HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION … · habitat conservation plan for the protection of...

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES ON THE ERODING

BEACHES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

2009 ANNUAL REPORT

Prepared in Support of Indian River County’s Incide ntal Take Permit (TE057875-0)

Prepared for:

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SOUTH FLORIDA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES OFFICE

ATTN: HCP PROGRAM 1339 20TH STREET

VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960

Prepared by:

RICHARD M. HERREN, M.S. HCP SEA TURTLE COORDINATOR

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1801 27th Street


BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960

July 7, 2010

Trish Adams HCP Coordinator U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Ms. Adams, Enclosed is a copy of the 2009 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 and thank you for your patience in getting this report to you. Richard M. Herren, M.S. Environmental Specialist / HCP Sea Turtle Coordinator Indian River County 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (772) 226-1569 FAX (772) 778-9391 [email protected] "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

2009 ANNUAL REPORT

Prepared in Support of Indian River County’s Incide ntal Take Permit (TE057875-0) for the Take of Sea Turtles Causally R elated to

Emergency Shoreline Protection Activities

Prepared for:

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SOUTH FLORIDA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES OFFICE

ATTN: HCP PROGRAM 1339 20TH STREET


Prepared by:

RICHARD M. HERREN, M.S. HCP SEA TURTLE COORDINATOR

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1801 27th Street

Vero Beach, FL 32960

June 2010

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA

1

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......................................................................................................... 8 SURVEY METHODOLOGY....................................................................................... 10

Personnel and Daily Monitoring Procedures .......................................................... 10 Nest Marking, Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................... 11

DATA MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 12 Organization........................................................................................................... 12 Analysis.................................................................................................................. 12

RESULTS – NEST TOTALS, TRENDS AND CRAWL CHARACTERISTICS............ 14 Nesting and Nesting Success ................................................................................ 14 Spatial Patterns...................................................................................................... 14 Temporal Patterns.................................................................................................. 15 Crawl Characteristics ............................................................................................. 16 Crawl Obstructions................................................................................................. 17

RESULTS – NEST FATE AND REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS .................................. 18 Overall Nest Fate ................................................................................................... 18 Loggerhead Reproductive Success ....................................................................... 19 Green Turtle Reproductive Success ...................................................................... 19 Leatherback Reproductive Success....................................................................... 20

2009 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NESTING .............................................................. 20 Disruptive Human Activities.................................................................................... 20 Human and Animal Tracks on Fresh Crawls.......................................................... 22

SENTINEL NESTS .................................................................................................... 23 MONITORING AT HCP EMERGENCY PROJECT SITES ........................................ 24 CONCLUSION – NEST MONITORING PROGRAM.................................................. 24

LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM........................... .................................................. 25

PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTERS ........................................................................ 25 NIGHT-TIME LIGHTING EVALUATIONS................................................................. 26 DISORIENTATIONS.................................................................................................. 27


2

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 ............................................................. 33

MITIGATION ................................................................................................................. 33

STATUS OF CONSERVATION AREA AND RECREATION LAND PROPERTIES... 33

CUMULATIVE TAKE.................................... ................................................................ 33

SUPPORTING GRANTS AND PROJECTS ..................... ............................................ 34

MOBILE GIS GRANT – TRIMBLE AND ESRI ........................................................... 34 NESTING HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS GRANT – NFWF......................................... 35

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT................................. ......................................................... 36

SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM ASSESSMENT............................. 36 LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT................................................. 37 EDUCATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT................................................................. 37 PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT ............................................... 38 SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT............................................................... 38

UNFORESEEN AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES ............... .................................. 38

LITERATURE CITED................................... ................................................................. 39

ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS................................... .......................................................... 39

TABLES 1 – 16 FIGURES 1 – 14 APPENDIX A – MARINE TURTLE PERMIT # 166 APPENDIX B – MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH STATE APPENDIX C – NEST MONITORING PROCEDURES APPENDIX D – NESTING SURVEY DATA SHEET APPENDIX E – MAPS OF SENTINEL AREAS APPENDIX F – PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTER


3

Indian River County Sea Turtle Habitat Conservation Plan

2009 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 2009. The county authorized no emergency shoreline protection projects in 2009, therefore, most of the effort focused on the nest monitoring, lighting, predator control and education programs. This was the fifth 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 7,307 sea turtle emergences were recorded during the 2009 nesting season. Loggerheads (Caretta caretta) were the most abundant nesting turtle accounting for 93% of all emergences (3,381 nests). The level of loggerhead nesting was relatively low this year and continued a statewide trend of decreased nesting over the last 10 years. Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) also had a relatively low nesting season in 2009 (239 nests). On the other hand, leatherbacks (Dermochelys coriacea) had a relatively high nesting year (60 nests), though this species accounted for only 0.9% of all emergences. 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 10 and ended on September 25. Nesting success was 50% for loggerheads and 54% for green turtles and, as is typical, much higher for leatherbacks (92%). There were 783 nests marked for reproductive success (21% of the total). The mean emerging success was 71% for loggerhead and 68% for green turtle nests, however, when tidal wash outs and nest predations were included it dropped to 69% and 65%, respectively. Leatherback emerging success was relatively low at 43%. 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


4

associated with abandoned nesting attempts. There were also numerous cases of fresh dog tracks on top of new nests. This year four nests were excavated by a canine in the southern part of the county, but there were 71 dug up in the ACNWR. Beachfront lighting was still a problem in 2009. Artificial lights caused thousands of hatchlings to travel in the wrong direction (2,654 documented). The highest number of disorientations were observed in the southern part of the county, which was, not surprisingly, also where the largest number of night-time lighting violations occurred. On the positive side, most of the disruptive public lights were resolved through a grant that was completed in 2009. In addition, the work of the Code Enforcement Officers in the City of Vero Beach and the County's Environmental Planning Department has been more effective in solving the worst private lighting issues. As a result, lighting violations and disorientations were lower in 2009 than in previous years. Due to the low level of raccoon predation in the county, the Predator Control Plan has evolved into a diverse attempt to control nest predation. Raccoon predation remained at a fairly low level (0.4% countywide and 0.6% in the ACNWR). However, canine predation, whether by domestic dog or coyote, has become much more of a concern. Stopping canine predation has proven to be very difficult. Increased education and wildlife enforcement efforts have played a crucial role. And, in 2009, the refuge enacted a predator control project that went a long way to attempt to solve some of these problems. Unofficially, the PCP contains three main areas for controlling predators: 1) education; 2) enforcement; and 3) trapping. The county plans to continue this three-pronged approach in the future. Education has come primarily through brochures, newspaper articles, news radio and beach signs. Direct discussions with beachgoers has been very successful. 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 2009, there remains a balance of 2,676 linear feet of take remaining for the life of the ITP. However, the ITP does not account for FDEP issued armoring structures. Seawalls placed on the beach outside the nesting season have instead gone through the state FDEP CCCL permitting process. These seawalls and county initiated nourishment projects have temporarily eliminated some of the vulnerable and eligible structures on the beach. At the same time, the HCP program's that benefit sea turtles have become more effective each year.


5

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 1st and ends on October 31st, 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. 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 (USFWS) in 2003 for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. In its application, the county requested the incidental “take” of five species of sea turtles causally related to shoreline protection measures initiated under the county’s emergency authorization. As a requirement of its ITP Application, the county developed a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the protection of sea turtles. The HCP (a) describes the geographical boundaries of the Plan Area, (b) characterizes the social, economic and environmental conditions along the county’s coastline, (c) identifies natural and human factors potentially affecting sea turtle nesting on county Beaches, (d) describes measures that


6

will be undertaken to minimize impacts to sea turtles during emergency shoreline 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.

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 the City of Vero Beach and Town of Indian River Shores asked the county to manage their respective nesting projects, the HCP Coordinator became directly involved in the field work as well as the overall HCP management. In late 2005, the HCP Coordinator applied for and received a Marine Turtle Permit (#166) through the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to conduct nesting surveys that cover roughly half of the county's beaches (Figure 1; Appendix A).

HCP TRAINING During development of the HCP, the county held several meetings with Principal Permit Holders, FWC and the USFWS to discuss the proposed countywide monitoring program, including anticipated HCP monitoring requirements, logistical needs, and standardization of data collection and reporting. It became clear that it would require


7

several years to fully convert to a standardized monitoring program. Thus, the focus was placed on developing the minimum standards needed to support the HCP. This minimum was established in 2005 during the first full year of implementation. An annual presentation and workshop was held on February 17, 2009. The meeting was attended by 25 people, including all of the Principal Permit Holder’s (PPH’s) in the county, the HCP Coordinator, Coastal Engineer, Coastal Resources Manager, animal control, code enforcement, representatives from local municipalities, law enforcement, FWCC and USFWS. The workshop provided a review of the 2008 nesting season, a review of the basic nest monitoring protocol, a discussion of field personnel for the upcoming season, an update on county beach restoration projects and status of the education, predator control and lighting programs. An emphasis was placed on providing accurate and timely data and encouraging permit holders to seek help from the HCP Coordinator, if needed. Lastly, new research projects and technologies were discussed for future nesting seasons. A second meeting was held on February 3, 2009 with USFWS – ACNWR personnel. The purpose of this special meeting was to forge a better relationship with refuge staff and work closely with the refuge to achieve and strengthen common goals. This was partly in response to recent staff turn-over at the refuge. An emphasis was placed on the timely dissemination of nesting data and the sharing of data in regards to lighting and predator problems.

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, 2009, 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 2009 calendar year.


8

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. Documenting natural and anthropogenic factors affecting nesting and reproductive success is equally important. Due to the large number of sea turtle emergences in the area, administration of the nest monitoring program requires the most time and effort of any portion of the HCP and, as such, it is the 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 2009 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 their own 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 2009 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 2009 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 2009. As in years past, Permit Holders were encouraged to use a standardized data collection form developed by the HCP Coordinator (see Appendix D). 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


9

survey area with the following exceptions. The southern half of the county, which is the HCP Coordinator's permit area, included Indian River Shores (IRS), the City of Vero Beach (Vero) and South Indian River County (SIRC). Beginning in 2007, the Indian River Shores survey area was split in half, allowing the Disney Group to cover the northern half and the county to cover the southern half. The result was Disney now had two survey areas: the core Disney area and the northern Indian River Shores area. For the purposes of this report, the data from the Disney-surveyed and the county-surveyed portion of Indian River Shores were combined. See the 2007 Annual Report for a detailed discussion of the division of the Indian River Shores survey area. Prior to the 2005 nesting season, county personnel 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 to the state. A detailed description of each survey area from north to south follows:

Sebastian Inlet State Park (SISP) – Extending from Sebastian Inlet (FDEP Reference Monument R-1) south to monument R-11, SISP occupies the northernmost 3.2 kilometers (2 miles), or 8.9%, of the county’s coastline. SISP consists entirely of state-managed public lands. This survey area was monitored by biologists from Ecological Associates, Inc. (EAI), a private consulting firm under contract to Indian River County. Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge (ACNWR) – The ACNWR survey area extends from the southern boundary of SISP (R-11) south approximately 8.0 kilometers (5 miles) to monument R-38. This area comprises about 22.3% of the county’s coastline and includes federal lands, county parks, lands owned or managed by the county, the Town of Orchid and numerous private properties in unincorporated Indian River County. Monitoring of this area was performed by refuge staff associated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Disney Vero Beach Resort (Disney) – This area is referred to as the core Disney area. It stretches from monument R-38 south to monument R-45, a distance of approximately 2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles) and encompasses 5.8% of the county’s coastline. The area includes single-family residences with extensive seawalls, a county park, condominiums and a resort. Monitoring was performed by Disney Animal Kingdom staff. Indian River Shores (IRS) – The Indian River Shores survey area extends from monument R-45 south to R-74 for a distance of approximately 8.9 kilometers (5.5 miles), or 24.6% of the county’s total coastline. It is comprised of the Town of Indian River Shores, which is largely developed with a combination of single- and multi-family residential units. The northern half of this area was surveyed by


10

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 county's HCP Coordinator and his group of volunteers.

