County emergency permit (Appendix E). Sentinel nest areas included potential access points for large construction equipment. Critically-eroded areas with permanent armoring structures already present were excluded along with homes fronting a recently nourished beach. Each day the nesting survey was performed, monitoring personnel were asked to mark any nest deposited landward of the toe of the dune in these designated areas. Sentinel nests were marked with three wooden stakes surrounding the nest a minimum distance of three feet with orange flagging tape wrapped around the stakes. Nests at emergency shoreline protection project sites - Survey personnel were required to monitor emergency shoreline protection project sites and implement appropriate measures to protect nests from construction impacts. Nests could either be relocated, if authorized by FWC, or marked for avoidance. In addition, a representative sample of nests outside of project sites were to be marked and monitored daily to allow for an evaluation and comparison of nest fate and/or reproductive success. Since there were no emergency shoreline protection projects initiated by the County during 2008, no nests were marked for this purpose. Nests marked for reproductive success - In all County survey areas, a representative sample of nests was marked and monitored to allow for an evaluation of overall nest fate and reproductive success. The sample marked for each species and within each survey area was at the discretion of the PPH and varied among areas. Nests marking techniques also varied among areas. The most common technique was a combination of three stakes surrounding the nest with flagging tape and/or two or more stakes planted up in the dune a measured distance from the nest. It was important that the stakes would not be easily removed by tides or vandals, but could be recovered by survey personnel. All marked nests were monitored daily for signs of hatchling emergence, tidal overwash, nest predation, vandalization, or other signs of disturbance. Nests were presumed to be washed out if all the markers surrounding the nest were washed away and field personnel found nothing when they excavated the area. Additionally, when hatchlings emerged from a nest, the paths of the hatchlings were examined to determine if they were oriented to the ocean. If observed, hatchling disorientations were recorded at all marked and unmarked nests. Standard FWC disorientation forms INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 11

15 were filled out and mailed to FWC, while a copy was provided to the HCP Coordinator. These forms were then digitally scanned and ed to the appropriate local authority, either in the County Environmental Planning Department, Town of Indian River Shores or the City of Vero Beach Code Enforcement Office. Nest evaluations adhered closely to FWC Marine Turtle Guidelines. Three days after the first hatchling emergence, marked nests were excavated by hand to determine reproductive success. Loggerhead and green turtle nests that exhibited no signs of hatching emergence were excavated after a period of 70 days. Leatherback nests showing no signs of emergence were excavated after 90 days. The numbers of hatched eggs, unhatched eggs, and live and dead hatchlings were recorded. Unhatched eggs consisted of live and dead pipped hatchlings, whole eggs and damaged eggs. After an inventory, all nest contents were buried back in the egg cavity and the marking stakes were removed from the beach. DATA MANAGEMENT Organization Beginning in 2005, nesting data gathered by various permit holder groups in the County was placed in a single Access database created specifically for sea turtle nest monitoring programs. Over time, however, it became clear that receiving data from other groups that was already in electronic format and re-entering it into the Access database was time consuming and repetitive. In the last several years the "nesting database" has become a series of Excel spreadsheets. Each permit holder was asked to submit a spreadsheet with the same SOP required data fields, which were based on the standard field collection form (see Appendix D). The Excel spreadsheets from each group were edited and cleaned so they all had the same fields. A database Excel function was used to retrieve the data. Analysis Nesting success, defined as the percentage of total emergences on the beach that result in a nest, was used to assess the post-emergence suitability of an area. Nesting success was calculated by dividing the total number of nests by the number of emergences (nests and false crawls combined) and multiplying the outcome by 100. The fate of each marked nest was assigned to one of the following categories: Emerged hatchling tracks observed and/or, upon excavation, turtles clearly hatched and made it out of the nest. Did Not Emerge hatchling tracks were not observed and, upon excavation, no turtles hatched or made it out of the nest. Washed Out clutch destroyed by wave or tidal action. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 12

16 Depredated clutch partially or completely destroyed by predators. Vandalized stakes used to mark nest completely removed or otherwise disturbed by people so precise clutch location could not be determined. Nested On By Another clutch mixed or disturbed by another nesting female. Could Not Evaluate nest contents could not be evaluated due to logistical problems, advanced decomposition or other uncontrollable factors. Did Not Find cases where the clutch was never located at the time of deposition or the stakes were not in the correct location. Mean clutch size, hatching success, emerging success, and mean incubation period were determined for excavated nests by the following formulae: Clutch size (total number of eggs in a nest) = number of hatched eggs + number of unhatched eggs. Hatching success (turtles completely removed from their eggshells) = (number of hatched eggs / clutch size) X 100. Emerging success (turtles that successfully emerged from the egg chamber) = {(number of hatched eggs minus the number of live and dead hatchlings in the nest) / (clutch size)} X 100. This value is considered a more conservative measure of reproductive success because it includes both hatched and emerged turtles. Incubation period = inclusive period (days) from the date of egg deposition until the first sign of hatchling emergence. RESULTS NEST TOTALS, TRENDS AND CRAWL CHARACTERISTICS Nesting and Nesting Success A total of 7,738 sea turtle emergences were recorded during the 2008 nesting season (Table 1). Of these, 4,346 resulted in a nest, yielding an overall nesting success of 56.2% for all species and all areas combined. Overall, loggerhead and green turtle nesting success was 56.2% and 54.9%, respectively. Leatherback nesting success was just under 90%. Of the sea turtle emergences recorded, the majority were loggerheads (85.5%), while green turtle and leatherback emergences accounted for 14.1% and 0.4%, respectively. Nest numbers and nesting success were higher this year compared to recent years (2006 and 2007). There were 236 more nests this year than the countywide four year INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 13

17 average (Figure 2). Similarly, nesting success was 3.4% higher than the previous high in 2007 and marked the second year in a row of better than 50% nesting success for all species and all areas combined. The higher nesting this year was, in part, due to increased nesting from loggerheads. Last year was the lowest loggerhead nest total in the County since 2005 when HCP nesting surveys began and, statewide, the lowest in 20 years of monitoring on the state's most productive beaches. It remains to be seen whether the uptick in 2008 is the start of an increasing trend or simply a seasonal fluctuation. Nevertheless, loggerhead nesting has decreased significantly statewide since 1998 so even the small increase this year was encouraging. Nesting by green turtles was higher than expected in 2008 and this species, along with leatherbacks, continue to show an increasing nesting trend over the long-term. Both turtles also show a bi-annual pattern of nesting high one year and low the next. As an example, leatherback nesting was at a record high in 2007 and this year leatherback nesting was much lower (73 nests in 2007 compared to 27 in 2008). Green turtle nesting seems to be showing a bi-annual fluctuation coupled with dramatic increases in each phase. This year, which was expected to be low based on the trend, turned out to be a fairly high-low year. These bi-annual fluctuations are thought to be associated with the average remigration interval of 2 years for Florida green turtles (Witherington et al. 2006). Spatial Patterns Loggerheads nested throughout the County, but the highest densities occurred in the ACNWR survey area and the lowest occurred in the City of Vero Beach (Table 2; Figure 3). Loggerhead nesting success was highest in Sebastian Inlet State Park and lowest in the Disney area (Table 2). These results are similar to previous years, showing a trend of decreasing loggerhead nesting from north to south and lower nesting success in the Disney survey area, which includes a narrow beach, a county park and numerous seawalls. A spatial analysis by kilometer zone showed that nest numbers fluctuated between peaks in kilometer zones 4, 12 and 30 and dropped to low levels in zones 11, 24 and 28 (Figure 3). The latter zones are strongly associated with nesting disruptions such as seawalls, lights and people. Loggerhead nesting success was well over 50% in 22 of the 36 kilometer zones or 61% of all zones (Figure 4). Much lower success occurred in zone 11, which has the largest and most consequential seawall in the county (Summerplace Seawall). To a lesser extent, lower nesting success also occurred in zones 27, 28, 34 and 35. While these areas have some human activity at night, the beaches themselves were also wide and flat. There is some evidence that wide, flat beaches are unattractive to loggerheads (Herren, 1999). Green turtles nested throughout the County, but were far more abundant in the northern half (Table 3; Figure 5). The average crawl density decreased by more than 90% from IRS to Vero Beach (Table 3). Three nesting zones in the City of Vero Beach had no green turtle nests. In contrast, the northernmost zone in Indian River Shores (zone 13) had 64 green turtle nests. SISP, ACNWR, Disney and Indian River Shores collectively accounted for 94% of all green turtle emergences in the County. The green turtle INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 14

18 nesting that occurred in Vero and SIRC was largely in zones 25 through 31 (Figure 5). It is unclear why there continues to be such low nesting to the south except that green turtles are known to prefer sparsely populated beaches and those that have a more moderate or steep slope (Witherington et al. 2006). These two factors are lacking in the southern part of the county. Nesting success for this species was highest in Vero Beach and 50% or higher in all survey areas except for SISP (Table 3). Even though SISP was lower in nesting success, the 48.8% this year was far better than 29.7% recorded in The state park beaches underwent a dune restoration project in March and April of 2007 and a follow-up sand replacement project in early The change in beach profile may explain the lower nesting success in this area. Leatherback nesting was relatively low this year, but occurred in all the survey areas (Table 4; Figure 6). The highest nesting was in the more southern areas, especially IRS and SIRC. Of the eight zones that had 2 nests each, 63% were in the southern half of the county (Figure 6). This was not too surprising since there has been a consistent region-wide trend of more leatherback nesting to the south in St. Lucie and Martin Counties, with a peak in Palm Beach County. As is typical of this species, nesting success was very high with the only exception being the SISP area. Temporal Patterns The first recorded sea turtle emergence in the County was from a leatherback on March 26 th, 2008 (Table 1). That emergence, which was in SIRC, was a nest. Leatherbacks nested in relatively low numbers until the last nest was recorded on July 25 th in SISP. Most leatherback nests were deposited in either May or June. The first loggerhead emergence in the County was recorded in SIRC on April 24 th and that crawl was a nest. Loggerhead nesting increased rapidly in May and was fairly high from late May through mid July, with a peak in early July. Nesting steadily declined through August, and the last loggerhead nest was deposited on October 6 th in South Indian River County. The first green turtle emergences of 2008 were recorded in Indian River Shores and ACNWR on June 5 th. There were several nests and false crawls that day. Nesting picked up in late June and remained relatively steady through early September. Green turtle nesting rapidly declined in mid September with the last nest on October 3 rd and the last emergence on October 11 th. Both of these late crawls occurred in the ACNWR. A graph of temporal nesting in the southern half of the county (HCP Coordinator surveyed) was updated on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season and added to the County's Coastal website, (Figure 7). The graph clearly shows the fluctuation in nesting over time with various ups and downs in nesting intensity, particularly for loggerheads. This kind of information was provided to the public as part of a continuing sea turtle education program (see Education Program). INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 15

19 Crawl Characteristics Turtles coming ashore at night go through distinct phases in the nesting process. At any time before depositing eggs they may abandon their nesting attempt. As in years past, most loggerhead abandoned nesting attempts (false crawls) were continuous or uninterrupted (Table 5). The average for all study sites was 68.2% continuous crawls, 28.1% abandoned body pits and 7.1% abandoned egg chambers. The later two categories were not mutually exclusive since some crawls had both abandoned body pits and abandoned egg chambers. False crawls with abandoned body pits were highest in SISP. The Park also had the highest proportion of crawls with abandoned egg chambers. In contrast, the Disney area had the highest proportion of continuous crawls and lowest proportion of abandoned body pits and egg chambers (Table 5). Although it can be difficult to determine the reason for these abandoned attempts, obstacles, such as the seawalls and scarps, and the presence of people on the beach, are disturbances known to turn turtles around fairly quickly, leaving only a continuous u- turn crawl. These were common in the Disney study area. As with loggerheads, most green turtles that did not nest crawled uninterrupted up the beach, turned and went back into the water (Table 6). The one exception was the Vero Beach area, which had a higher proportion of green turtle abandoned body pits than any other false crawl type. There were only seven false crawls in this area and, on closer inspection, at least two of them were associated with human disturbance and a partially missing flipper. Over all study sites, 61.3% of the green turtle false crawls were continuous, 32.6% were abandoned body pits and 10.0% were abandoned egg chambers. Green turtles abandoning their nesting attempts in the Disney area were more likely to leave a continuous crawl most likely for the same reasons given above for loggerheads. However, in most cases, abandoned body pits and egg chambers were higher than for loggerheads. As mentioned in last years report, green turtles are known to be more sensitive to human night-time activities or changes in beach characteristics than loggerheads. The spatial distribution of abandoned digging attempts by all species highlighted the large amount of variation across kilometer zones (Figure 8). In some zones, over one quarter of all emergences were abandoned digging attempts, whereas in others it was closer to 10%. Peaks in abandoned digging attempts occurred in zones 8, 19, 31, 32 and 36. These zones were not areas with frequent human disturbance and suggests that perhaps the sand or other insitu factors caused increased abandoned digging attempts. In general, the Disney surveyed zones in the core Disney area and northern Indian River Shores had the lowest proportion of crawls with abandoned digging attempts and, therefore, the highest proportion of continuous false crawls. That pattern probably had a lot to do with the high frequency of scarps and seawalls in those zones. Crawl Obstructions The percentage of loggerhead false crawls with obstructions varied by study area (Table 5). Overall, 72.6 % of the false crawls had no obstructions recorded, 18.8% INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 16

