HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES ON THE ERODING BEACHES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 2010 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared in Support of Indian River County s Incidental Take Permit (TE057875-0) 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, FLORIDA 32960
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Trish Adams HCP Coordinator U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 December 21, 2011 Ms. Adams, Enclosed is a copy of the 2010 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 2010 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 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 INTRODUCTION... 5 HCP ADMINISTRATION... 6 HCP TRAINING... 6 EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS... 7 COORDINATION BETWEEN COUNTY AND STATE AGENCIES... 7 COUNTY-AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS... 7 SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM... 8 BIOLOGICAL GOAL... 8 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES... 8 SURVEY AREAS... 9 SURVEY METHODOLOGY... 10 Personnel and Daily Monitoring Procedures... 10 Nest Marking, Monitoring and Evaluation... 11 DATA MANAGEMENT... 12 Organization... 12 Analysis and Definitions... 13 RESULTS NEST TOTALS, TRENDS AND CRAWL CHARACTERISTICS... 14 Nesting and Nesting Success... 14 Spatial Patterns... 15 Temporal Patterns... 16 Crawl Characteristics... 17 Crawl Obstructions... 18 RESULTS NEST FATE AND REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS... 19 Overall Nest Fate... 19 Loggerhead Reproductive Success... 20 Green Turtle Reproductive Success... 20 Leatherback Reproductive Success... 21 2010 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NESTING... 22 Disruptive Human Activities... 22 Human and Animal Presence on Crawls... 23 SENTINEL NESTS... 24 MONITORING AT HCP EMERGENCY PROJECT SITES... 24 CONCLUSION NEST MONITORING PROGRAM... 24 LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM... 25 PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTERS... 26 NIGHT-TIME LIGHTING EVALUATIONS... 26 DISORIENTATIONS... 27 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 1
CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS... 28 LIGHTING EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE... 29 EDUCATION PROGRAM... 29 PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM... 30 RACCOON PREDATION PLAN INTENTION... 30 CANINE PREDATION... 31 HUMAN PREDATION NEST POACHING... 32 MITIGATION... 32 STATUS OF CONSERVATION AREA AND RECREATION LAND PROPERTIES... 32 ARMORING CUMULATIVE TAKE... 32 SUPPORTING GRANTS AND PROJECTS... 33 MOBILE GIS GRANT TRIMBLE AND ESRI... 34 NESTING HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS GRANT NFWF... 34 FLORIDA LICENSE PLATE GRANT EDUCATION MATERIALS... 34 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT... 34 SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM ASSESSMENT... 34 LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT... 35 EDUCATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT... 36 PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT... 36 SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT... 36 UNFORESEEN AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES... 37 LITERATURE CITED... 38 ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS... 38 TABLES 1 17 FIGURES 1 14 APPENDIX A MARINE TURTLE PERMIT # 166 APPENDIX B MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH STATE APPENDIX C NEST MONITORING PROCEDURES APPENDIX D MAPS OF SENTINEL AREAS APPENDIX E PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTER INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 2
Indian River County Sea Turtle Habitat Conservation Plan 2010 Annual Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2004, Indian River County received an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The ITP authorized the incidental take of five species of threatened and endangered sea turtles causally related to shoreline protection projects 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 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 activities and implements a series of conservation programs to offset unavoidable take. This annual report describes the efforts that have been undertaken to carry out the HCP in 2010. The county authorized no emergency shoreline protection projects in 2010, therefore, most of the effort focused on the nest monitoring, lighting, predator control and education programs. This was the sixth year of this HCP. 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 12,770 sea turtle emergences were recorded during the 2010 nesting season. It was the most productive season since the inception of the HCP. Loggerheads (Caretta caretta) were the most abundant nesting turtle accounting for 81% of all emergences (5,120 nests). Loggerhead nesting was relatively high this year, which was in stark contrast to nesting decreases in recent years. Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) and leatherbacks (Dermochelys coriacea) also had relatively high nesting seasons (728 nests and 60 nests, respectively). As in years past, there were more nests deposited in the northern half of the county than in the southern half. Nesting began on March 29 and ended on October 22. Nesting success was 49% for loggerheads and 95% leatherbacks, but much lower for green turtles at 32%. Due to the Sector 3 Nourishment Project, a record 1,651 nests were marked for reproductive success (28% of the total). The mean emerging success was 69% for loggerhead and 68% for green turtle nests, however, when tidal wash outs and nest predations were included it dropped to 58% for both species. Leatherback emerging success was low at 40%. Potentially disruptive human activities recorded this nesting season included beach fires, unauthorized vehicles, illegal construction projects and deep pits (beach holes). In addition, there were dozens of cases where human tracks during the night were associated with abandoned nesting attempts. There were also numerous cases of fresh INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 3
dog tracks on top of new nests. This year raccoon predation was very low (0.1% of all nests), but three nests were excavated by a canine in the southern part of the county and 45 were dug up in the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. A coyote was responsible for most, but not all, of the canine predations. Beachfront lighting was a problem in 2010. Artificial lights caused a record number of hatchlings to travel in the wrong direction (5,755 documented). The highest number of disorientations were observed in the southern part of the county, but there were also many more than previously reported in the central and north part of the county. Education has been primarily through brochures, newspaper articles, news radio and beach signs. Direct discussions with beachgoers has been very successful also. Many hours were spent during the nesting season speaking with people who had questions about sea turtles. Brochures describing the HCP, coastal processes and sea turtle biology and conservation were set up in display cases in buildings and handed out on the beach. Education is clearly needed as there remains a general lack of knowledge regarding sea turtle biology and conservation. As there were no temporary or permanent armoring structures authorized by the county during 2010, there remains a balance of 2,676 linear feet of armoring remaining for the life of the ITP. However, the ITP does not account for Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) allowed structures. Seawalls placed on the beach outside the nesting season have instead gone through the state FDEP permitting process. FDEP is currently in the process of developing it's own HCP for these permits and other impacts managed through their coastal program. In addition, recent seawalls and county initiated nourishment projects have temporarily eliminated some of the vulnerable and HCP eligible structures on the beach. At the same time, the HCP program's that benefit sea turtles have become more effective. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 4
INTRODUCTION Barrier islands in the southeastern United States are frequently battered and rearranged. Geologists describe this process as shoreface retreat, but in the context of coastal development, it is commonly called erosion. Approximately 71 percent of Indian River County's coastline is classified by the State of Florida as critically eroded. As structures close to the beach become increasingly vulnerable to physical damage, coastal property owners in Indian River County are seeking ways to protect their homes. Section 161, Florida Statutes (FS), and Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), set forth the rules and regulations governing the issuance of permits for shoreline protection activities along Florida s coastline. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, is the State agency that oversees this activity. However, if erosion resulting from a major storm threatens private structures or public infrastructure, and a permit for shoreline protection has not already been issued by FDEP, a political subdivision of the State may authorize its citizens to implement temporary protection measures. Indian River County was the first county in Florida to implement local emergency permitting authority under Section 161, FS. The county issued its first Emergency Permit in 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 of sea turtle 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) issued by the governing agency, which in this case is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In an effort to settle a disputed "take" of nesting sea turtles, Indian River County made formal application to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2003 for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. In its application, the county requested the incidental take of five species of sea turtles causally related to shoreline protection measures initiated under the county s emergency authorization. As a requirement of its ITP Application, the county developed a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the protection of sea turtles. The HCP (a) describes the geographical boundaries of the Plan Area, (b) characterizes the social, economic and environmental conditions along the county s coastline, (c) identifies natural and human factors potentially affecting sea turtle nesting on county Beaches, (d) describes measures that will be undertaken to minimize impacts to sea turtles during emergency shoreline INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 5
protection activities, and (e) proposes conservation measures to offset unavoidable take. After a review of the HCP and alternative actions to the proposed activities, the Service issued the county an ITP on December 1, 2004. 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. The following report addresses the activities conducted during 2010. 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 Herren since September 23, 2005. 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 was on staff prior to issuance of the ITP and primarily implements the county's Beach Management Plan as well as overseeing the county's other 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 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 there were no previous nest monitoring projects on the South County Beaches, and both 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 field work as well as managing the HCP. 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 (PPH), 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 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 6
several years to fully convert to a standardized monitoring program. Thus, the initial focus was placed on developing the minimum standards needed to support the HCP. In subsequent years, expectations were expanded to meet the full monitoring requirements of the HCP. 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 16, 2010. The meeting was attended by 23 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 2009 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 and encouraging permit holders to seek help from the HCP Coordinator, if needed. Lastly, new research projects and technologies were discussed for future nesting seasons. EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS COORDINATION BETWEEN COUNTY AND STATE AGENCIES The ITP authorizes take of marine turtles incidental to the emergency shoreline protection activities authorized by the Permit. The county s permitting relationship with the State was formalized by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), executed on February 9, 2005. 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, 2005. A copy of the executed MOA is provided in Appendix B. COUNTY-AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS Between January 1 and December 31, 2010, 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 2010 calendar year. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 7
SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM BIOLOGICAL GOAL The biological goal of the HCP is to increase the productivity of the county s beaches for sea turtle nesting. This requires monitoring the county s shoreline to record detailed nesting data that can be analyzed and used in management decisions. Equally important has been the documentation of natural and anthropogenic factors affecting nesting and reproductive success. Due to the large number of sea turtle emergences in Indian River County, administration and coordination of the nest monitoring program requires the most time and effort of any portion of the HCP. As such, it is the primary focus of this report. As required by Condition 11.G.10 of the ITP, the entire Atlantic coastline of Indian River County was surveyed by permitted research groups during the 2010 nesting season. The county coordinated these activities and maintained a countywide nesting database. Because of the high nesting densities, the database is divided up into permit holder areas, each comprised of thousands of individual nesting crawls with standardized fields and attributes. In order to obtain consistent and accurate data, the county developed Standard Operating Procedures (SOP s) and offered training to Principal Marine Turtle Permit Holders and their monitoring personnel. This section provides a description of the nest monitoring program and presents the results of the 2010 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 original SOP was sent to the USFWS for review and approval on April 7, 2005 (see Appendix C) The SOP has essentially remained unchanged through the 2010 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 in 2010. As in years past, Permit Holders were encouraged to use a standardized data collection form developed by the HCP Coordinator. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 8
