HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN A PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION …€¦ · ECOLOGICAL SERVICES DIVISION ENDANGERED SPECIES PERMITS BRANCH 1875 CENTURY BOULDEVARD, #200 ATLANTA, ... 4.3 Atlantic

Prepared for:

Indian River County Public Works

Coastal Engineering Division

1801 27th Street

Vero Beach, Florida 32960

Prepared by:

Ecological Associates, Inc.

Post Office Box 405

Jensen Beach, Florida 34958

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

A PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES ON THE

ERODING BEACHES IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA


A PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES ON THE ERODING BEACHES IN

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

Prepared in Support of Indian River County’s Application for an Incidental

Take Permit for the Take of Sea Turtles Causally Related to Emergency Shoreline Protection Activities

Prepared for:

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES DIVISION

ENDANGERED SPECIES PERMITS BRANCH 1875 CENTURY BOULDEVARD, #200

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30345

Prepared By:

ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. BOX 405

JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 34958

March 2002 Date of Last Revision: July 2003

Date of Last Amendment: October 2017


TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii AMENDMENT SUMMARY ............................................................................................. x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ x

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 State Authorization ........................................................................................... 2 1.3 Federal and Other Authorizations ..................................................................... 3 1.4 Regulatory Basis of the HCP ............................................................................ 3

1.5 Challenges to Indian River County’s Permitting Decisions ............................. 5

1.6 Purpose of HCP................................................................................................. 5

2.0 GOALS AND BENEFITS ......................................................................................... 7 2.1 Requested Take ................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Goals of HCP .................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Benefits of HCP ................................................................................................ 9

2.3.1 Protected Species ..................................................................................... 9 2.3.2 Property Owners .................................................................................... 10

2.3.3 Parties to Memorandum of Agreement .................................................. 10 3.0 PLAN AREA ........................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Geographical Location .................................................................................... 12

3.1.1 North-South Boundaries ........................................................................ 12 3.1.2 East-West Boundaries ............................................................................ 12

3.2 Population ....................................................................................................... 12

3.3 Coastal Characterization ................................................................................. 12

3.3.1 Upland Development ............................................................................. 12 3.3.2 Natural Resources and Community Types ............................................ 13

3.3.2.1 Beach/Dune ................................................................................ 13

3.3.2.1 Coastal Strand ............................................................................ 15 3.3.2.2 Maritime Hammock ................................................................... 15

3.3.2.3 Tidal Swamp .............................................................................. 15 3.3.1 Publicly Held Lands ............................................................................... 21 3.3.2 Economic Importance of Beaches ......................................................... 22

3.3.3 Coastal Processes ................................................................................... 22 4.0 LISTED SPECIES IN PLAN AREA ....................................................................... 25

4.1 Southeastern Beach Mouse ............................................................................. 28

4.1.1 Biological Information ........................................................................... 28

4.1.2 Site-Specific Information ....................................................................... 28 4.2 West Indian Manatee ...................................................................................... 29

4.2.1 Biological Information ........................................................................... 29 4.2.2 Site-Specific Information ....................................................................... 29

4.3 Atlantic Salt Marsh Snake .............................................................................. 29


4.4 Eastern Indigo Snake ...................................................................................... 30


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii


4.5 Wood Stork ..................................................................................................... 31 4.5.1 Biological Information ........................................................................... 31 4.5.2 Site-Specific Information ....................................................................... 31

4.6 Johnson’s Seagrass.......................................................................................... 31 4.6.1 Biological Information ........................................................................... 31 4.6.2 Site-Specific Information ....................................................................... 31

4.7 Sea Turtles ...................................................................................................... 32 4.7.1 Loggerhead Turtle .................................................................................. 32

4.7.1.1 Biological Information ............................................................... 32

4.7.1.2 Site-Specific Information ........................................................... 35

4.7.2 Green Turtle ........................................................................................... 41 4.7.2.1 Biological Information ............................................................... 41 4.7.2.2 Site-Specific Information ........................................................... 42

4.7.3 Leatherback Turtle ................................................................................. 43

4.7.3.1 Biological Information ............................................................... 43 4.7.3.2 Site-Specific Information ........................................................... 44

4.7.4 Hawksbill Turtle .................................................................................... 44 4.7.4.1 Biological Information ............................................................... 44 4.7.4.2 Site-Specific Information ........................................................... 45

4.7.5 Kemp’s Ridley Turtle ............................................................................ 45 4.7.5.1 Biological Information ............................................................... 45

4.7.5.2 Site-Specific Information ........................................................... 46

4.8 Species Covered Under Plan ........................................................................... 46

5.0 FACTORS AFFECTING IMPACTING SEA TURTLES IN PLAN AREA .......... 47 5.1 Natural Events ................................................................................................. 47

5.1.1 Predation ................................................................................................ 47

5.1.2 Tidal Inundation ..................................................................................... 48 5.2 Human-Related Activities ............................................................................... 49

5.2.1 Vehicular Impacts .................................................................................. 49 5.2.2 Artificial Lighting .................................................................................. 49 5.2.3 Human Activity on the Beach ................................................................ 50

5.2.4 Recreational Equipment ......................................................................... 51 5.2.5 Shoreline Protection ............................................................................... 51

5.2.5.1 Armoring .................................................................................... 51

5.2.5.2 Beach Nourishment .................................................................... 55

5.2.5.3 Inlet Sand Bypassing.................................................................. 58 5.2.5.4 Sand Fences ............................................................................... 60

5.2.6 Coastal Construction .............................................................................. 60 5.2.7 Stormwater Outfalls ............................................................................... 60

6.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 61

6.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ........................................................ 61 6.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ............................................................... 63

6.2.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................ 63


TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii

6.2.2 Land Acquisition Alternative ................................................................. 64 6.2.3 Retreat Alternative ................................................................................. 65

7.0 ANTICIPATED LEVEL OF TAKE ........................................................................ 67 7.1 Direct Impacts ................................................................................................. 67 7.2 Indirect Impacts .............................................................................................. 68