20 were scarp obstructions, 6.3% were seawall obstructions, 1.9% were dune cross-over obstructions and 2.1% were 'other' obstructions (usually fences, beach furniture, boats and debris). Among individual study sites, the proportion of scarp obstructions was highest in the ACNWR, Disney and IRS study areas and lowest in South Indian River County. The Disney area had the highest proportion of seawall and dune cross-over obstructions. SISP did not have any obstructions due to seawalls or dune cross-overs because there were very few in this area. In general, the proportion false crawls with obstructions reflected the relative abundance of these obstacles on the beach. Among other things, this meant that females were consistently bumping into the obstacles and nest monitoring personnel were keeping up with recording the interactions. Green turtle obstructions were similar in abundance to loggerhead obstructions (Table 6). Overall, 72.6% of the green false crawls were associated with no obstructions, 18.3% were scarps, 5.4% were seawalls, 3.8% were dune cross-overs and 1.8% were in the 'other' category. There were many more scarp obstructions in the ACNWR and Disney areas than in the others. Seawall obstructions were highest in Disney and SIRC and cross-over obstructions were common in all the study areas except for SISP and Vero. In contrast to loggerheads, most green turtles attempted to nest closer to the dune. Because of this difference in site selection, they were more likely to encounter seawalls and dune cross-overs. This is probably why there were more scarp interactions in ACNWR and Disney than anywhere else. The scarps on those beaches are mostly at the dune interface, effectively acting as a barrier to further landward movement. Some study areas (ACNWR) reported two types of scarps: the beach scarp and the dune scarp. Since there is little nesting habitat landward of dune scarps, they might be considered less of a hindrance to nesting. For the purposes of Table 6, beach scarps and dune scarps were combined because most study areas did not make this distinction. A map of crawl obstructions by kilometer zone highlighted the problem areas for nesting turtles (Figure 9). These results were very similar to those in the past and showed the relative distribution of these obstacles along the coast. In ACNWR, beach scarps and dune scarps are in separate categories, yet in other study areas no distinction was made. In this graph,crawl obstructions were reported for both nests and false crawls. Seawalls and scarps were more of a problem on the highly eroded beaches in the northern kilometer zones. In three northern zones (9, 10, 11), obstructions were associated with over 50% of all the crawls. Dune cross-overs were widespread across most zones, though they affected a lower percentage of overall crawls. Recreation equipment was an obstacle in the kilometer zones that contained the Disney Resort, John's Island Beach Club and Vero Beach Hotels (mostly the Vero Beach Inn). Many of these places have equipment on the beach year round, ranging from boats to beach umbrellas. The "other" category included such things as fences and debris (e.g. large pieces of dead wood). Some of these tended to be ephemeral and were eventually removed by the tide or through mechanical means. It is important to note that some turtles do nest after encountering obstructions. In these cases, the obstacle forces the turtle to nest in a certain area, usually seaward of it. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 17

21 Because of this, nests may be located in more vulnerable areas of the beach. As obstacles become more common, turtles will be forced to nest in less suitable habitat. Of particular concern are the recent increases in seawalls in the County, which are not taken into account by this Habitat Conservation Plan because they are permitted by the State of Florida outside the nesting season. RESULTS NEST FATE AND REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS Overall Nest Fate As with last year, marked nests were divided up into two groups: nests where the clutch was located the morning after deposition (initially found) and nests where the clutch was found after emergence. Overall there were 964 loggerhead, green turtle and leatherback nests marked for nest fate and reproductive success in 2008 (Table 7). This was about 80 nests higher than last year and far higher than The increase was due to the larger than expected number of green turtle nests and the continued contribution of the Disney Animal Kingdom staff towards marking nests on the beaches in northern Indian River Shores and the core Disney area. However, marking more nests can present problems of it's own because it puts more of a burden on research staff to track and excavate the nests and, sometimes, the quality of the data can suffer. The number of marked nests represented 22% of all the nests recorded in the County. This is worth mentioning because many beachgoers assume that every nest on the beach is marked with stakes and flagging tape. Of the 964 marked nests, 101 (10%) were marked, but the clutch was not found until after an emergence was observed (Table 7b). As mentioned in previous reports and explained below, these types of nests introduce a bias in the data. Of the marked nests where the clutch was initially found, 565 (65.5%) were excavated to determine reproductive success (Table 7a). The remaining nests that could not be evaluated fell into these categories: 245 (28.4%) were washed out by the tide; 8 (0.9%) were destroyed by predators; 4 (0.5%) had the stakes vandalized so the nest could not be re-located; 2 (0.2%) were nested on by another turtle; 22 (2.5%) could not be evaluated due to logistical problems; and, 16 (1.9%) could not be found. The issue of not being able to evaluate marked nests is relevant statistically. Nests not evaluated or not initially found could cause a misrepresentation of hatching success because they bias the sampling regime (B. Witherington, pers. comm.). Washed out and depredated nests were considered complete failures for purposes of reproductive success and not much could be done about them. However, attempts should always be made to reduce the proportion of marked nests not found or not excavated. Taking these nests out of the sample could artificially inflate reproductive success (especially if they had failed). Similarly, including nests found only when they emerge can artificially raise reproductive success. Because of this bias, the results below included only nests where the clutch was located the morning after deposition. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 18

22 Loggerhead Reproductive Success There were 441 loggerhead nests excavated for reproductive success (Table 7a). Of those excavated, five did not emerge at all (0% emerging success). Reproductive success statistics for loggerheads varied little between study areas (Table 8). Across areas, the mean clutch size ranged from to eggs and the mean incubation period ranged from 54.0 to 56.0 days. Hatching success was highest in Disney (89.3%) and lowest in South IRC (84.6%). Emerging success showed that no study area had a 5% or greater decrease from hatching to emerging success. When predations and washed out nests were included in the sample (both presumed to have 0% success), Vero Beach had the lowest emerging success at 44.0%. The reductions in emerging success were mostly due to wash outs from tropical storms. When all loggerhead reproductive data was combined, the overall mean clutch size was eggs per nest, with a range of 39 to 199 eggs (Table 9a). The mean hatching success for all inventoried loggerhead nests was 86.4% and the mean emerging success was 84.3%. Emerging success dropped to 59.3% when predation and wash outs were included. The mean incubation period was 55.1 days and ranged from 46 to 67 days. These reproductive success figures were different for nests where the clutch was located after emergence (see Table 9b). This year the latter category showed decreased hatching and emerging success when compared to nests found the morning after deposition. Green Turtle Reproductive Success There were 116 green turtle nests whose clutch contents were analyzed and five that were excavated, but showed no signs of hatching. As in previous years, the green turtle reproductive data varied widely across study areas due to smaller sample sizes (Table 10). The southern half of the County had fewer green turtle nests than in the northern half, which meant fewer nests were marked in Vero Beach and SIRC. The mean clutch size across areas ranged from to eggs and the mean incubation period ranged from 53.7 to 63.7 days. Inventoried hatching success was fairly high with the exception of South IRC (63.0%). There were greater than 5% decreases from hatching to emerging success in all study sites, except Vero Beach (4.9%). Disney (12.9%) and South IRC (11.4%) saw the largest decreases. An examination of the raw data revealed several reasons why the hatchlings could not escape the nest. One case in South IRC was due entirely to roots that trapped the hatchlings in the nest. There was another case in Vero Beach that was more likely due to cold weather since it emerged over a week long period in the middle of December. Many of those hatchlings appeared to be cold stunned in the nest cavity. When predations and washed out nests were included, emerging success in Indian River Shores dropped to 36.2%, while the other study areas saw similar, yet smaller reductions. Like loggerheads, the reduction in green turtle success was largely due to nests washed out by tropical storms in late August and early September. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 19

23 An examination of the combined green turtle reproductive data revealed a mean clutch size of eggs, with a range of 56 to 212 eggs (Table 11a). The mean hatching success was 73.5% and the mean emerging success was 66.9%. However, when predations and wash outs were included in the data, emerging success dropped to 42.4%. The mean incubation period was 57.6 days. Green turtle reproductive success was lower than loggerheads probably because greens were harder hit by late summer tropical storms that overwashed nests. Unlike the loggerhead data, the mean reproductive success values for green turtle nests located after emergence were higher than those located at the time of deposition (see Table 11b). In 2008, there was a case of a green turtle nest incubating throughout the winter. Nest # CM was deposited the night of September 27 th 2008 on the dune in South IRC, nesting zone 30. The nest was monitored from once a week to several times a month throughout October, November, December and January. No emergence was seen. It was excavated to the topmost eggs on February 4 th, At that time, four eggs were removed from the top of the nest and opened. Exterior examination of the eggs revealed them to be white with small grey splotches. Inside three of the four eggs were dead late embryos with the fourth egg containing a live late embryo. Hoping that there were more live embryos in the remaining eggs and they would hatch, the nest was reburied. A final excavation took place on April 21 st, All of the embryos had died and none were found to have hatched. In all likelihood, their demise was due to sand temperatures below their survival threshold, which also caused the protracted incubation period. Leatherback Reproductive Success There were 20 marked leatherback nests county-wide in 2008 (Table 7). Out of those excavated, eight had been initially found and eight were located only after they emerged. A summary of leatherback reproductive success across study sites was hampered by small sample sizes (Table 12). In some cases, like the Disney area, there were no leatherback nests that were initially found. In the three areas with at least two nests, hatching success was highest in South IRC and lowest in ACNWR. Emerging success was unaffected by washouts or predations, since there were none. The lowest mean emerging success was 45.3% in ACNWR. An examination of combined leatherback reproductive data revealed a mean clutch size of 86.6 eggs with a range of 60 to 108 eggs (Table 13a). The mean hatching success was 62.1% and emerging success was 60.8%. Not suprisingly, the nests located only after they emerged showed a higher hatching and emerging success (see Table 13b). Since leatherback eggs were the most difficult to locate the morning after deposition, the practice of evaluating nests found after emergence was common. Nevertheless, this method still results in an unrepresentative sample because nests that do not hatch, or where an emergence is not observed, are excluded. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 20

24 2008 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NESTING Disruptive Human Activities During the course of nesting surveys, permit holders and staff were encouraged to report any potentially disruptive human activities that might impact nesting. These included beach fires, beach driving, non-permitted construction work, and other activities deleterious to sea turtles and/or in violation of local ordinances. All of the above impacts were recorded in the county in 2008 (Figure 10). This was the first year where reports of disruptive activities were received from northern Indian River County and included in the data. Beach fires were the most frequent disruptive activity (Figure 10). The majority of fires continued to be on the beaches fronting the neighborhoods in south Indian River County. Neighborhoods where beach fires were common included Castaway Cove, Treasure Cove, Wyn Cove, Smugglers Cove, Seagrove, Porpoise Point Lane North, Atlantis, Silver Sands Court, Sea Turtle Lane and Genesea Lane. Most fires were within close proximity of neighborhood beach access points because the wood for these fires was often hauled on to the beach. Washed up debris found on the beach was also used as fuel. Oftentimes, shovels were used to dig large holes to set fuel in prior to burning it. The few people who have been spoken to about fires believe there was no harm in it. Unfortunately, there have been documented cases in Florida of fires burning hatchling sea turtles alive, not to mention causing them to crawl in the wrong direction. Even though some fires have been less than ten feet from nest locations, so far no deaths have been recorded. Vehicle tracks from unauthorized motorcycles, ATV's, trucks and construction equipment were observed on the beach during the nesting season. The tracks usually arrived and returned from specific properties. In most cases, the County's Sheriff's Office or City Police Department was notified so they were aware of the infraction. None of the beach driving incidences resulted in vehicles driving directly over marked nests. However, because 78% of all nests were not marked with stakes and flagging tape, there could have been nests unknowingly impacted by vehicles. Furthermore, the larger vehicles created deep ruts in the sand, which can be barriers to hatchlings trying to reach the water. In addition, vehicles often access the beach by driving directly over sensitive dune plants. In cases of unauthorized / non-permitted construction work, a brief summary of the location, a photo and the type of activity was sent via to FWC's Imperiled Species Program, Environmental Specialist and subsequently to the regional Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Beaches and Coastal Systems, Field Agent. Acknowledgement of the report and occasionally a resolution would come back to the County regarding the outcome. Sometimes stopping at the construction site, taking pictures and speaking to someone in charge was enough to cease the work. In all cases, the construction activities were either completely unauthorized, only permitted INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 21

