HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES ON THE ERODING BEACHES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 2013 ANNUAL REPORT

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES ON THE ERODING BEACHES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 2013 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared in Support of Indian River County s Incidental Take Permit (TE057875-0) for the following agency: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SOUTH FLORIDA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES OFFICE ATTN: HCP PROGRAM 1339 20 TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 Prepared by: RICHARD M. HERREN, M.S. HCP SEA TURTLE COORDINATOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1801 27 th Street VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Brian Powell HCP Coordinator U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 December 23, 2014 Mr. Brian Powell, Enclosed is a copy of the 2013 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 TE057875-0. As required by the ITP, the report contains the status and results of the sea turtle nest monitoring, predator control, light management and education programs. Let me know if you have any questions. Richard M. Herren, M.S. Environmental Specialist / HCP Sea Turtle Coordinator Indian River County 1801 27 th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (772) 226-1569 FAX (772) 778-9391 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."

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN A PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES ON THE ERODING BEACHES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 2013 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared in Support of Indian River County s Incidental Take Permit (TE057875-0) 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 1339 20 TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 Prepared by: RICHARD M. HERREN, M.S. HCP SEA TURTLE COORDINATOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1801 27 th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 December 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 INTRODUCTION... 4 HCP ADMINISTRATION... 5 ANNUAL HCP WORKSHOP... 5 EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS... 5 COUNTY-AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS... 5 SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM... 6 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR PERMIT HOLDERS... 6 SURVEY AREAS... 6 SURVEY METHODOLOGY... 7 Monitoring Procedures... 7 Nest Marking, Monitoring and Evaluation... 7 DATA MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION... 8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION... 9 NEST TOTALS, TRENDS AND CRAWL CHARACTERISTICS... 9 Nesting and Nesting Success... 9 Temporal Patterns... 10 Spatial Patterns... 10 Crawl Characteristics and Obstructions... 11 NEST FATE AND REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS... 12 Overall Nest Fate... 12 Loggerhead Reproductive Success... 12 Green Turtle Reproductive Success... 13 Leatherback Reproductive Success... 13 POTENTIAL HUMAN IMPACTS TO NESTING... 14 Disruptive Activities... 14 Human and Animal Presence During the Night... 14 EDUCATION, PROTECTION AND SENTINEL NESTS... 14 NEST MONITORING PROGRAM SUMMARY... 15 LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM... 15 PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTERS... 16 NIGHT-TIME LIGHTING EVALUATIONS... 16 DISORIENTATIONS... 17 CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION AND EDUCATION... 17 EDUCATION PROGRAM... 18 PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM... 18 RACCOON PREDATION PLAN INTENTION... 18 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 1

CANINE PREDATION... 19 HUMAN PREDATION NEST POACHING... 19 MITIGATION LANDS... 20 STATUS OF CONSERVATION AREA AND RECREATION LAND PROPERTIES... 20 ARMORING CUMULATIVE TAKE... 20 SUPPORTING PROJECTS AND GRANTS... 21 SEA TURTLE STRANDING AND SALVAGE NETWORK... 21 FLORIDA LICENSE PLATE GRANT MOBILE EDUCATION UNIT... 21 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT... 21 SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM... 21 LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM... 22 EDUCATION PROGRAM... 22 PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM... 23 UNFORESEEN AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES... 23 LITERATURE CITED... 23 ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS... 24 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS... 24 TABLES 1 14 FIGURES 1 11 APPENDIX A MARINE TURTLE PERMIT # 166 APPENDIX B MAPS OF SENTINEL AREAS APPENDIX C PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTER APPENDIX D MOBILE EDUCATION UNIT SUMMARY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 2

Indian River County Sea Turtle Habitat Conservation Plan 2013 Annual Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2004 Indian River County received an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which authorized the take of five species of threatened and endangered sea turtles causally related to shoreline protection projects initiated under the county s emergency authorization to protect coastal properties. As a requirement of the ITP, the county developed a Habitat Conservation Plan for Sea Turtles (HCP). Among other things, the HCP describes measures that will be undertaken to minimize impacts to sea turtles during emergency shoreline protection projects and implements a series of conservation programs to offset unavoidable take. The county authorized no emergency shoreline protection projects in 2013, therefore, the effort was focused on the nest monitoring, lighting, predator control and education programs. Standard Operating Procedures remained the same and monitoring personnel were provided with training to improve data collection. Nesting activity was summarized within six survey zones and the methodology adhered closely to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Marine Turtle Guidelines. A total of 11,924 sea turtle emergences were recorded during the 2013 nesting season. It was the second most productive year since the inception of the HCP with a total of 6,672 nests, most of which were loggerheads (5,044). Green turtle nesting was a record 1,571 nests, while leatherback nesting was just above average. Nesting began on March 24 and ended on October 18. Nesting success was 58% for loggerheads, 50% for green turtles and 92% for leatherbacks all of which were above average. Biologists and volunteers marked 1,612 nests for reproductive success (24% of the total). The mean emerging success was 81% for loggerhead and 75% for green turtle nests, however, when tidal wash-outs and nest predations were included it dropped to 71% and 68%, respectively. Leatherback emerging success was lower at 66% and dropped to 56% when wash-outs and predations were included. The largest impact to reproductive success were coyote predations in the north part of the county. Obstacles to nesting and potentially disruptive human activities caused turtles to either abandon nesting attempts or nest in unfavorable areas. Raccoon predation was relatively low (0.5% overall, 1.7% in ACNWR), but canine predation (almost all coyote) was much higher this year (5% overall, 16% in ACNWR). Poaching was also a problem (2 poached nest and 12 attempted). Beachfront lighting continued to be the largest human impact on nesting. Artificial lights disoriented 75 nests. As in the past, the highest number of disorientations were observed in the southern part of the county. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 3

Education occurred through brochures, newspaper articles, news radio, beach signs and direct discussions with beachgoers. In addition, a mobile education unit was set up at city parks this summer attracting over 360 visitors. Since there were no temporary or permanent armoring structures authorized by the county during 2013, there remains a balance of 2,676 linear feet of armoring remaining for the life of the permit. The HCP programs have been effective through collaborations with government agencies, nonprofits and volunteers. However, due to staff and funding deficits future efforts will rely heavily on help from volunteers and outside groups. INTRODUCTION Beaches in the southeastern United States are frequently battered and rearranged. In the context of coastal development, the loss of beach sand is called erosion. Approximately 71 percent of Indian River County's coastline is classified by the State of Florida as critically eroded. As structures close to the beach become increasingly vulnerable to physical damage, property owners are seeking ways to protect their homes. Indian River County was the first in Florida to implement local emergency permitting authority under Section 161, Florida Statutes (FS) and Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). The county issued its first Emergency Permit in 1996. Each year threatened and endangered sea turtles deposit thousands of nests on the beaches of Indian River County. The nesting season, which officially starts on March 1 st and ends on October 31 st, lasts eight months in this part of Florida. Local beaches provide nesting habitat for at least three species and are significant on a global scale. The construction of seawalls, revetments and other erosion control devices during the nesting season will likely cause harm or harassment of these federally protected animals. The result is a prohibited take as defined under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Federal authorization for take resulting from an otherwise lawful activity can only be granted through an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and issued by the governing agency, which in this case is the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In an effort to settle a disputed "take" of nesting sea turtles, Indian River County obtained an ITP on December 1, 2004 and implemented a required Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The Permit is effective for 30 years and is conditioned upon 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. The following report addresses the activities conducted in 2013. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 4

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 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, whose primary tasks are implementing the county's Beach Management Plan, overseeing other shoreline stabilization projects and administering the artificial reef program. Currently, both of these individuals are employees of Indian River County. In the absence of 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 11.2.7 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 2005, the HCP Coordinator has held a Marine Turtle Permit (#166) issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to conduct nesting surveys and nest evaluations that cover roughly half of the county's beaches (Figure 1; Appendix A). ANNUAL HCP WORKSHOP An annual presentation and workshop has been held each year to discuss the results, requirements and status of the HCP. This year the workshop was hosted by the HCP Coordinator on February 12, 2013. The meeting was attended by 25 people, including all of the Principal Permit Holder s in the county, code enforcement, representatives from local municipalities, law enforcement, FWC and USFWS. The workshop provided a review of the previous nesting season, a review of the basic nest monitoring protocol, a discussion of direct and indirect impacts to nesting, an update on county beach restoration projects and status of the education, predator control and lighting programs. An emphasis was placed on providing accurate and timely data, coordinating needs and encouraging permit holders to seek help from the HCP Coordinator, if necessary. EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS COUNTY-AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS Between January 1 and December 31, 2013, the county received no written requests or applications from property owners seeking review of the eligibility and vulnerability of a threatened structure. As such, the county authorized no emergency shoreline protection projects during the 2013 calendar year. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 5

SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR PERMIT HOLDERS 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 FWC s Marine Turtle Conservation Guidelines. The SOP has essentially remained unchanged through the 2013 nesting season. The focus was on obtaining accurate, complete and timely nesting data from each survey area. A description of basic monitoring procedures was extracted from the SOP and given to all Principal Permit Holders, which were encouraged to use standardized data collection forms. SURVEY AREAS Sea turtle monitoring in Indian River County was divided into six survey areas based on PPH jurisdictions and local municipalities (Figure 1). There are four PPH's in the county, which have one to three discrete survey areas. Prior to the 2005 nesting season, the county placed zone markers at one kilometer intervals throughout the 36 kilometer (22.5 mile) coastline. These were used for sections of beach not previously surveyed or areas where old markers had not been maintained. They have also been used in data analysis to examine spatial trends. Historical zone markers have remained in place to maintain consistency in reporting. A brief description of each area from north to south follows: Sebastian Inlet State Park (SISP) SISP occupies the northernmost 3.2 kilometers (2 miles), or 8.9%, of the county s coastline. This area was monitored by biologists from Ecological Associates, Inc. (EAI) as part of a Sebastian Inlet sand by-passing project. Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge (ACNWR) The ACNWR survey area comprises about 22.3% of the county s coastline or 8.0 kilometers (5 miles). In 2013, this area was monitored by biologists from EAI as part of a county beach nourishment project. Disney Vero Beach Resort (Disney) This area is referred to as the core Disney area and covers a distance of approximately 2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles), which is 5.8% of the county s coastline. Monitoring was performed by Disney Animal Kingdom staff. Indian River Shores (IRS) The Indian River Shores survey area extends for a distance of approximately 8.9 kilometers (5.5 miles) or 24.6% of the county s coastline. The northern half of this area was surveyed by Disney Animal Kingdom Staff and the southern half was surveyed by the HCP Coordinator and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 6

the volunteers on his team. The break in the two areas occurs at the kilometer 18 marker just south of the John's Island Beach Club. City of Vero Beach (Vero) This survey area covers a distance of approximately 6.3 kilometers (3.9 miles) comprising 17.4% of the county's coastline. Surveys in this area were conducted by the HCP Coordinator and his team. South Indian River County (SIRC) South Indian River County extends to the St. Lucie County Line for a distance of approximately 7.6 kilometers (4.7 miles) or 21.0% of the county s coastline. Surveys in this area were conducted by the HCP Coordinator and his team. SURVEY METHODOLOGY Monitoring Procedures Nesting surveys were conducted each morning on all beaches from March 1 to September 30, 2013. Nest monitoring continued periodically after September 30 at the discretion of each PPH. During the surveys, all nesting and non-nesting emergences (false crawls) visible from the previous night were recorded by species and survey zone. A GPS location was collected at every nest and at the landward apex of every false crawl. Handheld Garmin and Trimble units were used for obtaining location data. The precision ranged from less than a meter to approximately 5 meters (depending on the equipment and satellite geometry). Crawls were classified as either above or below the most recent high tide line from the previous night. False crawls were determined to be either continuous, abandoned body pits and/or abandoned egg cavities. Obstacles (e.g., scarps, seawalls, beach furniture) that were less than a meter from nests or false crawls and, based on behavior, clearly affected the turtles were recorded. Disturbances by predators or potential human impacts were also recorded. Nest Marking, Monitoring and Evaluation 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 reproductive success. The sample marked for each species and within each survey area was at the discretion of the PPH. The most common marking technique was a combination of three stakes surrounding the nest with flagging tape and/or two or more stakes placed up in the dune a measured distance from the nest. The stakes were planted so they would not be easily removed by tides or vandals, but could be recovered by survey personnel. Prior to marking nests, an attempt was made to carefully locate the topmost eggs so they could be located again at the end of the incubation period. Educational, Protection and Sentinel nests Education and protection nests were marked in high traffic areas in southern Indian River County to impart knowledge to INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 7

beachgoers and avoid excessive disturbance. 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 nests should an emergency shoreline protection project be initiated at that location. Prior to the 2013 season, the coastal engineer provided maps to permit holders showing the properties in critically-eroded areas that may be eligible for a county emergency permit (Appendix B). Monitoring personnel were asked to mark any nest deposited landward of the toe of the dune in these designated areas. 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. Since there were no emergency shoreline protection projects initiated by the county during 2013, no nests were marked for this purpose. All marked nests were monitored daily for signs of hatchling emergence, tidal overwash, nest predation, vandals, or other signs of disturbance. Nests were presumed to be washed out if all the markers surrounding the nest were washed away and field personnel found nothing when they excavated the area. Additionally, when hatchlings emerged from marked and unmarked nests, the paths of the hatchlings were examined to determine if they were oriented toward the water. Sea turtle disorientation reports were provided to the FWC Tequesta Field Laboratory, Imperiled Species Program and copies were sent to Code Enforcement offices in the county and municipalities as required by Condition 11.J.2.i of the ITP. Nest evaluations adhered closely to FWC Marine Turtle Guidelines. Three days after the first hatchling emergence or after 70 days incubation, marked nests were excavated by hand to determine reproductive success. The numbers of hatched eggs, unhatched eggs, and live and dead hatchlings were recorded. Unhatched eggs consisted of live and dead pipped embryos, whole eggs and damaged eggs. After an inventory, nest contents were re-buried in the egg cavity and marking stakes were removed from the beach (see definitions below). DATA MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION Nesting success, defined as the percentage of total emergences on the beach that result in a nest, was used to assess the post-emergence suitability of an area. Nesting success was calculated by dividing the number of nests by the number of emergences above the high tide line and multiplying by 100. The fate of each marked nest was assigned to one of the following categories: Emerged hatchling tracks observed or, upon excavation, turtles clearly hatched and emerged. Did Not Emerge hatchling tracks were not observed and, upon excavation, no turtles hatched or emerged. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 8

Emerged Not Excavated hatchlings emerged, but nest contents not evaluated due to being washed out, scavenged or otherwise severely impacted. Washed Out clutch partially or completely washed away during incubation by waves or tides. Depredated clutch partially or completely destroyed by predators. Vandalized stakes used to mark nest completely removed or disturbed by people so the nest location could not be determined. Nested On By Another clutch mixed, scattered or otherwise nested on by another turtle. Could Not Evaluate nest contents could not be evaluated due to logistical problems or other uncontrollable factors. Did Not Find the clutch was never located at the time of deposition or the stakes were not in the correct location. Mean clutch size, hatching success, emerging success, and mean incubation period were determined for excavated nests by the following formulae: Clutch size (total number of eggs in a nest) = number of hatched eggs + number of unhatched eggs. Hatching success (turtles completely removed from their eggshells) = (number of hatched eggs / clutch size) X 100. Emerging success (turtles that hatched and successfully emerged) = {(number of hatched eggs minus the number of live and dead hatchlings in the nest) / (clutch size)} X 100. Incubation period = inclusive period from the date of egg deposition until the first sign of hatchling emergence. Depredated and washed out nests were considered complete failures for purposes of reproductive success. Predation and scavenged were defined as follows: Predation means that viable eggs, embryos or hatchlings were consumed during incubation or at the time of emergence. Scavenged refers to non-viable eggs, embryos or hatchlings consumed after a major disturbance (i.e. storm, predation event, etc.). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION NEST TOTALS, TRENDS AND CRAWL CHARACTERISTICS Nesting and Nesting Success There were 11,924 sea turtle emergences recorded during the 2013 nesting season (Table 1). The majority of sea turtle emergences were loggerheads, Caretta caretta, (73.0%), while green turtles, Chelonia mydas, and leatherbacks, Dermochelys coriacea, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 9