7.3 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 86 8.0 PERMITTING PROCESS ....................................................................................... 87

8.1 Declaration of Emergency .............................................................................. 87 8.2 Initiation of Emergency Permitting Process ................................................... 87 8.3 Determination of Eligibility ............................................................................ 88

8.4 Determination of Vulnerability ....................................................................... 88

8.5 Emergency Shoreline Protection Options ....................................................... 89

8.6 Siting of Protective Structures ........................................................................ 90 8.7 Implementation of Emergency Shoreline Protection Measures ...................... 90 8.8 Timing Constraints.......................................................................................... 90 8.9 Applications for Permanent Structures ........................................................... 91

8.10 Rejection of Applications for Permanent Structures ...................................... 92 8.11 Exceptions to Standard Emergency Permitting Process ................................. 93

8.11.1 Coverage for Take Associated With Permitting Exceptions ................. 94 9.0 MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS ............................................................................ 95

9.1 Proactive Planning .......................................................................................... 95

9.2 Pre-permitting Assessment of Nesting Habitat ............................................... 96 9.3 Precautions During Implementation of Emergency Measures ....................... 98

9.3.1 Inclusive Period of Monitoring .............................................................. 98

9.3.2 Establishing Project Boundaries ............................................................ 99

9.3.3 Equipment on the Beach and Access Locations .................................. 100 9.3.4 Time of Monitoring and Daily Commencement of Construction ........ 100 9.3.5 Data Collection .................................................................................... 100

9.3.6 Nest Protection ..................................................................................... 101 9.3.7 Nest Monitoring ................................................................................... 101

9.3.8 Incidental Exhumation of Eggs ............................................................ 101 9.3.9 Nighttime Precautions .......................................................................... 102 9.3.10 Impact Assessment............................................................................... 103

9.4 Monitoring of Project Areas Following Construction .................................. 104 9.4.1 Construction Completed During the Sea Turtle Nesting Season ......... 104 9.4.2 Construction Completed Outside the Sea Turtle Nesting Season ........ 104

9.4.3 Evaluating the Effects of Temporary Shoreline Protection Measures . 107

9.5 Precautions During Removal of Temporary Structures ................................ 107 9.6 Failure of Temporary Structures ................................................................... 108 9.7 Installation of Permanent Shoreline Protection ............................................ 109 9.8 Implementation of Beach Preservation Plan ................................................. 110

10.0 MITIGATION........................................................................................................ 111

10.1 Acquisition of Beachfront Property .............................................................. 111 10.2 Predator Control ............................................................................................ 114

10.3 Cumulative Benefits...................................................................................... 116


TABLE OF CONTENTS

iv

11.0 PROTECTED SPECIES MANAGEMENT .......................................................... 119 11.1 Biological Goal ............................................................................................. 119 11.2 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program .................................................................... 119

11.2.1 Current Historic Survey Areas ............................................................. 119 11.2.2 Expanded Survey Coverage ................................................................. 122

11.2.3 Coordination of Monitoring Activities ................................................ 124 11.2.4 Description of Monitoring Activities ................................................... 125

11.2.4.1 Daily Surveys ........................................................................... 125 11.2.4.2 Documenting Impacts to Nesting Turtles and Hatchlings ....... 126 11.2.4.3 Marking and Monitoring Nests ................................................ 126

11.2.4.3.1 Nests in High Risk Areas ............................................. 126

11.2.4.3.2 Nests in Emergency Construction Zones ..................... 127

11.2.4.3.3 Nests Used to Monitor Nest Fate in Emergency

Construction Areas............................................................................ 127 11.2.4.3.4 Nests Used to Monitor Reproductive Success ............. 128 11.2.4.3.5 Nests Monitored for Conservation ............................... 130

11.2.4.3.6 Nests Used for Public Education ................................. 130 11.2.4.3.7 Nests Used for Scientific Research .............................. 130

11.2.4.4 Monitoring of Temporary and Permanent Structures .............. 130 11.2.5 Monitoring Responsibilities ................................................................. 130 11.2.6 Reporting.............................................................................................. 131

11.2.7 Organization of Monitoring Personnel ................................................ 131 11.2.8 Initiation of Monitoring Activities and Coverage for Take ................. 132

11.3 Data Management ......................................................................................... 132

11.4 Predator Control ............................................................................................ 133

11.5 Light Management ........................................................................................ 135 11.6 Education ...................................................................................................... 137 11.7 Sea Turtle Stranding Response ..................................................................... 137

12.0 PLAN ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................. 139 12.1 Administration of the HCP and ITP.............................................................. 139

12.2 HCP Coordinator .......................................................................................... 139 12.3 Coastal Engineer ........................................................................................... 140 12.4 Principal Marine Turtle Permit Holders ....................................................... 142

12.5 Indian River County Office of Emergency Services .................................... 142 12.6 Indian River County Public Works Department ........................................... 143 12.7 Indian River County Attorney’s Office ........................................................ 143

12.8 Indian River County Administrator’s Office ................................................ 143

12.9 Coordination With Regulatory Agencies ...................................................... 144 13.0 FUNDING.............................................................................................................. 145 14.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ...................................................................... 146 15.0 CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES ......................................................................... 152

15.1 Underestimate of Take .................................................................................. 152

15.2 Delisting and/or Listing of New Species ...................................................... 153 16.0 UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES ................................................................... 154

17.0 COMPLIANCE MONITORING & REPORTING ............................................... 155


TABLE OF CONTENTS

v

17.1 Sea Turtle Data Analysis and Annual Reporting .......................................... 155 17.2 HCP Program Documentation ...................................................................... 155 17.3 Documentation of Take and Mitigation Benefits.......................................... 156 17.4 Enforcement of Laws and Regulations ......................................................... 156 17.5 Changes to the HCP and ITP ........................................................................ 157

17.6 Change of Authority ..................................................................................... 157 GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................... 158 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 164 APPENDIX A - INTERIM AGREEMENT ................................................................... 178 APPENDIX B - EXISTING MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ............................ 191