SURVEY AREAS Sea turtle monitoring in Indian River County was divided into six survey areas based on PPH jurisdictions and local municipalities (Figure 1). Most PPH's had one discrete survey area. The exceptions were the HCP Coordinator's permit area, which includes Indian River Shores (IRS), the City of Vero Beach (Vero) and South Indian River County (SIRC). The other exception was the Disney Group, which has the northern half of Indian River Shores and the core Disney area (see 2007 Annual Report). For the purposes of this report, the data from the Disney-surveyed and the county-surveyed portion of Indian River Shores were combined. Prior to the 2005 nesting season, the county placed 36 zone markers at one kilometer intervals throughout the entire 36 kilometer (22.5 mile) coastline. These were primarily used for sections of beach not previously surveyed or areas where old mile markers had not been maintained (such as in Indian River Shores and Vero Beach). Historical zone markers were still used in the northern portion of the county to maintain consistency in data reporting. A detailed description of each survey area from north to south follows: Sebastian Inlet State Park (SISP) Extending from Sebastian Inlet (FDEP Reference Monument R-1) south to monument R-11, SISP occupies the northernmost 3.2 kilometers (2 miles), or 8.9%, of the county s coastline. SISP consists entirely of state-managed public lands. This survey area was monitored by biologists from Ecological Associates, Inc. (EAI) in 2010, a private consulting firm under contract to Indian River County. Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge (ACNWR) The ACNWR survey area extends from the southern boundary of SISP (R-11) south approximately 8.0 kilometers (5 miles) to monument R-38. This area comprises about 22.3% of the county s coastline and includes federal lands, county parks, lands owned or managed by the county, the Town of Orchid and numerous private properties in unincorporated Indian River County. In 2010, this area was monitored by biologists from EAI as part of the Sector 3 county beach nourishment project. It is normally monitored by refuge personnel. Disney Vero Beach Resort (Disney) This area is referred to as the core Disney area. It stretches from monument R-38 south to monument R-45, a distance of approximately 2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles) and encompasses 5.8% of the county s coastline. The area includes single-family residences with extensive seawalls, a county park, condominiums and a resort. Monitoring was performed by Disney Animal Kingdom staff. Indian River Shores (IRS) The Indian River Shores survey area extends from monument R-45 south to R-74 for a distance of approximately 8.9 kilometers (5.5 miles), or 24.6% of the county s total coastline. It is comprised of the Town of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 9
Indian River Shores, which is largely developed with a combination of single- and multi-family residential units. The northern half of this area was surveyed by Disney Animal Kingdom Staff (kilometer nesting zones 13.5, 14, 15, 16 and 17). The southern half was surveyed by the HCP Coordinator and the volunteers on his permit. The break in the two areas occurs at the kilometer 18 marker just south of the John's Island Beach Club. City of Vero Beach (Vero) This survey area begins at monument R-74 and continues to monument R-95 for a distance of approximately 6.3 kilometers (3.9 miles). The area comprises 17.4% of the county's total coastline. The City of Vero Beach survey area is a mix of heavily developed single- and multi-family residential units, hotels, resorts, restaurants and City Parks. Many of these properties have seawalls. Surveys in this area were conducted by the HCP Coordinator and his group of volunteers. South Indian River County (SIRC) South Indian River County extends from monument R-95 to the St. Lucie County Line (south of monument R-119), a distance of approximately 7.6 kilometers (4.7 miles), or 21.0% of the county s coastline. Included within this area are mostly neighborhoods with single-family homes (some with seawalls), a few multi-family condominium complexes and a county park. A few open lands still remain in the very southern portion of this area. Surveys in this area were conducted by the HCP Coordinator and his group of volunteers. SURVEY METHODOLOGY Personnel and Daily Monitoring Procedures All sea turtle monitoring in the county was performed by individuals listed on Marine Turtle Permits issued by FWC s Imperiled Species Management Section. The permits are issued to Principal Permit Holders who are responsible for training the individual monitoring personnel listed on their permits and for ensuring adherence to FWC guidelines. As mentioned, each permit holder is responsible for a discrete survey area (see Figure 1). In 2010, there were three PPH's overseeing nesting surveys in the county. Erik Martin (EAI) in Sebastian Inlet State Park and 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 2010 (15 different people). Nesting surveys were conducted each morning on all beaches from March 1 to September 30, 2010. Nest monitoring continued periodically after September 30 at the discretion of each PPH. During the surveys, all nesting and non-nesting emergences INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 10
(false crawls) visible from the previous night were recorded on data sheets 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 and the precision ranged from less than a meter to approximately 6 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. Some crawls had multiple types of abandoned attempts. Obstacles (e.g., scarps, seawalls, beach furniture) that were less than a meter from nests and false crawls and, based on track changes, clearly affected the animals behavior were recorded. Disturbances by predators or people were also recorded. The crawl data for each survey area was sent to the county s HCP Coordinator at the end of the season for inclusion into a county-wide database. Nest Marking, Monitoring and Evaluation Sentinel nests Sentinel nests were marked in accordance with Condition 11.G.10.d (1) of the ITP to note the location of nests high on the beach in critically eroded areas. This provided a means of assessing the extent of nesting habitat should an emergency shoreline protection project be initiated at that location. Prior to the 2010 nesting 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 D). Sentinel nest areas included potential access points for large construction equipment. Critically-eroded areas with permanent armoring structures were excluded along with homes fronting a recently nourished beach. Each day the nesting survey was performed, monitoring personnel were asked to mark any nest deposited landward of the toe of the dune in these designated areas. Sentinel nests were marked with three wooden stakes surrounding the nest a minimum distance of three feet with orange flagging tape wrapped around the stakes. Nests at emergency shoreline protection project sites Survey personnel were required to monitor emergency shoreline protection project sites and implement appropriate measures to protect nests from construction impacts. Nests could either be relocated, if authorized by FWC, or marked for avoidance. In addition, a representative sample of nests outside of project sites were to be marked and monitored daily to allow for an evaluation and comparison of nest fate and/or reproductive success. Since there were no emergency shoreline protection projects initiated by the county during 2010, no nests were marked for this purpose. Nests marked for reproductive success In all county survey areas, a representative sample of nests was marked and monitored to allow for an evaluation of overall nest fate and reproductive success. The sample marked for each species and within each survey area was at the discretion of the PPH and varied among study areas. Nests marking techniques also varied among study areas. The most common technique was a combination of three stakes surrounding the nest with flagging tape and/or two or INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 11
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. All marked nests were monitored daily for signs of hatchling emergence, tidal overwash, nest predation, vandalization, or other signs of disturbance. Nests were presumed to be washed out if all the markers surrounding the nest were washed away and field personnel found nothing when they excavated the area. Additionally, when hatchlings emerged from a nest, the paths of the hatchlings were examined to determine if they were oriented toward the ocean. If observed, hatchling disorientations were recorded at all marked and unmarked nests. Standard FWC disorientation forms were filled out and sent to FWC, while a copy was provided to the HCP Coordinator. Instead of mailing, these forms were usually digitally scanned and emailed to FWC, the HCP Coordinator and, later, the appropriate local authority. The local authority was either the County Environmental Planning Department, Town of Indian River Shores, Town of Orchid 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, nest contents were re-buried in the egg cavity and marking stakes were removed from the beach (see the section on Analysis and Definitions below). DATA MANAGEMENT Organization Beginning in 2005, nesting data gathered by various permit holder groups in the county were 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 Access was time consuming and repetitive. Since 2007, the "county-wide database" has become a series of Excel spreadsheets. Each permit holder was asked to submit a spreadsheet with identical SOP required fields. These were based on the standard field collection form. The Excel spreadsheets from each permit holder group were edited and cleaned so they all had the same fields and formats. Excel database formulas were used to retrieve and summarize the data. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 12
Analysis and Definitions Nesting success, defined as the percentage of total emergences on the beach that result in a nest, was used to assess the post-emergence suitability of an area. Nesting success was calculated by dividing the total number of nests by the number of emergences (nests and false crawls combined) and multiplying 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. 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 wave or tidal action. Depredated clutch partially or completely destroyed by predators. Vandalized stakes used to mark nest completely removed or disturbed by people so the precise nest location could not be determined. Nested On By Another clutch mixed or impacted by another nesting turtle. Could Not Evaluate nest contents could not be evaluated due to logistical problems, advanced decomposition or other uncontrollable factors. Did Not Find cases where the clutch was never located at the time of deposition or the stakes were not in the correct location. Mean clutch size, hatching success, emerging success, and mean incubation period were determined for excavated nests by the following formulae: Clutch size (total number of eggs in a nest) = number of hatched eggs + number of unhatched eggs. Hatching success (turtles completely removed from their eggshells) = (number of hatched eggs / clutch size) X 100. Emerging success (turtles that hatched and successfully emerged from the egg chamber) = {(number of hatched eggs minus the number of live and dead hatchlings in the nest) / (clutch size)} X 100. This value is considered a more INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 13
conservative measure of reproductive success because it includes both hatched and emerged turtles. Incubation period = inclusive period (days) from the date of egg deposition until the first sign of hatchling emergence. 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.) or emergence. RESULTS NEST TOTALS, TRENDS AND CRAWL CHARACTERISTICS Nesting and Nesting Success There were 12,770 sea turtle emergences recorded during the 2010 nesting season (Table 1). The majority of nesting sea turtles were loggerheads, Caretta caretta, (81.3%), while the green turtle, Chelonia mydas, and leatherback, Dermochelys coriacea, accounted for 18.0% and 0.7% of the crawls, respectively. Of the total number of crawls, 5,935 resulted in a nest, yielding an overall nesting success of 46.5% for all species and all areas combined. Loggerhead and green turtle nesting success was 49.3% and 31.7%, respectively. Leatherback nesting success was 94.6%. These totals do not include an additional 1,132 crawls that were recorded below the most recent high tide line. The majority of those were false crawls (97%). Loggerhead, green turtle and leatherback nesting were higher than last year. An analysis of the long-term trend revealed that loggerhead and leatherback nesting were the highest on record since county-wide surveys began in 2005. Green turtle nesting was the third highest (Figure 2). Over the last six years, green turtle and leatherback nesting showed a cyclical up and down pattern, while loggerheads had more of a flattened trend with the exception of this years increase in nesting. The dramatic up and down pattern observed in greens and leatherbacks probably reflects a regular two-year remigration interval combined with a relatively smaller female population (Miller, 1997; Witherington et al. 2006). In addition, there have been exponential increases in both green turtle and leatherback nesting statewide since Index Nesting Beach Surveys began in the late 1980's (Witherington and Koeppel, 2000). It is safe to say that more and more these sea turtles have been coming to our beaches in recent decades. More troubling, however, has been the significant drop in loggerhead nesting since the late 1990's (Witherington et al. 2009). The 2010 nesting season has, in a small way, reversed that trend. Loggerhead nesting in Indian River County mirrored increases in nesting statewide. A binomial regression line was used to analyze the Indian River County nesting data from 2005 2010 (Figure 3). The line fit the data well (R 2 = 0.82) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 14