accounted for 26.5% and 0.5% of the crawls, respectively. Of the total number of crawls, 6,672 resulted in a nest, yielding an overall nesting success of 56.0% for all species and all areas combined. Loggerhead and green turtle nesting success was 58.0% and 49.7%, respectively. Leatherback nesting success was 91.9%. These totals do not include an additional 1,029 crawls that were recorded below the most recent high tide line. The vast majority of those were false crawls (93%). Nesting was higher than the previous long-term average (2005 2012) for all species. Loggerheads were almost 1,000 nests above the long term average while leatherback nesting was a few nests above average. Green turtle nesting was a record 2.5 times higher than the long term average. Both green turtle and leatherback nesting has been exponentially increasing in Florida since the 1980 s (Witherington et al. 2006; Stewart et al. 2011). Loggerhead nesting appears to be increasing in the short term in contrast to a ten year decline that ended in 2010 (see previous annual reports and http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/managed/sea-turtles/). Temporal Patterns The first recorded sea turtle emergence and nest in the county was from a leatherback on March 24, 2013 (Table 1). The first loggerhead nest in the county was recorded on April 26, 2013. Loggerhead nesting increased rapidly in May and peaked in the 3 rd week of June. The first green turtle nest was recorded on May 27, 2013. Green turtle nesting peaked in late June, but stayed relatively high through early August (Figure 6). Nesting declined in September with the last nest deposited on October 18. A graph of temporal nesting in the southern half of the county was updated throughout the nesting season and added to the county's coastal website on a weekly basis at www.ircgov.com/coastal. Spatial Patterns Loggerheads nested in high densities throughout the county, but the highest nesting occurred in the ACNWR survey area and the lowest occurred in the City of Vero Beach (Table 2; Figure 2). The amount of nesting in the Town of Indian River Shores and on South Indian River County Beaches was similar and in between the highest and lowest densities. Loggerhead nesting success was highest on the SIRC beaches and lowest in Vero Beach, though overall nesting success was higher than average this year (Table 2). A spatial analysis by kilometer zone revealed fluctuations in nest numbers, with peaks in kilometer zones 4, 5, 15, 30 and 31 and lower nesting in zones 9, 19, 23 and 28 (Figure 2). These results are associated with disruptions such as seawalls, lights and people. Loggerhead nesting success was at or above the 50% baseline in 23 of the 36 kilometer zones or 64% of all zones (Figure 3). The lowest nesting success occurred in zone 27. This beach includes a relatively wide, flat beach and a row of eight condos that have consistent lighting problems. Both artificial light and wider, flatter beaches have been associated with lower nesting and nesting success (Mortimer, 1982; Camhi, 1993; Salmon et al. 1995a). INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 10

Green turtles nested throughout the county, but, as in years past, nesting was far more abundant in the central and northern portion (Table 3; Figure 4). The average crawl density was 7 times higher in Indian River Shores, Disney and ACNWR than in Vero Beach and SIRC. Green turtle nesting success was higher this year in all study areas except for the state park (Table 3). There were very high green turtle nest numbers in the county and throughout the state in 2013. Statewide, green turtles deposited 36,195 nests, which places Florida s green turtle rookery as the second largest in the Western Hemisphere. Leatherback nesting occurred in all the survey areas (Table 4; Figure 5). The highest nesting was in the ACNWR and IRS. Most of this area consists of low-density, single family homes that are usually vacant between April and October. As is typical of this species, nesting success was very high at 92%. Crawl Characteristics and Obstructions Turtles coming ashore go through distinct nesting phases and at any time they may abandon their nesting attempt. In 2013, the average proportion of loggerhead false crawls was 77% continuous, 21% abandoned body pits and 7% abandoned egg chambers (Table 5). The latter two categories were not mutually exclusive since some turtles constructed both abandoned body pits and abandoned egg chambers. Loggerhead false crawls with abandoned body pits were highest in SIRC and Disney. Unlike in years past, the ACNWR area had the highest proportion of continuous crawls and, conversely, the lowest proportion of abandoned body pits (Table 5). As with loggerheads, most green turtles that did not nest turned around and went back into the water (Table 6). However, this was not the case in Vero Beach and SIRC where there were more abandoned body pits and egg chambers than continuous false crawls. This pattern is clearly shown in the spatial distribution of abandoned digging attempts across kilometer zones (Figure 7). The zones with the highest percentage of abandoned digging attempts, from most to least, were 34, 29, 35, 24 and 20. These were all located in the southern half of the county. Overall, 82% of the loggerhead false crawls had no obstructions associated with them (Table 5). However, on average, 12% were associated with scarps, 3% with seawalls, 2% with dune cross-overs and 1% with 'other' obstructions (either beach furniture, boats or debris). Among study sites, the proportion of loggerhead scarp obstructions was highest in the Indian River Shores study area. The Disney area had the highest proportion of seawall obstructions. The green turtle obstruction data was similar (Table 6). Green turtle false crawls had an average of 80% associated with no obstructions, 10% were scarps, 6% were seawalls, 2% were dune cross-overs and 2% were in the 'other' category. As in previous years, most green turtles attempted to nest closer to the dune which meant they were more likely to encounter seawalls and dune cross-overs. The distribution of crawl obstructions highlighted the problem areas for turtles (Figure 8). Crawl obstructions in this figure were summarized for both nests and false crawls INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 11

since there were instances when turtles nested at the base of a barrier that restricted them from going further up the beach. Seawalls and scarps (including dune scarps) were more common in the north part of the county though they were also common in Vero. Dune cross-overs were less frequent, but their occurrence was widespread across most areas, especially on beaches that were narrower and more developed. Recreation equipment was an obstacle in the kilometer zones that contained the Disney Resort, John's Island Beach Club, Vero Beach Hotels (e.g. the Surf Club Hotel) and a few neighborhoods in south Indian River County (notably Atlantis). The "other" category included fences, nesting stakes and debris (e.g. large pieces of wood). NEST FATE AND REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS Overall Nest Fate Countywide, there were 1,612 sea turtle nests marked for reproductive success. The total number of marked nests represented 24% of all the nests recorded in the county. Of the total, 276 (17%) were marked, but the clutch was not found until after an emergence was observed. As mentioned in previous reports, this kind of marking effort is difficult to avoid (particularly for leatherbacks and green turtles), but introduces a bias in the data. Therefore, the following results pertain only to marked nests initially found (within 24 hours of deposition). Of the marked nests where the clutch was initially found, 1,097 (82%) were excavated to determine reproductive success (Table 7). The remaining nests that were not evaluated fell into the following categories: 52 (4%) were washed out by the tide; 116 (9%) were destroyed by predators; 2 (0.1%) had the stakes vandalized so the nest could not be located; 10 (0.7%) were nested on by another turtle; 4 (0.3%) emerged, but could not be evaluated; 25 (2%) could not be evaluated due to logistical problems; and 30 (2%) could not be found. Loggerhead Reproductive Success There were 743 loggerhead nests excavated for reproductive success (Table 7). Of these, 14 did not emerge at all (0% success). Most loggerhead nests that could not be evaluated were due to coyote predation. The mean clutch size across study areas ranged from 102.6 to 109.1 eggs and the mean incubation period ranged from 54.9 to 57.0 days (Table 8). Hatching success was highest in Vero Beach and the lowest in SIRC. No area had a greater than 2% difference from hatching to emerging success, which meant the turtles were not having difficulty escaping the nest. Emerging success when predations and washed out nests were included (both assumed to be 0% success) was lowest in ACNWR at 50.8%. In the combined loggerhead data, the mean clutch size was 104.9 eggs per nest, with a range of 31 to 178 eggs (Table 11a). The mean hatching success for all inventoried loggerhead nests was 82.1% and the mean emerging success was 80.6%. Emerging success dropped to 71.0% when predation and wash-outs were included. The mean incubation period was 55.6 days and ranged from 43 to 71 days. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 12

Green Turtle Reproductive Success There were 332 green turtle nests whose clutch contents were analyzed and 8 that were excavated, but were complete failures (Table 7). Most green turtle nests that were not excavated were because of coyote predation. The mean clutch size across study areas ranged from 111.0 to 145.5 eggs and the mean incubation period ranged from 56.3 to 58.0 days. The mean inventoried hatching success ranged from 72.6% in IRS to 95.8% in Vero Beach (Table 9). When predations and washed out nests were included, green turtle emerging success dropped to 57.5% in SISP, which was the lowest in any area. The combined green turtle reproductive data resulted in a mean clutch size of 114.4 eggs, with a range of 37 to 200 eggs (Table 11b). The mean hatching success was 77.2% and the mean emerging success was 75.3%. When predations and wash-outs were included, emerging success dropped to 68.3%. The mean incubation period was 57.6 days. As in past years, green turtle reproductive success was lower than loggerheads. Leatherback Reproductive Success There were 51 marked leatherback nests of which 28 (55%) were initially found (Table 7). Mean hatching success was highest in Vero Beach and lowest in ACNWR. Mean emerging success was lowest in IRS, however Disney had the largest drop from hatching to emerging success (5.8%). Overall, leatherback mean clutch size was 75.0 eggs with a range of 38 to 104 eggs (Table 11c). The mean hatching success was 68.8% and mean emerging success was 65.9%. Emerging success dropped to 55.8% when wash-outs and predations were included. The incubation period ranged from 61 to 84 days with a mean of 70.1 days. Abiotic and Biotic Impacts to Reproductive Success According to climate reports from the National Weather Service in Melbourne, FL, Central Florida had above average rainfall and above average temperatures through the summer of 2013. However, the average temperature for Vero Beach was below normal and rainfall was 6.9 inches below normal due to a dry period in August. Tropical Storm Andrea moved onshore the Big Bend region bringing the area rainfall in June. Afternoon thunderstorms were common from June through July until drier conditions prevailed in August. Warmer and drier conditions occurred in the Fall interspersed with a few weak cold fronts and tropical systems. The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season was the quietest in two decades. Tropical storms from June through early September produced moderate swells, but fewer wash-overs or washed out nests. The biggest weather effect appeared to be the higher than average rainfall in June and July resulting in lower temperatures and longer incubation periods. Incubation periods were approximately 2 to 3 days longer than the average. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 13