APPENDIX C - EROSION VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ...................................... 198

APPENDIX D - DRAFT DECLARATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY ..................... 194

APPENDIX E - RULES AND REGULATIONS ........................................................... 197 APPENDIX F – PENDING MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ............................. 203 APPENDIX G – LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CARL PROPERTY.............................. 209


vi

ABBREVIATIONS

ACNWR – Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge

ATV – All terrain vehicle (light weight vehicle having wide low-pressure tires)

BPP – Beach Preservation Plan of Indian River County

CARL – Florida’s Conservation and Recreational Land acquisition program

CCC – Caribbean Conservation Corporation

CCCL – Coastal Construction Control Line

CITES – Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora

DPS – Distinct Population Segment

ESA – Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

FAC – Florida Administrative Code

FDEP – Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FMRI – Florida Marine Research Institute

FNAI – Florida Natural Areas Inventory

FR – Federal Register

FS – Florida Statutes

FWC – Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

FY – Fiscal Year (in Indian River County October 1st through September 30th)

HCP – Habitat Conservation Plan

IA – Interim Agreement between IRC, FDEP, CCC, and the Summerplace and Gerstner

Petitioners

IRC – Indian River County

ITP – Incidental Take Permit

LMP – Light Management Program

MLW – Mean Low Water Line of the State of Florida

MOA – Memorandum of Agreement

MSRP – South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan

MTPH – FWC Marine Turtle Permit Holder

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS – National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

PCP – Predator Control Plan for Indian River County

PEP Reef – Prefabricated Erosion Prevention Reef

PPH – Principal Permit Holder of a FWC Marine Turtle Permit

POEP – Public Outreach and Education Program

SISP – Sebastian Inlet State Park

SITD – Sebastian Inlet Tax District

SOP – Standard Operating Procedures

USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service


vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

1 Indian River County coastline showing local municipalities and

FDEP monuments.

14

2 Public lands in north east Indian River County. 16

3 Public lands in central east Indian River County. 17

4 Public lands in south east Indian River County. 18

5 Indian River County beach management relative to shoreline

conditions.

23

6 Sentinel nest marking locations Indian River County, Florida 97

7 Survey areas used for calculating sea turtle nest densities under

the original HCP (2005).

115

8 Sea turtle monitoring responsibilities prior to 2005 habitat

conservation plan (HCP).

121

9 Current sea turtle monitoring management areas. 123


viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

1 Publicly owned beachfront property within the plan area. 19

2 Management responsibilities of publicly-owned beachfront

property within the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, Indian

River County, Florida.

21

3 State and/or federally-listed species potentially occurring within

or adjacent to the plan area.

26

4 Sea turtle nest densities along Indian River County Beaches,

1994-2000.

37

5 Spatial boundaries of the beach segments used to survey for sea

turtle nesting in Indian River County prior to 2005 and sources of

data used to assess temporal and spatial nesting patterns during

preparation of original HCP.

38

6 Sea turtle nest densities along Indian River County Beaches,

2005-2016.

39

7 Spatial boundaries of the beach management areas used to survey

for sea turtle nesting in Indian River County since 2006.

40

68 Comparison of temporal nesting patterns of Florida sea turtles in

Indian River County, Florida: 1979-2000 versus 2005-2016.

4139

79 Summary of existing armoring structures in Indian River County

by sea turtle monitoring area prior to 2005.

4953

810 Potential impacts of shoreline protection activities on sea turtles. 5256

911 Number and location of eligible structures potentially vulnerable

to erosion in relation to Indian River County’s planned beach

nourishment projects.

6772

1012 Estimate of annual loggerhead turtle nest displacement over the

30-year life of Indian River County’s Beach Preservation Plan.

6974

1113 Estimate of cumulative loggerhead turtle nest displacement over

the 30-year life of Indian River County’s Beach Preservation

Plan.

7176

1214 Estimate of annual green turtle nest displacement over the 30-

year life of Indian River County’s Beach Preservation Plan.

7378

1315 Estimate of cumulative green turtle nest displacement over the


7580

1416 Estimate of annual leatherback turtle nest displacement over the


7782

1517 Estimate of cumulative leatherback turtle nest displacement over

the 30-year life of Indian River County’s Beach Preservation

Plan.

7984

1618 Sea turtle monitoring requirements during construction of

emergency shoreline protection measures in Indian River

County.

9399


ix

Table Title Page

1719 Sea turtle monitoring requirements following construction of

emergency shoreline protection measures in Indian River

County.

105

1820 Mitigation benefits of a predator control program within and

adjacent to the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge.

117

1921 Summary of nest equivalents for mitigation measures proposed

by Indian River County to offset potential impacts to sea turtles

resulting from emergency shoreline protection measures initiated

under emergency authorization.

1182

2122 Schedule of implementation activities. 147

2223 Schedule of activities associated with issuance of emergency

permits and related monitoring.

137149


x

AMENDMENT SUMMARY

The County’s Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was implemented in 2005 with the

understanding that the document would undergo periodic updates. The 2017 sea turtle

nesting season marks the 12th year since the HCP was put into effect. Over the last 12

years, standard operating procedures (SOPs) for emergency permitting and sea turtle

monitoring have been created and supplemental activities have been introduced resulting

in improvements to the HCP. The purpose of this amendment is to identify these

improvements and implement them into the SOPs outlined in the HCP. Updates

(strikethroughs are deletions, underlines are additions) were made to the HCP where

needed to reflect current operational conditions; no attempt was made to update nesting

data or any other data used to calculate take in the original HCP.

Updates included in this amendment include revisions to the Predator Control Program

(PCP) and the Light Management Program (LMP), and the addition of a Public Outreach

and Education Program (POEP). The PCP now discusses the management of all

mammalian predators of sea turtle nests and outlines a clear predation threshold rule

across the Plan Area and within newly-defined management areas. The LMP now

references the updated County Lighting Ordinance and outlines an SOP for informing

beachfront property owners of this ordinance and any violations to this ordinance.

