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 RD AVENUE, UNIT #102 VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32967

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 October 17, 2008 Ms. Adams, Enclosed is a copy of the 2007 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. From January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, there were no emergency erosion protection authorizations issued by Indian River County under the ITP. 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 rd Avenue, Unit 102 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 RD AVENUE, UNIT #102 VERO BEACH, FLORIDA October 2008

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 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 AND TRENDS 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 CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS LIGHTING EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 1

5 EDUCATION PROGRAM PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM RACCOON PREDATION PLAN INTENTION DOMESTIC DOG 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 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 11 APPENDIX A MARINE TURTLE PERMIT # 166 APPENDIX B MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH STATE APPENDIX C BASIC NEST MONITORING PROCEDURES APPENDIX D NESTING SURVEY DATA SHEET APPENDIX E MAPS OF SENTINEL NEST AREAS APPENDIX F EXAMPLE OF SPREADSHEET DATABASE APPENDIX G PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTER APPENDIX H MID-SEASON LIGHTING VIOLATION LETTER APPENDIX I VERO BEACH LIGHTING ORDINANCE APPENDIX J PREDATOR CONTROL PLAN APPENDIX K DOG PREDATION FLYER APPENDIX L CONTACT CHARTS FOR DOG PREDATION APPENDIX M PHOTO OF DOG DIGGING A NEST APPENDIX N EDUCATIONAL SIGNS FOR MARKED NESTS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 2

6 Indian River County Sea Turtle Habitat Conservation Plan 2007 Annual Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Indian River County applied for and, in 2004, 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 implement the HCP in Since the County authorized no emergency shoreline protection projects in 2007, the bulk of effort this year was on the monitoring programs. This was the third 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 7,190 sea turtle emergences were recorded during the 2007 nesting season. Loggerheads (Caretta caretta) were the most prevalent sea turtles nesting within the County, accounting for 75% of all emergences (2,872 nests). However, the loggerhead nest total was the lowest since countywide surveys began in In contrast, green turtle (Chelonia mydas) nests (850) and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) nests (73) were both record highs. Spatially, there were far more nests deposited in the northern half of the County and, temporally, nesting began on March 10 and ended on October 5, Nesting success was just over 50% for both loggerhead and green turtles and much higher for leatherbacks (90%). The proportion of nests marked to study reproductive success was 23%, which was a higher percentage than last year. Overall, mean emerging success was 81% for loggerhead and 80% for green turtle nests and when tidal wash outs and nest predations were included those means dropped to 68% and 58%, respectively. Leatherback emerging success was low due in large part to high surf in late spring, this brought the mean emerging success for all leatherback nests down to 38%. Many potentially disruptive human activities were recorded this nesting season. These included beach fires, unauthorized vehicles, illegal construction and tent camping. There were dozens of cases where human tracks during the night were associated with INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 3

7 abandoned nesting attempts. There were also numerous cases of dog tracks on top of nests, but this year only one nest was excavated by a dog. By far, beachfront lighting was the largest problem this year. 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 we identified the largest number of night-time lighting violations. A second night-time survey completed in July 2007 showed an overall 18% decrease in lighting violations, perhaps due to warning letters sent out by the County's Environmental Planning Department, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the hard work of the Code Enforcement Officers in the City of Vero Beach. Dog predation was far less of a problem in 2007 than it had been the previous year. Increased education and enforcement efforts may have played a role. However, there were still many dogs observed on the beach. County Animal Control Officers issued warnings or fines to owners who did not have their animals leashed. One unattended dog in the Moorings neighborhood was observed enthusiastically digging a hole in the sand, which was later identified as a loggerhead nest. Fortunately, most of the hatchlings had already emerged. The owner of that dog was served a fine for having an unleashed and unattended animal. Raccoon predation was higher this year than in 2006 and may indicate an increase in the number of animals on the barrier island. Most raccoon predations were concentrated in the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge study area, near Treasure Shores Park. Limited trapping was conducted by refuge personnel in that area. In 2007, education was primarily through brochures, newspaper articles, news radio talk shows, beach signs, one-on-one talks with beachgoers and public talks. Many hours were spent on the beach during the nesting season speaking with beachgoers who asked 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. Several newspaper articles about dogs digging up nests and the effects of beach nourishment projects on nesting were published in More education is clearly needed as there appeared to be a general lack of knowledge regarding sea turtle nesting on our coast. 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. As there were no temporary or permanent armoring structures authorized by the County during 2007, 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. Over the last three years, seawalls placed on the beach outside the nesting season have been through the FDEP permitting process. 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 habitable structures close to the beach become increasingly vulnerable to physical damage, coastal property owners in Indian River County are seeking ways to protect their properties. 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 event 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. Officially starting on March 1 st and ending on October 31 st, the nesting season lasts most of the year. The construction of seawalls, revetments and other erosion control measures within the nesting season may cause harm or harassment of these federally protected animals. The result is a prohibited taking under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. 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. On November 21, 2003, Indian River County, Florida, made formal application to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 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 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. In 2007, a presentation and workshop was given to all Principal Permit Holders and primary field personnel on January 30. The presentation was attended by 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 and FWC. The workshop provided participants with results of the 2006 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. The presentation emphasized the importance of providing accurate and timely data throughout the nesting season and encouraged permit holders to seek help through the HCP Coordinator, if needed. Lastly, new technologies were discussed that could ease the burden of data collection. 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, 2007 and December 31, 2007, 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 2007 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 as sea turtle nesting habitat. This requires systematic monitoring of the County s INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 7

11 shoreline to identify temporal and spatial nesting patterns. In addition, it is necessary to document natural and anthropogenic factors affecting nesting and reproductive success. Administration of the nest monitoring program requires the most time and effort of any portion of the HCP and, as such, 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 systematically surveyed by various groups during the 2007 nesting season. The County coordinated the activities of the participants in the monitoring program and maintained a Countywide sea turtle nesting database. Due to the frequent nesting activity, the nesting database was very large, comprising thousands of sea turtle crawls each with their own attributes. In order to obtain consistent and accurate data, the County developed Standard Operating Procedures (SOP s) for use by the monitoring personnel and provided training to the Principal Permit Holders (PPH s). This section provides a description of the nest monitoring program and presents the results of the 2007 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 remained unchanged during the 2007 nesting season. The focus remained on getting a detailed, complete and timely set of nesting data from each survey area. A description of basic monitoring procedures was extracted from the SOP and given to all Principal Permit Holders (Appendix C). Personnel were encouraged to use a simplified data collection form developed by the HCP Coordinator (Appendix D). SURVEY AREAS During 2007, 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 comprised the HCP Coordinator's permit area, included Indian River Shores (IRS), the City of Vero Beach and South Indian River County (SIRC). In 2007, the Indian River Shores survey area was split in half and the large group of IRS volunteers was reduced to only a handful of experienced staff. This was the result of several decisions. First, the Indian River Shores Public Safety Department wished to reduce the burden on their volunteers who were asked to accomplish more technical tasks as part of the HCP Nest Monitoring Program. Second, the HCP Coordinator needed a smaller, more experienced group of volunteers to collect detailed data in Indian River Shores. The break up of Indian River Shores became possible when Dr. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 8

12 Anne Savage of Disney Animal Kingdom agreed to take on additional survey area in northern Indian River Shores. The Disney group gained approximately 4.5 km (2.8 miles) of Indian River Shores beaches, which freed up enough beach for the HCP Coordinator, with the help of a smaller number of volunteers, to survey the entire southern half of the County. This was significant because it meant reproductive success would be measured throughout Indian River Shores for the first time. 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 used primarily 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 parklands. This survey area was monitored by biologists from Ecological Associates, Inc. (EAI), a private consulting firm under contract to Indian River County. In spring 2007, Indian River County in cooperation with the Sebastian Inlet Tax District placed sand dredged from Sebastian Inlet along the upper beach in Beach Plan Sectors 1 and 2 as part of Indian River County's Comprehensive Beach Management Plan. 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 federal employees associated with the Refuge. Disney Vero Beach Resort (Disney) Even though the entire Disney survey area changed in 2007, this area was kept for consistency as the core Disney area (within close proximity to the Resort). 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. This area includes singlefamily residences with extensive seawalls, a county park, condominiums and a tourist 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 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 9

13 multi-family residential units. In 2007, 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 of Indian River Shores was surveyed by the County HCP Coordinator (R. Herren) or volunteers on his permit. The break in Indian River Shores nesting surveys occurred at the kilometer 18 marker at John's Island Beach Club. For consistency, the IRS data in this report includes County and Disney data combined. City of Vero Beach This survey area begins at monument R-74 and continues to monument R-95 for a distance of approximately 6.3 kilometers (3.9 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, restaurants and City Parks. Many of these properties have seawalls. In 2007, surveys in this area were conducted and managed by the County's HCP Coordinator (R. Herren). 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 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 and managed by the County's HCP Coordinator (R. Herren). In Spring 2007, the county conducted a dredge and fill beach nourishment project within the County's Beach Management Plan Sector 7. The Sector 7 project stretched from just north of monument R-98 to R-108. The results of the Sector 7 project are contained in a separate report. 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 2007, there were four PPH's overseeing nesting surveys in the County. Erik Martin (EAI) in Sebastian Inlet State Park, Paul Tritaik (USFWS) in the Archie Carr NWR, Anne Savage (Disney) in the core Disney area and northern Indian River Shores and Richard 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 2007 (14). INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 10

14 Nesting surveys were conducted daily on all County beaches from March 1 to September 30, Monitoring continued periodically after September 30 at the discretion of each PPH. During the surveys all nests and non-nesting emergences (false crawls) visible from the previous night were recorded on data sheets by species and survey zone. In all survey areas, waypoints were collected at the location of every nest and at the apex of every false crawl. Handheld GPS units were used for obtaining waypoints and the location accuracies ranged from 2 meters to approximately 6 meters. 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 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 available nesting habitat should an emergency shoreline protection project be initiated at that location. Prior to the 2007 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 areas included potential access points for large construction equipment. However, critically-eroded areas with permanent armoring structures already present were excluded. 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 in the County during 2007, 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 number marked for each species and within each survey area was at the discretion of the PPH and varied among survey areas. Nests marking techniques also varied among survey areas. The most common was a INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 11

15 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 they could be spotted by survey personnel and found later. During daily surveys, all marked nests were monitored for signs of hatchling emergence, tidal over-wash, 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 technician(s) found nothing when they excavated the surrounding sand. Additionally, when hatchlings emerged from a nest, the paths of the hatchlings were examined to determine if they were properly oriented to the ocean. If observed, hatchling disorientations were recorded at both marked and unmarked nests. Standard FWC disorientation forms were filled out and mailed to FWC, while a copy was provided to the HCP Coordinator. These forms were then passed on 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 2007, the "nesting database" became 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 (Appendix D). The Excel spreadsheets from each group were then edited and cleaned so they bore all the same fields and data retrieval became easier. An example of an edited spreadsheet with all the required nesting data can be found in Appendix F. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 12

16 Analysis Nesting success, defined as the percentage of total female 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. 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 disturbed or damaged by another nesting female. Nest not Excavated 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 that completely removed themselves 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 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. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 13