South Indian River County (SIRC) – South Indian River County extends from monument R-95 to the St. Lucie County Line (south of monument R-119), a distance of approximately 7.6 kilometers (4.7 miles), or 21.0% of the county’s coastline. Included within this area are mostly neighborhoods with single-family homes (some with seawalls), a few multi-family condominium complexes and a county park. A few open lands still remain in the very southern portion of this area. Surveys in this area were conducted by the HCP Coordinator and his group of volunteers.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Personnel and Daily Monitoring Procedures All sea turtle monitoring in the county was performed by individuals listed on Marine Turtle Permits issued by FWC’s Imperiled Species Management Section. The permits are issued to Principal Permit Holders (PPH) who are responsible for training the individual monitoring personnel listed on their permits and for ensuring adherence to FWC guidelines. Each permit holder is responsible for a discrete survey area (see Figure 1). In 2009, there were four PPH's overseeing nesting surveys in the county. Erik Martin (EAI) in Sebastian Inlet State Park, Nick Wirwa (USFWS) in the Archie Carr NWR, Anne Savage (Disney) in the core Disney area and northern Indian River Shores and Richard Herren (IRC) in southern Indian River Shores, Vero Beach and South Indian River County. Each permit holder had individuals listed on their permit that conducted nesting surveys. Disney Animal Kingdom had the largest number of individuals conducting surveys in 2009 (15 different people). Nesting surveys were conducted daily on all beaches from March 1 to September 30, 2009. Monitoring continued periodically after September 30 at the discretion of each PPH. During the surveys, all nesting and non-nesting emergences (false crawls) visible from the previous night were recorded on data sheets by species and survey zone. GPS waypoints were collected at the location of every nest and at the apex of every


11

false crawl. Handheld units were used for obtaining waypoints and the precision ranged from less than a meter to approximately 6 meters (depending on the equipment and satellite geometry). Crawls were 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. Nests or false crawls that were less than a meter from obstacles were recorded (e.g., scarps, seawalls, beach furniture) as well as any disturbances observed by predators or people. 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 2009 nesting season, the coastal engineer provided maps to permit holders showing the properties in critically-eroded areas that would be eligible for a county emergency permit (Appendix E). Sentinel nest areas included potential access points for large construction equipment. Critically-eroded areas with permanent armoring structures already present were excluded along with homes fronting a recently nourished beach. Each day the nesting survey was performed, monitoring personnel were asked to mark any nest deposited landward of the toe of the dune in these designated areas. Sentinel nests were marked with three wooden stakes surrounding the nest a minimum distance of three feet with orange flagging tape wrapped around the stakes. Nests at emergency shoreline protection project sites – Survey personnel were required to monitor emergency shoreline protection project sites and implement appropriate measures to protect nests from construction impacts. Nests could either be relocated, if authorized by FWC, or marked for avoidance. In addition, a representative sample of nests outside of project sites were to be marked and monitored daily to allow for an evaluation and comparison of nest fate and/or reproductive success. Since there were no emergency shoreline protection projects initiated by the county during 2009, no nests were marked for this purpose. Nests marked for reproductive success – In all county survey areas, a representative sample of nests was marked and monitored to allow for an evaluation of overall nest fate and reproductive success. The sample marked for each species and within each survey area was at the discretion of the PPH and varied among areas. Nests marking techniques also varied among areas. The most common technique was a combination of three stakes surrounding the nest with flagging tape and/or two or more stakes planted up in the dune a measured distance from the nest. The stakes were placed so they would not be easily removed by tides or vandals, but could be recovered by survey personnel.


12

All marked nests were monitored daily for signs of hatchling emergence, tidal over-wash, nest predation, vandalization, or other signs of disturbance. Nests were presumed to be washed out if all the markers surrounding the nest were washed away and field 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 mailed to FWC, while a copy was provided to the HCP Coordinator. These forms were then digitally scanned and emailed to the appropriate local authority, either in the county Environmental Planning Department, Town of Indian River Shores or the City of Vero Beach Code Enforcement Office. Nest evaluations adhered closely to FWC Marine Turtle Guidelines. Three days after the first hatchling emergence, marked nests were excavated by hand to determine reproductive success. Loggerhead and green turtle nests that exhibited no signs of hatching emergence were excavated after a period of 70 days. Leatherback nests showing no signs of emergence were excavated after 90 days. The numbers of hatched eggs, unhatched eggs, and live and dead hatchlings were recorded. Unhatched eggs consisted of live and dead pipped hatchlings, whole eggs and damaged eggs. After an inventory, nest contents were re-buried in the egg cavity and marking stakes were removed from the beach. DATA MANAGEMENT

Organization Beginning in 2005, nesting data gathered by various permit holder groups in the county was placed in a single Access database created specifically for sea turtle nest monitoring programs. Over time, however, it became clear that receiving data from other groups that was already in electronic format and re-entering it into the Access database was time consuming and repetitive. 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 (see Appendix D). The Excel spreadsheets from each permit holder group were edited and cleaned so they all had the same fields. An Excel database formula was used to retrieve and summarize the data.

Analysis Nesting success, defined as the percentage of total emergences on the beach that result in a nest, was used to assess the post-emergence suitability of an area. Nesting success was calculated by dividing the total number of nests by the number of emergences (nests and false crawls combined) and multiplying by 100.


13

The fate of each marked nest was assigned to one of the following categories:

Emerged – hatchling tracks observed and/or, upon excavation, turtles clearly hatched and made it out of the nest. Did Not Emerge – hatchling tracks were not observed and, upon excavation, no turtles hatched or made it out of the nest. Washed Out – clutch destroyed by wave or tidal action.

Depredated – clutch partially or completely destroyed by predators.

Vandalized – stakes used to mark nest completely removed or otherwise disturbed by people so precise location could not be determined.

Nested On By Another – clutch mixed or disturbed by another nesting female.

Could Not Evaluate – nest contents could not be evaluated due to logistical problems, advanced decomposition or other uncontrollable factors.

Did Not Find – usually cases where the clutch was never located at the time of deposition or the stakes were not in the correct location.

Mean clutch size, hatching success, emerging success, and mean incubation period were determined for excavated nests by the following formulae:

Clutch size (total number of eggs in a nest) = number of hatched eggs + number of unhatched eggs.

Hatching success (turtles completely removed from their eggshells) = (number of hatched eggs / clutch size) X 100.

Emerging success (turtles that successfully emerged from the egg chamber) = {(number of hatched eggs minus the number of live and dead hatchlings in the nest) / (clutch size)} X 100. This value is considered a more conservative measure of reproductive success because it includes both hatched and emerged turtles.

Incubation period = inclusive period (days) from the date of egg deposition until the first sign of hatchling emergence.


14

RESULTS – NEST TOTALS , TRENDS AND CRAWL CHARACTERISTICS

Nesting and Nesting Success There were 7,307 sea turtle emergences recorded during the 2009 nesting season (Table 1). Of these, 3,680 resulted in a nest, yielding an overall nesting success of 50.4% for all species and all areas combined. Loggerhead and green turtle nesting success was 49.7% and 54.4%, respectively. Leatherback nesting success was 92.3%. Of the sea turtle emergences recorded, the majority were loggerheads (93.1%), while green turtle and leatherback emergences accounted for 6.0% and 0.9%, respectively. Loggerhead and green turtle nesting was lower than last year. In contrast, leatherback nesting was the second highest since countywide surveys began in 2005. Though almost all nesting areas had lower loggerhead nesting, there was one exception. South Indian River County had the highest recorded loggerhead nesting since 2005 (Table 2). In particular, the area in South Indian River County that received offshore sand replenishment in 2007, Sector 7, had nesting increases of 128% over 2007 and 28% over 2008 (Herren, 2009). Over the last several years the ocean has reshaped this beach with a more moderately sloped profile, which may be more attractive to loggerheads (Herren, 1999). Despite gains in loggerhead nesting in the southern part of the county in 2009, nesting in this species has decreased significantly in Florida in the last ten years (Witherington et al. 2009). In constrast, green turtles and leatherbacks, though they migrate here in much lower numbers, have had significant increases in nesting during the same period. To the degree that long-term nesting patterns show real changes in adult populations, it appears that there are fewer adult loggerheads that regularly migrate to our shores. More than likely this is due to factors not related to the nesting beach, but multiple mortality factors found in offshore waters (see Witherington et al. 2009)

Spatial Patterns Loggerheads nested throughout the county, but the highest densities occurred in the ACNWR survey area and the lowest occurred in the City of Vero Beach (Table 2; Figure 2). 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 this area. Loggerhead nesting success was also low in Vero Beach, which is another area sharing the abovementioned impacts. These results are similar to previous years, showing a trend of decreasing loggerhead nesting from north to south and lower nesting success in the Disney survey area, which includes a narrow beach, a county park and numerous seawalls. A spatial analysis by kilometer zone showed that nest numbers fluctuated between peaks in kilometer zones 6, 15 and 30 and dropped to low levels in zones 11, 24 and 28 (Figure 2). The latter zones are strongly associated with nesting disruptions such as seawalls, lights and people. Loggerhead nesting success was at or above 50% in 7 of the 36 kilometer zones or 19% of all zones (Figure 3). The lowest


15

nesting success occurred in zones 11 and 27. Both these areas share busy beach parks with numerous people on the beach at night. To a lesser extent, lower nesting success also occurred in zones 26 and 28. While these areas have some human activity at night, the beaches themselves were also wide and flat. There is some evidence that wide, flat beaches are unattractive to loggerheads (Herren, 1999). Green turtles nested throughout the county, but were far more abundant in the northern half (Table 3; Figure 4). The average crawl density was more than 15 times higher in Indian River Shores, Disney or ACNWR than in Vero Beach or SIRC. There were three nesting zones in the City of Vero Beach that had no green turtle nests. In contrast, zone 10 in ACNWR had 23 green turtle nests. This pattern has continued since countywide surveys began and it is unclear why there continues to be such low nesting to the south except that green turtles are known to prefer sparsely populated beaches and those that have a more moderate or steep slope (Witherington et al. 2006). These two factors are lacking in the southern part of the county. Nesting success for this species was highest in Indian River Shores and lowest in SISP (Table 3). Leatherback nesting was relatively high this year and occurred in all the survey areas (Table 4; Figure 5). The highest nesting was in the more southern study areas, especially IRS and SIRC. This was not too surprising since there has been a consistent region-wide trend of more leatherback nesting to the south in St. Lucie and Martin Counties, with a peak in Palm Beach County. As is typical of this species, nesting success was very high.