County staff continue to work cooperatively with its municipal partners to inform

beachfront property owners of lighting impacts to sea turtles and enforce the municipal

lighting ordinance. Lastly, the introduction of the POEP allows the County to educate the

local community and its visitors about the HCP and promotes public awareness and

cooperation with local ordinances. The program focuses on a multitude of audiences

ranging from students to adults and utilizes a variety of media including interactive

festivals and presentations, school programs, interviews, and magazine articles. The

County aims to continually improve and update its programs and SOPs with the most up-

to-date technology and information to fulfill its obligations under the HCP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Section 161, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code, set forth

the rules and regulations governing the issuance of permits for shoreline protection

activities along Florida’s coastline. Under these guidelinesrules, Indian River County

local governments has been delegated authority to can authorize temporary emergency

shoreline protection measures to protect eligible and vulnerable private property and

public infrastructure from acute erosion caused by storms that have beenthat result in a

local or State declared declaration an of emergency. Indian River County (IRCthe

County) issued its first Emergency Permit in 1996, and a total of six permits,

encompassing 20 upland structures and 1,675 feet of beach, have been issued since then.

Two shoreline protection structures installed under Emergency Permits issued by Indian

River County led to legal challenges alleging that activities authorized by the County


xi

were inconsistent with State rules and regulations and that the structures were causing

unauthorized “take” of sea turtles. As a result of these challenges, the County, the

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Caribbean Conservation

Corporation (CCC), and the owners of the structures involved (the Summerplace and

Gerstner Petitioners) entered into an Interim Agreement. The Interim Agreement

constrained all parties from further legal action while the County prepared a Habitat

Conservation Plan (HCP) and applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for

a Section 10 Incidental Take Permit.

Take of any federally-listed species of plants and animals is prohibited under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, unless specifically authorized

through a Section 10 Incidental Take Permit (ITP). Take, as defined by the ESA involves

both direct injury orboth direct injury and/or harm to listed species, as well as indirect

impacts, such as modification of habitat that could affect an animal’s breeding or feeding

behavior or eliminate requisite shelter.

Indian River County is applying to the USFWS for a Section 10 ITP that will authorize

the take of five species of sea turtles nesting on County Beaches causally related to

shoreline protection measures initiated under the County’s emergency authorization. The

ITP will be in effect for a 30-year period, which corresponds to the time frame during

which the County will implement its Beach Preservation Plan.

This HCP is a mandatory element of the County’s ITP application. It: (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 turtles on County Beaches, (d) describes measures that

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

protection activities, and (e) proposes mitigative measures to offset unavoidable take.

To receive an Emergency Shoreline Protection Permit from Indian River County, a

beachfront property owner must be able to demonstrate that his/her habitable structure

was constructed prior to current Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) regulations

and is vulnerable to erosion as a result of a storm event for which a State or local

declaration of emergency has been adopted. A structure is considered vulnerable if its

foundation is undermined of if the dune escarpment is within 20 feet of its seaward most

edge.

Following the passage of the storm event, the property owner has 10 business days to

make formal application to the County for an Emergency Permit. Upon issuance of an

Emergency Permit, the property owner then has a total of 60 days to complete authorized

shoreline protection activities. Any structures erected through an Emergency Permit

must be removed within 60 days of installation, unless the property owner has submitted

a complete application to FDEP to either retain the temporary structure as a permanent

structure or install alternative protection. If an application is submitted to FDEP within

the allotted time frame, the temporary structure can remain in place until FDEP makes a

determination as to the disposition of the permit application. The County will enter into


xii

a Memorandum of Agreement with FDEP to formalize the relationship of the two

permitting processes.

Any take resulting from the implementation of shoreline protection measures initiated

under an Emergency Permit issued by Indian River County will be authorized by the

USFWS pursuant to the terms and conditions of the ITP. In addition to future shoreline

protection measures authorized by the County, the Summerplace and Gerstner Petitioners

will be eligible for FDEP permits for the retention of their temporary structures as

permanent structures at their current locations pursuant to the terms and conditions of the

Interim Agreement and the ITP. Any future take resulting from the Petitioner’s

armoring structures will be covered from the date of ITP issuance.

The following types of emergency shoreline protection measures are authorized under the

HCP:

Placement of beach-compatible fill from upland sources on the beach;

Creation of a temporary barrier using sand bags and/or geo-textile (fabric)

tubes filled with sand;

Shoring up (reinforcing) foundations; and

Installation of temporary wooden retaining walls, cantilever sheetpile walls or

similar structures seaward of the vulnerable structure.

The County’s Coastal Engineer will make a determination as to the most appropriate

protective measure(s) for each vulnerable structure based on site-specific conditions. The

goal of the HCP is to provide effective temporary protection for the vulnerable structure

while minimizing impacts to sea turtle nesting habitat and the coastal system. Any

physical structures placed on the beach as the result of an Emergency Permit issued by

Indian River County shall be designed and sited to minimize excavation of the beach and

frontal dune and impacts to native vegetation, sea turtle habitat, and adjacent beachfront

properties. These temporary structures must also be designed and sited to facilitate their

removal.

Temporary structures shall be sited at or landward of the dune escarpment and as close to

the vulnerable structure as practicable to provide adequate protection. In no case may the

armoring structure be sited farther than 20 feet from the seaward most edge of the

vulnerable structure.

Alternatives to the County’s proposed emergency shoreline protection program were

evaluated and rejected, because they were impractical, cost prohibitive, and/or would

devalue the County’s tax base. In conjunction with planned beach nourishment projects

identified in the County’s Beach Preservation Plan, the shoreline protection measures

authorized under this HCP will provide coastal residents with an effective method of

responding to emergency erosion events in a manner and extent compatible with the

protection of sea turtles.


xiii

Minimization of impacts resulting from shoreline protection activities authorized under

the ITP shall be achieved through the following:

Development and distribution of a public awareness brochure describing the

dynamic nature of the coastline, identifying areas of critical erosion, and

providing information on beach management issues related to shoreline

protection in Indian River County;

Establishment of specific conditions under which Emergency Permits will be

issued;

Regulation of the type and siting of temporary structures;

Requirements for sea turtle monitoring and nest protection during

implementation of shoreline protection measures authorized by the ITP; and

Implementation of a Memorandum of Agreement with FDEP to coordinate

local and State permitting activities to ensure compliance with State rules and

regulations governing shoreline protection activities.