and described a trend of decreased nesting in 2006 and 2007, followed by a gradual increase, which peaked in 2010. The suggestion was, of course, for the upward trend to continue. However, we can only guess at whether nesting in 2011 will exceed 2010 and continue to increase. If it does, it will come at time when concern for the loggerhead nesting assemblage in the Southeastern U.S. has reached a fever pitch, including a pending federal decision to uplist the species from threatened to endangered status. 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 4). The amount of nesting in the Town of Indian River Shores and on South Indian River County Beaches was similar and in between the high and low densities. Loggerhead nesting success was highest in Sebastian Inlet State Park and lowest in the Disney area (Table 2). As mentioned in previous reports, this was likely due to the Summerplace seawall and the frequent night-time human traffic in the Wabasso Beach Park Disney Resort beaches. In addition, an upland beach nourishment project, Phase 1 of Sector 3, may have also contributed to the lower loggerhead nesting success (Ecological Associates Inc., 2011). So far, these results are similar to previous years, showing more loggerhead nesting in the north part of the county, peaks in nesting in ACNWR, Indian River Shores and South IRC Beaches, decreases in Vero Beach and lower nesting success in the Disney area. A spatial analysis by kilometer zone revealed fluctuations in nest numbers, with peaks in kilometer zones 6, 17 and 30 and much lower nesting in zones 11, 23, 24 and 28 (Figure 4). These results are similar to previous years with the lower nesting zones strongly associated with disruptions such as seawalls, lights and people. Loggerhead nesting success was at or above the 50% baseline in 13 of the 36 kilometer zones or 36% of all zones (Figure 5). The lowest nesting success occurred in zone 11. As mentioned, this area includes the Summerplace seawall and a narrow beach that was recently nourished. To a lesser extent, lower nesting success also occurred in zones 27, 28 and 35. While these areas have some human activity at night, the beaches themselves were also wide and flat. There is some evidence that wide, flat beaches are unattractive to loggerheads (Herren, 1999). Green turtles nested throughout the county, but as in years past, nesting was more abundant in the northern half (Table 3; Figure 6). The average crawl density was seven times higher in Indian River Shores, Disney and ACNWR than in Vero Beach and SIRC. Two kilometer zones in Vero Beach and South Indian River County had just 3 nests. In contrast, the peak in green turtle nesting was in zone 9 in the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge (83 nests). This pattern has continued since countywide surveys began. Low nesting in the south part of the county may be because green turtles are known to prefer steeper and sparsely populated beaches (Witherington et al. 2006). These two factors are lacking in the southern part of the county. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 15
Nesting success for green turtles was extremely low in the Disney area (Table 3). There were nearly 6 false crawls for every nest on this beach. The Disney area was in the first phase of a beach nourishment project in 2010 (Sector 3). Green turtles tend to be more sensitive to changes in beach profile than other sea turtles and, therefore, nesting success typically suffers immediately following a nourishment or dune restoration project (L.M. Ehrhart, pers. com.; Herren, 1999; Herren, 2009; EAI, 2011). Ironically, nesting success was highest in the south county where nest densities were relatively low. Leatherback nesting was relatively high this year and nesting occurred in all the survey areas (Table 4; Figure 7). By far, the highest nesting was in the middle of the county in Indian River Shores. The highest number of nests was in zone 16 with 8 leatherback nests. This area has low density housing and is relatively quiet during most of the summer. The beach itself is moderately sloped and intermediate in width. As is typical of this species, nesting success was very high at 95%. Temporal Patterns The first recorded sea turtle emergence in the county was from a leatherback on March 29, 2010 (Table 1). That emergence was in Indian River Shores and was a nest. Leatherbacks nested in higher numbers in April and May and then tailed off. Most leatherback nests were deposited in May (Figure 8). The last nest was recorded relatively late on August 3 in IRS. The first loggerhead emergence and nest in the county was recorded in ACNWR on April 25, 2010. However, loggerhead nesting was relatively slow during most of May (Figure 8). Nesting increased in June and peaked in the middle of July. Nesting gradually declined through August and September. The last loggerhead nest was deposited on September 12 in the ACNWR. The first green turtle emergence was recorded in the Disney area on June 6, 2010. The first nest was recorded on June 12 in Vero Beach. Green turtle nesting was slow to get started and peaked in July and August (Figure 8). Nesting gradually declined in September with the last nest deposited relatively late on October 22 in the ACNWR. Nesting in 2010 was somewhat delayed in comparison to past years. The lag during most of the season was about two weeks. A probable explanation was the relatively cooler ocean temperatures during the spring of 2010. Coastal water temperatures were about 5 to 10 degrees F cooler due to persistent upwelling events in Spring 2010. Cooler water temperatures tend to slow down sea turtle nesting activity (pers. observation). The 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 (Figure 8). This kind of information was provided to INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 16
the public as part of a continuing sea turtle education program (see Education Program). Crawl Characteristics Turtles coming ashore go through distinct nesting phases on the beach. At any time before depositing eggs they may abandon their nesting attempt. The amount of digging they leave behind can provide clues as to the suitability of the nest site. Most abandoned nesting attempts (i.e. false crawls) tend to be continuous or uninterrupted crawls. In 2010, the average proportion of loggerhead crawls over all study sites was 63% continuous, 31% abandoned body pits and 9% abandoned egg chambers (Table 5). The later 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 SISP. The ACNWR had the highest proportion of crawls with abandoned egg chambers. In contrast, the Disney area had the highest proportion of continuous crawls and, conversely, the lowest proportion of abandoned body pits and egg chambers (Table 5). Although it can be difficult to determine the reason for these abandoned attempts, seawalls, scarps and the presence of people on the beach are disturbances known to turn turtles around fairly quickly without any nest preparation. These types of disturbances and false crawls were commonly reported in the Disney study area. In contrast, the higher proportion of the abandoned digging attempts in SISP and ACNWR suggests that something about the sand was not suitable (e.g. compacted or too soft) or that turtles in this area were more likely to be disrupted by unknown factors after they had decided to dig in the sand. These results are similar to years past. However, there appeared to be more abandoned digging attempts in 2010 over all study sites. This could be attributed to the lack of significant rainfall during much of the summer. Turtles often have trouble digging in the sand during drought conditions (Herren, unpublished data). As with loggerheads, most green turtles that did not nest turned around and went back into the water (Table 6). However, the difference between continuous crawls and abandoned digging attempts was not as dramatic as with loggerheads. The exception, of course, was the Disney area. In the Disney area, 89% of all green turtle crawls were continuous, which was a figure 35% higher than the average for the entire county. Green turtle continuous false crawls in the Disney area were most likely due to the same reasons given above for loggerheads. However, abandoned digging attempts for both turtles appear to be under-reported in this area (see below). Nevertheless, green turtles are known to be more sensitive to human disturbance and changes in beach characteristics (L.M. Ehrhart, pers. com.). The spatial distribution of abandoned digging attempts was varied across kilometer zones (Figure 9). In half of the 36 zones, abandoned body pits comprised at least 20% of the nesting attempts, whereas in two zones abandoned digging attempts were below 10%. Peaks in abandoned digging attempts occurred in zones 4, 18, 25 and 34. With the exception of zone 25, which is in south Vero Beach and has some night-time human INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 17
activity, these zones were not areas associated with frequent human disturbance or obstacles. This suggests that in these areas the sand or other factors were probably the cause of the increased abandoned digging attempts. The distribution of abandoned digging attempts highlighted a caveat in the data (see also Sea Turtle Nest Monitoring Program Assessment). The Disney surveyed zones (11 through 17) had much lower proportions of abandoned body pits and egg chambers than the rest of the county zones (Figure 9). A comparison with data collected at the same time and place by EAI for the Sector 3 nourishment project showed that abandoned digging attempts were likely higher in this area, but for some reason were not recorded by the Disney team. This was probably another reason why so many crawls in the Disney area were recorded as continuous. The potential flaw was pointed out to the Disney permit holder prior to the 2011 season in an effort to obtain better data in the future. Crawl Obstructions A small proportion of loggerhead false crawls were associated with obstructions in each study area (Table 5). Overall, 90% of the false crawls had no obstructions associated with them. However, 4% of the false crawls were associated with scarps, 3% with seawalls, 1% were dune cross-overs and 2% were 'other' obstructions (either beach furniture, boats or debris). Among individual study sites, the proportion of scarp obstructions was much higher in the Disney study area. The Disney area also had the highest proportion of seawall, dune cross-over and 'other' obstructions. This was not too surprising because this area has the most disruptive seawall (Summerplace) in the county along with a higher density of dune cross-overs and beach furniture. As in years past, the proportion of false crawls associated with obstructions reflected the relative abundance of these obstacles on the beach. For the second year in a row, the proportion of obstructions this year was lower than the previous year, particularly with regards to scarps and seawalls. This probably reflects the availability of quality nesting habitat and the condition of the beach, which, subjectively, appeared to be in pretty good shape in 2010. The green turtle obstruction data was similar to that seen in loggerheads (Table 6). The overall average showed that 88% of the green turtle false crawls were associated with no obstructions, 4% were scarps, 3% were seawalls, 2% were dune cross-overs and 3% were in the 'other' category. There were many more seawall obstructions in the Disney area than in the others. Scarp obstructions were also highest in the Disney area and much of that probably reflects the influence of the Sector 3 nourishment project. As in previous years, most green turtles attempted to nest closer to the dune. Because of this they were more likely to encounter seawalls, dune scarps and dune cross-overs. This year all study areas reported two types of scarps: the beach scarp and the dune scarp. Since there is little nesting habitat landward of dune scarps, they could be considered less of a barrier to nesting than a beach scarp, which occurs out on the beach berm. For the purposes of Table 6, beach scarps and dune scarps were combined. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 18
The distribution of crawl obstructions highlighted the problem areas for nesting sea turtles (Figure 10). Crawl obstructions were reported in this graph for both nests and false crawls since there were instances where turtles nested at the base of a barrier because they were restricted from going any further up the beach. As in years past, seawalls and scarps were more of a problem on the eroded beaches in the northern kilometer zones. Seawall obstructions were also a problem in the City of Vero Beach. In four northern zones (8, 9, 10, 11), obstructions were associated with over 15% of all the crawls. Nevertheless, this figure was half the proportion recorded last year in these zones. A likely explanation for this was the excellent shape of the beach in 2010 and the recent nourishment projects, which widened the beach. Dune cross-over obstructions were much less frequent, but their occurrence was widespread across most zones, especially 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 (mostly the Vero Beach Inn) and a few neighborhoods in south Indian River County (notably Atlantis). Many of these places have equipment on the beach year round, ranging from chairs to beach umbrellas. The "other" category included such things as fences, nesting stakes and debris (e.g. large pieces of dead wood). This year nesting stakes were more of a problem in the Sector 3 area due to the thousands of nests marked for that project. It is important to note that some turtles nest after encountering obstructions. In these cases, the obstacle usually forces the turtle to nest seaward of it. Because of this, nests may be located in areas of the beach vulnerable to tidal wash-overs. Obstacles such as beach furniture were not much of a problem in isolated cases. However, when they were more abundant, they were more of an issue because turtles were forced to nest elsewhere. RESULTS NEST FATE AND REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS Overall Nest Fate Marked nests were divided up into two types: nests where the clutch was located the morning after deposition (initially found) and nests where the clutch was found after emergence. Countywide, there were 1,651 sea turtle nests of both types marked for reproductive success in 2010 (Table 7). This number was twice as much as last years total, which was due primarily because of extra nests marked for the Sector 3 nourishment project. The total number of marked nests this year represented 28% of all the nests recorded in the county. This number is worth mentioning because many beachgoers mistakenly assume that every nest on the beach is marked with stakes and flagging tape. Of the 1,651 marked nests, 217 (13%) were marked, but the clutch was not found until after an emergence was observed (Table 7b). As mentioned in previous reports, this INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 19