Temporal Patterns The first recorded sea turtle emergence in the county was from a leatherback on March 10th, 2009 (Table 1). That emergence, which was in SIRC, was a nest. Leatherbacks nested in relatively high numbers until the last nest was recorded on July 24th in IRS. Most leatherback nests were deposited in May (Figure 6). The first loggerhead emergence in the county was recorded in ACNWR on April 18th and the first nest was on April 25th in the Disney area. Loggerhead nesting increased rapidly in the middle of May then settled down in early June. Nesting increased even more and peaked in late June and then again in the middle of July (Figure 6). Nesting steadily declined through late July and throughout August. The last loggerhead nest was deposited on September 16th in Vero Beach. The first green turtle emergences of 2009 were recorded in ACNWR on June 6th and June 9th. The emergence on the 9th was a nest. Nesting was pretty low in June, but picked up a little in July and August (Figure 6). Green turtle nesting gradually declined in late August and early September with the last nest on September 25th in the ACNWR. The graph of temporal nesting in the southern half of the county was updated on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season and added to the county's coastal website,


16

www.ircgov.com/coastal (Figure 6). This kind of information was provided to the public as part of a continuing sea turtle education program (see Education Program).

Crawl Characteristics Turtles coming ashore at night go through distinct phases during the nesting process. At any time before depositing eggs they may abandon their nesting attempt. The amount of digging they leave behind often provides clues as to the suitability of the nest site. Most of the abandoned nesting attempts (i.e. false crawls) have been continuous or uninterrupted crawls. In 2009, the average proportion for all study sites was 75.1% continuous crawls, 22.1% abandoned body pits and 5.1% 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. False crawls with abandoned body pits were highest in SISP. The Park also had the highest proportion of crawls with abandoned egg chambers. In contrast, the Disney area had the highest proportion of continuous crawls and, 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, obstacles, such as seawalls and scarps, and the presence of people on the beach, are disturbances known to turn turtles around fairly quickly without any digging activity. These types of crawls were common in the Disney study area, which, as mentioned above, is an area with scarps, seawalls and people. In contrast, the higher proportion of the abandoned digging attempts in SISP suggests that something about the sand was not suitable (e.g. compacted) or that turtles in this area were more likely to be disrupted by unknown factors after they had decided to dig. As with loggerheads, most green turtles that did not nest turned around and went back into the water (Table 6). The exceptions were in the Vero Beach and SISP study areas, both of which had an equal proportion of green turtle abandoned body pits and continuous crawls. Over all study sites, 64.0% of the green turtle false crawls were continuous, 34.0% were abandoned body pits and 4.0% were abandoned egg chambers. Green turtles abandoning their nesting attempts in the Disney area were more likely to leave a continuous crawl most likely for the same reasons given above for loggerheads. However, in most cases, abandoned body pits and egg chambers were higher than for loggerheads across all beaches. As mentioned in last years report, green turtles are known to be more sensitive to human night-time activities and changes in beach sand characteristics than loggerheads. The spatial distribution of abandoned digging attempts varied across kilometer zones (Figure 7). In 7 out of 36 zones, 20% or more of all emergences were abandoned digging attempts, whereas in three zones abandoned attempts fell below 10%. Peaks in abandoned digging attempts occurred in zones 1, 21, 31 and 32. With the exception of zone 1, which often has night-time fishing activities, these zones were not areas with frequent human disturbance. This suggests that perhaps the sand or other insitu factors caused the increased abandoned digging attempts. In general, the proportion of continuous false crawls were higher in zones where scarps or seawalls were common


17

(i.e. eroded beaches) and the proportion of abandoned digging attempts were higher on beaches that have received recent dune restoration or beach nourishment projects. The latter could have to do with the relatively higher compaction of artificially placed sand and the difficulty some turtles have in trying to dig in it.

Crawl Obstructions The percentage of loggerhead false crawls with obstructions varied by study area (Table 5). The countywide average showed that 85.7 % of the false crawls had no obstructions recorded, 6.7% were scarp obstructions, 4.2% were seawall obstructions, 1.9% were dune cross-over obstructions and 1.6% were 'other' obstructions (usually fences, beach furniture, boats and debris). Among individual study sites, the proportion of scarp obstructions was much higher in the ACNWR, Disney and IRS study areas. The Disney area had the highest proportion of seawall and dune cross-over obstructions. In general, the proportion false crawls with obstructions reflected the relative abundance of these obstacles on the beach. Among other things, this meant that females were consistently bumping into the obstacles when they were present and nest monitoring personnel were keeping up with recording these interactions. Overall, the proportion of obstructions this year was lower than last 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 good shape in 2009. The variation in green turtle obstructions between study areas was high (Table 6). The overall average showed that 71.2% of the green turtle false crawls were associated with no obstructions, 6.3% were scarps, 13.9% were seawalls, 3.3% were dune cross-overs and 5.3% were in the 'other' category. The proportions were influenced by small sample sizes. Nevertheless, there were many more seawall obstructions in the Disney and Vero Beach areas than in the others. Scarp obstructions were highest in ACNWR and IRS. 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 platform. For the purposes of Table 6, beach scarps and dune scarps were combined. The distribution of crawl obstructions by kilometer zone highlighted the problem areas for nesting turtles (Figure 8). The results showed the relative distribution of these obstacles along the coastline. Crawl obstructions were reported for both nests and false crawls since there are instances where females are "forced" to nest at the foot of a barrier because they can go no further. Not surprisingly, seawalls and scarps were more of a problem on the eroded beaches in the northern kilometer zones. In four northern zones (8, 9, 10, 11), obstructions were associated with over 30% of all the crawls. Dune cross-overs were widespread across most zones, though they affected a much lower percentage of crawls. Recreation equipment was an obstacle in the


18

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. Many of these places have equipment on the beach year round, ranging from boats to beach umbrellas. The "other" category included such things as fences, nesting stakes and debris (e.g. large pieces of dead wood). Most of these were ephemeral and eventually removed by the tide or mechanical means. It is important to note that some turtles do nest after encountering obstructions. In these cases, the obstacle forces the turtle to nest seaward of it. Because of this, nests may be located in vulnerable areas of the beach. As obstacles become more common, turtles will be forced to nest in less suitable sites. Of particular concern are the seawalls in the county, which are not taken into account by this Habitat Conservation Plan because they are permitted by the State of Florida outside the nesting season. RESULTS – NEST FATE AND REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS

Overall Nest Fate As in previous reports, 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 783 loggerhead, green turtle and leatherback nests of both types marked for reproductive success in 2009 (Table 7). The number marked was 181 nests less than last year and the lowest marked since 2006. Much of this had to do with the lower green turtle and loggerhead nesting in 2009. Though fewer nests were marked county-wide, some permit groups marked more than they could handle. For instance, in the county-surveyed beaches in southern Indian River County, a record 265 nests were marked. This presented problems because of the burden on staff's limited resources. In response, the county permit holder randomly eliminated 40 previously marked loggerhead nests from the sample on September 22 to alleviate the work load. In cases when too many nests are marked, the quality of the data can suffer. The total number of marked nests this year represented 21% of all the nests recorded in the county. This is worth mentioning because many beachgoers mistakenly assume that every nest on the beach is marked for protection with stakes and flagging tape. Instead, not only were most nests not marked, but they were marked primarily for research purposes. Of the 783 marked nests, 97 (12%) were marked, but the clutch was not found until after an emergence was observed (Table 7b). As mentioned in previous reports and explained below, these types of nests introduce a bias in the data. Of the marked nests where the clutch was initially found, 581 (85%) were excavated to determine reproductive success (Table 7a). The remaining nests that could not be evaluated fell into these categories: 36 (5%) were washed out by the tide; 16 (2%) were destroyed by predators; 8 (1%) had the stakes vandalized so the nest could not be re-located; 5 (0.7%) were nested on by another turtle; 5 (0.7%) could not be evaluated due to logistical problems; and, 35 (5%) could not be found.


19

The issue of not being able to evaluate marked nests is relevant statistically. Nests not evaluated or not initially found could cause a misrepresentation of hatching success because they introduce a bias the sampling regime (B. Witherington, pers. comm.). Washed out and depredated nests were considered complete failures for purposes of reproductive success and not much could be done about them. However, attempts should always be made to reduce the proportion of marked nests not found or not excavated. Taking these nests out of the sample could artificially inflate reproductive success (especially if they had failed). Similarly, including nests found only when they emerge can artificially raise reproductive success. Because of this bias, the results below included only nests where the clutch was located the morning after deposition.

Loggerhead Reproductive Success There were 464 loggerhead nests excavated for reproductive success (Table 7a). Of those excavated, 28 did not emerge at all (0% emerging success). Most loggerhead nests that could not be evaluated were either washed out by tides or could not be found. Reproductive success statistics for loggerheads varied between study areas (Table 8). Across study areas, the mean clutch size ranged from 100.3 to 114.5 eggs and the mean incubation period ranged from 51.0 to 54.1 days. Hatching success was highest in ACNWR (77.4%) and lowest in Vero Beach (46.8%). No study area had a 5% or greater decrease from hatching to emerging success. Emerging success when predations and washed out nests were included in the sample (both presumed to have 0% success) was lowest in Vero Beach at 41.2%. Emerging success reductions were largely due to wash outs from high tropical storm surf. However, there was a disproportionate number of nests in Vero Beach marked in a dune restoration area. Regardless of high tide events, many nests in this artificially placed sand faired poorly when compared to nests in a nearby natural beach (Herren, unpublished data). When all of the loggerhead reproductive data were combined, the overall mean clutch size was 107.5 eggs per nest, with a range of 22 to 210 eggs (Table 9a). The mean hatching success for all inventoried loggerhead nests was 73.3% and the mean emerging success was 71.1%. Emerging success dropped to 68.8% when predation and wash outs were included. The mean incubation period was 51.7 days and ranged from 46 to 63 days. These reproductive success figures were different for nests where the clutch was located after emergence (see Table 9b). This latter category had higher hatching and emerging success when compared to nests found the morning after deposition.

Green Turtle Reproductive Success There were 91 green turtle nests whose clutch contents were analyzed and nine that were excavated, but showed no signs of hatching (Table 7a). The southern half of the county had far less green turtle nesting than in the northern half (Table 10). The few nests that were marked in the southern half were not excavated, which meant neither Vero Beach nor SIRC had available green turtle data. The mean clutch size across the


20

other areas ranged from 109.3 to 123.3 eggs and the mean incubation period ranged from 50.3 to 56.5 days. The mean inventoried hatching success was relatively good and ranged from 62.7% to 79.2%. No area had a greater than 5% decrease from hatching to emerging success. When predations and washed out nests were included, green turtle emerging success in Indian River Shores dropped to 58.1%, which was the lowest in any area. The combined green turtle reproductive data revealed a mean clutch size of 120.6 eggs, with a range of 67 to 192 eggs (Table 11a). The mean hatching success was 70.6% and the mean emerging success was 68.2%. When predations and wash outs were included in the data, emerging success dropped to 65.3%. The mean incubation period was 51.5 days. Green turtle reproductive success was only slightly lower than the loggerheads. The mean reproductive success values for green turtle nests located after emergence were much higher than those located at the time of deposition (see Table 11b).