The biological goal of the HCP is to increase the productivity of the County’s beaches as

sea turtle nesting habitat. This requires systematic monitoring of the County’s shoreline

to identify natural and human factors negatively affecting the sea turtle reproductive

cycle. To achieve this goal, the County will coordinate the monitoring activities of the

various groups currently monitoring sea turtle nesting activity in Indian River County.

This will be accomplished by standardizing data collection techniques, providing limited

logistical support, maintaining a Countywide sea turtle database, and conducting annual

HCP program evaluations. Additionally, to ensure complete coverage, the County will

be responsible for conducting sea turtle monitoring along approximately five miles of

coastline where no current monitoring program is in place. The County may also assume

responsibilities of other entities currently monitoring County Beaches if it is deemed

mutually beneficial to do so.

As mitigation for unavoidable impacts to sea turtles resulting from shoreline protection

measures initiated under the County’s emergency authorization, the County has proposed

the following:

Previous acquisition of the Jungle Trail Conservation Area (CARL property) as a

means of preserving sea turtle habitat; and

Development and implementation of a Predator Control Plan for non-federal lands

within the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge.

During the 30 years that the ITP is in effect it is projected that 31 structures

encompassing 3,196 feet of shoreline will be eligible for Emergency Permits. Changes in

the quality of nesting habitat resulting from the installation of permanent armoring

structures at these locations could result in the displacement of 1,150 loggerhead, 56

green, and 3 leatherback turtle nests over the life of the ITP. Collectively, the mitigation

identified above is estimated to save a total 4,905 loggerhead, 231 green, and 11

leatherback turtle nests from predators, artificial beachfront lighting, and human

disturbances on the beach. Thus, the County proposes to mitigate the destruction and/or


xiv

displacement of turtle nests caused by emergency shoreline protection activities at the

ratio of about 4:1.

The County will fund the programs described above with monies derived from its

Beach Preservation Fund. No Emergency Permits may be issued by the County

pursuant to this HCP until sufficient resources are in place to comply with the terms

and conditions of the ITP.

The County will meet annually with the USFWS to review HCP performance and discuss

the County’s monitoring program during the first three years that the ITP is in effect and

periodically thereafter. The HCP is intended to be a dynamic document. Adjustments to

monitoring, minimization, and mitigation programs will be made, as needed, to ensure

that the biological goals of the HCP are achieved.


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

In March 2002, tThe County of Indian River, Florida, has applied to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS or Service) for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) pursuant to

Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA or the Act) of 1973, as

amended. If The purpose ofissued, the ITP application was to obtainwill Federal

authorization for the “take” of sea turtles on the Atlantic coast beaches of Indian River

County (IRC or the County) causally related to shoreline protection measures initiated

under the County’s emergency authorization. This A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP or

Plan), has been developed as a mandatory element of the ESA Section 10 ITP process,

was developed (dated March 2002) and submitted to the Service in support of the

County’s ITP application. The HCP was subsequently revised to address reviewer

comments and a final draft (dated July 2003) submitted to the Service under cover dated

August 30, 2003.

Following preparation of requisite National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

documents and public comment, the Service approved the County’s HCP and issued an

ITP for a period of 30 years, effective October 25, 2004. Insofar as conditions addressed

in the HCP at the time of its preparation are likely to change over the 30-year term of the

ITP, occasional updates are necessary to keep the document current. This update was

developed following the 2016 sea turtle nesting season. It was submitted to the USFWS

for review and approval in October 2017. Relevant information and data presented in the

original HCP (July 2002) have been retained in this updated version, as that information

constituted the basis for the minimization and mitigation measures prescribed by the Plan

and the terms and conditions imposed by the Service in the ITP.

At the time of IRC’s application for an ITP, aApproximately 62 percent of IRC’s the

County’s 22.4 22.25 miles of coastline is presentlywas experiencing some degree of

erosion, and 9.2 miles (41.3 percent) are were classified by the State of Florida as

“critically eroded” (J. Tabar, IRC Coastal Engineer, personal communication, 2001). By

August 2016, the length of eroding beaches in the County had increased to 15.7 miles

(70.5 percent), all of which was designated as critically eroded (FDEP 2016). As a result

of a receding shoreline, habitable structures adjacent to the beach have become

increasingly vulnerable to physical damage from storms.

To provide shoreline protection for upland properties and to restore lost recreational

values, the County has developed a long-term (30-year) Beach Preservation Plan (BPP;

Cubit Engineering 1988) which is regularly updated to address evolving beach

management and protection needs. The BPP partitions the coastline into eight discrete

sectors, each having unique coastal features and erosional patterns. Through the BPP, the

County has, and will continue to, implement a multi-faceted program to manage the

beach/dune system in a manner that accommodates these site-specific conditions.


2

Specific initiatives include, but are not limited to, inlet sand bypassing, beach

nourishment, dune restoration, and nearshore wave attenuation structures such as the

Prefabricated Erosion Prevention (PEP) reef installed in the City of Vero Beach.

The BPP has been updated three times, 1998, 2008, and most recently in 2015 (CB&I

CPE 2015), since its initial preparation in 1988. Although the BPP has proven successful

in halting shoreline retreat in certain sectors of the County, Until such time as the BPP is

fully implemented many beachfront structures will remain vulnerable to hurricanes and

other destructive storm events. Consequently, property owners along the coast of IRC

have a compelling interest in having an alternative means of shoreline protection.