25 outside the nesting season or only permitted landward of the dune, in which case, they were working outside their permitted area. Other disruptive activities that were recorded included tent camping, loose dogs and deep pits. Whereas the first two are illegal in the County, the last is not. Incidences of tent camping on the beach were solved by talking to the people in question and asking them to break camp. Dogs left completely unattended by owners were termed "loose" and were reported to the City of Vero Beach Police Department, the Sheriff's Office or the County Animal Control. These incidences will be discussed further under the Predator Control Plan. Deep pits refer to holes in the beach above the high tide line dug with a shovel. These were usually over four feet deep and six feet wide. The pits appeared to be dug without any intentional harm. However, the pits were deep enough to ensnare a sea turtle or injure a person. To prevent this, they were filled whenever possible. As in previous years, most of the disruptive activities occurred on south county beaches. These areas were not regularly surveyed prior to 2005 and they have been largely absent of law enforcement. Beachgoers and home owners in this area conduct disruptive activities either out of ignorance or blatant disregard for local ordinances. Even though it has been difficult to link disruptive human activities with direct impacts to nests and turtles, the potential for harm exists. It is hoped that officers could patrol the beaches in the future to enforce the county's laws, particularly in the southern part of the county. Speaking to many beachgoers has revealed that many of them are largely ignorant or misunderstand sea turtle conservation. For example, many mistakenly believe that all sea turtle nests on our beaches are clearly marked and protected. This is simply not possible in this part of Florida. Marking all nests with stakes and flagging tape would not only be logistically unfeasible, but it would create numerous barriers for beachgoers and sea turtles. In addition, there would be no guarantee that nests would not be indirectly affected by human activities (for instance, lights). Also, a proportion of nests probably should remain unmarked so they cannot be easily located by predators or poachers. The main purpose for marking nests has been to study reproductive success insitu. Nesting impacts have to be addressed at the source of the problem while allowing nature to take it's course. In other words, the best option to protect nests is to leave them alone, report lighting violations and other illegal activities and become educated about the threats to nesting. Preventing these problems is probably best achieved though education, community-based initiatives and timely law enforcement. Human and Animal Tracks on Fresh Crawls People and dog tracks found on fresh crawls were indications of their presence and abundance the previous night (Figure 11). Most of these occurrences peaked in the neighborhoods in South Indian River County. Fresh prints on turtle crawls could be interpreted as either predatory searching behavior or, more likely, the mere presence of people and animals around the nest at the time it was deposited. In the case of people, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 22

26 many of them were probably actively searching for sea turtles. These activities did not involve poaching or predation attempts and appeared to be investigative in nature. Increasing numbers of people were venturing out at night in search of sea turtle encounters. This occurred throughout the nesting season and some local hotels and resorts encouraged it. In 2008, evidence of this behavior was observed during morning surveys from the numerous human tracks surrounding and on top of fresh crawls. Human footprints were on 5% of all the nests and false crawls in Vero Beach and South Indian River County. This was up from last year when just over 2% of all crawls had human footprints on them. It may mean that more people were interacting with sea turtles or that survey observers were getting better at recording these interactions. Evidence that these encounters were disruptive came from an examination of the turtles behavior. Females that did not cover the nest adequately or became disoriented on their return to the water were associated with the presence of people (personal observation). There were 10 crawls in Indian River Shores, Vero Beach and South IRC that exhibited evidence of extreme harassment from the amount of activity surrounding the area and the confused nature of the crawl (7 nests and 3 false crawls). Two of these crawls involved some digging by the people present, but no eggs were taken. False crawls can be the result of people disturbing turtles prior to egg laying. In five heavily impacted kilometer zones (27-31), 6.5% of the false crawls were associated with people. Certainly some occurrences went unrecorded, while others were probably cases where people were present after the turtles had crawled back into the water. Nevertheless, there does seem to be evidence that people using the beach at night were present in ever larger numbers. A worthwhile research project would be to determine exactly how many times turtles are frightened off by people, especially in the heavily used beaches in the southern part of the county. Typically, neighborhoods with busy dune cross-overs or access points had the highest levels of interactions. The presence of dog tracks on nests and false crawls occurred mostly on the South IRC beaches (Figure 11). The vigilance of the Vero Beach Police Department and beachgoers responding to dogs seemed to have curbed dog presence in the City. In the County, the neighborhoods from Castaway Cove south to Ocean Oaks (six kilometer zones) continue to be focal points for dog activity. These were also the same areas where dog predation was highest during the 2006 nesting season. The increased dog activity, whether lawful or not, probably contributed to a general sense of acceptance of dogs on the beach. This becomes a problem when the owner decides to let the animal roam on its own accord (See Predator Control Plan). SENTINEL NESTS Due to the recent beach nourishment projects and the large dune scarps in the central and northern part of the County, which prevent turtles from nesting higher on the beach, there were few sentinel nests marked this year. The largest sentinel nesting area remained the properties along Surf, Pebble and Reef Lane in southern Indian River Shores (Dorsey to Sposato Appendix E). In 2008, only two sentinel nests were INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 23

27 flagged in this area and both were loggerheads. These sentinel nests were not used for reproductive success sampling and when they emerged or at 70 days post-deposition, the stakes surrounding them were removed. MONITORING AT HCP EMERGENCY PROJECT SITES Since there were no emergency shoreline protection projects initiated by the County between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008, there were no specific sea turtle monitoring programs or emergency project-related impacts to turtles. CONCLUSION NEST MONITORING PROGRAM Overall, nesting in 2008 was higher than in the last several years. Loggerheads deposited more nests than last year and green turtle nesting was higher than expected. Leatherback nesting was much lower than last year, but, like green turtles, leatherbacks also nests on a bi-annual pattern, which means that nesting next year is predicted to bounce back. As in years past, nest numbers in Indian River County continued to mirror state-wide trends. It was encouraging to see that loggerhead nesting showed a small increase in 2008 because the long term analysis has not been good. Loggerhead nesting has significantly decreased in the last decade based on the trend from the statewide index nesting program (Witherington et al. 2009). As in previous years, there were far more nests deposited in the northern portion of the County than in the southern portion. It is hard to ignore the fact that the southern half of the County, particularly Vero Beach, contains more people, buildings and lights. This north to south difference in nesting density was especially sharp for green turtles, whose nesting dropped off significantly just south of Indian River Shores (Figure 5). One of the causes for this may be that nesting green turtles are more sensitive to beachfront development and related human disturbances. Nesting success was relatively high in The only area where nesting success was below 50% was for loggerheads in the Disney area and green turtles in SISP. In general, higher than 50% nesting success has been regarded as positive by regulatory agencies, especially in the context of large disturbances such as beach nourishment projects. In 2008, there were no large beach nourishment projects and rainfall amounts, another factor in nesting success, were normal to above normal throughout the season. Periods of low rainfall tend to dry the sand making nest excavation difficult, which results in more false crawls (Herren, 1999). For the second year in a row, a record number of nests were marked for reproductive success in the county. This was largely due to the cooperation of the Disney Animal Kingdom staff and volunteers working under the supervision of the HCP Coordinator. Reproductive success varied among study areas and species, but, in general, it was relatively good (over 80% for loggerheads and 60% for green turtles). The largest impact to hatching success came from Tropical Storms Fay and Hanna, which hit the coast in late August and early September effectively wiping out most of the nests on the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 24

28 lower beach. Even though these are yearly tropical storm events, most nests, especially loggerheads and leatherbacks, have emerged by that time in the season. This year represented the fourth season of complete county-wide nesting surveys. Though there were minor difficulties in data collection and interpretation, including the timeliness of receiving it, the data was more detailed and accurate than in recent years. In addition, more information was gathered on potential nest disruptions and disturbances. However, there remains many human beach activities with potential to harm nests and turtles. The majority of these beach activities are also illegal under County and City ordinances. Law enforcement has been almost non-existent and many beachgoers mistakenly believe that all nests are protected by our monitoring program. Support to solve these issues has been hampered by financial shortfalls in addition to the fact that these types of disruptions were not originally written into this HCP. LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM During the sea turtle nesting season (March 1-October 31), beachfront lighting in unincorporated areas of Indian River County is regulated by County ordinance (Section of County Codes). Prior to development of the HCP and issuance of the ITP, the Environmental Planning Department in the County reviewed plans for new coastal construction to make sure it conformed to lighting standards found in the County's ordinance. Additionally, the County mailed pre-season letters to beachfront property owners in unincorporated areas notifying them of the applicable lighting regulations. Through this HCP, the County committed to continue these activities over the life of the ITP. Initiation of a pro-active light management program is intended as compensatory mitigation for the take of sea turtles associated with shoreline protection measures. The County s light management program is outlined in section 11.5 of the HCP and is stipulated in Conditions 11.G.11.a-c of the ITP. This section describes the key items associated with the light management program and the actions undertaken in PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTERS Prior to March 1 st of each year, the County is required to mail written notices to property owners in unincorporated areas of Indian River County notifying them of the upcoming sea turtle nesting season and their lighting obligations associated with the County ordinance (ITP Condition 11.G.11.a). In 2008, the County s Environmental Planning and Code Enforcement Office mailed the lighting letters to all affected property owners on January 15, 2008 (Appendix F). The letters were sent out with announcements for a county sponsored lighting workshop. The letter describes the lighting parameters associated with the County code, methods for assessing beachfront lighting for compliance, methods for achieving compliance, and a general discussion of the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 25

29 problems caused by artificial light sources with regard to nesting and hatchling sea turtles. NIGHT-TIME LIGHTING EVALUATIONS Condition 11.G.11.b of the ITP stipulates that the County shall conduct inspections of beachfront lighting within unincorporated areas each year between March 1 and May 31 to document compliance with the County s lighting ordinance. According to the County code, exterior lights visible from the beach between 9:00 pm and sunrise during the sea turtle nesting season are deemed non-compliant. Interior lights on single and multistory structures are also non-compliant if they illuminate the beach during the nesting season. One lighting evaluation was performed by the County on the evening of May 13 th and May 15 th Non-compliant and other potentially disruptive lights were identified during the inspection, and each non-compliant exterior light was given a rating with respect to its potential effect on sea turtles (problem codes ranged from 1 to 5, from most disruptive to least disruptive based on the light intensity and the area illuminated). For each non-compliant light source, recommendations were made for corrective measures to bring problematic lights into compliance. Property addresses were identified in real-time using a Trimble Mobile GPS/GIS unit equipped with ArcPad 7.0. The unit contained recent aerial maps and property shapefiles so that addresses could be identified while on the beach. During the 2008 night-time survey, we noted that many properties with exterior fixtures had their lights turned off during the survey. Since these properties were only observed once throughout the entire season, some lights may have been turned on at other times. As in years past, the most problematic lights were streetlights, pole-mounted lights, wall-mounted lights and floodlights. Though some streetlights remained a problem, many of the streetlights in the south part of the county along Reef Road were dramatically improved through a NFWF grant (see Supporting Grants and Projects). As in years past, private single-family residences accounted for the highest number of non-compliant and/or potentially disruptive light sources (Table 14). This was followed in order of decreasing frequency by street lights, condominiums, "other" types (mostly clubhouses and resorts), dune cross-overs and commercial properties. Although there were more private homes with lighting problems, condominiums and "other" types had the highest average problem codes. In general, there were many more lights per violation on condominiums than in any other property type. In particular, bright wallmounted and pole-mounted lights were noted on the condominiums in the southern part of the County in the Moorings. There were more problematic lights illuminating the beach in the southern part of the County than in the northern part (Figure 12). There were more exterior lighting violations (65%) than interior lighting violations (35%; Table 14). In general, interior lighting tended to be less of a problem than exterior lights based on the area illuminated and the intensity of the light. Also, interior lighting INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 26

30 violations probably vary more than exterior lighting on any given night. In the night-time surveys since 2006, the total number of properties with interior violations was 39, 73, 43, and 39, in 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively. In contrast, the number of properties with exterior lighting violations was 49, 58, 65 and 72 over the same time period. Looking at these numbers suggests that exterior lighting violations have been increasing in the last three years. Part of this may have to do with more properties having been rebuilt and reoccupied since the hurricanes. Many of the properties cited in night-time surveys are the same year after year. There has been a "core group" of repeat offenders that have not been dissuaded by county warning letters and, each year, a handful of new violators, which are naïve with regards to sea turtle lighting regulations. The county unincorporated lighting violations were mapped along with nest disorientations (Figure 12). This year lighting surveys were not conducted in the City of Vero Beach so that area was not in the spatial distribution. The peak in the number of violations per kilometer was in zone 30. As a result of the 2007 nourishment project, this area has a higher profile. The sand was largely still on the beach and, as a result, some lights may be visible that were not previously. Zone 30 contains the neighborhoods of Shorelands, Seagrove, Sand Pointe and Ocean Ridge. DISORIENTATIONS During the 2008 nesting season, 61 disorientations were recorded by monitoring personnel. Most of these were from loggerhead nests, but a few were from green turtle and leatherback nests (Table 15). A total of 3,528 sea turtle hatchlings were disoriented during these events. The majority of disoriented nests were in South Indian River County. The City of Vero Beach and South Indian River County combined for 80% of all the disoriented nests and 86% of the disoriented hatchlings recorded in the County. Each year these areas comprise an increasing proportion of all the disorientations. There was not a one-to-one relationship between lighting violations and disorientations partly because one bad light can lead to many disorientations (Figure 12). In addition, there was no lighting survey data for the central part of the county. Nevertheless, there were a significant number of lighting violations in the southern part of the county and that was also where most of the disorientations occurred. There were many other reasons for the variability in disorientations. First, there continued to be disorientations reported up in Sebastian Inlet State Park where there were few discernible beachfront lighting problems. One hypothesis was the bright lights from the City of Sebastian on the west side of the Indian River Lagoon may be the cause (urban glow was not reported during night-time lighting evaluations). Second, there were lighting problems recorded near Wabasso Beach, Disney and Sea Oaks (zone 11 and 12), but no disorientations. One reason may be the seawalls in these areas unintentionally provide a light barrier to the nests deposited near their base. Third, as mentioned in last years report, disorientations are often under-reported and lighting surveys are snapshots at one point in time. Despite all the variation, it was not too surprising that the southern INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 27