17 Incubation period = inclusive period (days) from the date of egg deposition until the first sign of hatchling emergence. RESULTS NEST TOTALS AND TRENDS Nesting and Nesting Success A total of 7,190 sea turtle emergences were recorded during the 2007 nesting season (Table 1). Of these, 3,795 emergences resulted in a nest, yielding an overall nesting success of 52.8% for all species combined. Both loggerheads and green turtles had just over 50% nesting success, while leatherback nesting success was just over 90%. Of the sea turtle emergences recorded, the majority were identified as loggerheads (75.4%), while green turtle and leatherback emergences accounted for 23.5% and 1.1%, respectively. In 2007, a record high number of nests were recorded for both green turtles and leatherbacks. In contrast, loggerhead nest totals were the lowest in the County since 2005 when HCP nesting surveys began and, statewide, they were the lowest in 20 years of monitoring at the most productive beaches. The nesting in 2007 mirrored the long-term statewide nesting trends. Since the late 1990's, loggerhead nesting has been significantly decreasing (approximately 50% decrease since 1998), while nesting in both green and leatherback turtles has been significantly increasing (B. Witherington, pers. comm.). Spatial Patterns Loggerheads nested throughout the County, with the highest densities occurring in the ACNWR survey area and the lowest occurring in the City of Vero Beach (Table 2; Figure 2). Loggerhead nesting success was highest in the IRS survey area and lowest in the Disney area (Figure 3). These results are similar to previous years, showing a consistent trend of decreasing loggerhead nesting from north to south and lower nesting success in the Disney survey area, which includes a narrow beach with numerous seawalls. A detailed spatial analysis by kilometer zone showed that nest numbers fluctuated between peaks in kilometer zones 6 and 15 and dropped to low levels in zones 11, 23 and 28. The later zones are strongly associated with disruptions such as seawalls, lights and people. Nesting success was well over 50% in most of ACNWR, IRS and Vero Beach, but was very low in zone 11 (Summerplace Seawall). Green turtles nested throughout the County, but were far more abundant in the northern portion (Figure 4). SISP, ACNWR, Disney and Indian River Shores collectively accounted for 90% of all green turtle nests (Table 3). Vero Beach and South Indian River County received a comparatively low amount of green turtle nesting. Not surprisingly, crawl densities were far higher in those northern survey areas. Nesting success for this species was highest in SIRC and over 50% in most of the other survey areas. However, it was just below 30% in SISP. The state park beaches underwent a INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 14

18 dune restoration project in March and April of 2007, which may explain the very low nesting success in that area. Leatherback nesting was relatively high this year and spread out across the County's beaches. Peaks in nesting occurred in zones 18, 21, 27 and 34 (Figure 5). IRS had the highest average crawl density and Disney had the lowest (Table 4). It is worth noting that there were no leatherback nests in the highly impacted zones 11, 23 and 28 (Figure 5). Typical of this species, nesting success was very high with only a handful of false crawls. Temporal Patterns The first recorded sea turtle emergence in the County was from a leatherback on March 9 th, 2007 (Table 1). That emergence was not a nest, but the following day (March 10 th ) a leatherback nest was recorded in the ACNWR. Leatherbacks nested in relatively high numbers until the last nest was recorded in Indian River Shores on July 11 th. Most leatherback nests were deposited in either April or May. The first loggerhead emergence in the County was recorded in IRS on April 25 th and the first nest on April 29 th in the ACNWR. Beginning in early May, the number of nests deposited each day increased steadily until it was relatively high throughout June and July. Nesting steadily declined through August, and the last loggerhead nest was deposited in Sebastian Inlet State Park on September 22 nd. The first green turtle emergence of 2007 was recorded in the Disney area on May 18 th and the first green turtle nest was recorded in SISP on May 28 th. Nesting increased steadily in June and peaked in late July. Green turtle nesting began a gradual decline throughout August. The last nest was deposited in the Disney area on October 5 th. Crawl Characteristics Most loggerhead false crawls were continuous or uninterrupted (Table 5). Over all study sites, 78.3% were continuous crawls, 18.8% were abandoned body pit crawls and 4.6% were abandoned egg chamber crawls. These false crawl categories were not mutually exclusive since some crawls had both abandoned body pits and egg chambers. False crawls with abandoned body pits were highest in SISP and ACNWR. These two areas also had the highest proportions of abandoned egg chambers. In contrast, the Disney area had the highest proportion of continuous crawls and lowest proportion of abandoned body pits and chambers. This was indicative of the seawalls in this area, where turtles were more likely to turn around at the wall rather than attempt to nest and then abandon the site later. As with loggerheads, most green turtles that did not nest crawled continuously up the beach and back to the water (Table 6). However, on average, green turtles had higher proportions of abandoned digging attempts than loggerheads. Over all study sites, 66.1% of the false crawls were continuous, 31.2% were abandoned body pits and 6.4% INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 15

19 were abandoned egg chambers. As with last year, there was more variation in the green turtle false crawl data between study sites than in the loggerhead data. Previous explanations for this included small sample sizes and pseudo-replication (Herren, 2007), but there may be other unknown sources of variation. Green turtles in Florida are known to prefer more sparsely developed beaches (Witherington et. al. 2006). Overall, they are probably more sensitive to human night-time activities or changes in beach characteristics than loggerheads. A few study areas had much higher proportions of abandoned digging attempts (ACNWR and Vero Beach). A willingness to abandon their digging made sense in the populated and developed Vero Beach area, but was harder to explain in the ACNWR area. There may be other factors at stake. The spatial distribution of abandoned digging attempts by all species highlighted the large amount of variation across kilometer zones (Figure 6). In some zones, over one quarter of all emergences were abandoned digging attempts, whereas in others it was less than 10%. Peaks in abandoned digging attempts occurred in zones 0, 23, 26 and 36. All these kilometer zones contain public beach accesses where people often come on the beach at night during the nesting season. Discussions with beachgoers reveal many of them are actively looking to observe nesting turtles at night. In some cases, they may be unintentionally frightening them back into the water. Crawl Obstructions The percentage of loggerhead false crawls with obstructions varied by study area (Table 5). Overall, 78.4 % of the false crawls had no obstructions recorded, 13.6% were scarp obstructions, 4.9% were seawall obstructions, 2.3% were dune cross-over obstructions and 0.9% 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 of loggerhead false crawl obstructions reflected the relative abundance of these obstacles on the beach. Among other things, this meant that nest monitoring personnel were satisfactorily recording the interactions. As in previous years, green turtle obstructions at false crawls showed even more variability than loggerhead obstructions (Table 6). Overall, 76.8% of the green false crawls encountered no obstructions, 9.5% were scarps, 8.3% were seawalls, 3.8% were dune cross-overs and 1.8% were in the 'other' category. There were many more scarp obstructions in 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 SIRC. In contrast to loggerheads, most green turtles nested near the base of the dune or on top of it. Because of this difference in nest site selection, they were more likely to encounter seawalls and dune cross-overs. This is probably why there were more green turtle scarp interactions in ACNWR than anywhere else. The scarps on those beaches are mostly at the dune interface, effectively acting INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 16

20 as a barrier to further landward movement. Because of this, there probably should be two types of scarps recorded as obstructions in the future: the beach scarp and the dune scarp. Since there is little nesting habitat landward of dune scarps, they could be considered less of a hindrance to nesting. A map of crawl obstructions by kilometer zone highlighted the problem areas for nesting turtles (Figure 7). Like last year, the distribution showed where these obstacles were prevalent along the beaches. Seawalls and scarps were more of a problem on the highly eroded beaches in the northern kilometer zones. In four northern zones (8, 9, 10, 11), obstructions were so common they were associated with over 75% 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 Atlantis neighborhood. All 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 either by the tide or through mechanical means. It is important to note that turtles do nest after encountering obstructions. In these cases, the obstacle effectively forces nesting to occur in a certain area, usually seaward of it. Because of this, nests may be located in more vulnerable areas of the beach. As obstacles become more common, Figure 7 will become more busy. 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 There were 881 loggerhead, green turtle and leatherback nests marked for nest fate and reproductive success in This number represented a 53% increase over last year. The increase was largely due to the record high number of leatherback and green turtle nests and the division of labor in Indian River Shores, which allowed Disney and the County to mark and evaluate nests in this area for the first time. The marked nests represented 23% of all the nests recorded in the County. This is worth mentioning because many beachgoers assume every nest on the beach is marked with stakes and flagging tape. This year, the marked nests were divided into two groups: nests where the clutch was located at the time of deposition and nests where the clutch was located after emergence. This division became necessary because the latter category had the potential to bias the reproductive success sample. Of the 881 marked nests, 195 (22%) were marked, but the clutch was not located until after emergence (Table 7b). INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 17

21 Out of the 686 marked nests where the clutch was located at the time of deposition, 513 (74.8%) were excavated to determine reproductive success (Table 7a). Out of the nests that could not be evaluated (173), most were washed out by the tide (66.5%). This proportion was much higher than last year when only 3% could not be evaluated because of wash outs. The fate of the rest of the nests not evaluated in 2007 included, in order of highest to lowest proportion: Did not find again for unknown reasons (11.6%), nest was not evaluated (8.7%), nest stakes were vandalized and, therefore, the location was lost (6.9%), nest depredated by predators (5.8%) and nest impacted by other nesting turtles (0.6%). At least some of the nests that fell into the "nest not evaluated" category were attempts on the part of the permit holder to reduce the overall burden of marked nests. This was certainly the case in the south part of the county where some nests were eliminated from the County sample because of time and personnel constraints. The discussion of not being able to evaluate marked nests is relevant statistically. Nests marked, but not evaluated were similar to those whose clutches were not originally found because both represented a bias in the sampling regime (B. Witherington, pers. comm.). Washed out, depredated and disturbed nests were considered complete failures for purposes of reproductive success and not much could be done about them. However, in the future, attempts should be made to reduce the proportion of marked nests not found or not excavated. Taking these nests out of the sample could be artificially inflating reproductive success (especially if they had failed). Similarly, including nests found later only because they emerged also artificially raises reproductive success. Because of this bias, the results below include only nests where the clutch was located at the time of deposition. Loggerhead Reproductive Success There were 340 loggerhead nests excavated for reproductive success (Table 7a). Of those excavated, 5 did not emerge at all (0% emerging success). Reproductive success statistics varied between study areas (Table 8). Across areas, the mean clutch size ranged from to eggs and the mean incubation period ranged from 51.5 to 55.3 days. Hatching success was highest in Vero Beach (91.6%) and lowest in South IRC (78.0%). Emerging success showed a similar trend with no study area having a 5% or greater drop from hatching to emerging success. When predations and washed out nests were included in the sample (both presumed to have 0% success), ACNWR had the lowest emerging success at 59.6%. The reductions in emerging success were mostly due to wash outs. When all marked loggerhead nests were combined, the overall mean clutch size was eggs per nest, with a range of 33 to 187 eggs (Table 9a). The mean hatching success for all inventoried loggerhead nests was 82.1% and the mean emerging success was 80.5%. Emerging success dropped to 67.9% when predation and wash outs were included. The mean incubation period was 53.3 days and ranged from 46 to 65 days. These reproductive success figures were different for nests where the clutch INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 18