Leatherback Reproductive Success There were 60 marked leatherback nests county-wide in 2009 (Table 7). Out of those excavated, 26 had been initially found and 20 were located after they emerged. Leatherback reproductive success data across study sites was still hampered by small sample sizes (Table 12). In some cases, like the Disney area, there was only one leatherback nest initially found. In the areas with at least two nests, hatching success was highest in SISP and lowest in Vero Beach. Emerging success was 12% lower than hatching success in IRS. The lowest mean emerging success was 0% in Vero Beach. An examination of combined leatherback reproductive data revealed a mean clutch size of 76.1 eggs with a range of 47 to 103 eggs (Table 13a). The mean hatching success was 47.6% and emerging success was 42.7%. Emerging success dropped 1.5% when wash outs and predations were included. The incubation period ranged from 60 to 101 days with a mean of 73.2 days. Not surprisingly, those nests located only after emergence showed a much higher hatching and emerging success (see Table 13b). Many nests, including leatherbacks, were washed over by high surf in late August. On August 20th Hurricane Bill pushed large waves up the beach. Many nests were not washed out, but buried in several feet of sand. The influx of water and subsequent burial appeared to reduce gas exchange and hinder embryonic development. This natural event probably had the largest effect on reproductive success during 2009. 2009 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


21

activities deleterious to sea turtles and in violation of local ordinances. All of the above impacts were recorded in the county in 2009. Beach fires were by far the most frequent disruptive activity (Figure 9). The majority of fires were on the beaches fronting the neighborhoods in south Indian River County. Neighborhoods where beach fires were common included Castaway Cove, Treasure Cove, Wyn Cove, Smugglers Cove, Seagrove, Porpoise Point Lane North, Atlantis, Silver Sands Court, Sea Turtle Lane and Genesea Lane. However, this year there were also many fires in northern Vero Beach and in northern Indian River County. Most fires were within close proximity of neighborhood beach access points or beach trails because the wood for these fires was hauled on to the beach. Oftentimes, shovels were used to dig large holes to set fuel in them prior to burning it. The few people who have been spoken to about fires believe there was no harm in it. Unfortunately, there have been documented cases in Florida of fires burning hatchling sea turtles alive, not to mention causing them to crawl in the wrong direction. Even though some fires have been less than ten feet from nest locations, so far no deaths have been recorded. This year, a large bonfire was set several times in front of the Seagrove neighborhood. The fire was eventually stopped by the local Fire Department because of it's size and proximity to homes. Vehicle tracks from unauthorized motorcycles, ATV's, trucks and construction equipment were observed on the beach during the nesting season. The tracks usually arrived and returned from specific properties. In most cases, the county's Sheriff's Office or City Police Department was notified so they were aware of the infraction. None of the beach driving incidences resulted in vehicles driving directly over marked nests. However, because 79% of all nests were not marked with stakes and flagging tape, there could have been nests unknowingly impacted by vehicles. Furthermore, the larger vehicles created deep ruts in the sand, which can be barriers to hatchlings trying to reach the water. In addition, vehicles often access the beach by driving directly over sensitive dune plants. In cases of unauthorized / non-permitted construction work, a brief summary of the location, a photo and the type of activity was sent via email to FWC's Imperiled Species Program, Environmental Specialist and subsequently to the regional Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Beaches and Coastal Systems, Field Agent. Acknowledgement of the report and occasionally a resolution would come back to the county regarding the outcome. Oftentimes stopping at the construction site, taking pictures and speaking to someone in charge was enough to cease the work. In all cases, the construction activities were either completely unauthorized, only permitted outside the nesting season or only permitted landward of the dune, in which case, they were working outside their permitted area. Other disruptive activities that were recorded included tent camping, loose dogs and deep beach pits. Whereas the first two are illegal in the county, the last is not. Incidences of tent camping on the beach were solved by talking to the people in question and asking them to break camp. Dogs left completely unattended by owners


22

were termed "loose" and were reported to the City of Vero Beach Police Department, the Sheriff's Office or the county Animal Control. Deep beach pits refer to holes in the beach above the high tide line dug with a shovel. These were usually over four feet deep and six feet wide. The pits were deep enough to ensnare a sea turtle or injure a person and, as a result, they were filled in whenever possible. It is worth noting that an adult loggerhead died falling into one of these beach pits in Palm Beach County in 2009 (Niki Desjardin, personal communication). As in previous years, most of the potential impacts occurred on south county beaches. The neighborhoods in nesting zone 30, which includes Seagrove, had the highest number of disruptive beach activities. Beachgoers and home owners in this area conduct disruptive activities either out of ignorance or disregard for local ordinances. Even though it has been difficult to link disruptive human activities with indirect take of nests and turtles, the potential for harm is present. It is hoped that officers could patrol the beaches in the future to enforce the county's laws, particularly in the southern part of the county. Speaking to beachgoers has revealed that many of them are largely ignorant or misunderstand sea turtle conservation. For example, they mistakenly believe that all sea turtle nests on our beaches are protected. This is simply not possible in this part of Florida. Marking thousands of nests with stakes and flagging tape would not only be logistically unfeasible, but it would create numerous barriers for beachgoers and sea turtles alike. In addition, marking nests does not guarantee they will be unaffected by human activities (such as artificial light). Also, a proportion of nests should remain unmarked so they cannot be easily located by predators or poachers. The main purpose for marking nests has been to evaluate reproductive success insitu. Impacts have to be addressed at the source of the problem while allowing sea turtle nesting to take it's course. In other words, the best option to protect nests is to leave them alone, report lighting violations and other illegal activities and become educated about the threats to nesting. Preventing these problems is probably best achieved though education, community-based initiatives and timely law enforcement.

Human and Animal Tracks on Fresh Crawls People and dog tracks found on fresh crawls were indications of their presence and abundance the previous night (Figure 10). Most of these occurrences peaked in the neighborhoods in South Indian River County. Fresh prints on turtle crawls could be interpreted as either intentionally disruptive behavior or, more likely, the mere presence of people and animals around the nest at the time it was deposited. In the case of people, many of them were probably actively searching for sea turtles. Though these activities could have resulted in harassment or disruption of nesting behavior, they did not involve poaching or predation attempts (for predation see Predator Control Plan). Increasing numbers of people were venturing out at night in search of sea turtles. In 2009, evidence of this behavior was observed during morning surveys from the numerous human tracks on fresh crawls. Human and dog prints were found on 5% of


23

all the nests and false crawls in Vero Beach and South Indian River County. This was the same proportion as last year. However, this year, 2% of these encounters were reported as severe (Figure 10). Evidence of disruptive human activity came from an examination of the turtles behavior. Females that did not cover the nest adequately or became disoriented on their return to the water were associated with the presence of people. There were 36 crawls in Vero Beach and South IRC that exhibited evidence of extreme harassment from the amount of activity surrounding the area and the confused nature of the turtle crawl. This was up from 10 such encounters last year. False crawls can be the result of people disturbing turtles prior to egg laying. In the most heavily impacted kilometer zones (zones 27 – 31), 6.4% of the false crawls were associated with people. Some occurrences were probably missed by observers, while others were probably examples where people were present very early in the morning after the animals had left. Nevertheless, there does seem to be evidence that people using the beach at night were present in ever larger numbers. A worthwhile research project would be to determine exactly how many times turtles are frightened off by people, especially in the heavily used beaches in the southern part of the county. Typically, neighborhoods with busy dune cross-overs or access points had the highest levels of interactions. The presence of dog tracks on nests and false crawls occurred mostly on South IRC beaches (Figure 10). The vigilance of the Vero Beach Police Department and beachgoers responding to dogs seemed to have curbed dog presence in the City. However, in the county, the neighborhoods from Castaway Cove south to Ocean Oaks (six kilometer zones) continue to be focal points for dog activity. These were also the same areas where dog predation was highest during the 2006 nesting season when an unprecedented 38 nests were destroyed by canines. Increased dog activity, whether lawful or not, probably contributes to a general sense of acceptance of dogs on the beach. This becomes a problem when the owner decides to let the animal roam on its own accord (see Predator Control Plan). SENTINEL NESTS Due to the recent beach nourishment projects and the large dune scarps in the central and northern part of the county, which prevented turtles from nesting high on the beach, there were few sentinel nests marked in 2009. The largest sentinel nesting area remained the properties along Surf, Pebble and Reef Lane in southern Indian River Shores (Dorsey to Sposato – Appendix E). In 2009, three sentinel nests were flagged in this area. Two were loggerheads and the other was a green turtle nest. Sentinel nests were not used for reproductive success sampling and when they emerged or at 70 days post-deposition, the stakes surrounding them were removed.


24

MONITORING AT HCP EMERGENCY PROJECT SITES Since there were no emergency shoreline protection projects initiated by the county between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009, there were no specific sea turtle monitoring programs or emergency project-related impacts to turtles. CONCLUSION – NEST MONITORING PROGRAM Overall, nesting in 2009 was lower for loggerheads and green turtles but higher for leatherbacks. Typically leatherbacks and green turtles nests on a bi-annual pattern, which means that nesting can often be predicted. This year green turtles seemed to have skipped a beat. Next year it is predicted to bounce back given the favorable long-term nesting trend in this species. In contrast, loggerhead nesting has flattened out at a comparatively low level. Loggerhead nesting has significantly decreased since 1998 based on the trend from the statewide index nesting beaches (Witherington et al. 2009). Most beaches experienced declines in loggerhead nesting in 2009, including those in Indian River County. Somewhat surprising was higher loggerhead nesting in south Indian River County compared to recent years. This may be the result of the recovery and reshaping of the Sector 7 beach two years after beach construction. The low amount of loggerhead nesting in recent years in a state that contains a large proportion of loggerhead nesting worldwide has the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considering a proposal to uplist the species to endangered in the Western Atlantic. As in previous years, there were far more nests deposited in the northern portion of the county than in the southern portion. It is hard to ignore the fact that the southern half of the county, particularly Vero Beach, contains more people, buildings and lights. These are all potential disruptions to nesting. In line with this reasoning, it should be noted that loggerhead nesting does pick up somewhat south of the City of Vero Beach. The north to south difference in nesting density was especially sharp for green turtles, whose nesting dropped off drastically just south of Indian River Shores (Figure 4). One of the reasons for this may be that nesting green turtles are more sensitive to beachfront development and related human disturbances. Overall, nesting success was about average in 2009. The areas that were below average (below 50%) were the Disney and Vero Beach study areas. Both areas are plagued by seawalls, scarps and frequent human night traffic. In addition, three areas in Vero Beach and two in the Disney area had dune restoration projects, which, like beach nourishment, can lead to lower nesting success especially the first year sand is placed on the beach. Approximately 20% of all the nests recorded in 2009 were marked to evaluate reproductive success. Overall, 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 43%. The largest impact to hatching and emerging success came from large swells from Hurricane Bill in August. Waves from this event overwashed nests and, in many cases, buried nests


25

with an additional two to three feet of sand. Approximately 20% of the nests were affected by Bill and, though many nests still produced hatchlings, reproductive success was reduced after this event. This year represented the fifth year of complete county-wide surveys. With fewer difficulties to report, the data was more detailed and accurate than in previous years. In addition, the data was received in a more timely manner than in years past. However, there remains many human beach activities with the potential to harm nests and turtles. Only some of these beach activities are illegal under local ordinances, while others are not. Law enforcement has been sporadic at best and many beachgoers mistakenly believe that all nests are protected in our county. Despite difficulties in these areas, research and education continue to be the primary tools used to help support this nest monitoring program.