1.2 State Authorization

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), Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems, is the State agency that

oversees this activity. Only structures built prior to the State’s current rules regulating

coastal development are eligible for the installation of permanent seawalls, revetments

and other “armoring” structures. Structures built under a permit issued by FDEP

pursuant to Section 161.052 or 161.053, FS, on or after March 17, 1985 are ineligible for

such structures. That is because new construction must be designed, sited, and

constructed in a manner that considerably reduces its vulnerability to erosion during

storm events. In addition to being “eligible”, a structure must also be “vulnerable”, as

defined by Chapter 62B-33, FAC, before a property owner can receive a permit to install

a permanent shoreline armoring structure.

If erosion resulting from a major storm event (e.g., hurricane, tropical storm, northeaster,

etc.) 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. IRC was the first

county in Florida to implement local emergency permitting authority under Chapter 161,

FS. This allows the County to issue permits for the protection of eligible and vulnerable

private structures adjacent to the County’s beaches following a storm event that has been

officially declared an emergency.

When issuing Emergency Permits, State law requires the County to consider the potential

effects of shoreline protection on the beach-dune system, sea turtles, and native coastal

vegetation. Potential impacts to adjacent properties and preservation of public beach

access must also be factored into the permitting decision. Structures placed on the

beach as the result of a declared emergency must be properly sited and designed, and they

must be temporary. If the structure is to remain on the beach beyond a two-month period,

as specified by law, the property owner must apply for a FDEP permit for a permanent

structure.


3

IRC issued its first Emergency Permit in 1996. A total of six (6) Eemergency Ppermits,

encompassing 20 upland structures have had been issued since thenprior to the County’s

application for an ITP. Four (4) of the Eemergency Ppermits (protecting 13 structures)

issued by the County resulted in permanent structures on the beach, and two (2) FDEP

permits for the remaining seven (7) structures are were pending the outcome of the

County’s application for an ITP accounting for approximately 5,710 linear feet of

shoreline. No additional Emergency Permits have been issued by IRC since issuance of

the ITP, although additional armoring has been installed under permits issued through

FDEP’s Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) program. CurrentlyAs of December

2016, IRC hasd approximately 5,710 12,754 linear feet of permanently armored

shoreline, 1,675 feet (29.3 13.1 percent) of which was initiated under emergency

authorization from the County.

1.3 Federal and Other Authorizations

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires a permit for the discharge of

dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States (33 U.S.C. Section 1344). The

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army, Corps of

Engineers are responsible for administration of the Section 404 program. Special policies

and procedures applicable to the review of applications for Department of the Army (DA)

permits for regulating certain activities on waters of the United States or the oceans can

be found within 33 CFR parts 320 through 330.

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, (33 U.S.C. 403) prohibits the

unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. The

placement or construction of any structure or activities including dredging in or over any

Waters of the United States requires recommendation by a representative of the Chief of

Engineers and authorization by the Secretary of the Army in the form of a permit.

Issuance of an the ITP will not eliminate the necessity for Indian River County to conduct

ITP-authorized emergency shoreline protection activities in conformance with these and

other applicable regulations, and if necessary, to obtain any required federal, stateState,

local, and/or special district authorization(s) prior to the initiation of such activities.

1.4 Regulatory Basis of the HCP

The U.S. Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act in 1973 (ESA) to protect plant

and animal species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion

of their range. Federal agencies are required under Section 7 (a)(1) to use their

authorities to further conservation of listed species. The Service is responsible for

administering the ESA, as amended (87 Stat. 884; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), for those

species under its jurisdiction. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits unauthorized take of

federally-listed species. As defined in Section 9 of the ESA, “take” means to harass,

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, kill, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such

activity. Harm” is further defined to include significant habitat modification or

degradation that results in the death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing


4

essential behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or

sheltering. Harass is defined as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed

species to an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns (50 CFR Part

17.3). Thus, both direct and indirect impacts, such as modification of habitat, constitute

take under the ESA. The Section 9 prohibitions against “take” apply to any activity

described above conducted by states, counties, municipalities, and individuals.

The ESA provides two regulatory methods for development activities on lands containing

federally-listed species. The first method is for Federal activities, which include, but are

not limited to, development or work that requires the issuance of Federal permits,

authorization, or funding. The authorization for “take” is accomplished through

interagency consultation required under Section 7 of the ESA. The second method,

Section 10 of the ESA, provides exceptions to Section 9 prohibitions, addressing non-

Federal activities such as private development concerns.

The County’s proposed emergency shoreline protection activities proposed in the

County’s ITP application fall under the regulatory mechanism authorized under Section

10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, which allows incidental take of a listed species that results from,

but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. For issuance of an

ITP, the County’s proposed project must meet: 1) the statutory and regulatory permit

issuance criteria under ESA Section 10(a)(2)(B) and 2) Fish and Wildlife Service

regulatory issuance criteria pursuant to 50 CFR 17.22 (b)(2)(i)(A-F). These criteria

provide that the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery

of the species in the wild. Under Section 10 of the ESA, the Incidental Take Permit

applicant is required to submit a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP must

identify and ensure the anticipated effects of the authorized incidental take will be

adequately minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable (USFWS and

NMFS, 1996). The HCP will specify the impact to the species or habitat that is likely to

result from the proposed action and the measures that would be taken to minimize and

mitigate such impacts.

The activities potentially involved in emergency shoreline protection authorized by IRC

may include the following:

Placing beach-compatible fill from upland sources on the beach;

Creating a temporary barrier using sand bags and/or geo-textile (fabric) tubes

filled with sand;


Installing temporary wooden retaining walls, cantilever sheetpile walls or

similar structures seaward of the vulnerable structure.

As discussed in Section 5.2.5 of this HCP, each of these activities can potentially cause

the take of sea turtles if conducted during the nesting season. If the temporary measures

initiated under the County’s emergency authorization subsequently result in the

placement of permanent armoring structures on the beach, long-term cumulative impacts

may result.


5

The nesting season, the inclusive period during which adult turtles are coming ashore to

nest and hatchling sea turtles are emerging from their nests to enter the sea, is established

by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and is based on long-

term, stateStatewide data. In Indian River County, the nesting season is defined as March

1 through October 31 (62B-55, FAC).