22 was located after emergence (see Table 9b). The higher reproductive success in the latter category is an example of the bias mentioned above. Green Turtle Reproductive Success There were 140 green turtle nests whose clutch contents were analyzed and two that were excavated, but showed no signs of hatching. Green turtle reproductive sample data varied widely across study areas (Table 10). This was partly due to the differences in nesting numbers. Since, the southern half of the County saw far fewer green turtle nests than in the northern half, fewer nests were marked in Vero Beach and South IRC. The mean clutch size across areas ranged from to eggs and the mean incubation period ranged from 52.0 to 56.0 days. Inventoried hatching success was quite high with the exception of South IRC (43.1%). Apart from the Disney area, which saw a drop of just over 6%, emerging success was only slightly lower than hatching success. When predations and washed out nests were included, emerging success in the ACNWR dropped down to 44.8%, while the other areas saw smaller reductions. The drop was the result of early fall nor'easters that wiped out many green turtle nests not yet emerged, particular in the northern half of the County. An examination of the combined green turtle reproductive data revealed a mean clutch size of eggs, with a range of 68 to 215 eggs (Table 11a). The high end of that range (215 eggs) may be artificial since green turtles sometimes unintentionally excavate loggerhead eggs, which become mixed with their own (personal observation). The mean hatching success was 83.3% and the mean emerging success was 80.4%. However, when predations and wash outs were included in the data, emerging success dropped to 57.7%. The mean incubation period was 53.8 days. Green turtle reproductive success was very similar to loggerheads, except that green turtles were harder hit by early fall storms that reduced their overall success. Like 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 11). Leatherback Reproductive Success There were 31 marked leatherback nests excavated county-wide in A further 7 nests were excavated when they were located after emergence (Table 7). Out of the 31 nests where the clutch was originally found, 10 did not emerge (32%). This was mostly due to an early May storm that generated large waves, which washed over many of the nests. Six of the original 44 leatherback nests (14%) whose clutches were found just after deposition were wiped out completely by the May high surf event (Table 7a). Most nests were severely washed over and some were buried by three or more feet of sand. Due to widely varying sample sizes and the effect of the May storm, leatherback hatching success across study sites ranged from 9% in South IRC to 65.6% in SISP (where only one nest was evaluated; Table 12). Leatherback emerging success, which included predations and washouts, was below 50% for most of the study areas. Leatherback reproductive success is often low on Florida's beaches. One reason might INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 19

23 be timing. Most leatherback nests are deposited in April and May when persistent cold fronts continue to push surf higher than in the relatively calmer summer months. The very low emerging success reported for South IRC was directly related to the May storm. During that storm, only one nest out of 20 avoided tidal inundation. An examination of all the leatherback reproductive data revealed a mean clutch size of 73.6 eggs with a range of 19 to 117 eggs (Table 13a). The mean hatching success was 46.4% and emerging success was 45.6%. Predations and washouts brought emerging success down to 38.2%. In contrast, the nests located after emergence showed a much higher hatching and emerging success (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 results in a sample that is not representative. 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 were recorded in Indian River Shores, Vero Beach and South Indian River County during 2007 (Figure 8). They may have also occurred in the northern portion of the County, but were not reported to the HCP Coordinator in time for this report. Beach fires were the most numerous disruptive activity observed (Figure 8). A few were in the City of Vero Beach, but most were recorded in the southern unincorporated county beaches. In one case, a fire was observed burning while conducting a nighttime lighting survey during the hatching season. When the group was asked to extinguish the fire, the participants became argumentative. Not surprisingly, these people were used having fires on the beach and felt 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. Neighborhoods where beach fires were common included Castaway Cove, Treasure Cove, Wyn Cove, Smugglers Cove, 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 the wood in prior to setting it ablaze. 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. Two of these properties were sent letters INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 20

24 in 2006 from the HCP Coordinator asking them to refrain from driving on the beach. In most cases, the County's Sheriff's Office or City Police Department was notified so they were aware of the infraction. None of these beach driving incidences resulted in vehicles driving directly over marked nests. However, because 77% of all nests were not marked with stakes and flagging tape, there could have been some nests unknowingly impacted. Furthermore, the vehicles (especially large ones) created deep ruts in the sand, which can be effective barriers to hatchlings trying to reach the water. 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 our office 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 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. Loose dogs 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 by children and, certainly, 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. Like last year, most of the disruptive activities occurred on south county beaches, which were not regularly surveyed prior to Because there has been no one to educate them, beachgoers and home owners in this area do what they wish either out of ignorance or disregard for local ordinances. Even though it has been difficult to link these 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 existing laws, particularly in the county unincorporated areas. Talking to beachgoers has revealed a common belief that all sea turtle nests on our beaches are clearly marked and protected. This is simply not true in Indian River County. Marking all nests with stakes and flagging tape would not only be a nearly unattainable task, but would also create numerous barriers for beachgoers and sea turtles alike. In addition, there would be no guarantee that nests would not be indirectly affected by other human activities (fires, for instance). Also, at least some nests should probably remain unmarked so they cannot be easily located by predators or poachers. In this nest monitoring program, the main purpose for marking nests is for reproductive INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 21

25 success analysis. While it is encouraging for people to be concerned about sea turtles, nest protection has to be proactive. In other words, the best thing a person can do to protect nests is to leave them alone, report lighting violations and other illegal activities and become educated about the threats to nesting in our area. Preventing these disruptive activities is probably best achieved though educated involvement, community-based initiatives and timely law enforcement. Human and Animal Tracks on Fresh Crawls People and dog tracks found on fresh nesting emergences were indications of their presence and abundance on the beach (Figure 9). Most of these incidences involved loggerheads and their occurrence peaked in the neighborhoods in Vero Beach and South Indian River County. In last years HCP report, this graph was presented to show the level of activity surrounding nest predation events. However, these fresh prints on turtle crawls could be interpreted as either predator searching behavior or, more likely, the mere presence of people and animals around the time the nest was deposited. In any case, because these activities did not involve digging attempts and most appeared to be investigative in nature, the data is presented here and not in the section on nest predations. Each year, increasing numbers of people are venturing out at night in search for a sea turtle nesting encounter. This occurs throughout the summer months and there are some hotels and resorts encouraging it. In 2007, evidence of the behavior was observed during morning surveys from the numerous human tracks surrounding and on top of fresh crawls. Just over 2% of all nests deposited in the southern half of the County had human foot prints on them during the night they were deposited. Evidence that these encounters might be 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 four loggerhead nests in Vero Beach and South IRC that exhibited evidence of extreme harassment from the amount of activity surrounding the nest area and the confused nature of the crawl. False crawls can be the result of people disturbing turtles prior to egg laying. Just over 3% of all false crawls in the southern half of the County had fresh human prints on them. The proportion jumped up to 8% in the heavily used kilometer zones (26, 27 and 28) in South Vero and South Indian River County. Certainly some of these occurrences were not recorded, while others were probably cases where people left tracks on crawls after the turtles had gone. 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 9). The vigilance of the Police Department and beachgoers responding to dogs in Vero Beach seemed to have curbed dog presence in the City. In INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 22

26 the County, the neighborhoods of Castaway Cove, Treasure Cove, Wyn Cove, Smugglers Cove, Seagrove and the Moorings continue to be focal points for dog activity. These are also the same areas where dog predation was highest in The presence of dogs on the beach may not necessarily correspond to predation events and many dogs were probably with their owners when they walked over fresh crawls. However, the increase in dog activity, whether lawful or not, probably contributes 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 Sector 7 beach nourishment project completed in May 2007 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 fewer 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 2007, only two sentinel nests were flagged in this area. 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 between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007, there were no specific sea turtle monitoring programs or emergency project-related impacts to turtles. CONCLUSION NEST MONITORING PROGRAM Nesting in 2007 was a contrast between species. While loggerhead nesting was low compared to previous years, green turtle and leatherback nesting reached record highs. The 2007 countywide nesting totals mirrored statewide numbers, which show a longterm trend of significantly decreasing loggerhead nesting contrasted with significantly increasing leatherback and green turtle nesting. As this program continues, long term County trends should become more detectable. However, at least at this point, year to year fluctuations in the County appear to correlate well with statewide nesting. As in previous years, there were far more nests deposited in the northern portion of the County than in the southern portion. This pattern may be due to historical patterns. However, 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 spatial trend was especially sharp for green turtles, whose nesting dropped off considerably just south of Indian River Shores (Figure 4). Interestingly, leatherback nesting was spread out across the County and peaked in the South IRC Beaches. This species is known to nest in higher densities south of our area with nesting increasing in St. Lucie and Martin Counties and peaking in Palm Beach County. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 23

27 Largely due to the cooperation of the Disney Animal Kingdom staff and volunteers working under the HCP Coordinator, for the first time a robust sample of reproductive success data was collected in Indian River Shores. Overall, the number of nests marked for reproductive success by monitoring groups in 2007 was unprecedented. While nest and false crawl totals are important nesting success indicators, the reproductive success data are central to biological recovery. This year the data was separated into categories representing unbiased and biased reproductive samples. Sufficient numbers of unbiased samples were obtained in every study area in Early and late season storms reduced emerging success in leatherback and green turtles, but overall loggerhead emerging success was quite good even when predations and wash-outs were included. This year represented the third season of complete county-wide nesting surveys. Despite minor difficulties in data collection and interpretation, the nesting data was far 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. The majority of these beach activities are also illegal under County and City ordinances, while a few are not. Wildlife law enforcement has been almost non-existent and far too many beachgoers erroneously believe that all nests are protected by our monitoring program. In addition, none of these potential nest disruptions were initially taken into account by this HCP. Thus, support to tackle these issues has been limited. While the nest monitoring program has reached a satisfactory level in terms of data collection, it was clear from the results of this season that it must be complimentary to a strong education program. From the many unintentional disturbances by beachgoers to the good natured residents who simply wish to observe a nesting turtle, there appears to be a lot of misinformation among the public. Many residents and tourists spoken to on the beach were simply unaware of basic facts regarding nesting sea turtles. Because of the current staff and funding limitations of this program and the high nesting density in our area, it is ultimately up to the average beachgoer or property owner to make educated decisions and limit their impacts during the nesting season. 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 County reviewed plans for new coastal construction for conformance with lighting standards as a means of ensuring compliance with the lighting regulations. 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 continuation of these activities over the life of the ITP. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 24

28 Initiation of an additional, proactive light management program is intended as compensatory mitigation for the take of sea turtles associated with shoreline protection measures initiated under the County s emergency authorization. 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 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 2007, the County s Environmental Planning and Code Enforcement Office mailed the lighting letters to all affected property owners on March 10, 2007 (Appendix G). The letters describe 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 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. In 2007, two night-time lighting evaluations were performed by the County. The first was performed over three nights (March 27, 28 and 29) within unincorporated areas. Non-compliant and other potentially disruptive lights were identified during the inspections, and each non-compliant 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 noncompliant light source, recommendations were made for corrective measures to bring problematic lights into compliance. The second lighting evaluation was completed over two nights (July 16 and 17). Because both lighting inspections were conducted within the same nesting season, roughly 3 ½ months apart, comparisons were made between the number of violations to see if changes had occurred (Table 14). In March and July 2007, we noted that many properties with exterior fixtures had their lights turned off during the survey. Since properties were only observed twice throughout the entire season, some lights may have been turned on at other times. During both inspections, private single-family residences accounted for the highest INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 25

29 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 resort hotels), dune cross-overs and commercial properties. Overall, the highest problem codes were found on street lights followed by condominium lights and then private residences. However, in general, there were many more lights per violation on condominiums than in any other property type. As in years past, there were more problematic lights illuminating the beach in the southern portion of the County than in the northern portion (Figure 10). A comparison of the two surveys showed that interior lights comprised the largest proportion of non-compliant problem lights during March whereas exterior lights were in highest proportion during the July survey (Table 14). The July survey indicated a 12% increase in exterior lighting violations, which tend to be more disruptive to sea turtle behavior. However, overall, lighting violations had decreased by 18% from March (due to the decrease in interior lights). This decrease may have been the result of warning letters sent to property owners and educational efforts. The condominium lights in the southern portion of the County, which were a problem in March, were either turned off or reduced in July. Most of the problematic lights were found to be streetlights, floodlights, pole-mounted and wall-mounted fixtures. This probably reflects the fact that these fixtures are typically higher intensity and mounted higher than other fixture types. Unfortunately, on a dark night, even interior lights can be bright enough to disorient hatchlings and many of these lights were visible because of the lack of window screening or covering. The county unincorporated lighting surveys were combined with those in the City of Vero Beach for a more inclusive analysis (Figure 10). The caveat was the city nighttime surveys in 2007 focused on problematic properties and, therefore, were not all inclusive. Nevertheless, the peak in the number of violations per kilometer was in zone 31. Many of the homes in that kilometer zone have seawalls and are close to the water. In addition, a large volume of sand was artificially added to the beach in April-May 2007 and, therefore, the beach profile was raised. As a result, some lights that were not previously visible may now have been. DISORIENTATIONS During the 2007 nesting season, 88 disorientations were recorded by monitoring personnel in the County. Most of these were from loggerhead nests, but a few were from green turtle and leatherback nests (Table 15). A total of 4,563 sea turtle hatchlings were disoriented during these events. There were more disoriented nests in South Indian River County, but the highest number of disoriented hatchlings was in the City of Vero Beach. These two areas combined for 60% of the disoriented nests and 75% of the disoriented hatchlings recorded in the County. Unlike last year, there was not a significant relationship between the number of lighting violations and the number of disorientations per kilometer (r 2 = ; P = 0.533). There were many sources of variation that probably caused this. First, there continued INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 26