31 portion of the County had the most disorientations and also the majority of the lighting violations. All original sea turtle disorientation reports were provided to the FWC Tequesta Field Laboratory, Imperiled Species Program and copies were sent to Code Enforcement offices in the County and municipalities as required by Condition 11.J.2.i of the ITP. CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS Under the provisions of the light management program, the County is required to enforce the lighting ordinance within unincorporated areas through code enforcement action, if necessary. All lighting violations identified in the night-time lighting surveys and in disorientation reports were sent to code enforcement for processing. To make matters simpler, violations from the night-time lighting survey report were culled and a group of the most problematic cases, exterior lights with codes 1 through 4, was sent to code enforcement. The purpose was to focus code enforcement's limited resources on the most disruptive lighting problems. City and county code enforcement staff sent warning letters to property owners with these problematic exterior lighting violations and notified them to voluntarily address the problems. The focus was on the worst lighting offenders and, at least in some cases, it seemed to have an effect. Oftentimes, the property owner would just turn off existing flood or pole lights. Unfortunately, many of these changes were short-term fixes and not designed to last. The HCP Coordinators office was not aware of any property that was subject to formal code enforcement action or brought to the attention of the code board. In the meantime, some properties were persuaded by the warning letters to make temporary modifications. In 2008, the HCP Coordinator collaborated with code enforcement officials in Vero Beach and Indian River Shores. Lighting violations and/or disorientation reports were sent to these officials for processing. In the case of Vero Beach, FWC has had numerous past meetings and conducted several night-time lighting surveys with their code enforcement staff to address lighting problems. In July 2007, the Vero Beach City Council voted to strengthen it's lighting ordinance under the direction of FWC to make it more clear and enforceable. The language in the new code was heavily borrowed from the State's Model Lighting Ordinance. These changes went into effect immediately and will make it easier to pursue lighting violations in the future. LIGHTING EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE In conjunction with a NFWF grant to plant sea grapes on private property, the county held a sea turtle lighting workshop on February 2 nd 2008 from 1:00 to 4:00 PM. Advertisement for the event was done through the newspaper, online community boards and news radio. Additionally, letters describing the event were sent to all beachfront property owners in the county in conjunction with county lighting letters. A graphic artist was hired to create flyers, which were included in the letters mailed to property owners INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 28

32 (see Appendix G). The workshop had five PowerPoint presentations, lighting vendors, code enforcement staff, drinks, food and children's games. Approximately people attended. While attendance was lower than expected, the workshop was successful in educating members of the public on sea turtle lighting issues. State biologists presented many of the attendees with a certificate for completing a brief sea turtle lighting course. In addition, over a dozen private property owners signed up to receive free plants as part of a grant funded sea grape give-a-way program. In all correspondence sent out to property owners regarding lighting issues, the phone numbers of the HCP Coordinator and County Environmental Planner are listed to help with lighting questions. In addition, some lighting cases are referred to the State of Florida, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for additional help. The HCP Coordinator works closely with code enforcement staff in the City of Vero Beach, Indian River Shores and Orchid. The HCP Coordinator attended meetings in 2008 with managers at Disney Vero Beach Resort and condominium associations providing expert advise on how to solve lighting issues. In some cases, night-time visits were made to properties to evaluate lighting changes. All property owners were reminded that the county biologist (HCP Coordinator) could only act as an expert in advising and recommending solutions to lighting issues and not as a certifying entity. The latter task falls on code enforcement and the state and federal regulatory agencies. EDUCATION PROGRAM Under Condition 11.G.11.d of the ITP, the County developed written literature intended to enhance public awareness of coastal erosion and the HCP. In a collaborative effort, the brochure was created in 2006 by the Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC) and Ecological Associates, Inc. Specifically, the brochure provided information related to coastal processes, erosion, the County s HCP, emergency shoreline protection permitting process, and alternatives to coastal armoring. Additionally, the brochure provided basic information on sea turtle protection and contains a listing of local, State, and federal contacts pertinent to sea turtles and beach erosion. The brochure, which was approved by the USFWS in January 2006, was disbursed to various entities in This type of information was especially pertinent to new beachfront residents. Out of the original 6,400 brochures, approximately 1,800 remained at the end of In addition to the HCP erosion awareness brochure, other sea turtle brochures were obtained from the Ocean Conservancy, Disney, Caribbean Conservation Corporation, UF / St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension Office and Florida Power and Light. These brochures were placed in a large acrylic poster display case and two small table top display cases that were on loan from the UF / St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension Office. The displays were placed in the new County Administration Building, the main county library and the Indian River Mall. In addition, a watertight Pelican case was filled with brochures so they could be taken on the beach and handed out to during INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 29

33 nesting surveys. In 2008, the county biologist spent between 30 and 45 minutes on each nesting survey speaking to beachgoers about sea turtle nesting and conservation. There were four articles in 2008 in the local paper regarding sea turtles with contributions from the HCP Coordinator. The first was published in the Vero Beach Press Journal on January 28, 2008 and contained information about the sea turtle lighting workshop. Subsequent articles appeared on March 3, August 22 and September 28 regarding a dune restoration project, nests washed over by Tropical Storm Fay and sea turtle lighting problems, respectively. In addition to this written press, the HCP Coordinator was on public news radio (1490 AM) six times in 2008 answering questions regarding sea turtle nesting, lights and nest predators. Durable beach signs provided further educational opportunities through the help of a 2007 Sea Turtle License Plate Grant (See Supporting Grants and Projects). PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM RACCOON PREDATION PLAN INTENTION The Predator Control Plan (PCP) outlined in Section 11.4 of the County s HCP constitutes the principal form of mitigation for the take of sea turtles causally related to shoreline protection initiated under emergency authorization. The overall goal of the PCP is to increase hatchling productivity by reducing mammalian predation rates by 40% over a period of five years within the non-federal lands of the ACNWR. The assumed baseline level of raccoon (Procyon lotor) predation in this area was 15% of all nests. That number was based on anecdotal information supplied by the refuge during HCP development. Condition 11.G.11.e of the ITP, required the County to develop and submit a draft PCP to the Service for review and approval within six months of the effective date of the ITP. The Draft Predator Control Plan, which was submitted to the Service on June 1, 2005, specified nest predator monitoring prior to and during the nesting season, marking and monitoring of a representative sample of sea turtle nests within the refuge for determination of predation rates and selective removal of nest predators within ACNWR and/or other areas where nest predation is identified as a problem. The Draft PCP was never formally approved by the Service and since it's inception there have been questions as to whether this plan would be adequate mitigation. The cause for the delay in implementing the PCP, as written, was due to the low level of raccoon predation within the ACNWR or, for that matter, anywhere else in the County. It is not known whether independent predator control efforts conducted by refuge staff in recent years have been responsible for the low level of predation or other factors are at work. It is also possible that the assumed baseline level of predation in the refuge may have been incorrect. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 30

34 The overall number of nests depredated by raccoons in 2008 was 25 (Figure 13). As in years past, most raccoon predation occurred in the ACNWR study area. However, the total represented only 0.6% of all the nests deposited in the County or 1.7% of the nests deposited in the ACNWR. The number of raccoon depredated nests this year was roughly half of the total in Like previous years, most of the predations occurred within ACNWR zone 4, which includes the Seaview Development and mostly government owned properties (Figure 14). Accordingly, refuge personnel conducted limited trapping in this area in There was no information provided as to how many traps were set and how many animals were actually caught and removed. CANINE PREDATION Nest predation by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) became a problem in 2006 and was still a concern going into the 2008 nesting season. After 38 nests and roughly 4,370 eggs were impacted by canines in 2006, the HCP Coordinator convened a series of meetings, put together educational flyers and coordinated with law enforcement patrols. In 2008, the HCP Coordinator continued to encourage the County Animal Control and City of Vero Beach Police Department (VBPD) to patrol the beaches. In previous predation meetings, it was agreed upon that education be the primary tool to deter the problem. An education flyer was created by the HCP Coordinator and distributed to the local Humane Society, Animal Control and beachgoers (Appendix H). In addition, all dogs observed on city beaches were reported to VBPD and all unattended dogs in the county were reported to Animal Control or the County Sheriff's Office. In the event that canine predation became a problem again, contact charts were created for future predation events and potential trapping events. As a result of the activities above, canine predation has slowed considerably in the southern half of the county since There were only two canine predation events recorded in SIRC in 2008 and, significantly, no predation events recorded for the past two years in the City of Vero Beach. However, these successes were offset by an increase in canine predation in ACNWR this year (Figures 13 and 14). In contrast to years past when no canine predation was reported, there were 18 canine nest predations in ACNWR in Over the last several years, combined raccoon and canine predation events in the ACNWR were concentrated near Treasure Shores Park (Figure 14). This area is comprised of largely undeveloped government owned lands east and west of Highway A1A. In other words, there is ample habitat in this part of the island. In the winter of , refuge staff reported seeing a coyote (Canis latrans) on the public lands west of A1A and, since then, there has been considerable discussion on whether a coyote was the animal depredating nests in the northern part of the county in The ACNWR has a planned a predator control program for 2009 that includes professional trappers from USDA Animal Control Services. This plan will concentrate on raccoons, but may be able to divert resources towards preventing the recent canine predations. The county has agreed to collaborate with refuge staff on their 2009 predator control plan. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 31

35 Even though domestic dogs appeared to be playing a smaller role in predations, especially in the south part of the county, there continued to be a large number of dog prints on fresh nests throughout the summer. It is the intent of the HCP Coordinator to continue efforts to curtail dog predation as a part of the PCP. However, unlike raccoons, curtailing domestic dogs from digging on the beaches during the nesting season is a complex task. The efforts of the City of Vero Beach Police Department and Indian River County Animal Control have helped considerably. Yet, just like our nesting survey personnel, these groups cannot be on the beach at all times. Ultimately, help will be needed from the public to report loose dogs, spread the word about the problem and be responsible for their own animals. HUMAN PREDATION NEST POACHING Despite the fact that sea turtles have been protected by state and federal laws since the early 1970's, there remains a low amount of egg poaching throughout the state. In 2008, one nest was poached in the Vero Beach area. The nest was freshly deposited and the poachers took all the eggs and left an empty egg chamber. An attempt was made by the perpetrators to cover the nest up. This was in the same general location as similar poaching events the previous two years (Figure 13). The poached nest was reported to FWC's Division of Law Enforcement at the time it was encountered. However, no arrests were made. MITIGATION STATUS OF CONSERVATION AREA AND RECREATION LAND PROPERTIES Between 1996 and 1998 Indian River County cost-shared in the purchase of several beachfront properties, collectively referred to as the Jungle Trail Conservation Area (JTCA), comprising 110 acres of barrier island coastal habitat. The properties were purchased and managed for conservation and passive recreation. The preservation of these properties as sea turtle habitat was offered as partial mitigation for unavoidable impacts to sea turtles resulting from shoreline protection measures initiated under the County s emergency authorization. Condition 11.G.11.f of the ITP requires the County to manage and maintain these parcels in their current state and describes the allowable modifications or improvements to the parcels. In 2008, all activities at the JTCA were conducted in accordance with the ITP. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32

36 CUMULATIVE TAKE The cumulative take authorized by the ITP is expressed as the total linear footage of shoreline that has been permanently armored as a result of shoreline protection measures initiated under the County s emergency permitting program. Pursuant to Condition 11.E of the ITP, the County is authorized to take the covered sea turtle species incidental to authorizing construction and maintenance of permanent armoring structures encompassing no more than 3,196 linear feet of coastline in the Plan Area over the 30-year life of the ITP. This cumulative total represents the estimated amount of frontage of eligible and vulnerable properties along critically eroded beaches that may be in need of shoreline protection prior to construction of a beach nourishment project at their respective locations. There were no temporary or permanent armoring structures authorized by the County in 2008 In accordance with an Interim Agreement between the FDEP, Indian River County, the Caribbean Conservation Corporation, and two private petitioners (Appendix A of the HCP), FDEP allowed two (2) temporary structures previously installed under the County s emergency authorization to remain in place pending the outcome of the County s ITP application. These two private properties referred to as the Gerstner and Summerplace properties had temporary seawalls encompassing approximately 520 feet of shoreline (Table 16). Condition 11.G.9 of the ITP authorized placement of permanent seawalls at these properties in accordance with the Interim Agreement and terms and conditions of the HCP and ITP. The shoreline encompassed by armoring structures at these two properties counts against the cumulative take authorized by the ITP. Indian River County notified FDEP via of ITP issuance on December 7, FDEP subsequently authorized the Gerstner seawall at its as-built location. According to FDEP, final authorization of the Summerplace seawall has also been granted. Shoreline protection projects authorized by the FDEP through the standard permitting process (i.e., non-emergency related) are not included as cumulative take under the ITP. Nonetheless, construction and placement of seawalls, revetments, and other protective structures continues through this process, which could potentially harm sea turtles or their nesting habitat. The County does not currently have an accurate estimate of the linear footage of shoreline protection structures on the coastline authorized by the FDEP since the issuance of the ITP. In order to obtain a better understanding of the effects of shoreline protection structures, the County Coastal Engineer will be making an effort to accurately record all shoreline protection projects authorized by the FDEP and incorporate them into a GIS database. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 33