kind of marking effort is difficult to avoid (particularly for leatherbacks), but introduces a bias in the reproductive success data. As such, these results were not the focus of this section. Of the marked nests where the clutch was initially found, 1,128 (79%) were excavated to determine reproductive success (Table 7a). The remaining nests that could not be evaluated fell into the following categories: 187 (13%) were washed out by the tide; 30 (2%) were destroyed by predators; 1 (0.1%) had the stakes vandalized so the nest location could not be found; 13 (1%) were nested on by another turtle; 41 (3%) emerged, but could not be evaluated, largely because they were washed away; 15 (1%) could not be evaluated due to logistical problems; and, 19 (1%) could not be found. Attempts were made to locate all marked nests and assign a fate. Washed out and depredated nests were considered complete failures for purposes of reproductive success. Because of the bias of marking nests without finding the clutch, the results below include only those that were located the morning after deposition. Loggerhead Reproductive Success There were 924 loggerhead nests excavated for reproductive success (Table 7a). Of those excavated, 54 did not emerge at all (0% emerging success). Most loggerhead nests that could not be evaluated were either washed out by the surf or were depredated. Reproductive success statistics for loggerheads varied between study areas (Table 8). The mean clutch size across all areas ranged from 97.8 to 110.2 eggs and the mean incubation period ranged from 48.8 to 50.7 days. Hatching success was highest in Vero Beach (80.8%) and the lowest in SISP (68.5%). SISP had a 6% decrease from hatching to emerging success, which meant the hatchlings were having more difficulty escaping the nest in that area. The causes for this were unknown, but may have to do with soft, dry sand. Emerging success when predations and washed out nests were included (both assumed to be 0% success) was lowest in SISP at 52.0%. There was a disproportionate number of loggerhead nests marked in IRS, Disney and ACNWR for the Sector 3 nourishment project. However, an analysis of the Sector 3 nests revealed no significant differences in hatching and emerging success between the treatment beaches (nourished) and control beaches (EAI, 2011). When all of the loggerhead reproductive data were combined, the overall mean clutch size was 101.1 eggs per nest, with a range of 18 to 197 eggs (Table 9a). The mean hatching success for all inventoried loggerhead nests was 72.4% and the mean emerging success was 69.3%. Emerging success dropped to 57.8% when predation and wash outs were included. The mean incubation period was 49.8 days and ranged from 43 to 66 days. Green Turtle Reproductive Success There were 177 green turtle nests whose clutch contents were analyzed and 12 that were excavated, but were complete failures (Table 7a). Most of the green turtle nests INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 20
that were not excavated were due to tidal wash outs. The mean clutch size across study areas ranged from 107.9 to 128.6 eggs and the mean incubation period ranged from 49.4 to 54.1 days. The mean inventoried hatching success ranged from 66.5% in SISP to 85.0% in SIRC (Table 10). Green turtle nests in Indian River Shores had a mean decrease from hatching to emerging success that was just over 5%. This meant that hatchlings were having more trouble emerging in this area. When predations and washed out nests were included, green turtle emerging success in the Disney area dropped to 46.4%, which was the lowest in any area. The combined green turtle reproductive data resulted in a mean clutch size of 120.3 eggs, with a range of 28 to 213 eggs (Table 11a). The mean hatching success was 70.9% and the mean emerging success was 67.7%. When predations and wash outs were included in the data, emerging success dropped to 57.7%. The mean incubation period was 51.6 days. Like last year, green turtle reproductive success was only slightly lower than that of loggerheads. Leatherback Reproductive Success There were 50 marked leatherback nests in 2010 (Table 7). Out of those excavated, 27 had been initially found and 21 were located after they emerged. An examination of leatherback reproductive success across study sites was hampered by small sample sizes (Table 12). In some cases, like the Disney area, there was only one leatherback nest that was initially found. Out of the areas with at least two nests, mean hatching success was highest in SIRC and lowest in SISP. Mean emerging success was 12.5% lower than hatching success in SISP, which also had the lowest mean emerging success at 4.2%. An analysis of the combined leatherback reproductive data revealed a mean clutch size of 76.4 eggs with a range of 20 to 102 eggs (Table 13a). The mean hatching success was 43.6% and emerging success was 40.0%. Emerging success dropped another 4% to 36.0% when wash outs and predations were included. The incubation period ranged from 56 to 91 days with a mean of 69.0 days. Not surprisingly, the mean reproductive success values for loggerhead, green turtle and leatherback nests located after emergence showed a higher hatching and emerging success rate (see Table 9b, Table 11b and Table 13b). Weather Related Impacts to Nesting The weather patterns during the summer of 2010 resulted in relatively high temperatures and lower than normal rainfall. The 2010 rainy season was dominated by a persistent high pressure system over the southeastern U.S. This translated into higher than average summer temperatures and only sporadic rain events. According to the National Weather Service in Miami, some areas of Peninsular Florida received near normal levels of rainfall while others had rain amounts far below average (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/mfl/news/rainyseasonend2010.pdf) The higher temperatures and lower rainfall amounts on the coast in Indian River County affected INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 21
nest making (turtles had a harder time digging nests in the drier sand), emergences (there were documented cases of egg chamber collapses) and incubation periods (higher temperatures resulted in shorter days to emergence). Four late season storm events had an impact on reproductive success. High surf washed over nests in late August (Hurricane Danielle), early September (Hurricane Earl), mid September (Hurricane Igor) and early October ( Fall Nor'easter). These natural events are not unusual and tend to occur at this time every season. Nevertheless, they end up reducing the average reproductive success because many nests still incubating in September either get washed out or asphyxiate due to repeated wash overs by the tide. Out of all the marked nests, 13% were washed out by high storm surf. 2010 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 in violation of local ordinances. The three most commonly reported activities were beach fires, large holes and those in the "other" category (Figure 11). Fires were set largely on the beaches in south Indian River County. Specific neighborhoods included Castaway Cove, Treasure Cove, Wyn Cove, Smugglers Cove, Seagrove, Porpoise Point Lane North, Atlantis, Silver Sands Court, Sea Turtle Lane and Genesea Lane. This year there were also a few fires reported in northern Vero Beach (just south of Tracking Station Park), the Disney area and the Carr Refuge. Most fires were within close proximity of neighborhood beach access points or trails. In general, people believed there was no harm in starting a fire, yet there have been documented cases in Florida of fires killing hatchling sea turtles, not to mention causing them to crawl in the wrong direction. To date, no deaths have been recorded in Indian River County. Larger fires have been stopped by the Fire Department because of their size and proximity to homes. However, most of them go unenforced and there is no specific County Ordinance preventing them. Large holes refers to holes dug in the beach above the high tide line with a shovel. Most were over four feet deep and six feet wide. These pits were deep enough to excavate an existing nest, ensnare a sea turtle or injure a person and, as a result, they were filled in whenever possible. They were common near public beach parks, resorts or condominiums. It is worth noting that an adult loggerhead was killed when it fell into one of these large holes in Palm Beach County in 2009. The "other" category contained tents and treasure salvor anchors. Incidences of tent camping on the beach were often solved by talking to the people in question and asking them to break camp. Canopy tents have become more common on the beach. They INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 22
are used for shade and often left overnight on the beach for many days. Like beach chairs, these items are potential obstructions to nesting. Treasure salvor anchors were reported in Indian River Shores and the Carr Refuge. They were large anchors placed on the beach and used to anchor boats just offshore. In a permit agreement with the U.S. Fish and Service, these salvor anchors were supposed to be placed below the high tide line. However, those reported here were placed at or just above the high tide line in nesting habitat. The other potential problems included unauthorized beach driving, boats and loose dogs. Vehicle tracks from unauthorized motorcycles, ATV's and trucks were observed on the beach during the nesting season. One case in the Seagrove neighborhood involved a Jeep-type vehicle tearing up the dune and beach. FWC Law Enforcement became involved because a few marked nests were driven over. Because 72% of all nests were not marked with stakes and flagging tape, there could have been nests unknowingly impacted by vehicles. Furthermore, larger vehicles created deep ruts in the sand, which can be barriers to hatchlings. The nesting zones with the most impacts were 15, 29 and 33 (Figure 11). Speaking to beachgoers revealed that many were largely ignorant or misunderstood sea turtle conservation. For example, they mistakenly believed that all sea turtle nests on our beaches were physically protected. This has never been the case. Marking thousands of nests with stakes and flagging tape is logistically untenable and it would create numerous barriers for beachgoers and sea turtles alike. In addition, marking nests does not shield them from many human activities (such as artificial light). The main purpose for marking nests has been to evaluate reproductive success. Addressing potential impacts at the source and educating the public has been the primary management strategy. In other words, the best option to protect nests has been to leave them alone, report lighting violations and other illegal activities and become educated about the threats to nesting. Human and Animal Presence on Crawls Since the 2006 nesting season, the presence of people and dog tracks on new crawls has been recorded. Fresh tracks on crawls have been interpreted as unintentionally disruptive or just the presence of people and/or animals near the nest at the time it was deposited. As in years past, most of these in 2010 were recorded in zones 29 and 30 (Figure 12). Each year more and more people have been venturing out at night to watch sea turtles nest. Evidence of this behavior was seen in the numerous human tracks on fresh crawls. This year, people and dog prints were found on 9% of all the crawls in Vero Beach and South Indian River County. This proportion was twice that recorded in each of the last two years. In addition, 2% of these encounters were severe (Figure 12). Severe encounters meant that the tracks were numerous. They also involved evidence of incomplete nest covering and disoriented returns to the water. Because of the high number of nests recorded in 2010, there was a 53% increase in the number of crawls INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 23
with severe human disturbance over last year and a 450% increase over 2008. The data suggests a marked increase in people-turtle interactions. Neighborhoods with heavily used beach access points had the highest levels of these interactions. The presence of dog tracks on nests and false crawls occurred mostly in South IRC (Figure 12). The neighborhoods from Castaway Cove south to Ocean Oaks (six kilometer zones) continued to be focal points for dog activity. These areas also have had the highest level of domestic dog predation. Most of these people are probably responsible dog owners. Unfortunately, a problem can develop quickly when someone decides to let their animal dig in the sand and roam the beach unattended (see Predator Control Plan). SENTINEL NESTS Due to the recent beach nourishment projects, there were fewer sentinel nests marked in 2010. Only one nest was marked along the sentinel area at Surf, Pebble and Reef Lanes in southern Indian River Shores (Dorsey to Sposato Appendix E). Two more were marked on top of the dune between Humiston Park and the new development called Ocean Park. This area would be accessed with heavy equipment in the event of emergency beach armoring. All sentinel nests were loggerheads. They were not used for reproductive success sampling and when they emerged or at 70 days postdeposition, the stakes surrounding them were removed. MONITORING AT HCP EMERGENCY PROJECT SITES Since there were no emergency shoreline protection projects initiated by the county between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010, there were no specific sea turtle monitoring programs or emergency project-related impacts to turtles. CONCLUSION NEST MONITORING PROGRAM Nesting in 2010 was the highest since county-wide surveys began for both loggerheads and leatherbacks, and the third highest for green turtles. While green turtle and leatherback nesting has been significantly increasing statewide, loggerhead nesting has experienced significant decreases since 1998 (Witherington et al. 2009). While it is too early to tell, the higher loggerhead nesting this year may be a reversal of that trend. As in previous years, there were far more nests deposited in the northern portion of the county than in the southern portion. The southern half of the county, particularly Vero Beach, contains more people, buildings and lights. These are all potential nesting disruptions. In line with this reasoning, it should be noted that loggerhead nesting increased south of the City. The north to south difference in nesting density was especially sharp for green turtles, whose average crawl density dropped from 88 nests per kilometer in SISP, ACNWR, Disney and IRS to just 16 nests per kilometer in Vero Beach and SIRC (Table 3). This may be due to extensive beachfront development and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 24