30 to be disorientations reported up in Sebastian Inlet State Park where no discernible beachfront lighting problems exist. One hypothesis is the bright lights from the City of Sebastian on the west side of the Indian River Lagoon may be the cause (This so-called urban glow is not reported during night-time lighting evaluations). Second, there were lighting problems recorded near Wabasso Beach (zone 11) and near Porpoise Point neighborhoods (zone 31), but few 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. In fact, large areas in the middle part of the County have not had any night-time lighting surveys (e.g. Indian River Shores). Despite all the variation, it was not too surprising that the southern 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 FWCC 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. Lighting violations identified in the night-time lighting surveys and in disorientation reports were sent to code enforcement for processing. In preparation for dealing with these violations, code enforcement logged in violations, updated addresses and ownership records, and created a case file for each violation. By Mid-June 2007, 20 warning letters were sent to property owners with exterior lighting violations notifying them to voluntarily address the identified problems (Appendix H). The focus was on the worst lighting offenders and, at least in some cases, it seemed to have an effect. Several of the condominium associations called the HCP Coordinators office and asked how they could come in to compliance with the County's lighting code. At least two of these condos in the southern part of the County (Southwinds and Sabal Reef) turned off or reduced their lights in response to the letters. 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 in In the meantime, some properties were apparently persuaded by the warning letters to make temporary modifications. In 2007, the HCP Coordinator collaborated with code enforcement officials in Vero Beach and Indian River Shores. Observed lighting violations and/or disorientation reports were sent to these officials for processing. In the case of Vero Beach, FWC has had numerous meetings and conducted several night-time lighting surveys with their code enforcement staff to address lighting problems. One of the problems of enforcement is the vague language of the City's lighting codes. On Jun 19, 2007, the Vero Beach City Council voted to modify it's lighting ordinance under the direction of FWC to make it more clear and enforceable (Appendix I). The language in the new code was heavily borrowed from the State's Model Lighting Ordinance. These changes INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 27

31 went into effect immediately and will hopefully make it easier to pursue lighting violations in the future. LIGHTING EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Property owners affected by the County s lighting regulations are made aware of the restrictions by way of the annual pre-season lighting letters. These letters provide guidance to beachfront owners as to assess their property for compliance with the code. They also contain a number for contacting the County s Environmental Planning Staff and HCP coordinator with questions regarding light management or sea turtles. The County has sent lighting brochures created and supplied by Florida Power and Light to homeowners requesting more information. In addition, the County has future plans to hold a sea turtle lighting workshop in early 2008 to educate and provide technical assistance specific to beachfront lighting issues. EDUCATION PROGRAM Under Condition 11.G.11.d of the ITP, the County was required to develop and provide for review to the USFWS written literature intended to enhance public awareness of coastal erosion within one year of permit issuance. In a collaborative effort, the County contracted the Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC) and Ecological Associates, Inc. to develop the brochure, which 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 public awareness brochure, which was approved by the USFWS in January 2006, continued to be disbursed to various entities in Out of the original 6,400 brochures, approximately 2,400 remained at the end of In addition to the HCP public awareness brochure, the program obtained sea turtle specific brochures from the Ocean Conservancy, Disney, Caribbean Conservation Corporation, UF / St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension Office and Florida Power and Light. Brochures were placed in an acrylic poster display case that was on loan from the UF / St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension Office. The display was placed in the County Administration Building. A watertight Pelican case was filled with brochures so they could be taken on the ATV and handed out to beachgoers during nesting surveys. The HCP Coordinator spent at least 45 minutes on each survey speaking to beachgoers about sea turtle nesting and conservation. The HCP Coordinator had two articles in the local paper regarding sea turtle nesting. The first published in the Press Journal on May 5, 2007 related to sea turtle nesting and the Sector 7 Beach Nourishment Project. The second published on August 22, 2007 related to the issue of dogs digging up sea turtle nests. In addition to this written press, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 28

32 the HCP Coordinator was on public news radio (1490AM) six times in 2007 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 (Appendix J), which was submitted on June 1, 2005, specifies 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 has not been formally approved by the Service. The County has allocated funding to implement the PCP at the first full nesting season following its approval. The delay in implementing the PCP, as written, has been largely due to the low level of raccoon predation on either marked or unmarked nests within the ACNWR or, for that matter, anywhere else in the County. It is not known whether independent predator control efforts implemented by the Refuge 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. The overall number of nests depredated by raccoons in 2007 was 44 (Figure 11). That number represents 1.2% of all nests deposited in the County or about 3.4% deposited in the ACNWR. Raccoon depredations in 2007 were about twice that from the previous year. Most of the depredations occurred within kilometer zone 6, which includes the Seaview Development, but mostly Federal Lands adjacent to Jungle Trail and just North of Treasure Shores Park. Accordingly, refuge personnel prepared to trap in this area to remove raccoons and limited trapping was conducted in There was no information provided as to how many animals were actually caught and removed. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 29

33 DOMESTIC DOG PREDATION Nest predation by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) became a problem in 2006 and was a major concern prior to the 2007 nesting season. After 38 nests and roughly 4,370 eggs were impacted by dogs in 2006, the HCP Coordinator convened a series of meetings, put together educational flyers and coordinated with law enforcement patrols for the beginning of the 2007 season. A meeting was held on February 20 th, 2007 to discuss the strategy for the nesting season with representatives from USFWS, FWC, City of Vero Beach, Town of Orchid, Town of Indian River Shores, USDA, Humane Society and the County. It was agreed upon that education be the primary tool to deter dog predation on nests. An education flyer was created by the HCP Coordinator and distributed to the local Humane Society, Animal Control and beachgoers (Appendix K). Law Enforcement and Animal Control were encouraged to enforce the existing laws regarding dogs on the beaches. In the end, live trapping animals was seen as a last resort. It was agreed that such an activity would conform closely with the wishes of the Humane Society. The contract with the USDA Animal Control Services was kept open in the event that dog predation resumed to the point where trapping was necessary. Contact charts were created for future dog predation events and trapping events (Appendix L). At the beginning of the nesting season, dog sightings were recorded in the southern half of the County to obtain a quantitative measure of the level of activity on the beach. In March 2007, there were an average of 16 dog sightings per day and a total of 377 dog sightings throughout the month (leashed and unleashed). It should be noted that these results were obtained only from the several hours in the early morning concurrent with nesting surveys. Most of these dog sightings were in South Indian River County. There were an average of 6 digging events per day and a total of 110 digging events in March. Again, most were in South Indian River County. Far less dog sightings were recorded in the City of Vero Beach because the City had officers patrolling the beach at least twice a week during this period. Out of all dog sightings, 63% were unleashed dogs. However, only two dog sightings during the month of March were off leash and completely unattended (no people in sight). In both cases, Animal Control was notified. Beginning on March 26 th, 2007, an Indian River County Animal Control Officer patrolled the County's beaches issuing warning tickets to people with animals that were off leash. The officer went out on the beach on four more occasions in the early part of the nesting season. The effect was that people began leashing their dogs as soon as they saw an ATV rider coming down the beach. In general, however, it got the word out that there was a problem and the County was serious about solving it. All but a few people understood the circumstances and, like last year, many responsible dog owners were confronted because they happened to be on the beach and not because their animals were necessarily involved in nest predations. In the end, only one dog predation event was recorded on August 7 th, 2007 (Figure 11). A dog was photographed digging into a nest just north of the Moorings beach access (Appendix M). Fortunately, the nest had emerged several days prior and the digging INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 30

34 frenzy was interrupted by onsite survey personnel. This animal was off leash and it's owner was several hundred meters away. The hole the dog created was verified as a loggerhead nest the following day. The dogs owner was cited with a leash law violation and a fine was levied against the owners. This event was reported to wildlife law enforcement, but it was not pursued from the standpoint of a endangered species infraction. Even though only one nest was dug into in 2007, it became clear from the number of dog prints on fresh nests that this problem was not going away anytime soon. 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 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 clearly helped. However, just like our nesting survey personnel, these groups cannot be on the beach at all times. It will ultimately be up to individuals using the beach to help report loose dogs, spread the word about the problem and be responsible for their own animals that will make a real difference. 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 small amount of egg poaching throughout the state. In Indian River County in 2007, loggerhead eggs from two nests were completely removed and a third loggerhead nest was dug into, but no eggs were taken (Figure 11). All three of these incidences occurred in the City of Vero Beach and were reported to FWC's Division of Law Enforcement at the time they were encountered. Most of the poached nests were freshly deposited (two out of the three poaching attempts). One, however, took place several weeks after the nest was laid and was a nest that had been marked with stakes and flagging tape in front of a city park. The signs of disturbance were photographed and sent to law enforcement along with the exact nest locations. All poached nests occurred within a hundred meters of public dune access points. The HCP Coordinator was not aware of any subsequent law enforcement action by either FWC or USFWS. 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 are managed for conservation and passive recreation. The preservation of these properties as sea turtle habitat was offered as partial mitigation for unavoidable INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 31

35 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 2007, all activities at the JTCA were conducted in accordance with the ITP. 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 2007 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 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32

36 an effort to accurately record all shoreline protection projects authorized by the FDEP and incorporate them into a GIS database. SUPPORTING GRANTS AND PROJECTS A number of opportunities presented themselves during 2007 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 country awarded this grant in August This grant involved using Trimble's Geoexplorer 2005 series Pocket PC / GPS and ESRI's ArcPad 7.0 Software to develop customized nesting forms, collect accurate GPS data and check in data collected electronically in the field. Customized layer files and detailed electronic forms were created in ArcPad Studio for use during the 2007 nesting season. The biggest advantages of this project were collecting very accurate nest locations and entering all the nesting data into customized electronic forms, thus, eliminating the necessity for using paper and post-entering data a second time. In other words, the nesting data will be more accurate, have less errors, take less time and save paper. Field testing for this project began in early By Spring 2007, it became clear there were GPS glitches in the Trimble Geoexplorer system. After lengthy correspondence with Trimble Support, the unit was sent back to the manufacturer in June 2007 for repair. The GPS system board was repaired and returned, but by that time the nesting season was already waning and it was decided to shelve the project until The HCP Coordinator has been committed to developing GIS applications that support the HCP programs. The inclusion of this expensive hardware and software application for mobile GIS has been a part of the process. However, these applications are complex and not without their own caveats. For instance, many of the County's survey personnel lack the necessary expertise to operate this unit. To this end, the unit must have easy to use software and hardware that does not lock up, something that the HCP Coordinator is trying to remedy. The process of incorporating a paperless GIS application for data collection will take time. Plans for 2008 are to use the unit extensively in the field under the supervision of the HCP Coordinator. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 33