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 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 2009. PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTERS Prior to March 1st 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 2009, the county’s Environmental Planning and Code Enforcement Office mailed the lighting letters to all affected property owners on March 4 (Appendix F). 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.


26

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 multi-story 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 evening of May 5h and May 7th 2009. Non-compliant and other potentially disruptive lights were identified during the inspection, and each non-compliant exterior light was given a rating with respect to its potential effect on sea turtles (problem codes ranged from 1 to 5, from most disruptive to least disruptive based on the light intensity and the area illuminated). For each non-compliant light source, recommendations were made for corrective measures to bring problematic lights into compliance. Property addresses were identified in real-time using a Trimble Mobile GPS/GIS unit equipped with ArcPad 7.0. The unit contained recent aerial maps and property shapefiles so that addresses could be identified while on the beach at night. During the 2009 night-time survey, we noted that many properties with exterior fixtures had their lights turned off during the survey. Since these properties were only observed once throughout the entire season, some lights may have been turned on at other times. 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 (see Supporting Grants and Projects). As in years past, private single-family residences accounted for the highest number of non-compliant and/or potentially disruptive light sources (Table 14). This was followed in order of decreasing frequency by condominiums, streetlights, clubhouses, hotels, parks and "other types" (resorts). Although there were more private homes with lighting problems, condominiums and clubhouses had the highest average problem codes. 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. There were more problematic lights illuminating the beach in the southern part of the county than in the northern part (Figure 11). There were more exterior lighting violations (55%) than interior lighting violations (45%; 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. Nevertheless, interior lighting problems have been common. In the last four years of surveys, the total number of properties with interior violations was 39, 73, 43, 39 and 43 in 2006, 2007 (two surveys), 2008 and 2009, respectively. In contrast, the number of properties with


27

exterior lighting violations was 49, 58, 65, 72 and 53 over the same time period. This year the number of properties with exterior violations dropped to its second lowest point since 2006. This reversed what had been a trend of increasing exterior lighting violations (Figure 12). Properties with lighting problems tend to fluctuate from year to year, but there remain a "core group" of lighting offenders that arise 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 grant may have helped lower the number of exterior violations in 2009 (see Code Enforcement below). The county lighting violations were mapped per kilometer (Figure 11). Lighting surveys were not conducted in the City of Vero Beach or Indian River Shores so those areas were not in the spatial distribution. The peak in the number of violations per kilometer was in zone 30. Zone 30 contains the neighborhoods of Shorelands, Seagrove, Sand Pointe and Ocean Ridge. This area also received offshore sand several years ago, which raised the beach profile. However, in general, the neighborhoods in the south part of the county have had problematic lights since the inception of the HCP. DISORIENTATIONS During the 2009 nesting season, 57 nest disorientations were recorded by monitoring personnel. Most of these were from loggerhead nests, but a few were from leatherback nests (Table 15). A total of 2,654 sea turtle hatchlings were disoriented during these events. The majority of disoriented nests were in South Indian River County. The City of Vero Beach and South Indian River County combined for 65% of all the disoriented nests and 81% of the disoriented hatchlings recorded in the county. The areas with the highest number of lighting violations also had the highest number of disorientations (Figure 11). 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. Nevertheless, a significant number of lighting violations were in the southern part of the county and, not surprisingly, this was where most of the disorientations occurred. There were many reasons for the spatial variability in disorientations. First, there continued to be disorientations 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). Second, during night-time surveys there were many lighting problems recorded near Wabasso Beach, Disney and Sea Oaks condos (zones 11 and 12), but only one disorientation. One reason may be the seawalls and scarps in these areas unintentionally provide a light barrier. Third, as mentioned in previous reports,


28

disorientations are often under-reported and lighting surveys are snapshots at one point in time. The number of hatchlings involved in disorientations has decreased steadily since 2006 (Figure 13). The total this year was about half of that in 2006. Optimistically, this may be due to the success of fixing the most disruptive lights. Typically, code enforcement focuses on solving these lights first. Secondly, since the hurricanes of 2004-2005 vegetation has grown back and many of the dunes have recovered, both of which provide a light screen. The trend is encouraging, but ultimately lighting issues will continue without complete compliance and dedicated resources (i.e. staff). 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 culled and grouped by 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, seemed to have an effect. Oftentimes, the property owner would just turn off existing flood or pole lights. Unfortunately, many of these changes were short-term fixes and not designed to last. The HCP Coordinators office was not aware of any property that was subject to formal code enforcement action or brought to the attention of the code board. In the meantime, some properties were persuaded by the warning letters to make temporary modifications. In 2009, the county's environmental planning office worked directly with three property owners in the south county to modify their lights. In 2009, 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.


29

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 Caribbean Conservation Corporation (now called the Sea Turtle Conservancy) 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, which was approved by the USFWS in January 2006, was disbursed to various entities in 2009. This type of information was especially pertinent to new beachfront residents. Out of the original 6,400 brochures, approximately 1,200 remained at the end of 2009. 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. The large display case with brochures was based in Indian River Mall during June, July and August of 2009. In addition, a watertight Pelican case was filled with brochures so they could be taken on the beach and handed out to during morning nesting surveys. In 2009, the county biologist spent between 30 and 45 minutes on each nesting survey speaking to beachgoers about sea turtle nesting and conservation. There were four articles in 2009 in local newspapers regarding sea turtles with quotations and contributions from the HCP Coordinator. The first was published in the


30

Vero Beach Press Journal on May 5 2009 and contained a photograph of a leatherback nesting in the daytime. Subsequent articles appeared on June 21 and November 9 in the Press Journal and on July 3 in the Vero Beach Hometown News. All the articles dealt with the nesting season and, in particular, the record number of leatherback nests. In addition to this written press, the HCP Coordinator was on public news radio (1490 AM) six times in 2009 answering questions regarding sea turtle nesting, lights and nest predators. Additional educational tools included nesting informational signs and updated nesting data on the county's website. The durable informational signs provided a passive educational opportunity (funded by a 2007 Sea Turtle License Plate Grant). The signs were affixed to all marked nests. This year a total of six loggerhead nests and one green turtle nest were marked at city and county parks strictly for education purposes. Information about current sea turtle nesting trends was provided on the county's website at www.ircgov.com/coastal (Figure 6). Electronic copies of previous HCP reports were also available on the county's website.

PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM RACCOON PREDATION – PLAN INTENTION The Predator Control Plan (PCP) outlined in Section 11.4 of the county’s HCP constitutes the principal form of mitigation for the take of sea turtles causally related to shoreline protection initiated under emergency authorization. The overall goal of the PCP is to increase hatchling productivity by reducing mammalian predation rates by 40% over a period of five years within the non-Federal lands of the ACNWR. The assumed baseline level of raccoon (Procyon lotor) predation in this area was 15% of all nests. That number was based on anecdotal information supplied by the refuge during HCP development. Condition 11.G.11.e of the ITP, required the county to develop and submit a draft PCP to the Service for review and approval within six months of the effective date of the ITP. The Draft Predator Control Plan, which was submitted to the Service on June 1, 2005, specified nest predator monitoring prior to and during the nesting season, marking and monitoring of a representative sample of sea turtle nests within the refuge for determination of predation rates and selective removal of nest predators within ACNWR and/or other areas where nest predation is identified as a problem. The Draft PCP was never formally approved by the Service and since it's inception there have been questions as to whether this plan would be adequate mitigation. The cause for the delay in implementing the PCP, as written, was due to the low level of raccoon predation within the ACNWR or, for that matter, anywhere else in the county. It is not known whether independent predator control efforts conducted by refuge staff have been responsible for the low level of raccoon predation or other factors are at


31

work. It is also possible that the assumed baseline level of predation in the refuge may have been incorrect. The overall number of nests depredated by raccoons in 2009 was 14 (Figure 14). As in years past, most raccoon predations occurred in the ACNWR study area. However, for the first time since the inception of the HCP, there were four raccoon depredated nests on the south county beaches. The number of nest predation events represented 0.4% of all the nests deposited in the county or 0.6% of the nests deposited in the ACNWR. In addition, the number of raccoon predations has dramatically decreased in the refuge since 2007. There were 42, 21 and 7 events in 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively. Much of the recent decrease may be due to raccoon trapping efforts by the refuge and competition with a canine predator. In 2009, the ACNWR implemented a predator control program with the USDA Animal Control Services. The object was to focus on trapping raccoons particularly in the Brevard County section of the refuge. In April 2009, the HCP Coordinator provided maps and data to ACNWR and USDA staff in support of the PCP. The plan was to use a USDA wildlife specialist during a 30-day period of trapping. The specialists would focus on removing raccoons in so-called "hotspots" or areas where raccoon predation has been historically high. The goal was to reduce predation rates to 5% or lower. In all, 101 raccoons were trapped and removed by the program. Almost all of these animals were caught in Brevard County, with the exception of one raccoon trapped in the southern portion of Sebastian Inlet State Park. Most of the animals were captured using live traps, but about one-third were caught using leg-hole snares. The later method was employed to try and capture a coyote (Canis latrans) on the Pelican Island NWR (PINWR, west of ACNWR), which was believed to be involved in predation of sea turtle nests. CANINE PREDATION Nest predation by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) became a problem in 2006 and continues to be an issue. In addition, another canid, the coyote, C. latrans, may have been involved in predation events in 2008 and 2009. After 38 nests and roughly 4,370 eggs were impacted by canines in 2006, the HCP Coordinator convened a series of meetings, put together educational flyers and coordinated with law enforcement and animal control officers. The events of 2006 were entirely in the southern part of the county (Vero Beach and South IRC). In 2009, the HCP Coordinator continued to encourage the County Animal Control and the City of Vero Beach Police Department (VBPD) to patrol the beaches for unattended domestic or feral dogs. In previous meetings, it was agreed upon that education be the primary tool to deter the problem. An education flyer was created by the HCP Coordinator and distributed to the local Humane Society, Animal Control and beachgoers. In addition, all dogs observed on city beaches were reported to VBPD and all unattended dogs in the county were reported to Animal Control or the County Sheriff's Office. In the event that domestic dog predation