historical nesting trends. The latter hypothesis is supported by persistently lower green turtle nesting in northern St. Lucie County (FWC, 2008). Nesting success was average for loggerheads, but much lower for green turtles. The lower nesting success for green turtles occurred in the northern part of the county and probably had a lot to do with the Sector 3 Project (EAI, 2011). Green turtles appear to be more sensitive to changes in the beach profile, particularly at the dune interface (L.M. Ehrhart, unpublished data). Largely because of the Sector 3 project, many more nests were marked this year to evaluate reproductive success. These nests were included in the reproductive success sample largely because a comparative analysis by EAI revealed there were no differences in reproductive success between the treatment (nourished) and control beaches. Like last year, emerging success was highest for loggerheads and lowest for leatherbacks with the average for both loggerheads and green turtles hovering around 70%. Leatherback emerging success was low at 44%. The largest impact to hatching and emerging success came from four storm events in late August through early October. These storms caused tidal over wash and, in some cases, washed nests away completely. It should be emphasized, though, that this is typical in active tropical storm years and only affects late season nests. This year represented the sixth 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 beach activities with the potential to harm nests and turtles. Only some of these are illegal under local ordinances. Law enforcement has been sporadic at best and many beachgoers mistakenly believe that all nests are protected. Education continues to be a primary tool to inform the public, generate interest in sea turtles and help manage these nesting beaches. 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). Prior to development of the HCP and issuance of the ITP, the Environmental Planning Department in the county reviewed plans for new coastal construction to make sure it conformed to lighting standards found in the county's ordinance. Additionally, the county mailed pre-season letters to beachfront property owners in unincorporated areas notifying them of the applicable lighting regulations. Through this HCP, the county committed to continue these activities over the life of the ITP. Initiation of a pro-active light management program is intended as compensatory mitigation for the take of sea turtles associated with shoreline protection measures. The county s light management program is outlined in section 11.5 of the HCP and is INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 25
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 2010. 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 2010, the county s Environmental Planning and Code Enforcement Office mailed the lighting letters to all affected property owners on February 26 (Appendix E). The letter describes the lighting parameters associated with the county code, methods for assessing beachfront lighting for compliance, methods for achieving compliance, and a general discussion of the 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. A night-time lighting evaluation was performed by the county and Ecological Associates Inc. on the evenings of May 26 and May 27 2010. Non-compliant and other potentially disruptive lights were identified during the inspection, and each non-compliant exterior light was given a rating with respect to its potential effect on sea turtles (problem codes ranged from 1 to 5, from most disruptive to least disruptive based on the light intensity and the area illuminated). For each non-compliant light source, recommendations were made for corrective measures to bring problematic lights into compliance. Property addresses were identified using a Trimble Mobile GPS/GIS unit equipped with ArcPad 7.0. The unit contained recent aerial photography and property shapefiles so locations could be identified in real-time. During the 2010 night-time lighting surveys, we noted that many properties with exterior fixtures had their lights turned off during the survey. Since these properties were only observed once throughout the entire season, some lights may have been turned on at other times. The most problematic lights were pole-mounted lights, wall-mounted lights and floodlights. A few streetlights remained a problem, but many of them, particularly in the south part of the county, were dramatically improved through a NFWF grant completed in 2009 (see the 2009 Annual HCP Report). As in years past, private single-family residences accounted for the highest number of non-compliant and/or potentially disruptive light sources (Table 14). This was followed INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 26
in order of decreasing frequency by condominiums, streetlights, clubhouses, hotels, parks and "other types" (e.g. resorts). Although there were more private homes with lighting problems, condominiums and clubhouses had more disruptive problem codes. Also, there were many more lights per violation on condominiums than in any other property type. Like last year, bright wall-mounted and pole-mounted lights were noted on the condominiums in the southern part of the county in the Moorings. Problematic lights were more frequent in the southern part of the county than in the northern part (Figure 13). There were more exterior lighting violations (73%) than interior lighting violations (27%; Table 14). In general, interior lighting tended to be less of a problem than exterior lights based on the area illuminated and the intensity of the light. In addition, interior lighting is often easily solved by using window screens or shades. Properties with lighting problems tend to fluctuate from year to year, but there remain a "core group" of the same lighting offenders every nesting season. Outside a few properties in the "core group", most people are willing to work out a solution to reduce their lights. In the end, the efforts of the county's environmental planning department and the reduction of public light sources through the NFWF in 2009 have helped to lower the number of exterior violations. The county lighting violations were mapped per kilometer (Figure 13). Lighting surveys were not conducted in the City of Vero Beach or Indian River Shores so those areas were not included in the spatial distribution. The peak in the number of violations per kilometer was in zone 33. Zone 33 contains the condominiums of the Moorings, and the neighborhoods of Atlantis, Seaside and St. Christopher Beach. In general, the neighborhoods in the south part of the county have had problematic lights since the inception of the HCP. DISORIENTATIONS In 2010, there were 114 nest disorientations recorded in the county. This was twice the number of disorientations recorded last year and the most since the inception of the HCP Lighting Program. Most of these were from loggerhead nests, but 13% were from green turtle and leatherback nests (Table 15). A total of 5,755 sea turtle hatchlings were disoriented during these events. There were many more nests recorded in Indian River Shores and the north part of the county in 2010. However, it was impossible to tell whether this was due to increased lighting problems or increased vigilance on the part of observers. The Sector 3 project certainly contributed to increased surveyors on the beach and may have played a role in the high number of recorded disorientations. The areas with the highest number of lighting violations also had the highest number of disorientations (Figure 13). However, there was not a one-to-one relationship between lighting violations and disorientations partly because one disruptive light can lead to many disorientations. In addition, there were no night-time lighting surveys conducted in the central part of the county. Even though the picture was incomplete, there were INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 27
areas of increased lighting violations that corresponded to increases in disorientation events. There continued to be a lot of spatial variability in disorientations. For example, disorientations were reported up in Sebastian Inlet State Park where there were few discernible beachfront lights. One hypothesis was that bright lights from the City of Sebastian on the west side of the Indian River Lagoon may be the cause (urban glow was not reported during night-time lighting evaluations, but was reported on disorientation forms). The main reason, as mentioned in previous reports, was probably an under-reporting of disorientations combined with lighting surveys that were just one snapshot in time. All original sea turtle disorientation reports were provided to the FWC Tequesta Field Laboratory, Imperiled Species Program and copies were sent to Code Enforcement offices in the county and municipalities as required by Condition 11.J.2.i of the ITP. CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS Under the provisions of the light management program, the county is required to enforce the lighting ordinance within unincorporated areas through code enforcement action, if necessary. All lighting violations from lighting surveys and disorientation reports were sent to code enforcement for processing. To make matters simpler, violations from the night-time lighting survey report were grouped from the least to most problematic. Exterior lights with codes 1 through 4 were the highest priority for code enforcement. The purpose was to focus limited resources on the most disruptive lighting problems. City and county code enforcement staff sent warning letters to property owners with problematic exterior lighting violations and notified them to voluntarily address the issues. The letters sent to the worst lighting offenders, at least in some cases, had an effect. Oftentimes, the property owner would just turn off existing flood or pole lights. Unfortunately, many of these changes were short-term fixes and not designed to last. The HCP Coordinators office was not aware of any property that was subject to formal code enforcement action or brought to the attention of the code board. In the meantime, some properties were persuaded by the warning letters to make temporary modifications. In 2010, the HCP Coordinator collaborated with code enforcement officials in Vero Beach and Indian River Shores. Lighting violations and/or disorientation reports were sent to these officials for processing. In the case of Vero Beach, FWC has had numerous past meetings and conducted several night-time lighting surveys with their code enforcement staff to address lighting problems. In 2007, the Vero Beach City Council voted to strengthen it's lighting ordinance under the direction of FWC to make it more clear and enforceable. The language in the new code was heavily borrowed from the State's Model Lighting Ordinance. These changes went into effect immediately and have made it easier to pursue lighting violations. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 28
LIGHTING EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE In all correspondence sent out to property owners regarding lighting issues, the phone numbers of the HCP Coordinator and County Environmental Planner were listed to help with lighting questions. In addition, some lighting cases were referred to the State of Florida, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for additional help. The HCP Coordinator worked closely with code enforcement staff in the local municipalities as well as property owners. In some cases, night-time visits were made to a few properties to evaluate lighting changes. All property owners were reminded that the county biologist (HCP Coordinator) could act only as an expert in recommending solutions and not as a certifying entity. The latter task falls on local code enforcement and state and federal regulatory agencies. EDUCATION PROGRAM Under Condition 11.G.11.d of the ITP, the county developed written literature intended to enhance public awareness of coastal erosion and the HCP. In a collaborative effort, the brochure was created in 2006 by the Sea Turtle Conservancy (formerly the Caribbean Conservation Corporation) and Ecological Associates, Inc. Specifically, the brochure provided information related to coastal processes, erosion, the county s HCP, the emergency shoreline protection permitting process and alternatives to coastal armoring. Additionally, the brochure provided basic information on sea turtle protection and contains a listing of local, State, and federal contacts pertinent to sea turtles and beach erosion. The brochure was placed on a rack that was located in the county library, hotels and the Indian River Mall in 2010. Out of the original 6,400 brochures, approximately 950 remained at the end of 2010. In addition to the HCP erosion awareness brochure, other sea turtle brochures were obtained from the Ocean Conservancy, Disney, Caribbean Conservation Corporation, UF / St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension Office and Florida Power and Light. These brochures were placed in a large acrylic poster display case and two small table top display cases that were on loan from the UF / St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension Office. The displays were placed in the county Administration Building, the main county library and the Indian River Mall. In addition, a watertight Pelican case was filled with brochures so they could be taken on the beach and handed out during nesting surveys. In 2010, the county biologist spent between 30 and 60 minutes on each nesting survey speaking to beachgoers about sea turtle nesting and conservation. There were four articles in 2010 in local newspapers regarding sea turtles with contributions from the HCP Coordinator. The first was published in the Vero Beach Press Journal on April 19 2010. Subsequent articles appeared on June 29, November INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 29