POTENTIAL HUMAN IMPACTS TO NESTING Disruptive Activities The three most commonly reported activities were beach fires, large holes and recreation equipment (Figure 9). Fires were set largely on the beaches in south Indian River County and most were within close proximity of a neighborhood beach access. There have been documented cases in Florida of fires killing hatchling sea turtles, yet no deaths were reported in 2013. While the city has an ordinance prohibiting fires the county does not. Large holes were dug in the beach above the high tide line with shovels by beachgoers. The most dangerous ones were over three feet deep and six feet wide. They were deep enough to excavate a nest, ensnare a sea turtle or injure a person and, as a result, they were filled in whenever possible. Though no injuries or deaths were reported, it is worth noting that an adult loggerhead was killed when it fell into a large hole in Palm Beach County in 2009. Other potential problems included unauthorized beach driving, boats and treasure salvor anchors. Nesting zones with the highest number of potential impacts were 27, 28 and 33 (Figure 9). This biggest potential impact was a 43 foot derelict fishing vessel, which stranded in zone 19 in Indian River Shores on May 27. All the nests were located, staked and protected by a travel corridor before the boat, fuel and supplies were removed in pieces by heavy machinery. FWC, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the US Coast Guard were involved in the operation. No nests were harmed, but this incident was a reminder that any person or machinery that rearranges the sand to nest depth or greater (18 or more) has the potential to destroy nests. Beachgoers mistakenly believe that all sea turtle nests are physically protected. This is logistically not possible because of our high density nesting. Protection largely means educating the beachgoer about sea turtles so they can avoid behaviors that might impact them. Human and Animal Presence During the Night Since 2006, the presence of people and dog tracks on fresh crawls has been recorded in the southern half of the county. These can range from severe disruptions to just a few tracks documenting the presence of people and animals. Most of these were in zones 25, 27 and 33. This year, people and dog prints were found on 4% of the fresh crawls in Vero Beach and South Indian River County. In addition, 0.5% of these encounters were severe. Severe encounters meant that human prints obscured the crawl, nest covering was incomplete and turtles were disoriented while returning to the water. Neighborhoods with heavily used beach access points and resorts had the highest levels of these interactions. EDUCATION, PROTECTION AND SENTINEL NESTS There were 29 education and protection nests marked in Indian River Shores, Vero Beach and SIRC. In the area that includes Surf, Pebble and Reef Lanes in Indian River INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 14

Shores (Dorsey to Sposato, Appendix B), no sentinel nests were marked. This was because the dune was too steep and the turtles could not easily access the upper dune. There were 4 late season nests (deposited after September 15) marked in Vero Beach and Indian River Shores for the purposes of protection from mechanical beach raking and potential beach construction activities. None of these nests were used for reproductive success sampling and when they emerged or at 70 days post-deposition, the stakes surrounding them were removed. NEST MONITORING PROGRAM SUMMARY Nesting in 2013 was the second highest since county-wide surveys began in 2005. Loggerhead nesting was above average and green turtle nesting was 2.5 times higher than the long-term average. As in previous years, there were more nests deposited in the northern half of the county than in the southern half and this trend was especially striking for green turtles. The Vero Beach area contains more people, buildings and lights and these are all potential nesting disruptions. Nesting success was above average for loggerheads and green turtles this year. Like last year, emerging success was highest for loggerheads and lowest for leatherbacks with green turtles falling in between. The largest impact to hatching and emerging success came from nest predation (see Predator Control Program). Tropical storms did wash out a small portion of nests in the latter half of the season, but overall the Hurricane season was lower than average. This year represented the ninth year of complete county-wide nesting surveys. The detail and accuracy of the data has remained at a fairly high level. However, there remains many human activities with the potential to impact nests and turtles. Some of these are illegal under local ordinances. Informing the public and generating interest in sea turtle conservation will help reduce potential impacts. 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 932.09 of County Codes). Initiation of a pro-active light management program is intended as compensatory mitigation for the take of sea turtles associated with shoreline protection measures. The county s light management program is outlined in section 11.5 of the HCP and is stipulated in Conditions 11.G.11.a-c of the ITP. This section describes the key items associated with the light management program and the actions undertaken in 2013. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 15

PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTERS Prior to March 1 st of each year, the county is required to mail written notices to property owners in unincorporated areas of Indian River County notifying them of the upcoming sea turtle nesting season and their lighting obligations associated with the county ordinance (ITP Condition 11.G.11.a). In 2013, the county s Environmental Planning and Code Enforcement Office mailed the lighting letters to all beachfront property owners on February 27 (Appendix C). The letter describes the county code, methods for assessing beachfront lighting compliance, achieving compliance, and a general discussion of the problems caused by artificial light with regard to 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 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 multi-story structures are also non-compliant if they illuminate the beach during the nesting season. A night-time lighting evaluation was performed by Ecological Associates, Inc. on the evenings of May 20 and 21, 2013. Non-compliant and other potentially disruptive lights were identified during the inspection, and each non-compliant exterior light was given a rating with respect to its potential effect on sea turtles (ratings ranged from 1 to 5, from most disruptive to least disruptive based on the light intensity and the area illuminated). For each non-compliant light source, recommendations were made for corrective measures to bring problematic lights into compliance. The most problematic lights were pole-mounted lights, wall-mounted lights and floodlights. As in years past, private single-family residences accounted for the highest number of non-compliant and/or potentially disruptive light sources (Table 12). This was followed in order of decreasing frequency by condominiums, streetlights, clubhouses, hotels, parks and other types, which included bridges and dune crossovers. Although there were more private homes with lighting issues, condominiums, clubhouses and resorts had more disruptive lights per property. Problematic lights were more frequent in the southern part of the county than in the northern part (Figure 10). There were more interior lighting violations (54%) than exterior (46%; Table 12). However, as in the past, interior lights tended to be less of a problem than exterior lights based on the area illuminated and the intensity of the light. In addition, interior lighting is easily solved by using window screens or shades. Properties with lighting problems fluctuate from year to year, but there remain a group of repeat offenders every nesting season. The peak in the number of violations per kilometer was in zone 33. Zone 33 contains three condos in the Moorings as well as single family homes in Atlantis, Ocean Oaks and a number of single street neighborhoods. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 16

DISORIENTATIONS In 2013, there were 75 nest disorientations observed in the county. Most of these were loggerheads while 16% were from green turtle and leatherbacks (Table 13). This was the second year we used a revised FWC disorientation form, which placed the number of turtles into qualitative categories. Overall, 33% of the disorientations fell into the Many category (> 50 turtles disoriented), 56% in the Some category (11 50 turtles) and 11% in the Few category (2 10 turtles). Based on these results, the range of disoriented hatchlings was between 1,728 to 4,930. Only some of these hatchlings reached the water. Most of the disorientations (76%) were recorded in the City of Vero Beach and south Indian River County with single family homes the most frequent source of artificial light. There was not a one-to-one relationship between lighting violations and disorientations partly because one disruptive light can lead to many disorientations (Figure 10). In addition, there were almost no lighting surveys conducted in the central part of the county, including the City of Vero Beach. The fact that few disorientations were reported in the north part of the county where night-time violations were present may be due to the very steep and narrow beaches, which can block stray light behind the dune. CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION AND EDUCATION Under Section 11.G.11.b of the ITP, the county is required to enforce the lighting ordinance within unincorporated areas through code enforcement action, if necessary. To make the most of limited resources, violations were grouped from the least to most problematic. Exterior lights with codes 1 through 4 were given the highest priority. In 2013, county code enforcement staff sent out 10 warning letters to property owners with exterior lighting violations and notified them to address the issues. An additional 8 property owners were notified via phone and 3 more properties were listed as formal code enforcement cases. Almost all of these were resolved (86%). No property was subject to formal code enforcement board action (i.e. fines) in 2013. The HCP Coordinator collaborated with code enforcement officials in Vero Beach, Indian River Shores and worked closely with a small number of property owners throughout the county. During phone calls and visits, owners were reminded that the HCP Coordinator could act to recommend solutions and not as a regulatory authority since that falls under the jurisdiction of the Code Enforcement Division. In the case of Vero Beach, FWC has had numerous past meetings and conducted several night-time lighting surveys with their code enforcement staff. Since 2007, the city s ordinance has been more clear and enforceable than the current county ordinance. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 17