37 SUPPORTING GRANTS AND PROJECTS A number of opportunities presented themselves during 2008 that were not directly related to the HCP, however, their implementation supported the biological goals. All of these were initiated by the HCP Coordinator as grants and research projects. MOBILE GIS GRANT TRIMBLE AND ESRI The HCP Coordinator obtained funding for this geographic information systems (GIS) project through a joint Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) and Trimble Corporation Mobile Government Grant Program Coastal Communities Edition. ESRI provided the software and Trimble provided the hardware, which totaled $9,700. Indian River County became one of only ten governments in the U.S. awarded this grant in August The Trimble GPS system board had problems and was repaired in It was used extensively during the 2008 nesting season to collect data in the field. The HCP Coordinator has been committed to developing new GIS applications and maps. The Trimble Explorer GPS unit has been an invaluable tool for collecting nesting data and obtaining real-time positions for beach projects and night-time lighting surveys. This unit contains updated aerial photography for use in the field. In addition, all the previous sea turtle crawl data that contained reliable waypoint information has been converted to shapefiles for use in GIS maps. With reliable location information, the use of this data for identifying crawl densities at future beach construction projects has been invaluable. By the end of 2008, the HCP Coordinator had successfully completed eight ArcGIS and ArcPad training courses offered through ESRI, the County and outside contractors. Financial support for these courses has come through the County's GIS Manager. NESTING HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS GRANT NFWF This grant through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) was obtained in 2007 by the HCP Coordinator to re-plant dune vegetation and fix public beachfront lighting problems to improve nesting habitat in the County. The specific objectives of the grant were to: (1) Provide and install sea grapes (Coccoloba uvifera) on the dune at single-family owned, beachfront properties, (2) provide literature on beachfront lighting and how to care for sea grapes, (3) conduct follow up surveys to determine the success and the effectiveness of the plants, (4) identify publicly owned lights that are causing the most disruption to nesting, (5) modify those lights by working with the local government and utility authority, and (6) conduct follow-up night time surveys to determine the success of the light modifications. The grant began in Fall 2007 and was recently completed in the summer of The first portion of the grant involved planting sea grapes on the dunes at private properties along Indian River County's coastline. At a well-advertised lighting education workshop, 19 property owners signed up for a limited quantity of 3-gallon sea grape INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 34

38 plants. In the end, 982 plants were delivered and installed on 15 private properties. A remaining 218 sea grapes were placed at county beachside parks bringing the total to 1200 plants. These plants grew slowly over the year, averaging only 13 cm of growth, mostly due to under watering and the accumulation of wind blown sand from two tropical storms in On the properties, however, 72% of the dune crest was covered with sea grape plants. This will provide an excellent light screen in the future provided the owners do not excessively trim the plants. Interest in the planting program was lower than expected and the most common reason given was the desire for an unobstructed view of the ocean. The goal of the second part of the grant was to alter public lights near the beach so they were no longer visible to sea turtles. All the public lights near the nesting beaches in Indian River County were precisely mapped using differential GPS. The lights that were visible from the beach and, therefore, potentially detrimental to sea turtles were identified and mapped. In meetings with the municipal utility authority and the city parks department, officials were educated concerning light management techniques and told financial help was available to pay for the light modifications. Eighty-four percent of the potentially detrimental public lights were modified and there was an 87.5% reduction in overall light trespass onto the beach (based on Problem Lighting Scores). Light management techniques that were developed during this project have been disseminated to other Florida sea turtle nesting beaches, an important leatherback nesting beach in Trinidad, and an important olive ridley arribada beach in India (copies of the final report are available from the HCP Coordinator or FLORIDA LICENSE PLATE GRANT EDUCATION MATERIALS The HCP Coordinator applied for and received a mini-grant in the amount of $1,000 for the 2007 nesting season. The grant was through the Florida Sea Turtle Grants Program in support of Marine Turtle Permit Activities (Permit #166). Because the sea turtle nesting program in Indian River County was in need of public education opportunities, the money was spent creating an education device that could be left on the beach. Working with a local company, durable PVC signs were created. These signs were weather-resistant, contained education material and were designed to be specific to each turtle species. The signs were used in 2007 and They provided an education device at the location of marked nests. Copies of the signs have also been disseminated to several other marine turtle permit holders in the state for use as templates to create their own signs. The signs were recovered and used again for the 2009 nesting season. LOGGERHEAD AND GREEN TURTLE GENETICS STUDY UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA Brian Shamblin, a Ph.D. student at the University of Georgia, continued to collaborate with the HCP Coordinator in 2008 regarding the collection of genetic samples from loggerhead and green turtle nests. This research is important for defining management units for nesting beach protection and providing baseline data for mixed stock analyses INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 35

39 of stranding and foraging aggregation datasets. Previous studies have described four genetic management units within the Florida loggerhead nesting aggregation: 1) Panhandle, 2) Dry Tortugas, 3) South Florida, which includes the beaches from southwest Florida to Cape Canaveral, and 4) Northeast Florida, which includes the beaches from North Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. Data analyzed by Shamblin from the 2006 and 2007 nesting seasons suggested that the South Florida subpopulation may consist of additional management units or subpopulations. In 2008, genetic samples (either flippers or hatched egg shells) were collected by the HCP Coordinator from 84 loggerhead nests and 3 green turtle nests. The tissues were placed in vials containing 95% ethanol solution and picked up by Mr. Shamblin for transport back to the University of Georgia at the end of the season. Currently, there are plans to collaborate with Mr. Shamblin in 2009 and collect genetic samples from green turtle nests. All materials and permits for this project were provided by the University of Georgia and Mr. Shamblin. For more information about this population genetics project contact: Brian Shamblin, Ph.D. student Phone: (706) School of Forestry and Natural Resources FAX: (706) University of Georgia brianshm@uga.edu Athens, GA COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT Indian River County is required to provide evidence of compliance with the terms and conditions of its ITP and HCP. Specifically, Condition 11.J.1 of the ITP requires the County to identify any material non-compliance and all measures employed to remediate such non-compliance. The County made substantial gains in 2008 with the nest monitoring program, predator control and education program, yet continued to fall short in key areas due to the lack of support staff. What follows is an assessment of each program. SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM ASSESSMENT The nest monitoring program has been the cornerstone of this HCP and continues to require the most time and effort. This is largely due to the significant numbers of sea turtles that nest in Indian River County. Gains in this program have been made in terms of the collection of quality data from individual permit holder groups. The areas where there were improvements included GPS locations, crawl obstructions, human disturbances and predation incidents. More importantly, the data received from permit holders is coming closer to matching the spreadsheet format used by the HCP coordinator. This has meant less post-processing after the data has been received. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 36

40 Despite gains, there were some parts of the program that needed refinement. The sentinel nest protocol, which is part of condition 11.G.10.d (1) of the ITP, has been marginally effective at monitoring nests in critically eroded sites. Part of the problem has been getting permit holders in the northern part of the County to stake sentinel nests. The sentinel nest protocol has also diminished due to the reduction in sentinel areas. Most of the original sentinel sites have either been seawalled, nourished or have such high dune scarps that turtles could not nest on top of them. The end result has been a shrinking number of potential sites. The main problem with much of the HCP data has been getting it in a timely manner. Coordination with the ACNWR has been difficult primarily due to lack of staff and staff turn-over. In 2008, the wildlife refuge hired a new assistant manager, biologist and, in 2009, a new manager. Data collected by refuge personnel has been getting better, but has lagged behind the other permit holders in the County. To address these problems, the HCP Coordinator met several times with refuge staff in early The main objectives were to help forge a better relationship with the refuge and provide ideas to obtain more timely, error free, data. The HCP coordinator has repeatedly offered advise and help to all permit holders in the county to make collection and organization easier. Nevertheless, collecting such an enormous amount of detailed data has remained a daunting task each nesting season. LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT The County's Light Management Program has struggled mostly due to lack of staffing. While lighting violations and disorientations remain fairly commonplace, code enforcement action has been largely ineffective or under-utilized. On the other hand, this was the first year in which lighting letters were mailed out before March 1 st (Condition 11.G.11.a). Unfortunately, the number of environmental planning staff that can deal with lighting problems is now down to one employee due to the recent economic down-turn. Existing staff have been stretched thin and there continues to be a need for a specialist in sea turtle lighting issues. On the positive side, there have been gains in education and accountability. The 2008 lighting workshop hosted by the county was a successful event. In addition, a significant number of public beachfront lighting problems have been solved through the NFWF Grant. Also, new rules in state building permits for beachside construction now have a provision for correcting lighting problems after project completion. This was sometimes a problem in the past when lighting plans changed for the worse and there was no mechanism to hold the applicant accountable. County staff continues to do the best it can even with significant shortfalls in the County's budget. EDUCATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT In recent years, the education program has been getting significant help from partners in other agencies and non-profits. Dozens of brochures describing sea turtle conservation have been donated from The Ocean Conservancy, Florida Power and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 37

41 Light and the UF/St Lucie County Agricultural Extension Office. The HCP Coordinator has been spending an increasing amount of time with individuals on the phone and on the beach discussing sea turtle biology and conservation. In addition, signs created for use on marked nests have provided beachgoers a way to passively learn about sea turtles at nest sites. The future goals of the Education Program involve discussing sea turtle conservation goals at homeowner association meetings. PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT The County has not met the original intent of the PCP due to the unexpected low level of raccoon predation. In the areas where raccoon predation has slightly increased, minimal trapping has been conducted by personnel from the ACNWR. The refuge is planning a predator control project next year with professional trappers and the county is committed to supporting this effort. Canine predation which became a problem in 2006 is still an issue. Complicating the recent low amount of dog predation is the possibility of coyote predation up in the refuge. Whether coyote or domestic dog, the issue of canine predation has been much harder to solve. This is because trapping these animals is controversial and logistically difficult. The county is committed to working with partners in animal control and wildlife offices as well as local communities in solving the complexity of these issues. As such, the PCP has evolved into a much more diverse attempt to control predation on sea turtle nests. SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT Condition 11.J of the ITP requires the County to submit an annual report describing efforts undertaken to implement the HCP by March 31 st of the following year. The completion of the last three reports have been delayed by six to nine months. The county has worked closely with the USFWS, Vero Beach Field Office, and kept them up to date on significant events during the 2008 nesting season. Results from the season have been sent to the Service in a timely manner, while completion of the final report has lagged much farther behind. The report has been late, in large part, because of lack of resources and staff dedicated to working on the many HCP programs. The HCP Coordinator recommends a minimum of two additional staff to help with nesting surveys and implementing the light management plan, predator control plan and education program. UNFORESEEN AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES As defined in Section 11.K of the ITP, unforeseen circumstances are changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the HCP that could not reasonably be anticipated by the County or the USFWS at the time of HCP development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered species. There were no unforeseen circumstances in INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 38

42 LITERATURE CITED Herren, R.M The effect of beach nourishment on loggerhead (Caretta caretta) nesting and reproductive success at Sebastian Inlet, Florida. M.S. Thesis. University of Central Florida. 150 pp. Witherington, B., Bresette, M. and Herren, R Chelonia mydas green turtle. In: Meylan, P.A. (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Florida Turtles. Chelonian Research Monographs No.3., pp Witherington, B., Kublis, P., Brost, B. and Meylan, A Decreasing nest counts in a globally important loggerhead sea turtle population. Ecological Applications 19: ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS The HCP Coordinator would like to acknowledge the cooperation of the FWC Marine Turtle Permit Holders and their survey crew who worked in the northern portion of the County and provided data for this report, especially Paul Tritaik, Nick Wirwa, Jennifer Lorenzo, Dr. Anne Savage, Carol Rizkalla, Erik Martin, Niki Desjardin and Terry O'Toole. Assistance on beachfront lighting issues and code enforcement came from Meghan Koperski, Erik Martin, Jean Higgins, Paula Bernston, David Checchi, Susan Clifton, Ken Oristaglio and Andy Sobczak. Educational brochures were generously provided by Stacy Foster, Ken Gioeli and Jessica Koelsch. Thanks to the Police Department in the City of Vero Beach for helping with beach law enforcement issues. Most importantly, Indian River County is indebted to the volunteers who donated their time conducting nesting surveys for the county in 2008: Charles McConnel, Beverly Harrison and Chris Vann. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 39

43 TABLES

44 Table 1. Total nesting activity for Indian River County in This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. Nesting Activity Loggerhead Green Leatherback All Date of First Emergence 4/24/2008 6/5/2008 3/26/2008 3/26/2008 Date of First Nest 4/24/2008 6/5/2008 3/26/2008 3/26/2008 Date of Last Emergence 10/6/ /11/2008 7/25/ /11/2008 Date of Last Nest 10/6/ /3/2008 7/25/ /6/2008 Total Nests 3, ,346 Total False Crawls 2, ,392 Total Emergences 6, ,738 Nesting Success 56.2% 54.9% 87.1% 56.2%

45 Table 2. Loggerhead nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey area in This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Survey Area Nests False Crawls Total Emergences Nesting Success (%) Avg. Crawl Density 1 SISP % ACNWR 2 1, , % Disney % IR Shores , % Vero Beach % South IRC Beaches , % Total 3,720 2,895 6, % Expressed as the number of emergences (nests and false crawls) per kilometer of beach. 2 The number of loggerhead crawls provided differs slightly from those reported to the state.

46 Table 3. Green turtle nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey area in This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Survey Area Nests False Crawls Total Emergences Nesting Success (%) Avg. Crawl Density 1 SISP % 26.9 ACNWR % 54.6 Disney % 50.5 IR Shores % 45.1 Vero Beach % 4.1 South IRC Beaches % 4.7 Total , % Expressed as the number of emergences (nests and false crawls) per kilometer of beach. 2 The number of green turtle crawls provided differs slightly from those reported to the state.