1.5 Challenges to Indian River County’s Permitting Decisions

In 1998, FDEP contended that certain erosion control structures built under emergency

authorization from IRC had been placed farther seaward than allowed by State rules and

that these structures were likely to cause the take of sea turtles. The Caribbean

Conservation Corporation (CCC), a non-profit environmental advocacy group, similarly

believed that the issuance of Eemergency Ppermits was causing take and filed a lawsuit

against the County. At issue was their contention that the structures (a) were not

constructed within 60 days of the erosion event and (b) were not intended to be

temporary, both requirements of State law. The property owners whose homes were

protected by the emergency structures (hereafter, the Summerplace and Gertsner

Petitioners) petitioned FDEP to issue permits that would allow the temporary structures

to be reinforced as permanent structures at their existing locations, a request initially

denied by FDEP.

In response to the increasingly litigious nature of this debate, FDEP, CCC, IRC, and the

Petitioners entered into a mutual covenant. An Interim Agreement (IA), negotiated by

all parties on March 23, 1999, required the County to develop a Habitat Conservation

Plan (HCP) and apply for an ITP (Appendix A). It also allowed the Petitioners to retain

their temporary structures pending the outcome of the ITP application. A companion

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) entered into between FDEP and the County set forth

procedures that the County was required to follow when issuing emergency shoreline

protection permits prior to obtaining an ITP (Appendix B). The IA and MOA

constrained all parties from pursuing further legal action while IRC prepared an HCP and

applied for an ITP.

1.6 Purpose of HCP

The beaches of IRC are recognized as important nesting habitat for sea turtles (Dodd

1978; Ehrhart et al. 2014). It is centrally located along Florida’s southeast coast (Brevard

through Broward Counties), which hosts the largest nesting aggregation of loggerhead

turtles in the world, as well as regionally significant numbers of green and leatherback

turtles (Weishempel et al. 2003; Ceriani and Meylan 2015). The Archie Carr National

Wildlife Refuge, spanning southern Brevard through northern Indian River

Counties,Wabasso Beach has been deemed critically important for loggerhead turtles, and

hosts some of the highest concentrations of green turtle nesting in the State occur in the

Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge (ACNWR) in Brevard and Indian River

Counties(Meylan et al. 1995). Using best available data at the time the original HCP was

prepared, it was estimated an average of 5,603 loggerhead, 300 green, and 18 leatherback


6

nests are were deposited each year along the entire 22.25 miles of the County’s coastline

(see Section 4.7 of this HCP). During the period from 2005 through 2016, using data

collected from continuous daily surveys, those averages decreased approximately 20

percent for loggerheads to 4,599 per year, while significantly increasing for green (740

per year) and leatherback (53 per year) turtles.

The County is seekingsought an ITP because take of sea turtles is likely to occur as a

result of shoreline protection activities initiated under the County’s emergency

authorization. This action conforms with State Rule 62B-33.0051(5)(k)4, which

states…”In order to be prepared for coastal emergencies, local agencies, political

subdivisions, or municipalities who anticipate installing or authorizing emergency coastal

protection structures should obtain a Federal Endangered Species Act, Section 10,

Incidental Take authorization from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service through

the development of a marine turtle Habitat Conservation Plan.” The HCP is a statutory

requirement of the ITP process.

The purpose of this HCP is to develop a framework for effectively improving the

productivity of the County’s beaches as sea turtle nesting habitat while providing

beachfront property owners with a means of protecting eligible and vulnerable structures

from erosion following acute storm events. To that end, this document presents the

following:

A description of the goals, objectives, and benefits of the HCP;

Geographic boundaries of the area to be covered under the HCP (Plan Area);

A description of the social, economic, and environmental conditions within

the Plan Area;

General and site-specific biological information related to protected flora and

fauna within the Plan Area;

A discussion of natural factors and human activities potentially affecting sea

turtles within the Plan Area;

An analysis of alternative methods for addressing emergency shoreline

protection;

An estimate of the amount of take likely to occur as a result of the County’s

proposed plan for emergency shoreline protection;

A description of the programs, policies and procedures that the County will

implement to minimize the potential for take;

A description of measures that the County will implement to mitigate take that

is unavoidable despite the minimization measures;

A description of monitoring that will be performed to monitor and manage sea

turtles within the Plan Area;

A description of Plan administration;

A commitment to funding the Plan;

Methods for addressing unforeseen circumstances during the period that the

ITP is in effect; and

A mechanism for assessing HCP performance and amending the Plan, as

needed, to address changing conditions within the Plan Area.


7

2.0 GOALS AND BENEFITS

Indian River County is applyingapplied to the USFWS for an Incidental Take Permit, as

provided under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal ESA of 1973. In formulating

Section 10 of the ESA, Congress envisioned a process for the resolution of conflicts

between traditional and lawful land-use practices and the conservation of protected

species. IRC has a legal right and desires to continue to assist its citizens in responding

to emergency shoreline conditions following severe storm events. Implementation of the

programs and policies contained in this HCP will allow the County to engage in these

activities in a manner and extent compatible with the protection of sea turtles.

2.1 Requested Take

The County is requesteding a Section 10 ITP that willto authorize the take of sea turtles

(see Section 4.8 of this HCP) within the Plan Area for a period of 30 years pursuant to the

terms and conditions of this HCP and the ITP. Specific activities associated with future

shoreline protection projects initiated under the County’s emergency authorization for

which the County seeks sought coverage for take include:

Construction-related impacts to sea turtle nests, adults, and/or hatchlings

during the implementation of shoreline protection measures under an

Emergency Permit issued by IRC;

Movement induced mortality and sub-lethal impacts to sea turtle eggs

resulting from their relocation from construction areas during implementation

of shoreline protection measures under an Emergency Permit issued by IRC;

Direct impacts to sea turtle nests, adults, and/or hatchlings as the result of

physical interaction with temporary shoreline protection structures installed

under an Emergency Permit issued by IRC;