EDUCATION PROGRAM Under Condition 11.G.11.d of the ITP, the county developed a brochure intended to enhance public awareness of coastal erosion and the HCP. In a collaborative effort, the brochure was created in 2006 by the Sea Turtle Conservancy (formerly the Caribbean Conservation Corporation) and Ecological Associates, Inc. Out of the original 6,400 brochures, approximately 600 remained at the end of 2013. In addition to the HCP brochure, other sea turtle brochures were obtained from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Ocean Conservancy, Disney, Sea Turtle Conservancy, UF St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension Office and Florida Power and Light. Many of these brochures were used as part of an educational display set up in parks in the City of Vero Beach during the summer of 2013 (see Supporting Grants and Documents). This year the county biologist spent between 30 and 45 minutes on each nesting survey speaking to beachgoers about sea turtle nesting and conservation. There were three articles in in the Vero Beach Press Journal with contributions from the HCP Coordinator in 2013. The first was published on February 25, with subsequent articles appearing on June 13, and November 29. In addition to the written press, the HCP Coordinator was on public news radio (1490 AM) five times in 2013 answering questions regarding sea turtle nesting, lights and nest predators. Other educational tools used this year included beach signs and sea turtle information on the county's website. The durable beach signs began in 2007 and have since undergone several revisions. They provided passive education to beachgoers. Information regarding current sea turtle nesting trends and past HCP reports has been published on the county's website at www.ircgov.com/coastal. PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM RACCOON PREDATION PLAN INTENTION The Predator Control Plan (PCP) outlined in Section 11.4 of the county s HCP constituted mitigation for the take of sea turtles causally related to shoreline protection. The overall goal was to increase hatchling productivity by reducing predation rates by 40% over a period of five years within non-federal lands of the ACNWR. The assumed level of raccoon (Procyon lotor) predation in this area was 15% of all nests. However, since the inception of the HCP raccoon predation has turned out to be far lower. As a result, even though condition 11.G.11.e of the ITP required the county to develop and submit a PCP to the Service within six months of the effective date of the ITP, the draft plan that was submitted was never finalized or implemented. The number of raccoon predations in 2013 was 36 (Figure 11). As in years past, most raccoon predations (72%) occurred in the ACNWR study area. Raccoon predation INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 18

events represented 0.5% of all the nests deposited in the county and 1.7% of the nests deposited in the ACNWR. Raccoon predations have remained at a low level since 2005. The ACNWR implemented a predator control program in 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013. However, almost all of the effort was focused on trapping in the Brevard County portion of the refuge because of the larger number of predations in that area. The object of the HPC s Predator Control Program was to focus on raccoons. However, since 2006, it became clear that canine predation had become more of a problem. CANINE PREDATION There were 344 canine nest predations in the county in 2013. Nest predation by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) has been occurring at low levels since 2006 (see the 2006 Annual HCP Report). Education and enforcement of animal control laws has helped in deterring domestic dog predations, yet they still occur. Domestic dogs were involved in 3 predations in 2013. All of these were on south county beaches in zones 29, 32 and 33 (Figure 11). Coyotes (Canis latrans) were implicated in predations in the refuge in 2008 and then observed west of highway A1A in 2009. That year almost all of the canine predations in the north part of the county were thought to be coyote. In 2013 there were 341 coyote predations, which was the largest total since the inception of the HCP (Figure 11). The coyote predation rate was 16% in the ACNWR and 5% in the county. This occurred despite the capture and removal of approximately 6 animals by the US Department of Agriculture, Animal Control Services on federal lands from 2011 to 2013. Based on predation rates and anecdotal evidence, these animals are breeding on the barrier island. The ACNWR plans to curtail future coyote predation through their capture and removal program. The HCP Coordinator has supported this effort by generating maps of predation "hot spots", educating the public and keeping a predation database. It is the intent of the county to coordinate efforts to reduce coyote and domestic dog predation as a part of the Predator Control Program. However, unlike raccoons, stopping canines from digging in turtle nests (whether domestic dogs or coyotes) is an expensive, complex and difficult task. In the case of domestic dogs, it is also understandably sensitive. The City of Vero Beach Police Department, FWC Law Enforcement, USFWS, USDA Animal Control Services and Indian River County Animal Control have all contributed significant resources in this effort. Yet, just like our nesting survey teams, these groups cannot be on the beach at all times. Ultimately, help will also be needed from the public to report digging dogs or coyotes. 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 nest poaching. There were 2 nests poached and 12 poaching attempts in 2013. These were located in zones 5 through 8 in the ACNWR and zone 23 in the City of Vero Beach (Figure 11). All cases of nest INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 19

poaching were verified by experienced personnel in the field and turned over to wildlife law enforcement officials at the state and federal level. MITIGATION LANDS 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), which is 110 acres of barrier island coastal habitat. The properties were purchased and managed for conservation and passive recreation. The preservation of these properties as sea turtle habitat was offered as partial mitigation for unavoidable impacts to sea turtles resulting from shoreline protection measures. Condition 11.G.11.f of the ITP requires the county to manage these parcels in their current state and describes the allowable modifications or improvements to the parcels. In 2013, all activities in the JTCA were conducted in accordance with the ITP. ARMORING CUMULATIVE TAKE The current amount of armoring in Indian River County is 9,375 linear feet or approximately 8% of the shoreline. Of that total, only 520 feet falls under the County's HCP. The remaining structures were either permitted through the State of Florida or they were older structures that did not pass through a formal permitting process. 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 armoring structures encompassing no more than 3,196 linear feet of coastline in the Plan Area over the 30-year life of the ITP (Table 14). 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 2013 (Table 14). In accordance with an Interim Agreement between the FDEP, Indian River County, the Sea Turtle Conservancy, and two private petitioners, FDEP allowed two (2) temporary structures previously installed under the county s emergency authorization to remain in place. Condition 11.G.9 of the ITP authorized permanent seawalls at these properties. However, shoreline protection projects authorized by the FDEP through Florida's standard permitting process are not included as cumulative take under the ITP. Nonetheless, construction and placement of these continues, which could potentially harm sea turtles or their nesting habitat. In response FDEP, in cooperation with FWC, began developing a comprehensive Florida Beaches HCP for its INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 20

coastal program in 2008. Among other things, this HCP would encompass take from Coastal Construction Control Line projects permitted by FDEP. SUPPORTING PROJECTS AND GRANTS SEA TURTLE STRANDING AND SALVAGE NETWORK Every year, sick, injured and dead sea turtles wash up on the shore of our beaches, bays and lagoons. The Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) was initiated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 1980 to document these events. The HCP Coordinator is permitted to collect this data and, along with his stranding team, responds to calls from FWC and the public regarding sea turtles in distress. In 2013, the county team recorded 33 sea turtle strandings in Indian River County. This data is valuable because it is a relative measure of sea turtle impacts along our coast. All live turtles are taken to permitted rehabilitation facilities north and south of our area. Stranding reports and photos are sent to FWC s Tequesta Field Station. Some of the dead turtles are stored in freezers until a later examination, but most are buried on the beach out of courtesy to beach residents and visitors. FLORIDA LICENSE PLATE GRANT MOBILE EDUCATION UNIT A Florida Sea Turtle License Plate grant awarded in 2012 was used in part to purchase an educational display, table and chairs for the 2013 nesting season. The educational display, dubbed the Mobile Education Unit, was set up in beachfront parks in the City of Vero Beach one day a week (14 days) in June, July and August (Appendix D). There were a total of 361 people who visited the educational display with about half who identified themselves as local and half who identified themselves as a visitor to the area. The park with the highest visitation was South Beach Park and the park with the least was Humiston Park. With the help of a small team of volunteers, hundreds of brochures were distributed and dozens of hours were spent speaking to people about sea turtle biology and conservation. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Condition 11.J.1 of the ITP requires the county to annually provide evidence of compliance with the terms and conditions of its ITP and HCP. SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM The nest monitoring program requires the most expense, time and effort. The main reason is the high density nesting that occurs in Indian River County. Additional strain INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 21

comes from the HCP coordinator managing a nest monitoring program and volunteer team covering approximately half of the county s beaches (11 km). Nevertheless, gains in this program have been made over the years in terms of the collection of quality data. More importantly, the nesting data received from permit holders has closely matched the format used by the HCP coordinator. This program has benefited from the Sector 3 Beach Nourishment Project due to several factors: 1) the same group (EAI) has been collecting data on multiple survey areas; and 2) the data collected for nourishment monitoring is similar to the HCP data. This has meant less post-processing. Supervised by the HCP Coordinator, volunteers have conducted nest monitoring in the south part of the county since 2007. Their numbers have grown and currently there are six volunteers trained and permitted to conduct nesting surveys with an additional 10 helping with sea turtle strandings. In 2013, the county s volunteers spent 198 days and approximately 1,300 hours collecting data on the beach. These efforts are highly commendable and the program would suffer without their help. However, the lack of professional staff has meant more supervision and hands-on training as well as minor losses in the consistency of the data. LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The county's Light Management Program has slowly improved through coordination with the HCP Coordinator (Public Works Department) and the Code Enforcement Division (Community Development Department). While lighting violations and nest disorientations were adequately reported, code enforcement warning letters and communications have been effective only for property owners willing to cooperate. While this is most of them, a handful were repeat offenders who have either not received notification of their violation (e.g. incorrect address information), refused to fix the problem and/or have not been pursued further by code enforcement. Correcting the more difficult lighting issues may require resources beyond what is currently allocated. EDUCATION PROGRAM The education program has gotten significant help from partners in other agencies and non-profits. Dozens of brochures on sea turtle biology and conservation have been donated. In addition to newspaper articles and radio talk shows, the HCP Coordinator gives several public presentations a year and the county nesting team spends many hours on the beach discussing sea turtle biology and conservation with beachgoers. Educational signs created for use on marked nests have provided beachgoers a way to passively learn about sea turtles at nest sites. There is no question that sea turtle education is still needed in the county. However, the Vero Beach Disney Resort, Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge and Sebastian Inlet State Park have supported the effort with their own education campaigns. The county sea turtle team cross-promotes these groups on a regular basis. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 22

PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM The county never met the original intent of the PCP due to the unexpected low level of raccoon predation. Nevertheless, with the rise in coyote predation and collaboration with predator control plans carried out by the ACNWR, the county has been providing support in predator removal, animal control enforcement and public education about nest predators. The issue of canine predation has been difficult to tackle. Coyotes are not easily captured and there exists strong sentiments against curtailing the behavior of domestic dogs on the beaches. Predation rates this year were much higher than in years past. With few financial resources, the county and its partners are focusing on education, wildlife law enforcement and limited trapping. UNFORESEEN AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES As defined in Section 11.K of the ITP, unforeseen circumstances are changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the HCP that could not reasonably be anticipated by the county or the USFWS at the time of HCP development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered species. There were no unforeseen circumstances in 2013. LITERATURE CITED Camhi, M.D. 1993. The role of nest site selection in loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) nest success and sex ratio control. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp. 1-255. Mortimer, J. A. 1982. Factors affecting beach selection by nesting sea turtles. In: K. A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 45 51. Salmon, M., R. Reiners, C. Lavin, and J. Wyneken. 1995a. Behavior of loggerhead sea turtles on an urban beach. I. Correlates of nest placement. Journal of Herpetology, vol. 29, pp. 560 567. Stewart, K., Sims, M., Meylan, A., Witherington, B., Brost, B. and Crowder, L. 2011. Leatherback nests increasing significantly in Florida, USA; trends assessed over 30 years using multilevel modeling. Ecological Applications, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 263-273. Witherington, B., Bresette, M. and Herren, R. 2006. Chelonia mydas green turtle. In: Meylan, P.A. (ed.). Biology and Conservation of Florida Turtles. Chelonian Research Monographs, no. 3, pp. 90-104. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 23

ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS The HCP Coordinator would like to acknowledge the cooperation of the FWC Marine Turtle Permit Holders and their nesting teams who collected and provided data for this report, especially Kristen Kneifl, Terry O Toole, Rick Grimaldi, Kevin Jones, Anne Savage, Rachel Smith, Erik Martin, Danielle Kurish and Niki Desjardin. Assistance on beachfront lighting issues and code enforcement came from Melody Sanderson and Andy Sobczak. Education brochures were generously provided by Ken Gioeli. Most importantly, Indian River County is indebted to the volunteers who donated their time conducting nesting surveys, educating the public and recording turtle strandings in 2013: Charles McConnel, Sherri Davis, Christine Walker, Marie Kimball, Barbara Grass, Kate Hoffmann, Olivia Lazorik, Chris Vann, Suzy Stoeckel, Paul Lins, Anne Lins, Paula Taylor, Rodney Robison and Stacey Kalwies. Much of this work would not have been possible without their help. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ACNWR FDEP FWC HCP ITP IRS JTCA PCP SIRC SISP STSSN USDA USFWS VERO Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Habitat Conservation Plan Incidental Take Permit Town of Indian River Shores Jungle Trail Conservation Area Predator Control Program South Indian River County Sebastian Inlet State Park Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network United States Department of Agriculture United States Fish and Wildlife Service City of Vero Beach INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 24

TABLES

Table 1. Total nesting activity for Indian River County in 2013. This table includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. Nesting Activity Loggerhead Green Leatherback Summary Date of First Nest 4/26/2013 5/27/2013 3/24/2013 3/24/2013 Date of Last Nest 9/10/2013 10/18/2013 8/5/2013 10/18/2013 Total Nests 5,044 1,571 57 6,672 Total False Crawls 3,659 1,588 5 5,252 Total Emergences 8,703 3,159 62 11,924 Nesting Success 58.0% 49.7% 91.9% 56.0%

Table 2. Loggerhead nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey area in 2013. This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Survey Area Nests False Crawls Total Emergences Nesting Success (%) Avg. Crawl Density 1 SISP 425 331 756 56.2% 236.3 ACNWR 1,533 1,240 2,773 55.3% 346.6 Disney 325 258 583 55.7% 277.6 IR Shores 1,169 755 1,924 60.8% 216.2 Vero Beach 514 417 931 55.2% 147.8 South IRC Beaches 1,078 658 1,736 62.1% 228.4 Total 5,044 3,659 8,703 58.0% 241.1 1 Expressed as the number of emergences (nests and false crawls) per kilometer of beach.

Table 3. Green turtle nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey area in 2013. This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Survey Area Nests False Crawls Total Emergences Nesting Success (%) Avg. Crawl Density 1 SISP 52 85 137 38.0% 42.8 ACNWR 591 673 1,264 46.8% 158.0 Disney 124 133 257 48.2% 122.4 IR Shores 663 563 1,226 54.1% 137.8 Vero Beach 50 45 95 52.6% 15.1 South IRC Beaches 91 89 180 50.6% 23.7 Total 1,571 1,588 3,159 49.7% 87.5 1 Expressed as the number of emergences (nests and false crawls) per kilometer of beach.

Table 4. Leatherback nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey area in 2013. This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Survey Area Nests False Crawls Total Emergences Nesting Success (%) Avg. Crawl Density 1 SISP 3 0 3 100.0% 0.9 ACNWR 20 1 21 95.2% 2.1 Disney 3 0 3 100.0% 0.1 IR Shores 17 1 18 94.4% 2.0 Vero Beach 5 1 6 83.3% 1.0 South IRC Beaches 9 2 11 81.8% 1.4 Total 57 5 62 91.9% 1.7 1 Expressed as the number of emergences (nests and false crawls) per kilometer of beach.

Table 5. Summary of loggerhead false crawl characteristics and obstructions by survey area for Indian River County in 2013. This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, IRS = Indian River Shores, SIRC = South Indian River County. Characteristics SISP ACNWR Disney IRS Vero SIRC Total Number of False Crawls 331 1,240 258 755 417 658 Continuous Crawls (%) 72.5% 79.1% 76.4% 78.3% 74.6% 69.6% Abandoned Body Pits (%) 20.2% 13.5% 22.9% 18.9% 21.1% 26.7% Abandoned Egg Chambers (%) 9.4% 8.2% 6.6% 6.5% 4.8% 8.1% Obstructions No Obstructions Recorded (%) 84.3% 83.0% 76.0% 75.9% 84.7% 89.4% Scarps (%) 14.5% 13.8% 11.6% 20.0% 5.5% 5.5% Seawalls (%) 0.0% 1.7% 8.1% 0.0% 6.2% 4.0% Dune Cross-Overs (%) 0.0% 0.9% 2.7% 3.3% 1.9% 0.8% Other Obstructions (%) 1.2% 0.6% 1.6% 0.8% 1.7% 0.5%

Table 6. Summary of green turtle false crawl characteristics and obstructions by survey area for Indian River County in 2013. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, IRS = Indian River Shores, SIRC = South Indian River County. Characteristics SISP ACNWR Disney IRS Vero SIRC Total Number of False Crawls 85 673 133 563 45 89 Continuous Crawls (%) 63.5% 58.1% 66.9% 65.2% 35.6% 42.7% Abandoned Body Pits (%) 31.8% 30.5% 32.3% 30.9% 62.2% 53.9% Abandoned Egg Chambers (%) 7.1% 12.8% 9.8% 9.9% 4.4% 13.5% Obstructions No Obstructions Recorded (%) 90.6% 86.2% 62.4% 73.7% 88.9% 80.9% Scarps (%) 9.4% 7.3% 15.0% 19.4% 2.2% 7.9% Seawalls (%) 0.0% 2.5% 16.5% 0.0% 8.9% 7.9% Dune Cross-Overs (%) 0.0% 2.5% 3.8% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% Other Obstructions (%) 0.0% 1.5% 2.3% 2.7% 0.0% 3.4%