47 Table 4. Leatherback nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey area in This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Survey Area Nests False Crawls Total Emergences Nesting Success (%) Avg. Crawl Density 1 SISP % 1.3 ACNWR % 0.5 Disney % 0.5 IR Shores % 0.9 Vero Beach % 0.8 South IRC Beaches % 1.2 Total % Expressed as the number of emergences (nests and false crawls) per kilometer of beach.

48 Table 5. Summary of loggerhead false crawl characteristics and obstructions by survey area for Indian River County in This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, IRS = Indian River Shores, SIRC = South Indian River County. Characteristics SISP ACNWR 1 Disney IRS Vero SIRC Total Number of False Crawls Continuous Crawls (%) Abandoned Body Pits (%) Abandoned Egg Chambers (%) Obstructions No Obstructions Recorded (%) Scarps (%) Seawalls (%) Dune Cross-Overs (%) Other Obstructions (%) The number of loggerhead crawls provided differs slightly from those reported to the state.

49 Table 6. Summary of green turtle false crawl characteristics and obstructions by survey area for Indian River County in SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, IRS = Indian River Shores, SIRC = South Indian River County. Characteristics SISP ACNWR 1 Disney IRS Vero SIRC Total Number of False Crawls Continuous Crawls (%) Abandoned Body Pits (%) Abandoned Egg Chambers (%) Obstructions No Obstructions Recorded (%) Scarps (%) Seawalls (%) Dune Cross-Overs (%) Other Obstructions (%) The number of green turtle crawls provided differs slightly from those reported to the state.

50 Table 7. Summary of all marked nests by species where the clutch was either found the morning after or found after emergence in Indian River County in (a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found). Fate Loggerhead Green Turtle Leatherback Total Excavated Emerged Did not emerge Total Excavated Not Excavated Washed out Depredated Vandalized Nested on by another Could Not Evaluate Did Not Find Total Not Excavated Total Marked (b) Clutch found after emergence. Fate Loggerhead Green Turtle Leatherback Total Excavated Emerged Did not emerge Total Excavated Not Excavated Washed out Depredated Vandalized Nested on by another Could Not Evaluate Did Not Find Total Not Excavated Total Marked

51 Table 8. Summary of reproductive success for loggerhead nests by study area in Indian River County, Only includes nests where the clutch was initially found. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. SISP ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC Nests Excavated Mean Clutch Size Inventoried Hatching Success (%) Inventoried Emerging Success (%) Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) Mean Incubation Period (days)

52 Table 9. Descriptive statistics for all inventoried loggerhead nests in Indian River County in 2008 (Total = 449). Data is separated for nests located initially and those located after emergence. (a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found). n Min Max Mean Stand Dev. Clutch Size Inventoried Hatching Success (%) Inventoried Emerging Success (%) Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) Incubation Period (days) (b) Clutch found after emergence. n Min Max Mean Stand Dev. Clutch Size Inventoried Hatching Success (%) Inventoried Emerging Success (%) Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) Incubation Period (days)

53 Table 10. Summary of reproductive success for green turtle nests by study area in Indian River County, Only includes nests where the clutch was initially found. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. SISP 1 ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC Nests Excavated * Mean Clutch Size * Inventoried Hatching Success (%) * Inventoried Emerging Success (%) * Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) * Mean Incubation Period (days) * SISP does not mark green turtle nests for reproductive success.

54 Table 11. Descriptive statistics for all inventoried green turtle nests in Indian River County in 2008 (Total = 126). Data is separated for nests located initially and those located after emergence. (a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found). n Min Max Mean Stand Dev. Clutch Size Inventoried Hatching Success (%) Inventoried Emerging Success (%) Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) Incubation Period (days) (b) Clutch found after emergence. n Min Max Mean Stand Dev. Clutch Size Inventoried Hatching Success (%) Inventoried Emerging Success (%) Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) Incubation Period (days)

55 Table 12. Summary of reproductive success for leatherback nests by study area in Indian River County, Only includes nests where the clutch was initially found. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. SISP 1 ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach 2 South IRC Nests Excavated * Mean Clutch Size * Inventoried Hatching Success (%) * Inventoried Emerging Success (%) * Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) * Mean Incubation Period (days) * SISP does not mark leatherback nests for reproductive success. 2 Represents only one nest, not an average.

56 Table 13. Descriptive statistics for all inventoried leatherback nests in Indian River County in 2008 (Total = 16). Data is separated for nests located initially and those located after emergence. (a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found). n Min Max Mean Stand Dev. Clutch Size Inventoried Hatching Success (%) Inventoried Emerging Success (%) Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) Incubation Period (days) (b) Clutch located after emergence. n Min Max Mean Stand Dev. Clutch Size Inventoried Hatching Success (%) Inventoried Emerging Success (%) Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) Incubation Period (days)

57 Table 14. Results of night-time lighting inspections conducted on May 2008 in unincorporated areas of Indian River County. These results summarize the number of properties with exterior and interior lighting violations in seven property types. The "Other" category includes clubhouses and bridges. Exterior lights were given a problem code based on the intensity and the scope of the light. May 2008 Survey Property Type Exterior Lights Interior Lights Total Lights Average Exterior Problem Code 1 House Condominium Hotels * Street light Dune Crossover * Public Park * Other Types TOTAL OR AVERAGE Problem codes range from 1 to 5, from most disruptive to least disruptive, respectively. * cannot average due to small sample size.

58 Table 15. Summary of sea turtle disorientation events by study area, SISP ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC Total Leatherback Green Turtle Loggerhead # Events # Hatchlings ,222 1,767 3,400 # Events # Hatchlings # Events # Hatchlings TOTAL EVENTS TOTAL HATCHLINGS ,260 1,767 3,528

59 Table 16. Cumulative take since date of issuance of the Indian River County ITP (December 1, 2004). No armoring under the HCP occurred in Applicant Name Survey Area Jurisdiction FDEP Permit No. Type of Armoring Take (Linear Ft) Summerplace 1 Disney Unincorporated IR-512 ATF Seawall 420 Gerstner, Larry & Cheryl South County Unincorporated IR-511 M1 ATF Seawall 100 Dec 1, 2004 Dec 31, Cumulative Take Take Authorized Under ITP Balance ,196 2,676 1 Parvus, Dirk & Brenda; Strand, Anne E.; Trimarche, Peter J.; King, Bruce, E.; Simpson, Patricia N.; and McCoy, Richard & Louise.

60 FIGURES

61 Map of Permit Holder Areas and Jurisdictions along Indian River County's Beaches Fellsmere 95 Sebastian! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y F 1 FF 2 3 F 4 FF 5 6 F 7 FF 8 9 F Orchid FF F FF 15 F FF 18 F FF! 60! A1A t1 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t Indian River Shores Vero Beach Kilometers ³ ACNWR Wirwa 10 SISP Park Biologist F FF F FF F 28 FF Disney Savage North IRS Savage F FF 32 F FF South IRS Herren Vero Beach Herren South IRC Herren Figure 1. Map of Indian River County showing study areas along the coast and the marine turtle principal permit holders that are responsible for collecting nesting data within each area. The County's beaches have been divided up into 36 km zones starting at Sebastian Inlet south to the St. Lucie County line.

62 Number of Nests per Year in Indian River County 10 9 Number of Nests (Thousands) Figure 2. The number of nests (all species) recorded in Indian River County from 2005 to The dashed line indicates the average per year (4,110).

63 Spatial Distribution of Loggerhead Nests in Indian River County in 2008 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ Sebastian Orchid 10 12! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y t1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone Vero Beach! 60! A1A Kilometers Figure 3. The number of loggerhead nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in Data for these type of distributions was compiled on the basis of GPS locations, which have a small degree of error. Zone 36 is not a full kilometer.

64 Spatial Distribution of Loggerhead Nesting Success (%) in Indian River County in 2008 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ Sebastian Orchid 10 12! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y t1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone Vero Beach! 60! A1A Kilometers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 4. Loggerhead nesting success (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in The red line represents 50% nesting success, which is often used as a baseline in this species.

65 Spatial Distribution of Green Turtle Nests in Indian River County in 2008 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ Sebastian Orchid 10! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y t1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone Vero Beach! 60! A1A Kilometers Figure 5. The number of green turtle nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in Zone 36 is not a full kilometer.

66 Spatial Distribution of Leatherback Nests in Indian River County in 2008 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ Sebastian Orchid 10! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y t1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone Vero Beach! 60! A1A Kilometers Figure 6. The number of leatherback nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in Zone 36 is not a full kilometer.

67 Temporal Distribution of Nesting by All Species in the Southern Half (County- Surveyed Portion) of Indian River County in 2008 March March Mch 30-April 5 April 6-12 April April April 27-May 3 May 4-10 May May May June 1-7 June 8-14 June June June 29-July 5 July 6-12 July July July 27-Aug 2 Aug 3-9 Aug Aug Aug Aug 31-Sep 6 Sep 7-13 Sep Sep Sep 28-Oct March 2-8 March 9-15 NEST TOTALS Loggerhead = 1,312 Green Turtle = 86 Leatherback = 17 Figure 7. The temporal pattern of nesting by all species in the southern half of Indian River County, This graph is updated weekly throughout the season and is available at Number of Nests

68 Spatial Distribution of Abandoned Body Pits and Egg Chambers in 2008 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ Sebastian Orchid 10 12! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y t 1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone Vero Beach! 60! A1A Abandoned Body Pit Abandoned Egg Chamber Kilometers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 8. The percentage of loggerhead, green turtle and leatherback crawls with abandoned body pits and abandoned egg chambers (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2008.

69 Spatial Distribution of Crawl Obstructions (%) in Indian River County in 2008 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ Sebastian Orchid 10 12! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y t 1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone Vero Beach! 60! A1A Seawall Scarp DuneScarp X-over RecEquip Other Kilometers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 9. The proportion of loggerhead, green turtle and leatherback nests and false crawls associated with obstructions (x-axis) mapped by kilometer zone (y-axis) in X-over = dune walkways. Rec Equip = boats, chairs, umbrellas, etc. See text for description of "Other" category and definitions of types of scarps.

70 Disruptive Beach Activities in Indian River County in 2008 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ FIRE LG VEHICLE SM VEHICLE LOOSE DOG 8 CONSTRUCTION Sebastian Orchid 10 OTHER! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y t1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone Vero Beach! 60! A1A Kilometers Figure 10. The number of disruptive beach activities potentially harmful to sea turtles recorded during nesting surveys (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in Indian River County in LG VEHICLE = Truck or Construction Vehicle. SM VEHICLE = ATV or Motorcycle. LOOSE DOG = unattended dog. CONSTRUCTION = unauthorized dune or beach work. See text for description of other category.

71 Presence of People, Dog and Raccoon Tracks on Fresh Crawls in 2008 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ PEOPLE DOG PEOPLE & DOG RACCOON Sebastian Orchid 10! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y t1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone Vero Beach! 60! A1A Kilometers Figure 11. The number of nests and false crawls with people, dog and raccoon tracks on them the night they were deposited (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in Indian River County in The lack of activity in the northern kilometers may be due to lack of reporting.

72 Distribution of Disorientations and Lighting Violations in Indian River County in 2008 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ Disorientations Sebastian Orchid 10! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y t1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone Vero Beach! 60! A1A Kilometers Exterior and Interior Violations 5 0 Figure 12. The number of disorientated nests (top x-axis) vs. the number of properties with exterior and interior lighting violations (bottom x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in In 2008, night-time lighting surveys were not conducted in the Town of Indian River Shores, Orchid or the City of Vero Beach.

73 Distribution of Nest Predations in Indian River County in 2008 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ Sebastian Orchid 10 12! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y! 60! A1A t1 Indian River Shores Vero Beach Kilometer Zone RACCOON CANINE 30 BOBCAT 32 HUMAN 34 UNKNOWN Kilometers Figure 13. The number of nest predations by raccoons, canines, bobcats and people (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2008.

74 Nest Predation and Attempted Predation by Raccoons and Canines in the ACNWR Indian River County from Ambersand Park 1 / 2 / ³ / 3 Treasure Shores Park 4 / 5 / 6 / ACNWR Zone Goldensands Park O r c h i d 7 / 8 / 7 8 COON ATMPT COON PRED CANINE ATMPT CANINE PRED / / / / / / Kilometers Figure 14. The number of nest predations and attempted predations by raccoons and canines (x-axis) by nesting zone (y-axis) in the Indian River County portion of the ACNWR from 2006 to Green markers on the map are the northern boundaries of the ACNWR nesting zones. Gray areas of the map denote ACNWR lands managed jointly by the USFWS, State and County.