28 and November 30 in the Press Journal. All the articles dealt with the nesting season with the exception of the November 30 article which dealt with the perception of this coastline as either natural or built up. In addition to the written press, the HCP Coordinator was on public news radio (1490 AM) six times in 2010 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 in 2010 (see SUPPORTING GRANTS AND PROJECTS). In addition, a total of 19 nests were marked in front of busy neighborhoods and public parks strictly for education purposes. Information regarding current sea turtle nesting trends and past HCP reports was 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 the principal form of mitigation for the take of sea turtles causally related to shoreline protection. The overall goal of the PCP was 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 PCP to the Service for review and approval within six months of the effective date of the ITP. The draft Predator Control Plan, which was submitted to the Service on June 1, 2005, specified nest predator monitoring, 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 reason for the delay in approval and implementation of the PCP was due to the low level of raccoon predation within the ACNWR or, for that matter, anywhere else in the county. It is not known whether independent predator control efforts conducted by refuge have been responsible for the low level of raccoon 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 number of nests depredated by raccoons in 2010 was 8 (Figure 14). As in years past, most raccoon predations occurred in the ACNWR study area. Raccoon predation INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 30
events represented 0.1% of all the nests deposited in the county or 0.3% of the nests deposited in the ACNWR. Raccoon predations have decreased since 2007 (Table 16). The recent low level of raccoon predation may be due to past trapping efforts and increased habitat loss. The ACNWR continued a predator control program in 2010 with the USDA Animal Control Services. Almost all of effort was focused on trapping in the Brevard County portion of the refuge because there were few predations in Indian River County. The object was to focus on trapping raccoons. However, since 2008, it became clear that canine predation was becoming more of a problem in the refuge (Table 16). CANINE PREDATION Nest predation by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) had probably been occurring at a low level for many years. In 2006, 38 nests and roughly 4,370 eggs were destroyed by canines in the southern part of the county. Based on field evidence, a majority of these depredations were probably from domestic dogs. After convening a series of meetings in 2006 and 2007, an effort was put together to educate residents, coordinate with law enforcement and trap, if necessary. Education and law enforcement became the primary tools to deter the problem and they were largely successful. In 2010, there continued to be domestic dog predations in the southern part of the county, but they have been relatively few. In 2010, two nest predations and two nest scavenged were attributed to domestic dogs. Almost all of these were in the southern part of the county. There were many dogs and fresh dog prints on nests, yet it appeared that most dog owners have gotten the message that allowing their animals to dig in the sand can cause harm to turtle nests. While canine predation has been relatively low in the southern part of the county, it has risen in the northern part. By 2008, another canid, the coyote, (C. latrans) was implicated in nest predations in the refuge. In the winter of 2009, refuge staff first reported seeing a coyote on the barrier island west of Highway A1A in the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (PINWR). That year 71 nests were dug up by canines in the refuge and most were attributed to at least one coyote. As a result leg-hole trapping was employed in 2009 and again in 2010 to capture the animal, which was apparently living in the largely undeveloped government owned lands in the PINWR. Out of the 45 canine nest predations in the refuge in 2010, all but one was probably coyote (Figure 14). A meeting with USDA Animal Control Services, PINWR/ACNWR staff and the county occurred on March 15 th 2010. The HCP Coordinator supplied the refuge and USDA personnel with maps of past canine predations and "hot spots." Unfortunately, tracks of domestic dogs and coyotes have strong similarities and, in this case, they were not diagnostic. In the end, the coyote was not caught in 2010, but there was a sighting on August 3 just west of A1A. Subsequently, wildlife cameras were purchased by the USFWS and set up in habitat in the PINWR in the winter of 2010 2011. A coyote was INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 31
photographed on January 14 th, 24 th and 31 st 2011 in this area, confirming it's presence on the barrier island. It is the intent of the HCP Coordinator to continue efforts to curtail canine predation as a part of the PCP. In addition, the draft PCP in it's current form needs to be rewritten to focus on canine predation. However, unlike raccoons, stopping canines from digging in nests (whether domestic dogs or coyotes) is a complex task. In the case of domestic dogs, it is also an understandably sensitive subject. The City of Vero Beach Police Department, USFWS refuge personnel, USDA Animal Control Services and Indian River County Animal Control have contributed significant resources in this effort. Yet, just like our nesting survey personnel, these groups cannot be on the beach at all times. Ultimately, help will also be needed from the public to report digging dogs, stray 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 low amount of egg poaching throughout the state. In 2010, there were no nests reported as poached in Indian River County. MITIGATION STATUS OF CONSERVATION AREA AND RECREATION LAND PROPERTIES Between 1996 and 1998 Indian River County cost-shared in the purchase of several beachfront properties, collectively referred to as the Jungle Trail Conservation Area (JTCA), comprising 110 acres of barrier island coastal habitat. The properties were purchased and managed for conservation and passive recreation. The preservation of these properties as sea turtle habitat was offered as partial mitigation for unavoidable impacts to sea turtles resulting from shoreline protection measures initiated under the county s emergency authorization. Condition 11.G.11.f of the ITP requires the county to manage and maintain these parcels in their current state and describes the allowable modifications or improvements to the parcels. In 2010, all activities in the JTCA were conducted in accordance with the ITP. ARMORING 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 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32
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. 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 2010. 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 seawalls encompassing approximately 520 feet of shoreline (Table 17). Condition 11.G.9 of the ITP authorized 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 email of ITP issuance on December 7, 2004. 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 Florida's standard permitting process (CCCL Permits) 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. In 2008, FDEP in cooperation with FWC began developing a comprehensive state-wide HCP for it's coastal program. This HCP would encompass take from CCCL permitted shoreline armoring. 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 or 6% of the armoring 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. SUPPORTING GRANTS AND PROJECTS A number of supporting materials and grants were available in 2010 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. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 33
MOBILE GIS GRANT TRIMBLE AND ESRI In 2010, the Trimble and ESRI equipment obtained from this grant were used extensively to collect accurate nesting data in the field. Using this data, the HCP Coordinator has developed GIS databases, shapefiles and maps that have been used by state and federal regulatory staff for management of coastal resources and sea turtles (see past HCP reports for more details). NESTING HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS GRANT NFWF This National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant was completed in the summer of 2009. However, sea grape plants purchased with the grant continue to grow on private properties and the reduction in light visible on the beach from public fixtures has helped code enforcement, sea turtles and the Light Management Program. Please see the 2009 Annual Report for more detail. Copies of the NFWF final report are available from the HCP Coordinator or www.nfwf.org. 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 and 2010 nesting seasons. The grant was through the Florida Sea Turtle License Plate 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. The signs created previously were revised in 2010 by working with a local company. These durable PVC signs were weather-resistant, contained education information and were designed to be specific to each turtle species. The signs have been used on nesting stakes since 2007. In 2010, they provided an education device at the location of all marked nests. Copies of the signs have also been disseminated to several other marine turtle permit holders in the state for use as templates to create their own signs. The signs were recovered to be used again for the 2011 nesting season. 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 ASSESSMENT The nest monitoring program has been the cornerstone of this HCP and has required the most time and effort. This is largely due to the high density nesting that occurs in INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 34
Indian River County. Significant gains in this program have been made in terms of the collection of quality data from individual permit holder groups. There continue to be improvements in the quality of GPS locations and the reporting of crawl obstructions, human disturbances and predation events. More importantly, the data received from permit holders has closely matched the spreadsheet database format used by the HCP coordinator. This has meant less post-processing after the data was received. Communication and data reporting problems existed in 2010 largely for two reasons. First, the Sector 3 Beach Nourishment Project and the attention paid to it meant that Ecological Associates, Inc., the contractor for the project, was conducting nesting surveys on a large portion of the north county beaches. While EAI staff have been excellent in the past at collecting nesting data, they were focused more on Sector 3 and had new employees that needed reminders about HCP data requirements. Second, the Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill that occurred in April 2010 drew many of EAI's most experienced field biologists to the Gulf of Mexico for the entire summer. The result was there was some confusion from the people on the beach as to what exactly they needed to be collecting for the HCP. In short, their needed to be greater communication due to the Sector 3 Project and the Oil Spill. The advantage of Sector 3 was that EAI was surveying concurrently with the Disney people. This was because Disney did not want to stop nesting surveys and nest marking on their beach. As a result, comparisons could be made between what Disney collected and what EAI collected in the same area. The largest difference in the data was in the reporting of abandoned body pits and egg chambers. The Disney group has been under-reporting this data. This was brought up to them in early 2011 so they could correct it. While permit holders and volunteers have been working hard to provide HCP nesting data to the county, support from the county for this HCP has been dwindling. The HCP Coordinator does not have a work cell phone, a dedicated vehicle or any support staff. In addition, the county has no plans to fill the Coastal Resource Manager position, which was vacated in early 2010. All of this has been largely due to the severe economic recession that began in 2008 and resulted in substantial budget cuts. LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT The county's Light Management Program has been hard to maintain and improve largely due to lack of personnel. While lighting violations and disorientations are adequately reported, code enforcement action has been effective only for property owners who are willing. Only one environmental planning staff in the county deals with lighting problems and that position was vacated in September 2011. Nest disorientations were up in 2010, despite recent decreasing numbers of exterior lighting violations observed during night-time surveys. This may have been the result of increased effort on the beach in reporting disorientations. Also, there were more nests in 2010 than in recent years. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 35