32

became a problem again, contact charts were created for future predation and potential trapping events. As a result of the above activities, canine predation has slowed considerably since 2006 in the southern half of the county. There were 38, 0, 2 and 4 nests depredated by canines in this part of the county in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively. Significantly, only one nest was depredated by dogs in the City of Vero Beach in the past three years (there were 21 in 2006). However, these apparent successes have been offset by an increase in canine predation in ACNWR (Figure 14). In 2009, there were 71 nests dug up by canines in the northern half of the county. Many of these may have been committed by a coyote. In the winter of 2009, refuge staff reported seeing a coyote on the barrier island west of Highway A1A in the PINWR. This was the first evidence of a coyote on the barrier island in Indian River County. At about the same time the refuge was preparing it's predator control plan for protecting sea turtle nests. During meetings with the refuge, USDA and nesting survey contractors, it was pointed out by the county's biologist that many of the nests that were depredated by canids in the refuge in 2008 may have been committed by a coyote. The area west of these beaches is comprised of largely undeveloped government owned lands, especially west of Highway A1A. In other words, if this animal was the nest predator, it could be back in 2009. In 2009, the first predation attempt by a canid occurred on June 7. The next day turtle researchers recorded the first canine nest predation approximately 600 meters south of Treasure Shores Park. Subsequent nest predations continued through October 15 and ranged from 300 meters south of Ambersands Park to 300 meters south of Goldensands Park, a distance of 4.9 kilometers. During this time, wildlife specialists from USDA attempted to capture the animal using leg-hole snares without success. They also attempted to set up a wildlife camera to photograph the animal also without success. One trapper reported seeing a coyote near the beach using night-vision, but that was the only evidence besides tracks. Unfortunately, tracks of domestic dogs and coyotes have strong similarities and, in this case, they were not diagnostic. In the end, the canine digging into 94 nests and destroying 71 of them in 2009 was never captured nor was it ever shown conclusively that it was indeed a coyote. In 2009, there continued to be many dogs and fresh dog prints on the beaches and on nests. It is the intent of the HCP Coordinator to continue efforts to curtail dog predation as a part of the PCP. However, unlike raccoons, stopping canines from digging in nests (whether domestic dogs or coyotes) is a complex task. The efforts of the City of Vero Beach Police Department, USFWS refuge personnel, USDA and Indian River County Animal Control have helped. Yet, just like our nesting survey personnel, these groups cannot be on the beach at all times. Ultimately, help will be needed from the public to report loose dogs, stray dogs or coyotes.


33

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 2009, 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 2009, all activities in the JTCA were conducted in accordance with the ITP.

CUMULATIVE TAKE The cumulative take authorized by the ITP is expressed as the total linear footage of shoreline that has been permanently armored as a result of shoreline protection measures initiated under the county’s emergency permitting program. Pursuant to Condition 11.E of the ITP, the county is authorized to take the covered sea turtle species incidental to authorizing construction and maintenance of permanent armoring structures encompassing no more than 3,196 linear feet of coastline in the Plan Area over the 30-year life of the ITP. This cumulative total represents the estimated amount of frontage of eligible and vulnerable properties along critically eroded beaches that may be in need of shoreline protection prior to construction of a beach nourishment project at their respective locations. There were no temporary or permanent armoring structures authorized by the county in 2009. 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


34

Summerplace properties had seawalls encompassing approximately 520 feet of shoreline (Table 16). 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. The county does not currently have an accurate estimate of the linear footage of shoreline protection structures on the coastline authorized by DEP since the issuance of the ITP. The County Coastal Engineer is expected to make an effort to accurately record all shoreline protection projects and incorporate them into a GIS database.

SUPPORTING GRANTS AND PROJECTS A number of opportunities presented themselves during 2009 that were not directly related to the HCP, however, their implementation supported the biological goals. All of these were initiated by the HCP Coordinator as grants and research projects. MOBILE GIS GRANT – TRIMBLE AND ESRI The HCP Coordinator obtained funding for this geographic information systems (GIS) project through a joint Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) and Trimble Corporation Mobile Government Grant Program – Coastal Communities Edition. ESRI provided the software and Trimble provided the hardware, which totaled $9,700. Indian River County became one of only ten governments in the U.S. awarded this grant in 2006. The Trimble GPS system board had problems and was repaired in 2007. It was used extensively during the 2008 and 2009 nesting seasons to collect data in the field. The HCP Coordinator has been committed to developing new GIS applications and maps. The Trimble Explorer GPS unit has been an invaluable tool for collecting nesting data and obtaining real-time positions for beach projects and night-time lighting surveys. The unit has updated aerial photography for use in the field. In addition, all the previous sea turtle crawl data that contained reliable waypoint information has been converted to shapefiles for use in GIS maps. With reliable location information, the use of this data for identifying crawl densities at beach construction projects has been invaluable. By the end of 2009, the HCP Coordinator had successfully completed nine ArcGIS and ArcPad training courses offered through ESRI, the county and outside contractors.


35

Financial support for these courses has come through the County's GIS Manager and the Coastal Engineering Division. NESTING HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS GRANT – NFWF This grant through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) was obtained in 2007 by the HCP Coordinator to re-plant dune vegetation and fix public beachfront lighting problems to improve nesting habitat in the county. The specific objectives of the grant were to: (1) Provide and install sea grapes (Coccoloba uvifera) on the dune at single-family owned, beachfront properties, (2) provide literature on beachfront lighting and how to care for sea grapes, (3) conduct follow up surveys to determine the success and the effectiveness of the plants, (4) identify publicly owned lights that are causing the most disruption to nesting, (5) modify those lights by working with the local government and utility authority, and (6) conduct follow-up night time surveys to determine the success of the light modifications. The grant began in Fall 2007 and was completed in the summer of 2009. The first portion of the grant involved planting sea grapes on the dunes at private properties along Indian River County's coastline. At a well-advertised lighting education workshop, 19 property owners signed up for a limited quantity of 3-gallon sea grape plants. In the end, 982 plants were delivered and installed on 15 private properties. A remaining 218 sea grapes were placed at county beachside parks bringing the total to 1200 plants. These plants grew slowly over the year, averaging only 13 cm of growth. This was mostly due to under watering and the accumulation of wind blown sand from two tropical storms in 2008. On the properties, however, 72% of the dune crest was covered with sea grape plants. If these plants continue to grow, they will provide an excellent light screen in the future. Interest in the planting program was lower than expected and the most common reason given was the desire for an unobstructed view of the ocean. The goal of the second part of the grant was to alter public lights near the beach so they were no longer visible to sea turtles. All the public lights near the nesting beaches in Indian River County were precisely mapped using differential GPS. The lights that were visible from the beach and, therefore, potentially detrimental to sea turtles were identified and mapped. In meetings with the municipal utility authority and the city parks department, officials were educated concerning light management techniques and told financial help was available to pay for the light modifications. Eighty-four percent of the potentially detrimental public lights were modified and there was an 87.5% reduction in overall light trespass onto the beach (based on Problem Lighting Scores). Light management techniques that were developed during this project have been disseminated to other Florida sea turtle nesting beaches, an important leatherback nesting beach in Trinidad, and an important olive ridley arribada beach in India (copies of the final report are available from the HCP Coordinator or www.nfwf.org).


36

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. Significant gains in this program have been made in terms of the collection of quality data from individual permit holder groups. In 2009, there were 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 closely matched the spreadsheet database format used by the HCP coordinator. This meant less post-processing after the data was received. Despite gains, there were a few things that needed refinement. The sentinel nest protocol, which is part of condition 11.G.10.d (1) of the ITP, has been marginally effective at monitoring nests in critically eroded sites. This was partly due to the difficulty in getting permit holders in the northern part of the county to stake sentinel nests. More problematic, though, has been the overall reduction in sentinel nest areas. Most of the original sentinel sites have either been seawalled, nourished or have such high dune scarps that turtles could not nest landward of them. The end result has been a shrinking number of potential sites and marked sentinel nests. One problem has been getting the data in a timely manner. After meetings in early 2009 with the refuge regarding this topic, the communication and coordination was better. During the annual HCP meeting, an emphasis was placed on the county receiving nesting and nesting impact data in a timely manner. While no due date was set, typically by October data requests are sent out to PPH's. The nest disruption data has been more time sensitive since disruptions (predations, lighting problems, etc.) have been difficult to solve without early communication from permit holders. This is a reoccurring problem that needs to be frequently stressed to PPH's. The quality of sea turtle data collected by groups in the county has come a long way since 2005. In 2009, it continued to improve. Data collection has recently become more complicated with new beach construction projects that include additional nest monitoring requirements. These projects add another layer of complexity. Despite this, in general, permit holders have done an excellent job of organizing the HCP nesting data. While permit holders have provided better data to the county, support from the county for this HCP has been dwindling. After three years of difficulty purchasing items, the HCP Coordinator finally received a purchasing credit card last year. This has made it easier to purchase field equipment. Despite this success, support continues to wane.


37

The budget for this program has been cut each year. The HCP Coordinator currently does not have a work cell phone (taken away after a year and a half), a dedicated vehicle or any support staff. In addition, the HCP Coordinator's supervisor, who helped develop and guide the implementation of this HCP, left the county in the first weeks of 2010. There are no plans to fill this vacated position (Coastal Resource Manager). 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 marginally effective. The number of environmental planning staff in the county that deal with lighting problems (among other tasks) has been down to one employee for some time now. In spite of this, recent trends have shown a decrease in exterior lighting violations coupled with a decrease in nest disorientations. As mentioned above, some of this decrease may have been due to the increase in dune vegetation after the 2004-2005 hurricanes and the success of the NFWF habitat restoration grant. 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. Condition 11.G.11.a of the HCP requires the county to mail lighting notices to beachfront residences prior to March 1st. This year notices were mailed 4 days late. EDUCATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT The education program has been getting 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.


38

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 2009 in the ACNWR was supported by county. Canine predation is still a big issue with the possibility of mixed coyote and domestic dog predation. Whether coyote or domestic dog, the issue of canine predation has been difficult to solve. However, 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 a much more diverse attempt to control predation on sea turtle nests. SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT Condition 11.J of the ITP requires the county to submit an annual report describing efforts undertaken to implement the HCP by March 31st of the following year. Since 2006, the completion of reports has been delayed. The current report is three 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 2009 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 HCP programs. The HCP Coordinator recommends a minimum of two additional staff to help with nesting surveys and implementing the light management plan, predator control plan and education program.

UNFORESEEN AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES As defined in Section 11.K of the ITP, unforeseen circumstances are changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the HCP that could not reasonably be anticipated by the county or the USFWS at the time of HCP development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered species. There were no unforeseen circumstances in 2009.


39

LITERATURE CITED

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. 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 survey crew who worked in the northern portion of the county and provided data for this report, especially Charlie Pelizza, Nick Wirwa, Jennifer Lorenzo, Dr. Anne Savage, Carol Rizkalla, Erik Martin, Niki Desjardin and Terry Coulliette. Assistance on beachfront lighting issues and code enforcement came from Meghan Koperski, Erik Martin, Jean Higgins, Paula Bernston, David Checchi, Susan Clifton and Andy Sobczak. Educational brochures were generously provided by Stacy Foster, Ken Gioeli and Jessica Koelsch. Thanks to the Police Department in the City of Vero Beach for helping with beach law enforcement issues. Most importantly, Indian River County is indebted to the volunteers who donated their time conducting nesting surveys for the county in 2009: Charles McConnel, Beverly Harrison and Chris Vann.