75 APPENDICES

76 APPENDIX A MARINE TURTLE PERMIT #166

77 MARINE TURTLE PERMIT Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Commissioners Rodney Barreto Chair Miami Brian S. Yablonski Vice-Chair Tallahassee Kathy Barco Jacksonville Ronald M. Bergeron Fort Lauderdale Richard A. Corbett Tampa Dwight Stephenson Delray Beach Kenneth W. Wright Winter Park Executive Staff Kenneth D. Haddad Executive Director Victor J. Heller Assistant Executive Director Karen Ventimiglia Deputy Chief of Staff Imperiled Species Management Section Kipp Frohlich Section Leader (850) (850) FAX Managing fish and wildlife resources for their longterm well-being and the benefit of people. 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida Voice: (850) Hearing/speech impaired: (800) (T) (800) (V) MyFWC.com Richard M. Herren Indian River County rd Avenue, Unit 102 Vero Beach, Florida TP #166 Permit Expires: January Amendment of current permit. Authorized To: (1) conduct nesting surveys, (2) conduct stranding/salvage activities, (3) relocate nests for conservation purposes, (4) maintain & display preserved specimens. Authorized Nesting Survey Area: Indian River Shores (6.15km S ofsr-510 south to L6km N ofbeachland Blvd. on AlA, inlcuding Baytree), Vero Beach (340' north of RM-74 south to 90' south ofrm-95), and southern Indian River County beaches (St. Lucie/Indian River County line north to 0.5 miles north of southern boundary of Indian River Shores). Authorized Research Projects: (1) Monitoring for Indian River Shores beach access (BBCS IR-507 as amended), 2/2000, (2) Monitoring for Indian River County Beach Restoration project- Sector 7 (DEP Permit No JC), authorized 1/2007. Authorized Personnel: R. Herren, J. Gorham, J. Gray, C. Vann, B. Harrison, C. McConnel. General Conditions: Permitted individuals must adhere to the FWC marine turtle permit guidelines developed under a Section 6 Cooperative Agreement between FWC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Special Conditions: Permittee shall coordinate with Indian River County in implementing the Indian River County Habitat Conservation Plan. Additional personnel may be added after attending at least one SNBS/INBS nesting workshop. See attached Marine Turtle Monitoring for beach restoration projects. Robbin Trindell, Ph.D., Bto ogtcal Admtmstrator Imperiled Species Management Division of Habitat and Species Conservation cc: rj/et Date Sandy MacPherson, National Sea Turtle Recovery Coordinator, USFWS FWC, Division of Law Enforcement, Northeast Region FWC, Tequesta Office

78 APPENDIX B MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

79 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THI~EMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (THIS AGREEMENT) is entered into this 9 day of F='e.b rvo...r <1, 200{,by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River Cot\llty, Florida (THE COUNTY) and the Florida Department ofenvironmental Protection (THE DEPARTMENT). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, THE COUNTY has applied to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) for a Section 10 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) that will allow fo.r the incidental take of marine turtles causally related to THE COUNTY's issuance of emergency permits for shoreline protection; and WHEREAS, a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) developed in support of the ITP application describes the goals, policies, rules, regulations, procedures and supporting programs that THE COUNTY will implement to minimize and mitigate impacts to marine turtles potentially resulting from emergency shoreline protection activities; and WHEREAS, THE DEPARTMENT has determined that the attached "Rules & Regulations" [Attachment A] for issuance of emergency shoreline protection permits by THE COUNTY conform to Section 161, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62B-33 of the Florida Administrative Code (F AC), with the exception of provisions pertaining to the protection of marine turtles; and WHEREAS, regulations contained in Chapter 62B-33, F AC, pertaining to the siting of erosion control structures as well as the construction and/or removal of structures during the sea turtle nesting season are intended, in part, to avoid impacts to marine turtles and their nesting habitat and to ensure that shoreline protection measures authorized under permits issued by THE DEPARTMENT do not cause the take. of threatened and endangered marine turtles, a prohibition uoder the U.S. Endangered Species Act (1973), as amended; and WHEREAS, Paragraph (5)(k)4 of 62B-33, FAC, encourages local governments to obtain Section 10 ITP authorization from the USFWS prior to issuing emergency permits for shoreline protection; and WHEREAS, THE COUNTY's ITP will explicitly authorize harm to marine turtles, their eggs and hatchlings resulting from issuance of emergency permits, thereby rendering inapplicable, uoder TBIS AGREEMENT, those portions of the above referenced F AC designed to prevent take; and WHEREAS, by issuing an ITP, the USFWS will explicitly hold THE COUNTY harmless for the take of marine turtles caused by emergency shoreline protection

80 measures initiated under THE COUNTY's emergency authorization, as long as THE COUNTY abides by all conditions set forth in its ITP; and WHEREAS, local. authorization for emergency shoreline protection is but an initial step in providing for the longer-term protection of eligible stmctures from unanticipated and acute erosion caused by major coastal storms; and WHEREAS, it is desirable for THE COUNTY and affected property owners to receive federal authorization for takes over the life of a shoreline protection project initiated under an emergency permit. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto commit to formalize, the permitting relationship between THE COUNTY and THE DEPARTMENT, through THIS AGREEMENT, and agree to abide by the following conditions: 1. THE DEPARTMENT acknowledges.that pursuant to TillS AGREE!v!ENT, all federally-approved measures for marine turtle protection contained in THE COUNTY's HCP shall preempt and supersede those required by THE DEPARTMENT as set forth in 62B , FAC. 2. Property owners authorized by THE COUNTY to implement emergency shoreline protection measures shall be held harmless by THE DEPARTMENT for the take of marine turtles as a result of their shoreline protection activities, as long as all conditions of the emergency permit issued by THE COUNTY are abided by. 3. THE COUNTY shall issue permits for emergency shoreline protection for stmctures in accordance with the "Rules & Regulations" set forth in Attachment A THIS AGREEMENT shall serve as-the' Department's written determination that said Rules & Regulations comply with state law, with the exception of provisions for marine turtle protection contained in Chapter 62B , FAC. 4. THE COUNTY shall implement appropriate measures to minimize and mitigate impacts to marine turtles associated with emergency shoreline protection activities as set forth in its HCP. Furthermore, THE COUNTY shall abide by all conditions contained or referenced in its Section 10 ITP issued by the USFWS. 5. THE COUNTY shall notify THE DEPARTMENT in writing by the most expeditious means available when it has declared an emergency pursuant to criteria and conditions set forth in Attachment A. Notification of an emergency shall include documentation from the County Commission authorizing the declaration of emergency and shall provide the date and details of the storm event that created the emergency. 6. Upon determination that a stmcture is eligible for an emergency permit, THE COUNTY shall notify THE DEPARTMENT in writing within 3 working days. This notification shall provide the location of the affected property, characterize the 2

81 physical conditions at the site upon which the structure was determined to be eligible and vulnerable, and describe the shoreline protection measures to be implemented. 7. Upon receipt of the notiiication described in Paragraph 6 above, THE DEPARTMENT will assign an FDEP permit number to fucilitate tracking of the project from its inception through authorization. of a permanent solution, as applicable. THE COUNTY shall append this number to its emergency shoreline protection permit issued for the project. 8. THE COUNTY shall consult with THE DEPARTMENT whenever there IS uncertainty about the purpose or intent of any part of THIS AGREEMENT. ' 9. Within 60 days from the date that a temporary shoreline protection structure is installed under an emergency permit from THE COUNTY, the property owner (or legal agent) must comply with one Dfthe following options: a.. Snbrnit a complete application to THE DEPARTMENT for a state permit authorizing retention of the temporary structure or allowing for alternative protection, or b. Remove the temporary structure. 10. THE COUNTY shall consult with affected property owners (or agents) to ensnre that the implications ofparf!graph 9 above are fully understood and shall provide gnidanae during the preparation of a DEPARTMENT permit application, as applicable. TilE DEPARTMENT shall provide THE COUNTY with a standard application package for permanent shoreline protection measures. This packet will be made. available to property owners by THE COUNTY upon issua,nce of the emergency.shoreline protection :Permit. 1 L Application for a permanent shoreline protection structure shall be denied by THE DEPARTMENT if the application is determined to be inconsistent with state laws and rules, with the exception of those provisions pertaining to the take of marine turtles. Applications shall also be denied if a beach nourishment, beach restoration, sand transfer or other sitnilar project that would provide protection for the vulnerable structure is scheduled for construction within nine (9) months of receipt of the applic&tion and all permits and funding for the project are available. THE COUNTY shall periodically provide THE DEPARTMENT with a schedule and status report of all pending County-sponsored beach projects. 12. THE COUNTY shall ensu:re that any structures removed pursuant to Paragraph 9 above are done so in accordance with provisions of its ITP and HCP. 13. Sand placed on the beach as an emergency shoreline protection measure, when performed in accordance with conditions set forth in Attachment A, shall not require removal pursuant to Paragraph 9 above. 3

82 14. Upon receipt of a complete application for the retention of a temporary emergency structure or alternative protection as set forth in Paragraph 9 above, THE DEPARTMENT shall expedite processing ofthe permit application and shall provide immediate assistance to THE COUNTY and applicant. The review process shall consider all applicable portions of Section 161, Florida Statutes, and all rules pertaining thereto, including adverse impacts of the proposed permanent structure on the coastal system, downd:rift properties and native vegetation. Insofar as THE COUNTY will have an ITP authorizing take of marine turtles and agrees to abide by all conditions relating to marine turtle protection contained in its HCP, adverse impacts to marine turtles and/or their habitat shall not be used by THE DEPARTMENT as a basis for denying a permit for a permanent structure. THE COUNTY's Coastal Engineer shall assist THE DEPARTMENT in,obtaining sitespecific information germane to the review of permit applications for permanent structures pursuant to this paragraph. 15. Notwithstanding issues related to marine turtle protection, as described in Paragraph 14 above, THE DEPARTMENT shall exercise sole control over all aspects of the permitting of permanent shoreline protection structures initiated under this Agreement. 16. If THE DEPARTMENT issues a permit for the retention of a temporary structure or alternative protection, removal of the temporary structure and/or construction of the permanent structure shall occur outside of the sea turtle nesting season, unless otherwise provided for in THE COUNTY's HCP. If THE DEPARTMENT denies the permit application, the temporary structure shall be removed at the direction of THE COUNTY in accordance with provisions contained in the HCP. 17. Permanent structures permitted by THE DEPARTMENT shall not be located further seaward than the temporary structures authorized by THE COUNTY under emergency permit unless there are no reasonable alternatives that would provide for the adequate protection of an eligible structure and a more seaward placement is not contrary to state rules and regulations. 18. This Agreement shall become effective on the date that the USFWS issues THE COUNTY an ITP for the take of marine turtles causally related to shoreline protection measures initiated under an emergepcy permit issued by THE COUNTY. THE COUNTY shall provide THE DEPARTMENT with a copy of the ITP and HCP within five (5) working days of receipt of the ITP. In the event that THE COUNTY does not receive an ITP from the USFWS, this Agreement shall be rendered null and void. 4

83 19. All correspondence between THE COUNTY and THE DEPARTMENT pursuant to THIS AGREEMENT shall be addressed to the following Points of Contact: THE COUNTY Coastal Resource Manager Indian River County Public Works Dept th Street Vera Beach, Florida THE DEPARTMENT Program Administrator Florida Department of Environmental Protection Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems 3900 Co=onwealth Blvd., Mail Station 300 Tallahassee, Florida ENTERED INTO this 9' t& day of._h-'==&""b'lc-""tm.!<!..lt=-f-0-,, 20~ I Uf. PATRICIA M. RIDGELY DEPUTY CLERK pp~tjame and Title 0 '~, WILLIAM K. DEBRAA L INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By its Board of County ColiiJ]]jssioners By~ S,L~ Thomas s; LoVIther, Chairperson STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT ::~o~:4:jti~ ~ille,' Secretary. FILEH 1 ~I{~(I;l(Nb'Wt'Enmm on this date, under Section of the Florida Statutes, with the designated Department Clerk, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. DATE 5

84 ATTACHMENT A INDIAN RIVER COUNTY RULES & REGULATIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF EMERGENCY PERMITS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION Defmitions: Adverse Impacts - Impacts to the coastal system that may cause a measurable interference with the natural functioning of the system. Beach- A zone of consolidated material that extends landward from the mean low water line to the place where there is a marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation. Declaration of Emergency - A resolution passed by the Indian River County Board of County Coliiiilissioners declaring a state of emergency due to the approach or passage of a coastal storm, as authorized by Chapter , Florida Statutes; If the State of Florida issues a declaration of emergency that includes Indian River County in its scope, a local declaration is not required. Coastal Engineer- The position of Coastal Engineer for Indian River County. Dune - A mound, bluff or ridge of loose sediment, usually sand-sized sediment, lying upland of the beach and deposited by any natural or artificial mechanism, which may be bare or covered with vegetation and is subject to fluctuations in configuration and location. Eligible Structure-private structures or public infrastructure as follows: Private structures include non-conforming habitable major structures and nonhabitable major structures attached to non-conforming habitable major structures whose failure would cause the adjoining eligible structure to become vulnerable. Public infrastructure includes those roads designated as public evacuation routes, public emergency facilities, bridges, power facilities, water or wastewater facilities, other utilities, hospitals, or structures of local governmental, state, or national significance. Erosion - The wearing away of land or the removal of consolidated or unconsolidated material from.the beach and dune system by wind, water or wave action. Erosion includes the landward horizontal movement of the mean high-water line or beach and dune system profile and the vertical lowering or volumetric loss of sediment from the beach and dune system. Escarpment- A vertical or near-vertical slope occurring between the beach and dune.