37 NESTING HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS GRANT NFWF This grant through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) was obtained by the HCP Coordinator to re-plant dunes and address public beachfront lighting problems in an effort to improve the nesting habitat in the County. The specific objectives of the grant are 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 with the preparations for a Sea Grape Plant Give-a-Way. This event was held in February 2008 and the results will be reported in the 2008 Annual Report. The project aims to address one of the biggest problems that affects sea turtles in Indian River County, artificial lights. The results will more than likely hinge on a combination of dune plant screening, public lighting retrofits and a strong educational campaign. The light management portion of this project will be undertaken by the County's HCP contractor, Ecological Associates, Inc., who will also provide a final report to the granting agency. 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 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, Signs in a Day, durable PVC signs were created. These signs were weatherresistant, contained education material and were designed to be specific to each turtle species (Appendix N). The signs were heavy duty polyethylene (8.5" X 5.5") with a thickness of 0.055". They were yellow in color with the information printed in black on one side. The signs were received in June and placed on marked sea turtle nest stakes throughout the remainder of the nesting season. The intention is to recover these signs and reuse them for the 2008 season. LOGGERHEAD GENETICS STUDY UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA In early 2007, Brian Shamblin, a graduate student at the University of Georgia, contacted the HCP Coordinator about collecting genetic samples from loggerhead nests. This research is important for defining management units for nesting beach protection and providing baseline data for mixed stock analyses of stranding and foraging aggregation datasets. Previous studies have described four genetic INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 34

38 management units within the Florida 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 Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. Preliminary data collected by Shamblin during the 2006 nesting season suggested that the South Florida subpopulation may consist of additional management units. In addition, the boundary in the Northeastern subpopulation on Central Florida beaches had not been precisely defined because of inadequate sampling. Another interpretation was that genetic differentiation between distant sample sites may represent extremes in clinal shifts and haplotype frequencies rather than the existence of discrete subpopulations. To answer these questions, more data were needed to bolster sample sizes and increase geographic coverage to better characterize the management units and define their boundaries. In 2007, genetic samples (either flippers or hatched egg shells) were collected by the HCP Coordinator from 14 loggerhead 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 2008 and collect more genetic samples throughout the nesting season. 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, MS student Phone: (706) School of Forestry and Natural Resources FAX: (706) University of Georgia 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 2007 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 nesting monitoring program has been the cornerstone of this HCP and, by far, has required the most time and effort. Significant gains have been made since 2005 in INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 35

39 terms of the collection of more HCP-specific data from individual permit holder groups. The areas where there have been gains include GPS locations, crawl obstructions and marked nests. For the 2008 nesting season, FWC has asked all permit holders in Florida to record crawl obstructions, something that has already been accomplished through this HCP. Also, the first time, representative samples for reproductive success were collected for the entire Town of Indian River Shores. Lastly, almost every crawl in the County now has GPS location data associated with it. Crawls with no GPS data have been reduced to the few instances of unavoidable equipment failures. 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. Even after going over maps and delineating sites, sentinel nests have gone unmarked. What has also diminished the sentinel nest protocol is the reduction in areas that qualify as such. 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 result has been a shrinking number of potential sentinel areas. The County needs discuss this issue with the Service during future meetings. Coordination with the ACNWR has been difficult primarily due to lack of staff. In 2007, the refuge manager announced that the ACNWR would no longer be a stand alone refuge, but incorporated into the Merritt Island Refuge Complex (a distance of over 80 miles). The refuge manager also announced his departure in Spring 2008, a reduction in staff and a current hiring freeze. Detailed nesting data collected by refuge monitoring personnel has been getting better, but, in general, has lagged behind the other groups in the County. Organized reports of potential nesting impacts, nest predations, disorientations and raccoon trapping activities have been lacking or hard to obtain from refuge personnel. This only figures to get worse in the near future because of dwindling resources. The County will be making a renewed effort to coordinate with remaining refuge staff and has been assured that nest monitoring will continue to be conducted by refuge personnel through LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT The County's Light Management Program has been slow to implement and difficult to sustain. While lighting violations and disorientations remain fairly commonplace, code enforcement action has been hard to come by. In addition, lighting letters have not been mailed out before March 1 st in any of the three years since the HCP has gone into effect. The reasons for this are numerous, but begin with a lack of staff who can dedicate their time exclusively to this task. Existing staff in environmental planning are not trained in beachfront lighting or sea turtle biology, nor do they have the time to specialize in these endeavors. Without question, the County is in need of a Sea Turtle Lighting Specialist. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 36

40 Despite the lack of dedicated staff, the County's Environmental Planning Department accomplished more in 2007 than it has in the past. By June, warning letters were sent out to 20 of the worst lighting offenders based on early season night-time lighting surveys. The letters included educational information from FPL's brochure on sea turtles and lights. The HCP Coordinator and County contractor, Ecological Associates Inc., conducted a second set of night-time lighting surveys in July. The results of that survey showed an overall 18% reduction in lighting violations. There appeared to be more awareness of lighting issues in 2007 and the HCP Coordinator received more phone calls for lighting assistance from beachfront residents than in the past. Working with FWC's Imperiled Species Program, the City of Vero Beach revised and strengthened their sea turtle lighting ordinance in 2007 (see Appendix I). The HCP Coordinator has also been helping the City of Vero Beach on two upcoming lighting priorities: 1) Lighting plans for Sexton Plaza and Humiston Park, which will be redeveloped in 2008 and 2) Retrofitting public street lights in the City through the NFWF grant. In such times when staff and funding are becoming more scarce, partnerships with agencies are one of the few ways to accomplish complex tasks such as lighting. The HCP Coordinator has been especially helped in lighting issues by the staff in FWC's Tequesta Field Lab. Despite gains in 2007, beachfront lighting remains an uphill battle. The process of mailing out pre-season lighting letters, conducting night-time lighting surveys, recording disorientations and sending the results to regulatory staff is repeated each year often with the same number of violations and offenders. In the long term, education will be a key component of change. In that regard, the County held a sea turtle lighting workshop in February 2008 to educate and inform beachfront owners about sea turtle safe lights, county codes and how to shield lights from turtle nests. The results of the workshop will be detailed in the 2008 Annual Report. Due to anticipated shortfalls in the County's budget, the push for additional personnel to help with lighting issues will be on hold unless funding from outside sources can be found. EDUCATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT The education portion of the HCP has been getting a boost 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 Light and UF/St Lucie County Agricultural Extension. 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 taking the information directly to homeowner association meetings. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 37

41 PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT The County has not met the original intent of the PCP due to unexpected low level of raccoon predation. Furthermore, in the areas where raccoon predation has begun to increase, trapping has been conducted by personnel from the ACNWR. On the other hand, dog predation became a problem in 2006 and, despite the low amount of dog predation this year, it will probably be a problem for the near future. The issue of dog predation, however, is much harder to solve. Even with the addition of domestic dog predation to the PCP, the County and USFWS may need to agree upon other measures to meet the biological goal of the HCP. 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 2007 report was delayed by six months. While this was better than the nine month delay for the 2006 report, it remains unacceptable. In response to the delayed text herein, the HCP Coordinator has been working closely with the USFWS southeast Florida field office and has kept the Service up to date on the results of the 2007 nesting season and the status of this report. The report was late, in large part, because of lack of resources and staff dedicated to working on the many programs within this HCP. The County has expressed it's willingness to correct the shortfall, but due budget decreases, it cannot do so at this time. 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. Changed circumstances are defined as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the HCP that can reasonably be accounted and planned for by the County and/or the USFWS. There were no unforeseen circumstances in However, last year the issue regarding the installation of Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (OSTDS) on oceanfront lots in Indian River County was reported. The USFWS recommended the County develop a revised ordinance for the placement of OSTDS in coastal and estuarine areas. The revised ordinance is still in draft form and has not been finalized. Because of the expected ordinance, no change is expected to the HCP. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 38

42 LITERATURE CITED 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 Herren, R.M Habitat conservation plan for the protection of sea turtles on the eroding beaches of Indian River County, Florida Annual Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, FL. 126 pp. 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 in 2007 and provided data for this report, especially Paul Tritaik, 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, Kristy Bender, Paula Bernston, David Checchi, Susan Clifton and Ken Oristaglio. Educational brochures were generously provided by Stacy Foster, Ken Gioeli and Jessica Koelsch. Thanks go out to the Police Department in the City of Vero Beach for helping with beach law enforcement issues. Lastly, Indian River County is indebted to the volunteers who donated their time conducting nesting surveys for the HCP Coordinator in 2007: 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 Includes only crawls recorded above the recent high tide line. Nesting Activity Loggerhead Green Leatherback All Date of First Emergence 4/25/2007 5/18/2007 3/9/2007 3/9/2007 Date of First Nest 4/29/2007 5/28/2007 3/10/2007 3/10/2007 Date of Last Emergence 9/22/ /5/2007 7/11/ /5/2007 Date of Last Nest 9/22/ /5/2007 7/11/ /5/2007 Total Nests 2, ,795 Total False Crawls 2, ,395 Total Emergences 5, ,190 Nesting Success 53.0% 50.4% 91.3% 52.8%

45 Table 2. Loggerhead nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey area in Includes only crawls recorded above the 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 , % Disney % IR Shores , % Vero Beach % South IRC Beaches % Total 2,872 2,551 5, % Expressed as the number of emergences (nests and false crawls) per kilometer of beach.

46 Table 3. Green turtle nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey area in Includes only crawls recorded above the 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 % 34.7 ACNWR % 86.9 Disney % 60.0 IR Shores % 67.4 Vero Beach % 10.8 South IRC Beaches % 11.4 Total , % Expressed as the number of emergences (nests and false crawls) per kilometer of beach.

47 Table 4. Leatherback nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey area in Includes only crawls recorded above the 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 % 1.9 ACNWR % 1.9 Disney % 0.5 IR Shores % 3.6 Vero Beach % 1.7 South IRC Beaches % 2.0 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 Includes only false 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 1 ACNWR 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-Over's (%) Other Obstructions (%) The total number of false crawls provided by the ACNWR for this detailed analysis differ from those reported to the state and those reflected in Table 2 of this report.

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 1 ACNWR 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-Over's (%) Other Obstructions (%) The total number of false crawls provided by the ACNWR for this detailed analysis differ from those reported to the state and those reflected in Table 2 of this report.

50 Table 7. Summary of marked nests by species where the clutch was located at the time of deposition or located after emergence in Indian River County in (a) Clutch located at the time of deposition. Fate Loggerhead Green Turtle Leatherback Total Excavated Emerged Did not emerge Total Excavated Not Excavated Washed out Depredated Vandalized Nested on by another Nest not Excavated Did Not Find Total Not Excavated Total Marked (b) Clutch located 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 Nest not Excavated 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, Includes only nests where the clutch was located at the time of deposition. 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 2007 (Total = 380). Data is separated for nests located at the time of deposition and those located after emergence. (a) Clutch located at the time of deposition. 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)

53 Table 10. Summary of reproductive success for green turtle nests by study area in Indian River County, Includes only nests where the clutch was located at the time of deposition. 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) * * * * data unavailable. 1 SISP chooses not to mark green turtle nests for reproductive success.

54 Table 11. Descriptive statistics for all inventoried green turtle nests in Indian River County in 2007 (Total = 200). Data is separated for nests located at the time of deposition and those located after emergence. (a) Clutch located at the time of deposition. 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)

55 Table 12. Summary of reproductive success for leatherback nests by study area in Indian River County, Includes only nests where the clutch was located at the time of deposition. 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) 74.0 * * * data not available. 1 Data reflects a single nest marked in SISP.

56 Table 13. Descriptive statistics for all inventoried leatherback nests in Indian River County in 2007 (Total = 38). Data is separated for nests located at the time of deposition and those located after emergence. (a) Clutch located at the time of deposition. 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 March 2007 and July 2007 in unincorporated areas of Indian River County. These results summarize the number of properties with exterior and interior lighting violations in seven categories or types. The "Other" category includes clubhouses and resorts. Exterior lights were given a problem code based on the intensity and the scope of the light. Property Type Exterior Lights March Survey Average Problem Code 1 Interior Lights Exterior Lights July Survey Average Problem Code 1 Interior Lights Exterior Difference Interior Difference House Condominium Commercial 0 * 0 1 ** Street light Dune Crossover 1 ** * Public Park 0 * 0 0 * Other Types * TOTAL OR AVERAGE Problem codes range from 1 to 5, from most disruptive to least disruptive, respectively. * no data; ** not an average due to small sample size.