TABLES

Table 1. Total nesting activity for Indian River County in 2009. This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line.

Nesting Activity Loggerhead Green Leatherback All

Date of First Emergence 4/18/2009 6/6/2009 3/10/2009 3/10/2009

Date of First Nest 4/25/2009 6/9/2009 3/10/2009 3/10/2009

Date of Last Emergence 9/16/2009 9/25/2009 7/24/2009 9/25/2009

Date of Last Nest 9/16/2009 9/25/2009 7/24/2009 9/25/2009

Total Nests 3,381 239 60 3,680

Total False Crawls 3,422 200 5 3,627

Total Emergences 6,803 439 65 7,307

Nesting Success 49.7% 54.4% 92.3% 50.4%

Table 2. Loggerhead nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey area in 2009. 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 CrawlsTotal

EmergencesNesting

Success (%)Avg. Crawl Density 1

SISP 326 233 559 58.3% 174.7

ACNWR 1,108 1,123 2,231 49.7% 278.9

Disney 172 242 414 41.5% 197.1

IR Shores 765 744 1,509 50.7% 169.6

Vero Beach 321 410 731 43.9% 116.0

South IRC Beaches 689 670 1,359 50.7% 178.8

Total 3,381 3,422 6,803 49.7% 188.4

1 Expressed as the number of emergences (nests and f alse crawls) per kilometer of beach.

Table 3. Green turtle nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey area in 2009. This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge.


EmergencesNesting


SISP 16 24 40 40.0% 12.5

ACNWR 96 96 192 50.0% 24.0

Disney 17 15 32 53.1% 15.2

IR Shores 100 58 158 63.3% 17.8

Vero Beach 3 4 7 42.9% 1.1

South IRC Beaches 7 3 10 70.0% 1.3

Total 239 200 439 54.4% 12.2


Table 4. Leatherback nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey area in 2009. This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge.


EmergencesNesting


SISP 8 0 8 100.0% 2.5

ACNWR 7 0 7 100.0% 0.9

Disney 5 1 6 83.3% 2.9

IR Shores 14 1 15 93.3% 1.7

Vero Beach 9 2 11 81.8% 1.7

South IRC Beaches 17 1 18 94.4% 2.4

Total 60 5 65 92.3% 1.8


Table 5. Summary of loggerhead false crawl characteristics and obstructions by survey area for Indian River County in 2009. 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 233 1123 242 744 410 670

Continuous Crawls (%) 60.9 71.7 86.4 80.2 78.3 73.0

Abandoned Body Pits (%) 33.0 25.1 12.4 17.9 18.5 25.8

Abandoned Egg Chambers (%) 7.7 4.2 4.5 5.5 4.9 4.0

Obstructions

No Obstructions Recorded (%) 95.3 83.5 62.8 83.2 92.4 96.7

Scarps (%) 1.7 8.6 16.1 11.7 1.7 0.1

Seawalls (%) 0.0 4.7 14.5 0.0 3.4 2.5

Dune Cross-Overs (%) 0.0 2.8 4.5 2.4 1.5 0.1

Other Obstructions (%) 3.0 0.4 2.1 2.7 1.0 0.4

Table 6. Summary of green turtle false crawl characteristics and obstructions by survey area for Indian River County in 2009. 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 24 96 15 58 4 3

Continuous Crawls (%) 45.8 60.4 86.7 74.1 50.0 66.7

Abandoned Body Pits (%) 45.8 37.5 13.3 24.1 50.0 33.3

Abandoned Egg Chambers (%) 8.3 7.3 6.7 1.7 0.0 0.0

Obstructions

No Obstructions Recorded (%) 87.5 68.8 20.0 75.9 75.0 100.0

Scarps (%) 4.2 16.7 0.0 17.2 0.0 0.0

Seawalls (%) 0.0 11.5 46.7 0.0 25.0 0.0

Dune Cross-Overs (%) 0.0 3.1 13.3 3.4 0.0 0.0

Other Obstructions (%) 8.3 0.0 20.0 3.4 0.0 0.0

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 2009. (a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found). (b) Clutch found after emergence.

Fate Loggerhead Green Turtle Leatherback Total

Emerged 436 82 20 538

Did not emerge 28 9 6 43

Total Excavated 464 91 26 581

Washed out 34 2 0 36

Depredated 11 4 1 16

Vandalized 7 1 0 8

Nested on by another 4 1 0 5

Could Not Evaluate 3 1 1 5

Did Not Find 30 3 2 35

Total Not Excavated 89 12 4 105

Total Marked 553 103 30 686

Exc

avat

edN

ot E

xcav

ated

Fate Loggerhead Green Turtle Leatherback Total

Emerged 21 9 20 50

Did not emerge 1 0 0 1

Total Excavated 22 9 20 51

Washed out 4 2 1 5

Depredated 0 0 1 2

Vandalized 1 0 0 1

Nested on by another 0 0 0 0

Could Not Evaluate 0 3 1 5

Did Not Find 17 9 7 32

Total Not Excavated 22 14 10 45

Total Marked 44 23 30 97

Exc

avat

edN

ot E

xcav

ated

Table 8. Summary of reproductive success for loggerhead nests by study area in Indian River County, 2009. 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 53 133 69 109 24 44

Mean Clutch Size 100.3 103.9 110.3 108.2 103.1 114.5

Inventoried Hatching Success (%)

76.6 77.4 74.8 67.6 46.8 74.7

Inventoried Emerging Success (%)

75.0 75.7 73.2 64.2 42.9 74.4

Emerging Success, including Predation and

Wash Outs (%)68.5 70.4 69.2 59.3 41.2 61.8

Mean Incubation Period (days)

51.0 51.1 53.2 54.1 53.1 51.3

Table 9. Descriptive statistics for all inventoried loggerhead nests in Indian River County in 2009. Data is separated for nests located initially and those located after emergence. (a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found). (b) Clutch found after emergence.

n Min Max Mean Stand Dev.

Clutch Size 464 22 210 107.5 24.9

Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 464 0 99.3 73.3 29.6

Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 464 0 99.2 71.1 30.3

Emerging Success, including Predation and Wash Outs (%)

509 0 99.2 68.8 32.3

Incubation Period (days) 296 46 63 51.7 3.3


Clutch Size 22 60 174 115.7 24.8




26 0 97.3 65.1 35.2


Table 10. Summary of reproductive success for green turtle nests by study area in Indian River County, 2009. 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


Mean Clutch Size 121 120.5 109.3 123.3 * *


66.8 73.9 79.2 62.7 * *


62.5 71.5 78.4 60.3 * *


Wash Outs (%)62.5 66.5 78.4 58.1 * *


50.3 50.0 56.5 54.4 * *

* No data

Table 11. Descriptive statistics for all inventoried green turtle nests in Indian River County in 2009. Data is separated for nests located initially and those located after emergence. (a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found). (b) Clutch found after emergence.


Clutch Size 91 67 192 120.6 24.8

Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 91 0 100 70.6 35.1

Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 91 0 100 68.2 35.0


97 0 100 65.3 37.0



Clutch Size 9 88 125 102.7 12.0

Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 9 77.9 99.2 91.4 8.2

Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 9 76.0 99.2 90.8 9.0


11 0 99.2 74.3 37.6


Table 12. Summary of reproductive success for leatherback nests by study area in Indian River County, 2009. 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


Mean Clutch Size 78.6 80.8 55 83.0 82.5 68.8


62.0 50.9 36 20.4 0 53.7


59.7 50.0 0 8.0 0 52.3


Wash Outs (%)59.7 41.7 0 8.0 0 52.3


68.8 66.0 * 78.0 * 79.4

1 Not an average* No data

Table 13. Descriptive statistics for all inventoried leatherback nests in Indian River County in 2009. Data is separated for nests located initially and those located after emergence. (a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found). (b) Clutch located after emergence.


Clutch Size 26 47 103 76.1 15.7




27 0 92.6 41.2 37.2



Clutch Size 20 49 121 76.8 19.3

Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 20 35.8 97.7 75.6 20.5

Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 20 35.8 94.8 73.8 19.9


22 0 94.8 67.1 28.8


Table 14. Results of night-time lighting inspections conducted on 5–7 May 2009 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).

Exterior Lighting

Interior Lighting

Total Lighting

Violations 1

Average Exterior Problem Code 2

House 30 37 67 3.4

Condominium 8 5 13 2.0

Street light 8 0 8 3.3

Clubhouse 3 0 3 2.0

Hotels 1 1 2 *

Public Park 2 0 2 3.0

Other Types 1 0 1 *

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 53 43 96 3.1 **

** weighted mean

1 some properties had both interior and exterior lighting violations.

May 2009 Survey

2 problem codes ranged from 1 to 5, from most disruptive to least disruptive, respectively.

* cannot average due to small sample size.

SISP ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC Total

# Events 4 15 1 0 6 28 54

# Hatchlings 85 405 6 0 420 1,657 2,573

# Events 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

# Hatchlings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

# Events 0 0 0 0 2 1 3

# Hatchlings 0 0 0 0 63 18 81

TOTAL EVENTS 4 15 1 0 8 29 57

TOTAL HATCHLINGS 85 405 6 0 483 1,675 2,654

Gre

en T

urtle

Leat

herb

ack

Logg

erhe

ad Table 15. Summary of sea turtle disorientation events by study area, 2009.

Table 16. Cumulative take since date of issuance of the Indian River County ITP (December 1, 2004). No armoring under the HCP occurred in 2009.

Applicant Name Survey Area JurisdictionFDEP Permit

No.Type of

ArmoringTake (Linear

Ft)

Summerplace1 Disney Unincorporated IR-512 ATF Seawall 420

Gerstner, Larry & Cheryl

South County Unincorporated IR-511 M1 ATF Seawall 100

520

0

520

3,196

2,676

Dec 1, 2004 – Dec 31, 2005

1 Parvus, Dirk & Brenda; Strand, Anne E.; Trimarche, Peter J.; King, Bruce, E.; Simpson, Patricia N.; and McCoy, Richard & Louise.

Balance

2009

Cumulative Take

Take Authorized Under ITP

FIGURES

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

!60 !A1A

t1

!510

Fellsmere

�95

Vero Beach

Sebastian

IndianRiver

Shores

Orchid

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

36

35

34

33

32

3130

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

16

15

14

13

12

11

18

17

10

¯

I n d i a nI n d i a nR i v e rR i v e r

C o u n t yC o u n t y

S e b a s t i a n I n l e tS e b a s t i a n I n l e t

ACNWRPelizza

SISPBiologist

DisneySavage

South IRSHerren

Vero BeachHerren

South IRCHerren

North IRSSavage

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

Map of Permit Holder Areas and Jurisdictions along Indian River County's Beaches

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.

!60 !A1A

t1

!510

Vero Beach

Sebastian

IndianRiver

Shores

Orchid

0 1 2 3 4 5Kilometers

Ë

Kilom

eter Zone



S e b a s t i a nS e b a s t i a nI n l e tI n l e t

0 50 100 150 200

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Spatial Distribution of Loggerhead Nests in Indian River County in 2009 Figure 2. The number of loggerhead nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2009. 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.