Personnel with the county and municipalities who notify property owners about lighting issues should be commended. However, the hard work will be to pursue those properties that have repeated offences. Unfortunately, this requires additional staff and resources that are currently not available. EDUCATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT For years now, the education program has gotten significant help from partners in other agencies and non-profits. This comes in the form of dozens of brochures describing sea turtle biology and conservation that have been donated by the Sea Turtle Conservancy, the Ocean Conservancy, Florida Power and Light and the UF/St Lucie County Agricultural Extension Office. In addition to newspaper articles and radio talk shows, the HCP Coordinator gives several public presentations a year to diverse audiences. The county nesting team spends many hours on the beach each season 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 the education program could use additional help in all of it's facets. However, there remains a few dedicated individuals, who have done an admirable job of educating the public at every chance possible. PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT The county has not met the original intent of the PCP due to the unexpected low level of raccoon predation. In the areas where there has been a small amount of raccoon predation, minimal trapping has been conducted by personnel from the ACNWR or contractors with USDA. A USFWS predator control project in 2010 in the ACNWR was supported by the county. However, canine predation is still an issue with mixed coyote and domestic dog predation. The issue of canine predation has been difficult to solve. Coyotes are not easily trapped and there exists strong sentiments regarding the issue of curtailing the behavior of domestic dogs. Despite this, the recent focus on canine predation has met the intent of the predator control program. The county is committed to working with partners in animal control and wildlife offices as well as local communities in solving the complexity of these issues. As such, the PCP has evolved into an informal and diverse attempt to control predation. 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. Since it's inception, the completion of reports has been delayed each year. The current report is nine months late. The county has worked closely with the USFWS, Vero Beach Field Office, and kept them up to date on significant events during the 2010 nesting season. Results from the season have been sent to the Service in a timely manner, while completion of the report has lagged much farther behind. The report has been late, in large part, because of lack of resources and staff dedicated to working on the many INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 36
HCP programs. The HCP Coordinator recommends a minimum of two additional staff to help with data reporting, nesting surveys and implementing the light management plan, predator control plan and education program. UNFORESEEN AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES As defined in Section 11.K of the ITP, unforeseen circumstances are changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the HCP that could not reasonably be anticipated by the county or the USFWS at the time of HCP development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered species. There were no unforeseen circumstances in 2010. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 37
LITERATURE CITED Ecological Associates, Inc. 2011. Indian River County Sector 3 beach restoration project, results of 2010 sea turtle monitoring. Technical Report. Prepared for Indian River County. pp. 1-15. Herren, R.M. 1999. The effect of beach nourishment on loggerhead (Caretta caretta) nesting and reproductive success at Sebastian Inlet, Florida. M.S. Thesis. University of Central Florida. 150 pp. Herren, R.M. 2009. Sea turtle nest monitoring report for Indian River County beach restoration Sector 7 Post-nourishment, Year 2. Technical Report submitted to DEP-FWC. 1-27 pp. Miller, J.D. 1997. Reproduction in sea turtles. In: Lutz, P.L. and Musick, J.A. (eds.) The Biology of Sea Turtles. New York: CRC Marine Science Series. pp. 51-81. Witherington, B.E. and Koeppel, C.M. 2000. Sea turtle nesting in Florida, USA, during the decade 1989 1998: an analysis of trends. In: Kalb, H.J. and Wibbels, T. (compilers). Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-443. pp. 94-96. 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. Witherington, B., Kublis, P., Brost, B. and Meylan, A. 2009. Decreasing nest counts in a globally important loggerhead sea turtle population. Ecological Applications 19:30-54. ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS The HCP Coordinator would like to acknowledge the cooperation of the FWC Marine Turtle Permit Holders and their crew who provided data for this report, especially Charlie Pelizza, Nick Wirwa, Kristen Kneifl, Jennifer Solis, Frank Solis, Anne Savage, Lauren Smith, Erik Martin, Niki Desjardin, Brenda Bodiger and Terry Coulliette. Assistance on beachfront lighting issues and code enforcement came from Meghan Koperski, Erik Martin, David Checchi, Susan Clifton and Andy Sobczak. Educational brochures were generously provided by Ken Gioeli and Jessica Koelsch. Most importantly, Indian River County is indebted to the volunteers who donated their time conducting nesting surveys for the county in 2010: Charles McConnel, Beverly Harrison, Chris Vann and Sherri Davis. Much of this work would not have been possible without their help. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 38
TABLES
Table 1. Total nesting activity for Indian River County in 2010. This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. Nesting Activity Loggerhead Green Leatherback All Date of First Emergence 4/25/2010 6/6/2010 3/29/2010 3/29/2010 Date of First Nest 4/25/2010 6/12/2010 3/29/2010 3/29/2010 Date of Last Emergence 9/14/2010 10/22/2010 8/3/2010 10/22/2010 Date of Last Nest 9/12/2010 10/22/2010 8/3/2010 10/22/2010 Total Nests 5,120 728 87 5,935 Total False Crawls 5,258 1,572 5 6,835 Total Emergences 10,378 2,300 92 12,770 Nesting Success 49.3% 31.7% 94.6% 46.5%
Table 2. Loggerhead nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey area in 2010. 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 453 330 783 57.9% 244.7 ACNWR 1,533 1,657 3,190 48.1% 398.8 Disney 236 420 656 36.0% 312.4 IR Shores 1,229 1,284 2,513 48.9% 282.4 Vero Beach 563 536 1,099 51.2% 174.4 South IRC Beaches 1,106 1,031 2,137 51.8% 281.2 Total 5,120 5,258 10,378 49.3% 287.5 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 2010. 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 23 64 87 26.4% 27.2 ACNWR 277 609 886 31.3% 110.8 Disney 36 210 246 14.6% 117.1 IR Shores 280 573 853 32.8% 95.8 Vero Beach 46 30 76 60.5% 12.1 South IRC Beaches 66 86 152 43.4% 20.0 Total 728 1,572 2,300 31.7% 63.7 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 2010. 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 4 0 4 100.0% 1.3 ACNWR 16 2 18 88.9% 2.3 Disney 5 3 8 62.5% 3.8 IR Shores 38 0 38 100.0% 4.3 Vero Beach 7 0 7 100.0% 1.1 South IRC Beaches 17 0 17 100.0% 2.2 Total 87 5 92 94.6% 2.5 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 2010. 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 330 1,657 420 1,284 536 1,031 Continuous Crawls (%) 46.1 49.2 84.3 75.2 64.4 61.4 Abandoned Body Pits (%) 46.7 42.5 14.8 21.5 29.7 32.4 Abandoned Egg Chambers (%) 10.3 11.8 4.3 8.0 10.6 10.0 Obstructions No Obstructions Recorded (%) 97.0 89.1 68.6 96.3 92.7 97.4 Scarps (%) 0.9 3.1 13.6 1.2 2.1 0.8 Seawalls (%) 0.0 2.5 11.0 0.0 2.4 1.1 Dune Cross-Overs (%) 0.0 1.3 3.1 1.0 2.2 0.2 Other Obstructions (%) 2.1 4.0 3.8 1.5 0.6 0.6
Table 6. Summary of green turtle false crawl characteristics and obstructions by survey area for Indian River County in 2010. 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 64 609 210 573 30 86 Continuous Crawls (%) 46.9 44.3 89.0 69.6 33.3 43.0 Abandoned Body Pits (%) 48.4 52.2 9.5 29.1 66.7 57.0 Abandoned Egg Chambers (%) 7.8 6.2 3.3 4.9 6.7 3.5 Obstructions No Obstructions Recorded (%) 93.8 81.8 71.4 92.7 93.3 96.5 Scarps (%) 4.7 6.7 10.0 2.8 0.0 2.3 Seawalls (%) 0.0 3.8 12.4 0.0 3.3 0.0 Dune Cross-Overs (%) 0.0 3.9 2.4 3.1 0.0 0.0 Other Obstructions (%) 1.6 3.8 3.8 1.4 3.3 1.2
Table 7. Summary of all marked nests by species where the clutch was either found the morning after or found after emergence in Indian River County in 2010. (a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found). Fate Loggerhead Green Turtle Leatherback Total Excavated Emerged 870 165 23 1,058 Did not emerge 54 12 4 70 Total Excavated 924 177 27 1,128 Not Excavated Washed out 161 23 3 187 Completely Depredated 22 8 0 30 Completely Vandalized 1 0 0 1 Nested on by another 9 3 1 13 Emerged Not Excavated 29 10 2 41 Could Not Evaluate 10 5 0 15 Did Not Find 17 2 0 19 Total Not Excavated 249 51 6 306 Total Marked 1,173 228 33 1,434 (b) Clutch found after emergence. Fate Loggerhead Green Turtle Leatherback Total Excavated Emerged 26 59 21 106 Did not emerge 0 0 0 0 Total Excavated 26 59 21 106 Not Excavated Washed out 15 17 0 32 Completely Depredated 1 2 3 6 Completely Vandalized 0 0 0 0 Nested on by another 0 4 2 6 Emerged Not Excavated 1 4 3 8 Could Not Evaluate 1 0 0 1 Did Not Find 9 28 21 58 Total Not Excavated 27 55 29 111 Total Marked 53 114 50 217
Table 8. Summary of reproductive success for loggerhead nests by study area in Indian River County, 2010. Only includes nests where the clutch was initially found. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. SISP ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC Nests Excavated 89 340 112 281 52 65 Mean Clutch Size 100.3 100.6 103.5 97.8 109.8 110.2 Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 68.5 69.4 79.2 71.7 80.8 79.4 Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 62.5 65.3 77.1 70.3 79.2 76.0 Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) 52.0 59.1 61.7 55.9 58.6 61.0 Mean Incubation Period (days) 48.8 49.2 50.4 50.7 50.2 49.5
Table 9. Descriptive statistics for all inventoried loggerhead nests in Indian River County in 2010. Data is separated for nests located initially and those located after emergence. (a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found). n Min Max Mean Stand Dev. Clutch Size 924 18 197 101.1 23.7 Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 924 0 100 72.4 26.6 Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 924 0 100 69.3 27.5 Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) 1,107 0 100 57.8 36.0 Incubation Period (days) 813 43 66 49.8 2.7 (b) Clutch found after emergence. n Min Max Mean Stand Dev. Clutch Size 26 16 167 104.7 29.1 Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 26 22 96 76.5 19.6 Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 26 13 96 73.6 22.8 Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) 42 0 96 45.6 40.3 Incubation Period (days) 23 47 61 51.6 3.3
Table 10. Summary of reproductive success for green turtle nests by study area in Indian River County, 2010. Only includes nests where the clutch was initially found. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. SISP ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC Nests Excavated 18 85 9 46 15 7 Mean Clutch Size 128.6 119.0 107.9 119.7 128.6 119.7 Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 66.5 68.4 66.5 73.4 80.2 85.0 Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 64.0 66.1 61.8 67.8 79.5 84.7 Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) 64.0 59.1 46.4 55.7 63.6 49.4 Mean Incubation Period (days) 49.4 51.2 52.7 52.3 53.6 54.1
Table 11. Descriptive statistics for all inventoried green turtle nests in Indian River County in 2010. Data is separated for nests located initially and those located after emergence. (a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found). n Min Max Mean Stand Dev. Clutch Size 177 28 213 120.3 22.9 Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 177 0 100 70.9 28.5 Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 177 0 99 67.7 29.0 Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) 208 0 99 57.7 36.0 Incubation Period (days) 147 43 75 51.6 4.7 (b) Clutch found after emergence. n Min Max Mean Stand Dev. Clutch Size 59 46 173 117.6 24.3 Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 59 29 99 83.8 16.4 Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 59 11 98 80.1 20.9 Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) 78 0 98 60.6 39.1 Incubation Period (days) 59 47 68 52.5 4.2
Table 12. Summary of reproductive success for leatherback nests by study area in Indian River County, 2010. Only includes nests where the clutch was initially found. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. SISP ACNWR Disney 1 IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC Nests Excavated 2 10 1 8 2 6 Mean Clutch Size 87.0 78.0 69 70.8 88.5 75.5 Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 16.7 46.5 3.0 46.0 45.1 51.8 Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 4.2 43.4 3.0 40.7 45.1 50.7 Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) 4.2 38.6 3.0 32.6 45.1 50.7 Mean Incubation Period (days) 59.0 62.6 * 74.6 66.0 72.3 1 Single data point, not an average
Table 13. Descriptive statistics for all inventoried leatherback nests in Indian River County in 2010. Data is separated for nests located initially and those located after emergence. (a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found). n Min Max Mean Stand Dev. Clutch Size 27 20 102 76.4 17.5 Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 27 0 94 43.6 34.6 Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 27 0 92 40.0 33.6 Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) 30 0 92 36.0 34.1 Incubation Period (days) 22 56 91 69.0 10.2 (b) Clutch located after emergence. n Min Max Mean Stand Dev. Clutch Size 21 13 98 75.3 20.5 Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 21 15 94 64.8 24.2 Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 21 14 94 62.1 23.7 Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%) 24 0 94 54.3 30.4 Incubation Period (days) 23 56 78 65.5 6.2
Table 14. Results of night-time lighting inspections conducted on 26 27 May 2010 in unincorporated areas of Indian River County. These results summarize the number of properties with exterior and interior lighting violations in seven property types. The "Other" category includes bridges. Exterior lights were given a problem code based on the intensity and the scope of the light (see text for further explanation). May 2010 Survey Exterior Lighting Interior Lighting Total Lighting Violations 1 Average Exterior Problem Code 2 House 24 15 38 3.6 Condominium 9 0 9 2.7 Street light 5 0 5 3.2 Clubhouse 1 0 1 * Hotels 1 1 2 * Public Park 3 0 3 3.0 Other Types 1 0 1 * TOTAL OR AVERAGE 44 16 60 3.2 1 two properties had both interior and exterior lighting violations. 2 problem codes ranged from 1 to 5, from most disruptive to least disruptive, respectively. * cannot average due to single data point.