58 Table 15. Summary of sea turtle hatchling disorientation events by study area, SISP ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC Total Leatherback Green Turtle Loggerhead # Events # Hatchlings ,649 1,620 4,357 # Events # Hatchlings # Events # Hatchlings TOTAL EVENTS TOTAL HATCHLINGS ,749 1,685 4,563

59 Table 16. Cumulative take since date of issuance of the Indian River County ITP (December 1, 2004). No armoring falling 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 4 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 10 Orchid FF F FF 15 F FF 18 F FF! 60! A1A t 1 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t Indian River Shores Vero Beach SISP O'Toole ACNWR Tritaik F FF F FF F 28 FF Disney Savage F FF IRS Savage F FF IRS Herren Vero Beach Herren 36 South IRC Herren Kilometers 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.

62 Spatial Distribution of Loggerhead Nests in Indian River County in 2007 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 2. The number of loggerhead nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2007.

63 Spatial Distribution of Loggerhead Nesting Success (%) in Indian River County in 2007 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 3. 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.

64 Spatial Distribution of Green Turtle Nests in Indian River County in 2007 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 4. The number of green turtle nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2007.

65 Spatial Distribution of Leatherback Nests in Indian River County in 2007 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 leatherback nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2007.

66 Spatial Distribution of Abandoned Body Pits and Egg Chambers in 2007 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 Abandoned Body Pit Abandoned Egg Chamber Kilometers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 6. 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 2007.

67 Spatial Distribution of Crawl Obstructions (%) in Indian River County in 2007 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 X-over Rec Equip Other Kilometers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 7. 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 = raised dune walkways. Rec Equip = boats, chairs, umbrellas, etc. See text for description of "Other" category.

68 Disruptive Human Activities in Southern Indian River County in 2007 # 18 FIRE t1 Indian River Shores ³ LG VEHICLE SM VEHICLE LOOSE DOG DEEP PITS TENT CONSTRUCTION 24 Vero Beach! A1A Kilometer Zone I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y Kilometers Figure 8. The number of disruptive beach activities recorded during nesting surveys (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in South Indian River Shores, Vero Beach and Southern Indian River County in LG VEHICLE = Truck or Construction Vehicle. SM VEHICLE = ATV or Motorcycle. DEEP PITS = holes in beach dug with shovels. CONSTRUCTION = unauthorized dune or beach work.

69 People, Dog and Raccoon Tracks on Fresh Crawl Sites in 2007 t 1 Indian River Shores # ³ RACCOON TRACKS DOG TRACKS PEOPLE TRACKS Vero Beach! A1A Kilometer Zone I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y Kilometers Figure 9. The number of crawls with people, dog and raccoon tracks on them the night they were deposited (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in South Indian River Shores, Vero Beach and Southern Indian River County in The northernmost boundary is kilometer marker 18 at John's Island Beach Club.

70 Distribution of Disorientations and Lighting Violations in Indian River County in 2007 S e b a s t i a n I n ll e t ³ Disorientations 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 Kilometers Exterior and Interior Violations Figure 10. The distribution 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 2007, night-time lighting surveys were not conducted in the Town of Indian River Shores or Orchid and, in the City of Vero Beach, they were not all-inclusive.

71 Distribution of Nest Predations and Attempts in Indian River County in 2007 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 Kilometers HUMAN ATTEMPT HUMAN PREDATION DOG ATTEMPT RACCOON PREDATION Figure 11. The number of nest predations and attempts by raccoons, dogs and people (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in Attempts refer to nests dug into, but eggs were not taken or harmed.

72 APPENDICES

73 APPENDIX A MARINE TURTLE PERMIT #166

74 FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION RODNEY BARRETO Miami SANDRA T. KAUPE Palm Beach H.A. "HEIUCY" HUFFMAN Enterprise DAVID K. MEEHAN St. Petersburg KATHY BARCO JaclGonvillc RICHARD A. CORBETT Tampa BRIAN S. YABLONSKI Tallahassee KENNETH D. HADDAD, Executive Director VICTOR J, HELLER, Assistant Executive Director MARINE TURTLE PERMIT R. K.IPP FROHLICH, Section Leader IMPERILED SPECIES MANAGEMENT SECTION DMSION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES CONSERVATION CBso) FAX CBso) Richard M. Herren Indian River County th Street Vera Beach, Flmida 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. Authorized Nesting Survey Area: Indian River Shores (6.151an S ofsr-510 south to 1.61an N ofbeachland Blvd. on AlA, inlcuding Baytree), Vera Beach (340' north ofrm-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 oflndian 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 Authorized Personnel: R. Herren, J. Gorham, J. Gray, D. Green, C. Vann, C. McConnel, B. Hanison. 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., Biological Administrator Imperiled Species Management Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Date cc: Sandy MacPherson, National Sea Turtle Recovery Coordinator, USFWS FWC, Division of Law Enforcement, Northeast Region FWC, Tequesta Office 620 South Meridian Street- 6A Tallahassee FL Visit MyFWC.com

75 APPENDIX B MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

76 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

77 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

78 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

79 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

80 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

81 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.

82 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

83 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

84 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

85 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

86 APPENDIX C BASIC NEST MONITORING PROCEDURES

87 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.

88 APPENDIX D NESTING SURVEY DATA SHEET

89 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

90 APPENDIX E MAPS OF SENTINEL NEST AREAS (NORTH TO SOUTH)

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98 APPENDIX F EXAMPLE OF SPREADSHEET DATABASE

99 SPECIES TYPE OBST CM FC X-OVER 3 DATE OBSERVER SPECIES TYPE ABOVE TIDE NORTHING EASTING ZONE WPT STATUS ABP AEC OBST 4/27/07 Barry Olson CC FC YES 11 CCFC03 NO 0 0 SCARP 5/2/07 Matt Hohne CC N YES F CCN01 CNF 0 0 NO 5/4/07 Matt Hohne CC N YES CCN05 NO 0 0 NO 5/5/07 Matt Hohne CC N YES F CCN06 NO 0 0 NO 5/9/07 Matt Hohne CC N YES V CCN11 NO 0 0 NO 5/10/07 Andy Daneault CC FC YES F CCFC07 NO 0 0 NO 5/10/07 Andy Daneault CC FC YES V CCFC06 NO 0 0 SCARP 5/10/07 Andy Daneault CC FC YES G CCFC05 NO 0 0 SEAWALL 5/10/07 Andy Daneault CC N YES F CCN14 NO 0 0 NO 5/10/07 Andy Daneault CC N YES P CCN13 NO 0 0 NO 5/13/07 Andy Daneault CC FC YES G CCFC11 NO 0 0 SEAWALL 5/14/07 Andy Daneault CC FC YES CCFC15 NO 0 0 SCARP 5/16/07 Andy Daneault CC FC YES F CCFC18 NO 0 0 SCARP 5/16/07 Andy Daneault CC N YES CCN29 MARK 0 0 NO 5/17/07 Anne Savage CC FC YES V CCFC22 NO 0 0 SCARP 5/17/07 Anne Savage CC FC YES CCFC23 NO 0 0 SCARP 5/18/07 Anne Savage CC FC YES G CCFC29 NO 0 0 NO 5/18/07 Anne Savage CC FC YES CCFC31 NO 0 0 SCARP 5/18/07 Anne Savage CC FC YES S CCFC30 NO 0 0 X-OVER 5/18/07 Anne Savage CC N YES CCN33 MARK 0 0 NO 5/18/07 Anne Savage CC N YES F CCN34 MARK 0 0 NO 5/21/07 Anne Savage CC FC YES CCFC47 NO 0 0 NO 5/21/07 Anne Savage CC FC YES V CCFC46 NO 0 0 SCARP 5/21/07 Anne Savage CC FC YES CCFC48 NO 0 0 SCARP 5/21/07 Anne Savage CC FC YES CCFC49 NO 0 0 SCARP 5/21/07 Anne Savage CC FC YES CCFC50 NO 0 0 SCARP 5/21/07 Anne Savage CC N YES CCN47 NO 0 0 NO 5/21/07 Anne Savage CC N YES V CCN45 MARK 0 0 NO 5/21/07 Anne Savage CC N YES V CCN46 MARK 0 0 NO 5/22/07 Anne Savage CC FC YES V CCFC63 NO 0 0 NO 5/22/07 Anne Savage CC N YES V CCN56 MARK 0 0 NO 5/22/07 Anne Savage CC N YES CCN58 MARK 0 0 NO 5/22/07 Anne Savage CC N YES F CCN57 NO 0 0 SCARP 5/23/07 Anne Savage CC FC YES P CCFC68 NO 0 0 SCARP 5/23/07 Anne Savage CC N YES F CCN61 MARK 0 0 NO 5/24/07 Barry Olson CC FC YES CCFC71 NO 0 0 NO 5/24/07 Barry Olson CC FC YES CCFC70 NO 0 0 SCARP 5/25/07 Barry Olson CC FC YES CCFC76 NO 0 0 SCARP 5/26/07 Barry Olson CC FC YES V CCFC78 NO 0 0 NO

100 APPENDIX G PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTER

101 February 27, 2007 Orchid Island Assoc. LTD PTR 10 Beachside Dr. Vero Beach, FL Dear Property Owner: RE: COUNTY SEA TURTLE PROTECTION REGULATIONS Parcel No , etc. County records indicate that you are the owner of beachfront property in unincorporated Indian River County. This letter is to serve as a reminder and notice that, in 1987, Indian River County adopted sea turtle protection regulations that restrict beachfront lighting during the turtle nesting season. This nesting season is from March 1st to October 31st each year. Specifically, Section of the 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 9:00 p.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 9:00 p.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 insuring 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) on 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 being a part of the prime sea turtle nesting area in the United States and, literally, in the western hemisphere. Your cooperation in minimizing beachfront lighting is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning sea turtle regulations, please do not hesitate to call environmental planning staff at ext Sincerely, Ken Oristaglio Environmental Planner cc: Roland DeBlois, AICP, Chief-Environmental Planning and Code Enforcement

102 APPENDIX H MID-SEASON LIGHTING VIOLATION LETTER

103 June 18, 2007 Investments, LLC SW 135 th Avenue Miami, FL RE: COUNTY SEA TURTLE PROTECTION REGULATIONS Parcel No Property Address: Highway A-1-A Vero Beach, FL, Dear Property Owner: County records indicate that you are the owner of beachfront property in unincorporated Indian River County. This letter is to serve as a warning that your property has been identified as having the following lighting violation (s) in accordance with the Indian River County, Code, Section : Violation: 3/27/2007, Wall Mounted Light on the first floor on the east side of the house is visible from the east side of the property. Recommendation (s): Turn light (s) off during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 through October 31 annually), or install approved shielding or new lighting as specified in the attached information. Additional tips for maintaining compliance with the Indian River County, sea turtle lighting code are included below. In 1987, 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 of the 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 9:00 p.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 9:00 p.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.