!60 !A1A

t1

!510

Vero Beach

Sebastian

IndianRiver

Shores

Orchid


Ë

Kilom

eter Zone




0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Spatial Distribution of Loggerhead Nesting Success (%) in Indian River County in 2009

Figure 3. Loggerhead nesting success (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2009. The blue line represents 50% nesting success, which is often used as a baseline. Data includes below the high tide line crawls.

!60 !A1A

t1

!510

Vero Beach

Sebastian

IndianRiver

Shores

Orchid


Ë

Kilom

eter Zone




0 10 20 30 40

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Spatial Distribution of Green Turtle Nests in India n River County in 2009 Figure 4. The number of green turtle nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2009. Zone 36 is not a full kilometer.

!60 !A1A

t1

!510

Vero Beach

Sebastian

IndianRiver

Shores

Orchid


Ë

Kilom

eter Zone




0 5 10 15

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Spatial Distribution of Leatherback Nests in Indian River County in 2009 Figure 5. The number of leatherback nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2009. Zone 36 is not a full kilometer.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

Mar

ch 1

-7M

arch

8-1

4

March

15-

21

March

22-

28

Mch

29-

April 4

April 5

-11

April

12-1

8April

19-25

April 2

6-M

ay 2

May 3

-9M

ay 10

-16

May

17-2

3M

ay 2

4-30

May 31

-Jun

e 6

June

7- 1

3Ju

ne 14-

20Ju

ne 21-

27

June

28 -J

uly 4

July

5-1

1Ju

ly 1 2-

18Ju

ly 1

9-25

Jul y

26-

Aug 1Aug 2

-8Aug 9

-15

Aug 1

6 -22

Aug 23-

29

Aug 30-S

ep 5

Sep 6

-12

Sep 1

3-19

Sep 2

0-26

Sep 2

7-Oct

3N

umbe

r of

Nes

ts

Temporal Distribution of Nesting by All Species in the Southern Half (County-Surveyed Portion) of Indian River County in 2009

Figure 6. The temporal pattern of nesting by all species in the southern half of Indian River County, 2009. This graph is updated weekly throughout the season and is available at www.ircgov.com/coastal

NEST TOTALS Loggerhead = 1,332 Green Turtle = 44 Leather back = 34

!60 !A1A

t1

!510

Vero Beach

Sebastian

IndianRiver

Shores

Orchid


Ë

Kilom

eter Zone




0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

AbandonedBody Pit

AbandonedEgg Chamber

Spatial Distribution of Abandoned Body Pits and Egg Chambers in 2009 Figure 7. The percentage of loggerhead, green turtle and leatherback crawls with abandoned body pits and abandoned egg chambers (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2009.

!60 !A1A

t1

!510

Vero Beach

Sebastian

IndianRiver

Shores

Orchid


Ë

Kilom

eter Zone




0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

SeawallScarpDuneScarpX-overRecEquipOther

Spatial Distribution of Crawl Obstructions (%) in I ndian River County in 2009 Figure 8. The proportion of loggerhead, green turtle and leatherback nests and false crawls associated with obstructions (x-axis) mapped by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2009. X-over = dune walkways. Rec Equip = boats, chairs, umbrellas, etc. See text for description of "Other" category and definitions of types of scarps.

!60 !A1A

t1

!510

Vero Beach

Sebastian

IndianRiver

Shores

Orchid


Ë

Kilom

eter Zone




0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

FIRE

LG VEHICLE

SM VEHICLE

LOOSE DOG

CONSTRUCTION

PIT

OTHER

Disruptive Beach Activities in Indian River County in 2009

Figure 9. The number of disruptive beach activities potentially harmful to sea turtles recorded during nesting surveys (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in Indian River County in 2009. LG VEHICLE = Truck or Construction Vehicle. SM VEHICLE = ATV or Motorcycle. LOOSE DOG = unattended dog. CONSTRUCTION = unauthorized dune or beach work. See text for description of other categories.

!60 !A1A

t1

!510

Vero Beach

Sebastian

IndianRiver

Shores

Orchid


Ë

Kilom

eter Zone




0 10 20 30 40 50

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

PEOPLEPEOPLE SEVEREDOGPEOPLE & DOG

Presence of People and Dogs on Fresh Crawls in 2009

Figure 10. 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 2009. Included is the number of nests with severe people disturbance (see text for further description).

!60 !A1A

t1

!510

Vero Beach

Sebastian

IndianRiver

Shores

Orchid


Ë

Kilom

eter Zone




051015202530

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Disorientations

Exterior and Interior Violations

Distribution of Disorientations and Lighting Violat ions in Indian River County in 2009 Figure 11. 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 2009. Night-time lighting surveys were not conducted in the Town of Indian River Shores, Orchid or the City of Vero Beach.

Exterior lighting Violations from 2006 – 2009 Figure 12. The number of properties with exterior lighting violations over five night-time surveys in Indian River County from 2006 – 2009.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2007a 2007b 2008 2009Survey Year

Num

ber

of P

rope

rtie

s w

ith E

xter

ior

Vio

latio

ns

Disorientations from 2006 – 2009 Figure 13. The number of hatchlings involved in disorientation events in Indian River County from 2006 – 2009.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2006 2007 2008 2009Survey Year

Num

ber

of H

atch

lings

Dis

orie

nted

!60 !A1A

t1

!510

Vero Beach

Sebastian

IndianRiver

Shores

Orchid


Ë

Kilom

eter Zone




0 5 10 15 20 25

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

RACCOON

CANINE

ARMADILLO

UNKNOWN

Distribution of Nest Predations in Indian River Cou nty in 2009 Figure 14. The number of nest predations by raccoons, canines, armadillos and unknown mammalians (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2009.

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

Richard M. Herren Indian River County 4375 43rd Avenue, Unit 102 Vero Beach, Florida 32967 772-226-3484

Tequesta, Florida 33469 (561) 575-5407

Permit#: MTP-09-166-A County: Indian River Effective Date: 3/1112009 Expiration Date: 113112010

Is Authorized to: (1) conduct nesting surveys, (2) conduct stranding/salvage activities, (3) relocate nests for conservation purposes, (4) maintain & display preserved specimens, (5) monitoring for mechanical beach cleaning.

Authorized Nesting Survey Area: Indian River Shores (6.15km S ofSR-510 south to 2.6km N of Beachland Blvd. on AlA), Vero Beach (2.6km N ofBeachland Blvd. on AlA south to 340' north of RM-95), and southern Indian River County beaches ((340' north ofRM-95 south to Indian River/St. Lucie County line).

<=t/!~I Permittee Signature ---~--J;;;:........"...£Lj~;__.L/-'~-~~--!::====.--

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 ~ J:~!tl/ Date 3flt htf I I

Authorized Research Projects: None.

Authorized Monitoring Projects: (1) Monitoring for Indian River Shores beach access (BBCS IR-507 as amended), 2/2000, (2) Monitoring for Indian River County Beach Restoration project - Sector 7 (DEP Permit No. 0215960-001-JC), authorized 1/2007, (3) Monitoring for Ocean Club Condominium Dune Restoration Project (DEP File No. IR-821), authorized 3/2009, (4) Monitoring for Caledon Shore

Page 1 of2 PERMIT NO. MTP-09-166-A

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

Condominium Dune Restoration Project (DEP File No. IR-825), authorized 3/2009, (5) Monitoring for Conn Beach Dune Restoration Project (DEP File No. IR-823), authorized 3/2009.

Authorized Personnel: J. Gorham, J. Gray, C. Vann, C. McConnel, B. Harrison.

General Conditions: Permitted individuals must adhere to the FWC marine turtle permit guidelines developed under a Section 6 Cooperative Agreement between FWC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Special Conditions: Permittee shall coordinate with Indian River County in implementing the Indian River County Habitat Conservation Plan. Additional personnel may be added after attending at least one SNBS/INBS nesting workshop. All transfers of marine turtles or specimens into or out of the State of Florida must be accompanied by a specific consent permit from FWC. See attached Marine Turtle Monitoring for beach restoration projects.

Page 2 of2 PERMIT NO. MTP-09-166-A

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


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


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 – NESTING SURVEY DATA SHEET

SEA TURTLE NESTING SURVEY DATA

START TIME _________________

PR

OJE

CT

?

ZONE COMMENTSSEA

WALLMARKED?

Start with CC # _____ Start with CM # _____

NEST / FC

DIGGING

ABOVE BELOW

NAME _______________________

SPECIFIC FEATURES

GPS WPT SPECIES # AEC SCARP# ABP

PROJECT: N = NATURAL; S = CALEDON SHORES; O = OCEAN CLUB; B = CONN BEACH; 7 = SECTOR 7. AREA: IRS = INDIAN RIVER SHORES; VB = VERO BEACH; SIRC = SOUTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. SPECIES: CC = LOGGERHEAD; CM = GREEN; DC = LEATHERBACK. FOR HELP, CALL 772-226-3484 or 772-713-8929.

PAGE NO.________ OF _________

GPS UNIT NO. _________

DATE ________________________

END TIME ____________________

HIGH TIDE LINE

GENERAL INFORMATION

AREA X-OVER

OBSTRUCTIONS

APPENDIX E – MAPS OF SENTINEL AREAS

SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

Created by the HCP Coordinator, Indian River County

APPENDIX F – PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTER

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1801 27TH Street, Vero Beach FL 32960

772-226-1237 / 772-978-1806 fax www.ircgov.com

March 4, 2009 FRED BALDWIN 12510 N HIGHWAY A1A VERO BEACH FL 32963 RE: COUNTY SEA TURTLE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

Dear Mr. BALDWIN: County records indicate you are the owner of a beachfront property located in unincorporated Indian River County. This letter is part of an annual mailing to 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 1st to October 31st of each year. - Lights illuminating dune crossovers or any areas oceanward of the dune line shall be turned off after 9:00pm during the period from March 1st to October 31st of each year. - Window treatments in windows facing the ocean of single and multistory structures are required so that interior lights do not illuminate the beach. The use of tint or film on windows or awnings is preferred; however, the use of black-out draperies or shade screens are acceptable

Beachfront lighting is regulated based on scientific documentation that such lighting 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 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 County resolution, failure to correct the above referenced violation (s) can result in citation assessed at $50.00 for each day of the violation after a warning notice has been issued with 24 hours to comply. Indian River County can also bring sea turtle lighting violations before the code board, which can enter an order and fines (usually $100 per day) if compliance is not achieved by a board-established compliance date. Indian River County has the privilege of being one of the most important sea turtle nesting areas in the Western Hemisphere. In addition, the County has a federally mandated Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Sea Turtles in accordance with its permit to help protect beachfront homes from storm erosion. The reduction of lighting impacts on nesting turtles is a part of the County's HCP. Therefore, your cooperation in minimizing beachfront lighting is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning sea turtle regulations, please do not hesitate to call Senior Environmental Planner Andy Sobczak at 226-1518. Sincerely,

Roland M. DeBlois, AICP Chief, Environmental Planning

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION … · habitat conservation plan for the protection of...

Documents

Transcript of HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION … · habitat conservation plan for the protection of...