85 Indian River County Page 2 Emeq~ency Permitting Rules & Regulations FDEP/THE DEPARTMENT - Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems. Frontal Dune - The first natural or man-made mound or bluff of sand which is located landward of the beach and which has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to offer protective value. Habitable Major Structure - A structure designed primarily for human occupancy, including residences, hotels, and restaurants. HCP (Habitat Conservation Plan)- A comprehensive program developed by Indian River County and approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to minimize and mitigate impacts to sea turtles potentially resulting from shoreline protection measures initiated under emergency authorization from Indian River Cotmty. Hatchlirlg - Any species of sea turtle, within or outside of a nest, that has recently hatched from an egg. Minor Structure - Structures designed to be expendable and whose loss will not preclude the occupancy of major habitable structures on the same property, including but not limited to storage sheds, gazebos, decks, walkways and dune crossovers. Nest - An area where sea turtle eggs have been naturally deposited or subsequently relocated. Non-Conforming Structure- Any habitable major structure which was not constructed under a permit issued by FDEP pursuant to Section or , Florida Statutes, on or after March 17, Non-Habitable Major Structure - StructUres designed primarily for uses other than human occupancy, including but not limited to roads, bridges, storm water. outfalls, bathhouses, cabanas, swimming pools and garages. Public Infrastructure - Roads designated as public evacuation routes, public emergency facilities, bridges, power facilities, water or wastewater facilities, other utilities, hospitals, or structures oflocal governmenta~ state or national significance. Sea Turtle- Any turtle of the families Cheloniidae or Dermochelyidae, including all life stages from egg to adult, of the species: Caretta caretta (loggerhead), Chelonia mydas (green), Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback), Eretmochelys imbricata (hawksbill), and Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp's ridley). Sea Turtle Nesting Season- That period each year from March 1 through October 31 when sea turtles are emerging onto sandy beaches in Indian River County to nest and! or hatchlings are emerging from their nests. 2

86 Indian River County Page 3 Emergency Permitting Rules & Regulations Significant Adverse Impact- Adverse impacts of such magnitude that they may alter the coastal system by (a) measurably affecting the existing shoreline change rate, (b) significantly interfering with its ability to recover from a coastal storm, or (c) disturbing topography or vegetation such that the system becomes unstable, cir suffers catastrophic failure. Vulnerable Structure - An eligible structure which, as a result of erosion from a storm event that has been declared an emergency by Indian River County, has fewer than twenty (20) feet of property (buffer zone) between the seaward most edge of the eligible structure and the dune escarpment. The width of the buffer zone shall be subject to change and shall be updated by Indian River County at intervals specified in the HCP. The width "of the buffer zone shall be determined using FDEP's High Frequency Dune Erosion Model that calculates dune recession rates based on a ISyear return interval storm. Vulnerable structures also include eligible structures whose structural foundations have been exposed, as well as eligible structures where shoreline protection measures were initiated under emergency authorization from Indian River County on or before March 30, 1999, but those measures could not be completed due to legal challenges; Rules & Regulations: 1. Permits for emergency shoreline protection shall only be issued to eligible and vulnerable structures. 2. Permits shall not be issued for temporary shoreline protection measures that, in the judgment of the Coastal Engineer, are likely to cause significant adverse impacts nor shall permits be issued when a proposed shoreline protection measure is not for the purpose of alleviating conditions resulting from the shoreline emergency. 3. Protective measures must be limited to one or a combination of the following: a. Placing beach-compatible sand from Upland sources on the beach, b. Creating a temporary barrier seaward of the structure using sand bags and/or geotextile fubrics filled with sand, c. Shoring up (reinforcing) foundations, d. Installing temporary wooden retaining walls, cantilever sheetpile walls (without concrete caps, tie-backs, or other reinforcement), or similar structures seaward of the vulnerable structure. 5. Temporary structures constructed for emergency protection shall be: a. Designed and sited to minimize excavation of the beach and frontal dune as well as impacts to native vegetation, marine turtles and adjacent properties, and b. Designed and sited to fucilitate removal. 6. The Coastal Engineer will make a determination as to the most appropriate protective measure(s) for the site, with the goal of providing adequate temporary protection for 3

87 Indian River County Page 4 Emergency Permitting Rules & Regulations the vulnerable structure while minimizing impacts to sea turtle nesting habitat and the coastal system Because each site is unique, it is not possible to establish a matrix to identify the appropriate protection measure for all possible scenarios. The Coastal Engineer will use his/her best professional judgment when deciding the most appropriate shoreline protection measure for a specific site. This assessment will be based upon careful consideration offuctors such as: a. Potential for physical damage to the structure because of erosion; b. Extent of storm damage to the beach/dune system; c. Distance of the structure from the dune escarpment; d. Pre-storm conditions at the site (i.e., critically eroding, eroding, accreting, etc.); e. Potential consequences to coastal processes and downd:ri:ft properties resulting from various shoreline protection options; f. Time of year when the emergency occurs (e.g., during or outside of the nesting season, likelihood for additional storm activity, etc.); and g. Construction schedules for permitted beach nourishment projects at the site. 7. Any fill material placed on the beach shall be sand that is similar, in both coloration and grain-size, to that already existing at natural (i.e., never before nourished) beach sites in the County. All such fill material shall be free of construction debris, rocks, or other foreign material and shall not contain, on average, greater than 10 percent silts and clays (i.e., sediments passing through a No. 200 standard sieve) and/or greater than 5 percent coarse gravel or cobbles (sediments retained by a No. 4 standard sieve), exclusive ofshell material. 8. All protective measures shall be implemented in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts to the coastal system, native vegetation and adjacent properties, while still providing adequate protection for the vulnerable structure. If a temporary Structure is permitted, it shall be sited at or landward of the dune escarpj1lent and as close to the vulnerable structure as practicable to provide sufficient protection. The Coastal Engineer shall use his/her best pro:fussional judgment in determining the appropriate location of protective structures. Information that will influence the location includes: a. The type of protective material(s) to be used, b. Construction methods, c. Site topography, d. Distance between the vulnerable structure and dune escarpment, e. Extent of erosional threat to the vulnerable structure, f. Presence/absence of sea turtle nesting habitat and/or marked nests, and g. Other site-specific conditions. 9. There shall be no implementation of shoreline protection measures until an emergency permit is obtained from Indian River County. Written application for an 4

88 Indian River County Page 5 Emergency Permitting Rules & Regulations emergency shoreline protection permit must be made to the Coastal Engineer as soon as possible following an erosion event associated with a declared emergency. 10. If an emergency permit is issued by Indian River County, the permittee has a maximum of 30 days from the date of the initial erosion event to complete implementation of emergency measures. Indian River. County may authorize a 30- day extension to complete emergency protection measures provided the applicant can demonstrate that emergency conditions still exist. 11. If construction occurs or is scheduled to occur during any portion of the sea turtle nesting season, the permittee must abide by all conditions for sea turtle protection contained in Indian River County's HCP and the ITP issued by the USFWS. 12. Within 60 days of completion of shoreline protection measures, the permittee must either remove any temporary structures constructed as a result of the emergency permit or provide a complete application to FDEP for a permit to retain the temporary structure or implement alternative protection. If the temporary structure must be removed during any portion of the sea turtle nesting season, the permittee must abide by all conditions for sea turtle protection contained in Indian River County's HCP and the ITP issued by the USFWS. l3. If a temporary structure fuils, all debris and structural material shall be removed from the beach within 20 days of the structure fuilure. If removal of a fuiled structure is to occur during any portion of the sea turtle nesting season, the permittee must abide by all conditions for sea turtle protection contained in Indian River County's HCP and the ITP issued by the USFWS. 5

89 APPENDIX C NEST MONITORING PROCEDURES

90 HCP MONITORING PROCEDURES - REQUIRED FOR EACH SURVEY AREA 1. Daily uninterrupted surveys conducted at sunrise from March 1 to September Determination of species. 3. Determination whether crawl is a nest or false crawl. 4. Zone recorded for all crawls. 5. GPS coordinates recorded for all crawls. 6. Determination whether crawl is below or above most recent high tide line. 7. Number of abandoned body pits or abandoned egg chambers for all crawls. 8. Record obstructions or barriers to nesting (e.g. scarps, beach furniture, etc.) 9. Documentation of any impacts to nesting turtles, nests, and hatchlings. 10. Mark any nests deposited at or landward of the toe of dune on developed property in critically eroded areas (Sentinel Nests). HCP MONITORING PROCEDURES REQUIRED IN COUNTY SURVEYED AREAS, ENCOURAGED FOR OTHER PPH'S. 1. Find clutch and mark a representative sample of nests outside project areas. 2. Monitor nests daily for determination of nest fate. 3. Excavate nests and determine hatching success. HCP MONITORING PROCEDURES - REQUIRED IN CONSTRUCTION AREAS OR IN EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION AREAS 1. Mark any nests in construction zones. Find clutch and relocate nests in danger areas that will interfere with construction activities. 2. All nests deposited following construction of emergency shoreline protection project will be located, marked and monitored in situ.

91 APPENDIX D NESTING SURVEY DATA SHEET

92 SEA TURTLE NESTING SURVEY DATA NAME DATE PAGE NO. OF START TIME END TIME GPS UNIT NO. ZONE GENERAL INFORMATION HIGH TIDE LINE GPS SPECIES NEST / ABOVE BELOW WAYPT. FC SPECIFIC FEATURES ABANDONED DIGS OBSTRUCTIONS # ABAND # ABAND DUNE SEA SCARP BODYPIT CAVITY X-OVER WALL COMMENTS CC = LOGGERHEAD; CM = GREEN; DC = LEATHERBACK. FOR HELP, CALL INDIAN RIVER COUNTY'S SEA TURTLE COORDINATOR AT

93 APPENDIX E MAPS OF SENTINEL AREAS

94 SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

95 SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

96 SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

97 SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

98 SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

99 SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

100 SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

101 APPENDIX F PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTER

102 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~< Street, Vero Beach, Floritla32960 January 11, 2008 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (LOC 4000 #5143) TH ST VERO BEACH, FL RE: Parcel No. COUNTY SEA TURTLE PROTECTION REGULATIONS Dear Property Owner: County records indicate that you are the owner ofbeachfront property in Indian River County. This Jetter is to serve as a reminder and notice that, in I 987, Indian River County adopted sea turtle protection regulations that restrict beachfront lighting during the sea turtle nesting season. This nesting season is from March 1st to October 31st each year. Specifically, Section ofthe County Land Development Code sets forth parameters for artificial lighting, including requirements that: outdoor lighting be shielded so as not to be visible from the beach, or turned off between 9:00p.m. and sunrise during the nesting season; and that windows facing the ocean, on single and multi-story structures, be tinted to prevent beach illumination from interior lights between 9:00p.m. and sunrise during the nesting season. Beachfront lighting is regulated based on scientific documentation that such lighting disorients hatchlings and consequently causes turtle mortality. These disoriented hatchlings crawl toward artificial lighting instead of the ocean, and are subsequently eaten by predators such as raccoons or stray cats, or the hatchlings die of dehydration. Also, beachfront lighting deters certain sea turtle species from laying eggs on adjacent beaches. The best method of ensuring that your lights are not visible from the beach, and are thus compliant with lighting regulations is to view your property from various locations on the beach at night. Lights should be viewed from beach locations north and south of your facility, as well as from directly east. Observations should also be made from locations low (near the water line) and high (near the dune) oo the beach. If you are able to see the source of light (e.g., light bulb) within a fixture, that light is likely to cause problems for_sea turtles. Indian River County has the privilege of beiog a part of the prime sea turtle oesting area in the United States and, literally, in the western hemisphere. Your cooperation in minimizing beach front lighting is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning sea turtle regulations, please do not hesitate to call environmental planning staff at (772) Sincerely, Roland M. DeBlois, AICP Chief, Environmental Planning F:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\USERS\CODE ENFORCEMENT\SEA TURTLES\2008 SEA TURTLE LETTER FORM.DOC

103 APPENDIX G LIGHTING WORKSHOP FLYER

104 Sea turtles live in the ocean. They need your help to get there. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PRESENTS Sea Turtle Lighting Workshop FEBRUARY 2, :00 PM 4:00 PM VERO BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER TH AVE. Every summer thousands of newly hatched sea turtles are led astray by lights. Learn how you can keep your beachfront lights from harming these threatened and endangered animals. Presentations by local, state and federal wildlife biologists Vendors showcasing sea turtle friendly lighting solutions Code enforcement to explain local lighting ordinances Wildlife artists Snacks and drinks Games for children Call for more information.

105 APPENDIX H DOG PREDATION FLYER

106 FROM MARCH THOUGH OCTOBER, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BEACHES ARE NESTING GROUNDS FOR THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SEA TURTLES. THEIR SURVIVAL DEPENDS UPON SUCCESSFUL INCUBATION OF THEIR NESTS. THE NESTS ARE USUALLY 18 TO 30 INCHES UNDER THE SURFACE OF THE SAND AND ARE SAFE FROM FOOT TRAFFIC. HOWEVER, IF ALLOWED, DOGS CAN DIG UP AND DESTROY SEA TURTLE NESTS. IN 2006, 38 NESTS, WHICH INCLUDED 4,370 EGGS, WERE DESTROYED BY DOGS IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY! BE AWARE! THERE ARE LOCAL ORDINANCES PROHIBITING DOGS ON THE BEACHES IN THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND THE COUNTY. IF YOU DECIDE TO TAKE YOUR DOG ON THE BEACH, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO FINES. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT DOG ORDINANCES CALL THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AT OR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AT FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT SEA TURTLES LOCALLY CALL OR VISIT MYFWC.COM/SEATURTLE. IF YOU OBSERVE A STRANDED, INJURED OR DEAD SEA TURTLE, PLEASE REPORT IT TO THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AT FWCC.