104 The best method of insuring 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) on 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. Under a 1992 fine schedule approved by Count resolution, failure to correct the above referenced violation (s) can result in citation assessed at $50.00 for each day of the violation after a warning notice has been issued with 24 hours to comply. Indian River County can also bring sea turtle lighting violations before the code board, which can enter an order and fines (usually $100 per day) if compliance is not achieved by a boardestablished compliance date. Indian River County has the privilege of being a part of the prime sea turtle nesting area in the United States and, literally, in the western hemisphere. Your cooperation in minimizing beachfront 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\TURTLE LTR.DOC

105 APPENDIX I VERO BEACH LIGHTING ORDINANCE

106 CITY OF VERO BEACH ORDINANCE FOR PROTECTION OF MARINE TURTLES Adopted June 19, 2007 DIVISION 2. PROTECTION OF MARINE TURTLES* *Editor's note: Ord. No , 1--7, adopted June 19, 2007, amended Div. 2 in its entirety to read as herein set out. Former Div. 2, , pertained to similar subject matter, and derived from Code 1982, , ; Ord. No , 1, adopted April 17, 1990; Ord. No , 2, adopted July 6, State law references: Protection of marine turtles, F.S Sec Purpose. The purpose of this protection of marine turtles division is to protect threatened and endangered marine turtles that nest along the beaches within the corporate limits of the City of Vero Beach, Florida, by safeguarding the nesting female and hatchling marine turtles from the adverse effects of artificial light, and by protecting adult and hatchling marine turtles from injury or harassment. (Ord. No , 1, ) Sec Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Artificial light or artificial lighting means any source of light emanating from any human-made device. Beach means the zone of unconsolidated 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, usually the effective limit of storm waves. Beach access point means any path through or over the dune used by the general public; or, with respect to private property, by the owners or with the owner's permission, for the purpose of gaining access to the beach. Bug light means any yellow colored light bulb that is marketed as being specifically treated in such a way so as to reduce the attraction of bugs to the light. Coastal construction means the carrying out of any activity within jurisdiction boundaries to modify or improve site conditions including, but not limited to, building,

107 clearing, filling excavation, beach/dune preservation, stabilization or restoration projects, mechanical beach cleaning, grading or planting of vegetation, or the making of any material change in the size or use of any structure or the appearance of site conditions, or the presence of equipment or material upon such sites. Coastal construction control line (CCCL) means the portion of the coastal construction control line established pursuant to the provisions of F.S that lies within the corporate limits of the City of Vero Beach. Cumulatively illuminated means illuminated by multiple artificial light sources that as a group illuminate any portion of the beach. Department means the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Directly illuminated means illuminated as a result of glowing element(s), lamp(s), globe(s), or reflector(s) of an artificial light source which is visible to an observer standing anywhere on the beach. Dune means a mound or ridge of loose sediments, usually sand-sized, lying landward of the beach and deposited by any natural or artificial means. Existing coastal construction means a building or structure for which a building permit has been issued prior to the adoption of this division. Floodlight means a reflector-type light fixture that may be attached directly to a building, other structure, or freestanding, and is unshielded. Hatchling means any species of marine turtle, within or outside of a nest, that has recently hatched from an egg. Illuminated means exposed to light from an artificial light source in a way that produces brightness detectable to an observer standing anywhere on the beach. A beach is illuminated if an observer standing anywhere on the beach can see light that has emanated from an artificial light source. Indirectly illuminated means illuminated as a result of the glowing element(s), lamp(s), globe(s), or reflector(s) of an artificial light source which is not visible to an observer standing anywhere on the beach. Jurisdictional boundary means the area lying within the corporate limits of the City of Vero Beach between the Atlantic Ocean and the coastal construction control line as established by the state, except that the exterior lighting restrictions shall include the area between the Atlantic Ocean to a point 500 feet west of the coastal construction control line within the corporate limits of the city. A map depicting the area shall be maintained in the office of the city clerk. For properties located partially within the jurisdictional boundary, the requirements of this division shall apply to the entire property.

108 Light emitting diode/led means miniature lamps that emit pure red or amber light that does not vary in color over the life of the lamp. These lamps may be used in multiples to form strips of small lamps within a light fixture. Light fixture means the structural mechanism which, or within which, the point source of light is attached. Low-profile luminaire means any light fixture set on a base which raises the source of light no higher than 48 inches off the ground and is designed in such a way that light is directed downward from a hooded light source. Low-wattage bug light means a bug light with no greater than 25 watt incandescence and no greater than 9 watt fluorescence. Marine turtle means any marine-dwelling reptile of the families Cheloniidae or Dermochelyidae found in Florida waters or using the beach as a nesting habitat, including the species: Caretta caretta (loggerhead), Chelonia mydas (green), Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback). Eretmochelys imbricata (hawksbill), and Lepidochelys kempi (Kemp's ridley). For purposes of this article, "marine turtle" is synonymous with "sea turtle." Motorized vehicle means, but is not limited to, any self-propelled, wheeled, tracked or belted conveyance. Nest means an area where marine turtle eggs have been naturally deposited or subsequently relocated. Nesting season means the period from March 1 through October 31 each year. New coastal construction means new construction and remodeling of existing structures when such remodeling includes alteration of exterior lighting. Permit holder means any qualified individual, group, or organization possessing a current and valid permit from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to conduct activities related to sea turtle conservation and recovery. Person means any individual, firm, association, joint venture, partnership, estate, trust, syndicate, fiduciary, corporation, group, or unit of federal, state, county, or municipal government. Point source of light means the actual light source such as the bulb, fluorescent tube, lamp, etc., from which light emanates. Pole light means any light fixture set on a base or pole where the source of light is higher than 48 inches off the ground.

109 Primary dune means the first natural or manmade mound or bluff of sand which is located landward of the beach that has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity and configuration to offer protective value to the beach environment. Sea turtle protection plan (STPP) means a detailed plan implemented in conjunction with coastal construction projects which details measures for protecting nesting sea turtles, nests, hatchlings, and their habitat from adverse impacts related to such construction. Tinted or filmed glass means any glass treated to achieve an industry-approved, inside-tooutside light transmittance value of 45 percent or less. Such transmittance is limited to the visible spectrum (400 to 700 nanometers) and is measured as the percentage of light that is transmitted through the glass. Window treatment means any type of material that prevents or reduces the amount of interior light escaping outside, including, but not limited to, curtains, drapes, blinds, solar screens and storm shutters. (Ord. No , 2, ) Sec Lighting standards for new coastal construction. (a) It is the policy of the city to minimize artificial beachfront lighting and to minimize impacts to sea turtles and their nesting habitat resulting from coastal construction activities within the corporate limits of the city. To meet this intent, all new coastal construction within the corporate limits of the city shall comply with the following: (1) Both publicly owned and privately owned exterior lighting fixtures shall be designed/positioned such that: a. The point source of light or any reflective surface of the light fixture is not directly visible from the beach; b. Areas seaward of the primary dune are not directly or indirectly illuminated; and c. Areas seaward of the primary dune are not cumulatively illuminated. (2) Lights shall not directly or indirectly illuminate the beach during the marine turtle nesting season. (3) Exterior lights used expressly for safety or security purposes shall be limited to the minimum number and configuration required to achieve their functional role(s). The use of motion detector switches that keep hooded and shielded lights off except when approached and that switch hooded and shielded lights on for the minimum duration possible are preferred. Outside lighting shall be held to the minimum necessary for safety and security. (4) Only low-intensity recessed or louvered lighting, or other appropriate lowintensity lighting, shall be used on beach access points, dune crossovers where permissible, beach walkways, piers, or any other structure designed for pedestrian traffic on or seaward of the primary dune. This lighting shall be used only if

110 necessary for safety and shall meet the same criteria for other types of exterior lights as set forth in subsection (a)(1) of this section. (5) Tinted or filmed glass and/or window treatments shall be installed on all windows and glass doors of single or multi-story structures within line-of-sight of the beach. (6) Facility design and site plans shall incorporate, as appropriate, the use of hedges, native dune vegetation, and/or other physical barriers (e.g., privacy fences, walls, etc.) to shield lighting from the beach. (7) During the marine turtle nesting season temporary security lights at construction sites in areas zoned multi-family residential or commercial shall be restricted to the minimal amount necessary and shall incorporate all of the standards of this section. Illumination from the lights shall not spread beyond the boundary of the property being developed, and in no case shall such lights directly illuminate any area of the beach. (8) The following are prohibited under this section: a. Floodlights; b. Lighting on dune crossovers in single-family residential areas; and c. Temporary security lighting at construction sites in areas zoned singlefamily residential. (b) The following general standards shall apply to all new coastal construction within jurisdictional boundaries of the city: (1) New coastal construction occurring seaward of the primary dune during any portion of the marine turtle nesting season shall be conducted during daylight hours only. (2) Any person who anticipates beginning or continuing new coastal construction during any portion of the marine turtle nesting season shall contact the state department of environmental protection for instructions and procedures for preparing and implementing a sea turtle protection plan. If required by the state, the sea turtle protection plan must be approved by the state department of environmental protection and implemented by a qualified permit holder at least 60 days prior to construction or March 1, whichever is earlier. The sea turtle protection plan shall remain in effect until October 31 or the end of construction, whichever is earlier. A copy of the approved sea turtle protection plan, or a letter from the state department of environmental protection stating that no approval is required, shall be provided to the city prior to commencement of construction. (3) Upon completion of construction activities, or the end of the marine turtle nesting season, whichever comes first, daily logs, monitoring results, and all similar records maintained pursuant to a state department of environmental protection-approved sea turtle protection plan shall be provided to the city by the permit holder responsible for implementing and conducting the sea turtle protection plan. (4) Any person applying for a certificate of occupancy or final building approval involving the installation of exterior light fixtures must submit to the city a signed, written report from a certified electrical engineer attesting that all applicable exterior lighting complies with standards set forth in this section.

111 Failure to meet lighting standards contained in this section shall be cause for denial of a certificate of occupancy or final building approval. This requirement applies to construction of single-family or multifamily dwellings, commercial or other structures, parking lots, dune walkovers, and other outdoor lighting for real property. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final building approval shall not relieve persons from complying with all other applicable conditions set out in this division or from mitigating against subsequent negative impacts to marine turtles, their nests, or eggs resulting from the approved construction. (c) Existing coastal construction shall comply with the requirements of section (Ord. No , 3, ) Sec Lighting standards for existing coastal construction, including publicly-owned lighting. (a) It is the policy of the city that existing coastal construction including publicly owned beachfront property, comply with all lighting provisions of this section. To accomplish this policy, the following criteria shall apply to all publicly owned and privately owned artificial exterior lights within the corporate limits of the city: (1) Existing artificial light fixtures shall be repositioned, modified, or removed so that: a. The point source of light or any reflective surface of the light fixture is not directly visible from the beach; b.areas seaward of the primary dune are not directly, indirectly or cumulatively illuminated during the marine turtle nesting season. (b)exterior artificial lighting associated with existing structures that does not comply with criteria set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall be modified with one or a combination of the options listed below: (1) Permanently remove the fixture; (2) Disconnect the point source of light; (3) Reposition the fixture so the point source of light is no longer visible from the beach; (4) Replace fixtures having exposed point sources with fixtures containing recessed point sources; (5) Replace nondirectional fixtures with directional fixtures; (6) Replace fixtures having transparent or translucent coverings with fixtures having opaque coverings; (7) Affix an external shield covering an arc of at least 180 degrees and extending an appropriate distance below the bottom edge of the fixture to the ocean side of an existing fixture so the light source does not directly or indirectly illuminate the beach; (8) Replace pole lamps with low-profile luminaries; (9) Plant or improve vegetation buffers between the light source and the beach to screen light from the beach;

112 (10) Construct a structural barrier to shield the light source from view; and/or (11) In consultation with the state department of environmental protection, replace high-intensity pole lamps or parking lot lights with properly shielded lights; (12) Replace lights with red or amber light emitting diode/led lights, or low wattage bug lights. (c) Options to eliminate interior light emanating from doors and windows within direct line-of-sight of the beach include but are not limited to the following: (1) Apply window tint or film; (2) Rearrange lamps and other moveable fixtures away from windows; (3) Apply window treatments and, during the nesting season, draw these coverings each night; and/or (4) Turn off all unnecessary lights. (d) Permanent modifications to existing lights not conforming to standards set forth in subsection (a) of this section are preferred. Temporary modifications used to bring lights into compliance with subsection (a) of this section must remain in effect throughout the entire nesting season each year. (e) Streetlights and lighting at parks and other publicly owned beach access areas located within the corporate limits of the City of Vero Beach shall be designed, positioned, shielded, or otherwise modified such that they shall not directly or indirectly illuminate the beach and the source of light shall not be visible to an observer standing anywhere on the beach. (Ord. No , 3, ) Sec Prohibition of activities disruptive to marine turtles; unlawful to kill, molest, or injure marine turtles. (a) To protect marine turtles and their hatchlings, the following activities are prohibited on or seaward of the primary dune during the nesting season (March 1-- October 31): (1) The operation of motorized vehicles, except for emergency and law enforcement vehicles or persons who have authorization or a permit to engage in marine turtle conservation or research issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and state department of environmental protection approved mechanical beach cleanings; (2) Horseback riding; and (3) Campfires or bonfires. (b) In accordance with F.S. ch. 370 and the U. S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, it shall be unlawful for any person to kill, molest, harass, or cause direct or indirect injury to any species of marine turtle within the corporate limits of the City of Vero Beach. It shall be unlawful to collect or possess any part of a marine turtle, turtle nest and/or egg(s).