Table 15. Summary of sea turtle disorientation events by study area, 2010. SISP ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC Total Leatherback Green Turtle Loggerhead # Events 3 10 7 17 25 37 99 # Hatchlings 30 364 203 377 1,760 2,241 4,975 # Events 0 1 1 2 5 0 9 # Hatchlings 0 25 55 50 395 0 525 # Events 0 1 0 1 3 1 6 # Hatchlings 0 60 0 20 155 20 255 TOTAL EVENTS 3 12 8 20 33 38 114 TOTAL HATCHLINGS 30 449 258 447 2,310 2,261 5,755
Table 16. Summary of mammaliam predation rates from 2006 2010 in the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Numbers in parenthesis are predation rates for all of Indian River County. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Raccoon (%) 1.3 (0.6) 3.3 (1.2) 1.4 (0.6) 0.6 (0.4) 0.3 (0.1) Canine (%) 0.0 (1.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1.2 (0.5) 5.9 (2.0) 2.5 (0.8)
Table 17. Cumulative take since date of issuance of the Indian River County ITP (December 1, 2004). No armoring under the HCP occurred in 2010. 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 2010 Cumulative Take Take Authorized Under ITP Balance 520 0 520 3,196 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 Areas and Jurisdictions along Indian River County's Beaches Fellsmere 95 Sebastian! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y 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 t1 Indian River Shores Vero Beach SISP Biologist 13 14 15 16 17 ACNWR Pelizza 19 20 F FF 21 22 23 F FF 24 25 26 27 F 28 FF 29 30 31 F FF Disney Savage North IRS Savage 32 F FF South IRS Herren 33 34 Vero Beach Herren 35 36 0 1 2 3 4 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.
8 Loggerhead Number of Nests (Thousands) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 10 Green Turtle 9 Number of Nests (Hundreds) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 100 Leatherback 90 80 Number of Nests 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Figure 2. Loggerhead, green turtle and leatherback nesting in Indian River County from 2005 2010.
Number of Nests (Thousands) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 y = 209.89x 2-1250.4x + 4890 R 2 = 0.8228 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Figure 3. Loggerhead nesting in Indian River County from 2005 2010. A two-factor binomial line was fit on the data, which gave a high goodness-of-fit value (R 2 = 0.82). Based on this data alone, nesting hit a low in 2007 and appears to be gradually increasing since that time.
Spatial Distribution of Loggerhead Nests in Indian River County in 2010 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ 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 t1 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 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Figure 4. The number of loggerhead nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2010. 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 2010 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ 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 t1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 14 16 18 20 22 24 12 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 26 28 30 32 34 36 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 5. Loggerhead nesting success (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2010. The blue line represents 50% nesting success, which is often used as a baseline. Data includes below the high tide line crawls.
Spatial Distribution of Green Turtle Nests in Indian River County in 2010 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ 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 t1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 14 16 18 20 22 24 12 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 26 28 30 32 34 36 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 0 20 40 60 80 100 Figure 6. The number of green turtle nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2010. Zone 36 is not a full kilometer.
Spatial Distribution of Leatherback Nests in Indian River County in 2010 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ 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 t1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 14 16 18 20 22 24 12 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 26 28 30 32 34 36 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Figure 7. The number of leatherback nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2010. 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 2010 March 15-21 March 22-28 Mch 29-April 4 April 5-11 April 12-18 April 19-25 April 26-May 2 May 3-9 May 10-16 May 17-23 May 24-30 May 31-June 6 June 7-13 June 14-20 June 21-27 June 28-July 4 July 5-11 July 12-18 July 19-25 July 26-Aug 1 Aug 2-8 Aug 9-15 Aug 16-22 Aug 23-29 Aug 30-Sep 5 Sep 6-12 Sep 13-19 Sep 20-26 Sep 27-Oct 3 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 NEST TOTALS Loggerhead = 1,897 Green Turtle = 141 Leatherback = 29 Figure 8. The temporal pattern of nesting by all species in the southern half of Indian River County, 2010. This graph is updated weekly throughout the season and is available at www.ircgov.com/coastal March 1-7 March 8-14 Number of Nests
Spatial Distribution of Abandoned Body Pits and Egg Chambers in 2010 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ 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 t1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 14 16 18 20 22 24 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 26 28 30 32 34 36 Abandoned Body Pit Abandoned Egg Chamber 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 9. 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 2010.
Spatial Distribution of Crawl Obstructions (%) in Indian River County in 2010 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ 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 t1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 14 16 18 20 22 24 12 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 26 28 30 32 34 36 Seawall Scarp DuneScarp X-over RecEquip Other 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 10. The proportion of loggerhead, green turtle and leatherback nests and false crawls associated with obstructions (x-axis) mapped by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2010. 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 2010 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ 0 2 4 6 FIRE LG VEHICLE SM VEHICLE LOOSE DOG 8 BOATS Sebastian Orchid 10 12 LARGE HOLE OTHER! 510 I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y t1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 14 16 18 20 22 24 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 26 28 30 32 34 36 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Figure 11. 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 2010. LG VEHICLE = Truck or Construction Vehicle. SM VEHICLE = ATV, Golfcart or Motorcycle. LOOSE DOG = unattended dog. LARGE HOLE = Deep holes (> 4') dug in the sand. See text for description of "OTHER" category.
Presence of People and Dogs on Fresh Crawls in 2010 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ 0 2 4 6 8 DOG DOG & PEOPLE PEOPLE PEOPLE SEVERE 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 14 16 18 20 22 24 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 26 28 30 32 34 36 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 12. The number of nests and false crawls with people and dog tracks on them the night they were deposited (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in Indian River County in 2010. Included is the number of nests with evidence of severe human disturbance (see text for further description). Disturbances in northerly zones were under-reported and not necessarily indicative of their presence or absence.
Distribution of Disorientations and Lighting Violations in Indian River County in 2010 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ 0 2 4 6 8 Disorientations 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 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 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 13. 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 2010. Night-time lighting surveys were not conducted in the Town of Indian River Shores, Orchid or the City of Vero Beach.
Distribution of Nest Predations in Indian River County in 2010 S e b a s t i a n I n l e t ³ 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 t1 Indian River Shores Kilometer Zone 14 16 18 20 22 24 12 Vero Beach! 60! A1A 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 26 28 30 32 34 36 RACCOON CANINE BOBCAT UNKNOWN SCAVENGED 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 14. The number of nest predations by raccoons, canines, bobcats and unknown animals (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2010. Scavenged nests were nests invaded after an emergence or disruption (e.g. tidal erosion). Scavengers included canines and crows. Ghost crab predation was not included.
APPENDICES
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 Indian River County 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32690 772-226-1569 Permit#: MTP-10-166 County: Indian River Effective Date: 2/4/20 I 0 Expiration Date: l/31/201i Is Authorized to: (I) 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 ofsr-510 south to 2.6km N ofbeachland Blvd. on AlA); Vero Beach (2.6km N ofbeachland Blvd. on AlA south to 340' north ofrm-95); and southern Indian River County beaches ( (340' north of RM -9 5 south to Indian River/St. Lucie County line). Permittee Signature?' ~ ~ Date..:3 /1 / z.o I o ----~.,~-~~~-------- 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 Administrator, Imperiled Species Management Authorizing Signature Ci!trtd.fl ':k fa.4t( Date 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. Vann; C. McConnel; B. Harrison; S. Davis. 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 SNBSIINBS 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. Page 1 of 1 PERMIT NO. MTP-10-166
APPENDIX B MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
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 33.0051(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
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-33.0051, 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-33.0051, 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
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
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
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. 1850 25th Street Vera Beach, Florida 32960 THE DEPARTMENT Program Administrator Florida Department of Environmental Protection Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems 3900 Co=onwealth Blvd., Mail Station 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 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 120.52 of the Florida Statutes, with the designated Department Clerk, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. DATE 5
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 252.38, 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.
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 161.052 or 161.053, Florida Statutes, on or after March 17, 1985. 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
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
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
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
APPENDIX C NEST MONITORING PROCEDURES
HCP MONITORING PROCEDURES - REQUIRED FOR EACH SURVEY AREA 1. Daily uninterrupted surveys conducted at sunrise from March 1 to September 30. 2. 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.
APPENDIX D MAPS OF SENTINEL AREAS
SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH Created by the HCP Coordinator, Indian River County
SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH Created by the HCP Coordinator, Indian River County
SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH Created by the HCP Coordinator, Indian River County
SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH Created by the HCP Coordinator, Indian River County
SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH Created by the HCP Coordinator, Indian River County
APPENDIX E PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTER
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1801 27 TH Street, Vero Beach FL 32960 772-226-1237 / 772-978-1806 fax www.ircgov.com February 25, 2010 Joe Smith 123 Seaview Dr. Vero Beach Fl 32963 RE: COUNTY SEA TURTLE PROTECTION REGULATIONS Property Address: 123 SEAVIEW DR. VERO BEACH, FL 32963 Dear Mr. Smith County records indicate you are the owner of a beachfront property located at 123 Seaway Dr. This letter is part of an annual mailing to all beachfront property owners in the unincorperated county to provide information regarding the County s Sea Turtle Protection Regulations. Please take time to look at the information included in this letter and take time to examine your property to make sure it is in compliance with the regulations. Background: 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 1 to October 31 each year. Specifically, Section 932.09 of the County Land Development Code 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 1 st to October 31 st 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 1 st to October 31 st 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 disorients turtle hatchlings and consequently causes 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 they die from dehydration. In addition, adult turtles will frequently avoid nesting on lighted beaches. The best method of ensuring that your lights are not visible from the beach, and are thus compliant with lighting regulations, is to view your property from various locations on the beach at night. Lights should be viewed from beach locations north and south of your 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 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 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 it s 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 Senior Environmental Planner Andy Sobczak at 226-1518. Sincerely, Roland M. DeBlois, AICP Chief, Environmental Planning