Table 7. Summary of the fate of all marked nests by species where the clutch was found the morning after deposition in Indian River County in 2013. Fate Loggerhead Green Turtle Leatherback Total Excavated Emerged 729 324 21 1,074 Did not emerge 14 8 1 23 Total Excavated 743 332 22 1,097 Not Excavated Washed out 41 10 1 52 Completely Depredated 82 31 3 116 Completely Vandalized 2 0 0 2 Nested on by another 5 4 1 10 Emerged Not Excavated 4 0 0 4 Could Not Evaluate 15 10 0 25 Did Not Find 20 9 1 30 Total Not Excavated 169 64 6 239 Total Marked 912 396 28 1,336

Table 8. Summary of reproductive success for loggerhead nests by study area in Indian River County, 2013. Includes only nests where the clutch was found the morning after deposition. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. SISP ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC Nests Excavated 105 136 173 220 40 69 Mean Clutch Size 109.1 103.8 102.6 103.7 109.1 107.7 Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 85.9 83.4 84.9 78.4 88.5 74.4 Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 83.9 82.6 83.2 76.6 88.3 73.9 Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) 72.2 50.8 83.2 73.0 78.5 68.9 Mean Incubation Period (days) 55.2 54.9 55.6 55.6 56.8 57.0

Table 9. Summary of reproductive success for green turtle nests by study area in Indian River County, 2013. Includes only nests where the clutch was found the morning after deposition. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. SISP ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC Nests Excavated 8 96 45 165 8 10 Mean Clutch Size 129.1 115.4 111.0 111.9 117.3 145.5 Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 80.6 80.2 84.1 72.6 95.8 74.4 Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 79.1 77.5 81.4 71.4 95.8 74.2 Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) 57.5 57.6 79.6 70.5 95.8 67.5 Mean Incubation Period (days) 57.7 57.8 56.7 58.0 57.0 56.3

Table 10. Summary of reproductive success for leatherback nests by study area in Indian River County, 2013. Includes only nests where the clutch was found the morning after deposition. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. SISP ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC Nests Excavated 3 5 2 7 2 3 Mean Clutch Size 74.0 61.4 66 76.1 81.5 97.7 Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 70.7 58.9 80.0 59.2 96.1 80.0 Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 65.7 58.1 74.2 54.9 96.1 79.1 Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) 65.7 36.3 74.2 48.0 96.1 79.1 Mean Incubation Period (days) 74.7 74.7 66.5 67.8 73.0 66.0

Table 11. Descriptive statistics for all inventoried nests in Indian River County in 2013. Includes only nests where the clutch was found the morning after deposition. (a) Loggerhead. n Min Max Mean Stand Dev. Clutch Size 743 31 178 104.9 22.6 Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 743 0 100 82.1 23.9 Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 743 0 100 80.6 24.6 Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) 866 0 100 71.0 34.9 Incubation Period (days) 595 43 71 55.6 3.2 (b) Green Turtle. n Min Max Mean Stand Dev. Clutch Size 332 37 200 114.4 25.1 Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 332 0 100 77.2 25.2 Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 332 0 100 75.3 26.1 Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) 372 0 100 68.3 33.1 Incubation Period (days) 231 44 72 57.6 3.9 (c) Leatherback. n Min Max Mean Stand Dev. Clutch Size 22 38 104 75.0 19.3 Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 22 0 97 68.8 24.1 Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 22 0 97 65.9 25.1 Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) 26 0 97 55.8 33.4 Incubation Period (days) 18 61 84 70.1 6.1

Table 12. Results of night-time lighting inspections conducted in May 2013 in unincorporated areas of Indian River County. These results summarize the number of properties with exterior and interior lighting violations in seven property types. Exterior lights were given a problem code based on the intensity and the scope of the light. See text for further explanation. Night-time Lighting Surveys 2013 Exterior Lighting Interior Lighting Both Exterior & Interior Lighting Total Lighting Violations Average Problem Code 1 House 11 24 2 37 2.9 Condominium 3 4 2 9 2.2 Street light 5 0 0 5 3.6 Clubhouse 2 0 0 2 3.0 Hotels 0 0 1 1 1.0 * Public Park 1 0 0 1 5.0 * Other Types 1 0 0 1 3.0 * TOTAL 23 28 5 56 1 problem codes for exterior lighting range from 1 to 5, from most disruptive to least disruptive, respectively. * not an average.

Table 13. Summary of sea turtle disorientation events by study area, 2013. Qualitative data were based on a range. Many disoriented > 50, Some disoriented = 11 50, Few disoriented = 2 10. See text for further explanation of this table. SISP ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC Overall * Disoriented Nests 7 7 0 4 25 32 75 Loggerhead (%) 86 100 0 100 84 78 84 Green Turtle (%) 14 0 0 0 12 6 8 Leatherback (%) 0 0 0 0 4 16 8 Many Hatchlings Disoriented (%) 0 0 0 0 56 34 33 Some Hatchlings Disoriented (%) 100 86 0 100 36 50 56 Few Hatchlings Disoriented (%) 0 14 0 0 8 16 11 All Reached Water (%) 100 67 0 33 4 6 21 Some Reached Water (%) 0 33 0 67 92 88 75 Few to None Reached Water (%) 0 0 0 0 4 6 4 Nests Turtles Were Found Dead (%) 0 0 0 0 4 9 5 Most Common Light Source SKY GLOW HOME ---- CONDO CONDO & HOTEL HOME HOME

Table 14. Cumulative take since date of issuance of the Indian River County ITP (December 1, 2004). No armoring under the HCP occurred in 2013. 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, 2005 520 2013 0 Cumulative Take 520 Take Authorized Under ITP 3,196 Balance 2,676 1 Parvus, Dirk & Brenda; Strand, Anne E.; Trimarche, Peter J.; King, Bruce, E.; Simpson, Patricia N.; and McCoy, Richard & Louise.

FIGURES

Map of Permit Holder and Nesting Survey Areas in Indian River County Fellsmere 95 Sebastian! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y S e b a s t i a n I n l e t F 1 FF 2 3 F 4 FF 5 6 F 7 FF 8 9 F 10 Orchid FF 11 12 F FF F FF 18 F FF! 60! A1A 1 Indian River Shores Vero Beach SISP Biologist 13 14 15 16 17 ACNWR Kneifl 19 20 F FF 21 22 23 F FF Disney Savage 24 25 26 27 F 28 FF 29 30 31 F FF 32 F FF 33 34 35 North IRS Savage South IRS Herren Vero Beach Herren 36 0 1.5 3 4.5 6 Kilometers South IRC Herren Figure 1. Map of Indian River County showing study areas along the coast and the marine turtle principal permit holders that are responsible for collecting nesting data within each area. The county's beaches have been divided up into 36 km zones starting at Sebastian Inlet south to the St. Lucie County line.

Spatial Distribution of Loggerhead Nests in Indian River County in 2013 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t 0 2 4 6 8 Sebastian Orchid 10 12! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y 1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 14 16 18 20 22 24 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 26 28 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 30 32 34 36 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Figure 2. The number of loggerhead nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2013. Data for this type of distribution was compiled on the basis of GPS locations, which have a small degree of error (<5%). Zone 36 is not a full kilometer.

Spatial Distribution of Loggerhead Nesting Success (%) in Indian River County in 2013 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t 0 2 4 6 8 Sebastian Orchid 10 12! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y 1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 14 16 18 20 22 24 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 26 28 30 32 34 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 36 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 3. Loggerhead nesting success (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2013. The dashed line represents 50% nesting success, which is used as a baseline. Includes below the high tide line crawls.

Spatial Distribution of Green Turtle Nests in Indian River County in 2013 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t 0 2 4 6 8 Sebastian Orchid 10! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y 1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 14 16 18 20 22 24 12 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 26 28 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 30 32 34 36 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Figure 4. The number of green turtle nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2013. Zone 36 is not a full kilometer.

Spatial Distribution of Leatherback Nests in Indian River County in 2013 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t 0 2 4 6 8 Sebastian Orchid 10 12! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y 1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 14 16 18 20 22 24 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 26 28 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 30 32 34 36 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Figure 5. The number of leatherback nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2013. Zone 36 is not a full kilometer.

Temporal Distribution of Nesting by All Species in the Southern Half (County- Surveyed Portion) of Indian River County in 2013 200 180 160 140 Number of Nests 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Loggerhead Green Turtle Leatherback Figure 6. The temporal pattern of nesting by all species in the southern half of Indian River County, 2013. Updated versions of this graph are available at www.ircgov.com/coastal

Spatial Distribution of Abandoned Body Pits and Egg Chambers in 2013 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t 0 2 4 6 8 Sebastian Orchid 10 12! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y 1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 14 16 18 20 22 24 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 26 28 30 32 34 Abandoned Body Pit Abandoned Egg Chamber 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 36 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 7. 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 2013.