113 (Ord. No , 4, ) Sec Standards for beach access points. To increase general public awareness of the need for protecting marine turtles and to alert the public to possible penalties resulting from the molestation of marine turtles or the destruction of their nests and eggs, the following standards shall apply: (1) Permanent marine turtle information signs shall be posted at all public and multifamily private beach access points provided with dune crossovers. The signs shall be: a. Standardized by the city; b. Supplied by the city at cost; c. Installed and maintained in perpetuity by the property owner such that information printed on the signs remains legible; and d. Positioned such that they are conspicuous to persons accessing the beach. (2) Removal of marine turtle information signs by a person other than the applicable property owner or his agent is prohibited. (3) Existing beach access points shall comply with conditions of this section, from which this division is derived. Beach access points constructed as a part of new coastal construction shall comply with conditions of this section prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final building approval, as applicable. (Ord. No , 5, ) Sec Beach/dune preservation, stabilization, or restoration. All coastal construction within jurisdictional boundaries associated with beach/dune preservation, stabilization, or restoration projects shall comply with the following conditions: (1) Coastal construction activities occurring seaward of the primary dune during any portion of the nesting season shall be conducted during daylight hours only. (2) Any person who anticipates beginning or continuing coastal construction during any portion of the nesting season or any person whose coastal construction project will permanently alter natural shoreline characteristics shall prepare a sea turtle protection plan in accordance with conditions set forth in subsection (c)(2). (3) Upon completion of construction activities, or the end of the marine turtle nesting season, whichever comes first, daily logs, monitoring results, nest relocation summaries, and all similar records maintained pursuant to a state department of environmental protection approved sea turtle protection plan shall be provided to the city by the permit holder responsible for implementing and conducting the sea turtle protection plan. (4) Restored and stabilized dunes shall be vegetated with authorized native, salttolerant plants suited to the beach/dune environment and irrigated by hand watering methods only in a manner which does not broadcast water seaward of the toe of the primary dune.

114 (Ord. No , 6, ) Sec Standards for mechanical beach cleaning. A permit is required from the state department of environmental protection and the city for all beach cleaning activities to remove debris from the beach through the use of motorized vehicles or other mechanical means. In addition, beach cleaning activities shall comply with the following conditions: (1) Beach cleaning shall be conducted only during daylight hours; (2) Any person engaging in mechanical beach cleaning activities during any portion of the nesting season shall prepare and implement a sea turtle protection plan in accordance with conditions set forth in subsection (c)(2). (3) Upon completion of beach cleaning activities, or the end of the marine turtles nesting season, whichever comes first, daily logs, monitoring results, and all similar records maintained pursuant to a state department of environmental protection-approved sea turtle protection plan shall be provided to the city by the permit holder responsible for implementing and conducting the sea turtle protection plan. (4) All beach cleaning operations shall be coordinated through the state department of environmental protection to ensure that these operations do not interfere with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission sanctioned scientific studies of marine turtles nesting activities. (Ord. No , 7, ) Sec Compliance inspections. Periodic nighttime lighting inspections shall be performed from the beach to determine the extent of compliance with section Inspections shall include both public and private properties within jurisdictional boundaries. These inspections shall be performed by the city, county, state or a qualified person appointed or contracted by the city, county or state. The inspections shall be conducted as needed until existing beachfront lighting has been brought into compliance. (Ord. No , 7, ) Sec Enforcement and penalty. If any of the provisions of this division are being violated, the property owner or perpetrator of such violations shall be notified in writing, indicating the nature of the violation and ordering any action necessary to correct it. Enforcement action may result from inspections conducted pursuant to section or from public complaint. Each person who commits, attempts to commit, conspires to commit, or aids and abets in the commission of any act declared to be in violation of this division, whether individually or in connection with one or more persons, or as a principal, agent or accessory, shall be guilty of such offense and every person who falsely, fraudulently, forcibly or willfully entices, causes, coerces, requires, permits, or directs another to violate any provision of

115 this division is likewise guilty of such offense. Any person found guilty of violating any provisions of this division, after a first written warning, shall be punished in accordance with section Each day the violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense. In addition to any other remedies, whether civil or criminal, violations of this division may be enforced by the code enforcement board, which may impose administrative fines and liens in accordance with chapter 2 of this Code. (Ord. No , 7, ) Sec Local approvals not exclusive. Approvals required pursuant to this division shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any federal, state, regional or other local approvals which may be required for the same or similar activities. Similarly, compliance with provisions of this division does not excuse any person from having to comply with other applicable federal, state, regional or local laws. (Ord. No , 7, ) Sec Conflicts. In the event this division conflicts with any other applicable regulations on this subject matter, the more restrictive shall apply. (Ord. No , 7, )

116 APPENDIX J PREDATOR CONTROL PLAN

117 DRAFT-MAY 2005 Indian River County Habitat Conservation Plan Predator Control Plan Goal: The goal of the Predator Control Plan (PCP).is to reduce predation rates in the 5.8- mile-long Wabasso Beach area (also referred to here as the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, ACNWR or Refuge) by 40 percent over a period of four years. The goal is based on a current estimated predation rate of about 15 percent. If the PCP fails to achieve its reduction goal, or if current predation rates in the Wabasso Beach area are found to be substantially less than those originally estimated, the County in consultation with the USFWS will implement the PCP in other areas of the County where benefits would be greater. Personnel: Implementation of the PCP will include coordination with Sebastian Inlet State Recreation Area (SISRA), ACNWR, and any Flmida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Principal Perrnit Holder (PPH) whose area may be affected by the PCP. Personnel involved in the implementation of the PCP may include staffoflndian River County, the County's consultant(s), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)/FULL NAME (APHIS)/Wildlife Services, and National Wildlife Research Center. Methods: The methods used for predator control are outlined below: I. Review predation data for ACNWR and other areas in the County a. Determine the reliability of the data (i.e., representative sample of nests monitored, safeguards in place so multiple predation events on a single nest can be identified, daily monitoring for predation, etc) b. Determine overall magnitude of predation in ACNWR and other areas in the County c. Identify spatial and temporal (seasonal and annual) trends in predation in the Refuge and other areas. d. Identify the predator species that should be targeted for control 2. Consult with PPHs including staff of SISRA and ACNWR in interpreting predation data and in implementing the PCP 3. Review altemative methods for reducing predation on sea turtle nests 4. Monitor predators using Passive Tracking Index (PTI) methodology a. Monitoring will generally follow methodology described by Engeman et a!. (2003) in which plots are established throughout the monitoring area and monitored for the presence of potential predator tracks. b. Monitoring may begin prior to the sea turtle nesting season to determine if predators are present and allow control of predators before damage to nests begins c. Monitoring will be conducted at various times throughout the nesting season to detect any changes in the abundance and distribution of predators 5. The method of predator control will be based on the alternatives review (see No. 3)

118 ORA FT- lvi A Y 2005 a. The method of predator control will be in confonnance with federally accepted practices and in compliance with applicable laws. b. Predator control will take place on non-federal lands within the 5.8 mile long coastline of the ACNWR (see Figure 2 of the HCP) and/or on other non-federal lands as agreed to by the County and USFWS. Priority shall be given to the ACNWR. However, if predation rates are found to be low there, then other areas with higher predation rates may be considered. c. The County will obtain consent of all private landowners upon whose property predator control measures are deemed necessary. d. The timing of the control efforts will be determined by: 1) results of predator monitoring as described above, and 2) observed predation levels documented during the County's comprehensive sea turtle monitoring program. 6. In order to detennine if the goal of the PCP is being met, a representative sample of turtle nests will be marked and monitored for nest fate throughout every nesting season. Predation rates will be calculated based on the results of the nestfate monitoring program. a. During the first four years of the PCP, the goal of the PCP will be met if predation rates are reduced by at least I o' percent per year. For example, if the initial predation rate is 15 percent then the predation rate should be reduced to 13.5 percent or less during the first year of the PCP. b. The ultimate goal ofthe PCP is to reduce predation rates by 40 percent after four years and to maintain predation rates at that level over the life of the ITP. c. If the PCP is unable to achieve and maintain an average 40 percent reduction in the predation rate in Wabasso Beach by the fourth full year following PCP implementation, then additional predator control measures shall be implemented in accordance with the following step-down adaptive management approach: (!)A nest screening program will be implemented within the 5.8- mile-long Wabasso Beach area; (2) Based on predation data generated by the County's comprehensive sea turtle monitoring program, a nest screening program will be implemented at selected sites outside the 5.8- mile-long Wabasso Beach area; and/or (3) Based on predation data generated by the County's comprehensive sea turtle monitoring program, a selective predator removal program will be initiated on other publicly and/or privately owned properties (with proper authorization) outside the 5.8-mile-long Wabasso Beach area. Time Devoted to Predator Control: The County has allocated $25,500 to implement the PCP during 2006, the first full year that the program will be in place, and then $10,500 per year thereafter, as needed, to meet program goals. Time expenditures will be based on this budget.

119 DRAFT-MAY 2005 Schedule: Task Completion Date Review Predator Data and Consult with SISRA andacnwr September 2005 Monitor predator movements using PTI February 2006 Implement PCP- Year l September 2006 Evaluate Year l PCP efforts and modif'y PCP, as needed February 2007 Implement PCP- Year 2 September 2007 Evaluate Year 2 PCP efforts and modif'y PCP, as needed February 2008 Implement PCP- Year 3 September 2008 Evaluate Year 3 PCP efforts and modif'y PCP, as needed February 2009 Implement PCP- Year 4 September 2009 Evaluate Year 4 PCP efforts, summarize County-wide depredation data, and consult with Service as to where to February 2010 focus future predator control efforts

120 APPENDIX K DOG PREDATION FLYER

121 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.

122 APPENDIX L CONTACT CHARTS FOR DOG PREDATION

123 Dog Predation Incident Reporting FWC USFWS CITY ANIMAL CONTROL HCP SEA TURTLE COORDINATOR COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL VERO BEACH POLICE DEPT. SHERIFF'S OFFICE

124 Dog Trapping Coordination FWC USFWS CITY ANIMAL CONTROL HCP SEA TURTLE COORDINATOR COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL HUMANE SOCIETY USDA ANIMAL CONTROL

125 APPENDIX M PHOTO OF DOG DIGGING A NEST

126 Photo by C. Vann taken on 7 August 2007.