Spatial Distribution of Crawl Obstructions (%) in Indian River County in 2013 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t 0 2 4 6 8 Sebastian Orchid 10! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y 1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 14 16 18 20 22 24 12 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 26 Seawall 28 Scarp 30 DuneScarp 32 X-over 34 RecEquip Other 36 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 8. The proportion of loggerhead, green turtle and leatherback nests and false crawls associated with obstructions (x-axis) mapped by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2013. X-over = dune walkway. Rec Equip = boats, chairs, umbrellas, etc. See text for description of "Other" category and definitions of types of scarps.

Disruptive Beach Activities in Indian River County in 2013 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t 0 2 4 6 8 FIRE VEHICLE REC EQUIP DEEP HOLE BOATS OTHER Sebastian Orchid 10 12! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y 1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 14 16 18 20 22 24 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 26 28 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 30 32 34 36 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Figure 9. The number of disruptive beach activities potentially harmful to sea turtles recorded during nesting surveys (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in Indian River County in 2013. VEHICLE = Truck or Construction Vehicle. DEEP HOLE = large holes dug in the sand (> 1 m deep). See text for description of other categories.

Distribution of Disorientations and Lighting Violations in Indian River County in 2013 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t 0 2 Disorientations 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 4 6 8 Sebastian Orchid 10! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y 1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 26 28 30 32 34 36 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 30 25 20 15 10 Exterior and Interior Violations 5 0 Figure 10. The number of disorientated nests (top x-axis) vs. the number of properties with exterior and interior lighting violations (bottom x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2013. Night-time lighting surveys were not conducted in the Town of Indian River Shores, Orchid or the City of Vero Beach.

Distribution of Nest Predation and Poaching Events in Indian River County in 2013 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t 0 2 4 6 8 Sebastian Orchid 10 12! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y 1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 14 16 18 20 22 24 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 26 28 30 32 34 36 RACCOON CANINE UNKNOWN POACHED POACH ATTEMPT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Figure 11. The number of mammalian predations (raccoon and canine) and the number of nests poached by people (including attempts) by kilometer zone in 2013. Scavenged nests and ghost crab predations were not included in this figure.

APPENDIX A MARINE TURTLE PERMIT #166

Marine Turtle Permit Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Imperiled Species Management Section- Tequesta Field Laboratory 19100 SE Federal Highway Tequesta, Florida 33469 (561) 575-5407 Richard M. Herren, M.S. Indian River County 27th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32690 772-226-1569 Permit#: MTP-13-166 County: Indian Riverl801 Effective Date: 1/1/2013 Expiration Date: 12/31/2013 Is Authorized to: (1) conduct nesting surveys; (2) conduct stranding/salvage activities; (3) relocate nests for conservation purposes; (4) maintain & display preserved specimens; (5) monitoring for mechanical beach cleaning. Authorized Nesting Survey Area: Indian River Shores (6.15km S of SR-510 south to 2.6km N of Beachland Blvd. on AlA); Vero Beach (2.6km N of Beachland Blvd. on AlA south to 340' north of RM-95); and southern Indian River County beaches ((340' north of RM-95 south to Indian River/St. Lucie County line). z--:77~z //., /~ Permittee Signature----.,!.~~~:: :_~~=======-:::: Date-----"/>"/-- ~~--'-TL!.'---- 1./""---- ~/ Not valid unless signed. By signature, the permittee confirms that all information provided to issue the permit is accurate and complete, and indicates acceptance and understanding of the provisions and conditions listed below. Any false statements or misrepresentations when applying for this permit may result in felony charges and will result in revocation of this permit. By signature, I acknowledge that I have read and understand this permit. Signature of this permit indicates that I and all authorized personnel listed below have read and agree to abide by all Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) "Sea Turtle Conservation Guidelines" that pertain to the authorized activity(s) listed on this marine turtle permit. I understand that it is my responsibility to transmit all future information updates to all authorized personnel listed on my permit. Permittee must provide a signed copy of this permit to the FWC address above to activate this permit. Authorized by: Robbin Trindell, Ph.D., Biological,;\.dministrator, Imperiled Species Management Authorizing Signature Qaul_jj d:--~ Date CJalfllfllJf~dO ~ Authorized Research Projects: None. Authorized Monitoring Projects: (1) Monitoring for Indian River Shores beach access (BBCS IR-507 as amended); 2/2000. Authorized Personnel: C. McConnel; S. Davis; C. Walker; M. Kimball; B. Grass; C. Vann; L. Herren; B. Sharpe; M. Virgilio; H. Stapleton; R. Robison; D. Powers; P. Lins; A. Lins. 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. All transfers of marine turtles or specimens into or out of the State of Florida must be accompanied by a specific consent permit from FWC. See attached Marine Turtle Monitoring for beach restoration projects.

Marine Turtle Personnel Amendment Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Imperiled Species Management Section Tequesta Field Laboratory 19100 SE Federal Highway Tequesta, Florida 33469 (561) 575-5407 Richard M. Herren, M.S. Permit #: MTP-13-166 Indian River County County: Indian River 1801 27th Street Effective Date: 10/9/2013 Vero Beach, Florida 32690 Expiration Date: 12/31/2013 772-226-1569 As of the date below, the following personnel are authorized to perform the activities listed on Marine Turtle Permit #MTP-13-166. Authorized personnel: C. McConnel; S. Davis; C. Walker; M. Kimball; B. Grass; C. Vann; L. Herren; B. Sharpe; M. Virgilio; H. Stapleton; R. Robison; D. Powers; P. Lins; A. Lins; D. Maira; K. Hoffmann; S. Foster; O. Lazorik. This personnel authorization supersedes all others and must be attached to the turtle permit of most recent issue. This is not a permit and cannot be used as such. Authorized by: Meghan E. Koperski., Environmental Specialist II, Imperiled Species Management Authorizing Signature Date October 9, 2013 cc: ISM, Tallahassee Office Page 1 of 1 PERMIT NO. MTP-13-166 Personnel Amendment-D

APPENDIX B MAPS OF SENTINEL AREAS

SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CO~TYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 1801 27TH Street, Vero Beach FL 32960 772-226-1237 I 772-978-1806 fax www. ircgov.com February 27, 2013 JOSEPH J MILLER JR 404 NORRISTOWN RD R D #1 AMBER, PA 19002 RE: COUNTY SEA TURTLE PROTECTION REGULATIONS Dear Mr. MILLER: County records indicate you are the owner of a beachfront property located in unincorporated Indian River County. This letter is part of an annual mailing to all beachfront property owners regarding the county's sea turtle protection regulations. Please take time to look at the information provided in this letter. Background In 1987, Indian River County adopted sea turtle protection regulations that restrict beachfront lighting during sea turtle nesting season. Nesting season runs from March 1 to October 31 each year. Section 932.09 ofthe Indian River County Code of Ordinances sets forth parameters for artificial lighting, including requirements that: Lights illuminating buildings or associated grounds for decorative or recreational purposes shall be shielded or screened such that they are not visible from the beach, or turned off after 9:00pm during the period from March t to October 31st of each year. Lights illuminating dune crossovers or any areas oceanward of the dune line shall be turned off after 9:00pm during the period from March 1st to October 31st of each year. Window treatments in windows facing the ocean of single and multistory structures are required so that interior lights do not illuminate the beach. The use of tint or film on windows or awnings is preferred; however, the use of black-out draperies or shade screens are acceptable Beachfront lighting is regulated based on scientific documentation that such lighting can disorient sea turtle hatchlings. Disoriented hatchlings crawl toward artificial lighting instead of the ocean, and are subsequently eaten by predators, such as raccoons or stray cats, or they die from dehydration. In addition, adult turtles will frequently avoid nesting on lighted beaches.

The best way to ensure that your property does not have lights visible from the beach is to view it from various locations on the beach at night. Observations should be made from locations north and south of your property, 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 county 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 board-established compliance date. Indian River County has the privilege of being one of the most important sea turtle nesting areas in the Western Hemisphere. In addition, the county has a federally mandated Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Sea Turtles in accordance with its permit to help protect beachfront homes from storm erosion. The reduction of lighting impacts on nesting turtles is a part of the County's HCP. Therefore, your cooperation in minimizing beachfront lighting is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning sea turtle regulations, please do not hesitate to call the Indian River County Environmental Planning and Code Enforcement Division at (772) 226-1249. Sincerely, Roland M. DeBlois, AICP Chief, Environmental Planning

APPENDIX D MOBILE EDUCATION UNIT SUMMARY

Summary statistics and documentation of the Sea Turtle Mobile Education Unit set up for 14 Days in the City of Vero Beach beachfront parks in 2013. The display was staffed for approximately 6 hours per day for a total of 79 hours (including 2 rain shortened days). It consisted of a tri-fold mounting display with 9 topics, brochures, children s workbooks, 3 framed turtle posters, specimens, table, 3 chairs and a banner. The table below summarizes the number of people who visited. Local Visitor Unknown Overall AVG 13.0 12.4 9.3 28.4 MIN 3 7 0 12 MAX 20 27 39 52 TOTAL 123 123 115 361