Indirect impacts to sea turtle nests, adults, and/or hatchlings related to

physical changes in beach conditions resulting from the presence of temporary

shoreline protection structures installed under an Emergency Permit issued by

IRC. Changes in beach conditions may include, but are not limited to,

changes in beach profile, elevation, increased incidence of wave overwash,

reflection and scour, compaction and sediment moisture content. Changes in

these conditions may reduce nesting success (percentage of crawls resulting in

nests) and/or reproductive success (percentage of eggs that produce hatchlings

which emerge from the nest);

Construction-related impacts to sea turtle nests, adults, and hatchlings during

the removal of temporary shoreline protection structures installed under an



during the installation of permanent shoreline protection structures installed

under a permit issued by FDEP when the permanent structure replaces

temporary measures initiated under an Emergency Permit issued by IRC;


8


physical interaction with permanent shoreline protection structures installed


temporary measures initiated under an Emergency Permit issued by IRC; and


physical changes in beach conditions resulting from the presence of

permanent shoreline protection structures installed under a permit issued by

FDEP when the permanent structure replaces temporary measures initiated

under an Emergency Permit issued by IRC.

In addition to future actions associated with emergency shoreline protection, the County

is also requesteding take for the retention of two “temporary” structures previously

installed along the properties of the Summerplace and Gerstner Petitioners. Upon

issuance of an the ITP by the Service, the Petitioners may were allowed to retain their

temporary structures as permanent structures at their current locations or implement

alternative protection in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITP, this HCP,

and the previously referenced Interim Agreement (see Section 1.4 of this HCP). Take

associated with this action includes:


the removal of the temporary shoreline protection structures and/or

installation of permanent armoring installed under a permit issued by FDEP;

Direct post-construction impacts to sea turtle nests, adults, and/or hatchlings

as the result of physical interaction with the permanent shoreline protection

structures installed under a permit issued by FDEP; and


physical changes in beach conditions resulting from the presence of the


FDEP.

As used in relation to “take”, impacts include harm, harassment, injury, and/or death, as

defined under the ESA.

IRC is did not requesting take coverage for the following:

Impacts to sea turtle nests, adults, and/or hatchlings resulting from any

activities or conditions associated with shoreline protection measures,

including but not limited to the installation of permanent or temporary

armoring structures, initiated under a standard FDEP permit, unless such

measures replace temporary measures initiated under an Emergency Permit

issued by IRC after the effective date of the ITP;

Impacts to sea turtle nests, adults, and/or hatchlings resulting from any

activities or conditions associated with the implementation of temporary

emergency shoreline protection measures, including those at the Summerplace

and Gerstner Petitioner’s properties, initiated under an Emergency Permit

issued by IRC prior to the effective date of the ITP;


9

Impacts to sea turtles associated with beach nourishment or other federally-

permitted coastal projects; and

Impacts to any federally protected species other than sea turtles.

2.2 Goals of HCP

The primary goal of this HCP is was to develop a comprehensive plan to protect State

and federally-listed sea turtles within the Plan Area over the 30-year life of the County’s

current Beach Preservation Plan. To achieve this goal, the HCP has established the

following objectives:

Embrace Federal, State, and County laws and regulations pertaining to the

conservation of protected species on Indian River County’s beaches;

Establish a plan that will effectively and efficiently coordinate shoreline

protection activities initiated under the County’s emergency authorization among

various County departments, contractors, private citizens, and State and Federal

permitting agencies; and

Create a plan that will allow for implementation of emergency shoreline

protection activities in a manner that will sustain the social, recreational, cultural,

economic and environmental values of the beach.

When fully implemented, the HCP will increase the productivity of the County’s beaches

as nesting habitat. This will be accomplished by maximizing the average number of

hatchlings per nest entering the ocean from the Plan Area by increasing average hatching

success rates and minimizing impacts to nesting adults and emergent hatchlings. Impacts

to sea turtles will be minimizedThis will be achieved primarily through the following:

improvements to current permitting practices for emergency shoreline protection projects,

predator control, and a proactive beachfront light management program, and public

awareness and education programs.

This HCP is designed as a dynamic document. It is structured to permit adaptive changes

in response to new information derived from monitoring programs. Mechanisms are

established to facilitate dialogue between the USFWS and Indian River County in

response to changing conditions and to allow for the timely revision of procedures and

policies to better achieve program objectives or respond to unforeseen circumstances.

2.3 Benefits of HCP

2.3.1 Protected Species

The programs and policies contained in this HCP will improve protected species

management on the County’s beaches relative to practices currently in place. First, the

Plan contains measures that will be implemented to minimize the potential for impacts to

sea turtles causally related to shoreline protection activities initiated under the County’s

emergency authorization. These include:


10

Implementation of a public awareness program advocating a proactive

approach to shoreline protection and resiliency of beach ecosystems;


issued.

Regulation of the type and siting of temporary structures;

Requirements for monitoring and nest protection during implementation of

emergency shoreline protection measures and/or construction of permanent

structures resulting from temporary measures; and


permitting activities and ensure compliance with State regulations regarding

emergency shoreline protection activities.

In addition to the minimization measures described above, the County has mitigated

unavoidable take through the acquisition of coastal property and a predator control

program that will provide quantifiable benefits to sea turtles in excess of the amount of

take likely to occur as the result of shoreline protection measures initiated under the

County’s emergency authorization. The County has also committed to a sea turtle

monitoring program that will help collect the data needed to better quantify current

natural and human-related impacts to sea turtles on the County’s beaches. This

information will be used to better direct the County’s limited resources toward those

programs that are likely to have the greatest conservation value. Finally, the County will

work to improve its light management program in unincorporated areas of the County to

reduce the harmful effects of artificial light on sea turtles.

2.3.2 Property Owners

Coastal property owners will benefit under the HCP, because they will be assured of a

timely and effective response to emergency situations. This will serve to minimize

property damage. Furthermore, under the County’s ITP, property owners can

aggressively pursue temporary shoreline protection initiatives, in conformance with

established rules and regulations, with full protection for any take that might occur.

Finally, property owners that are eligible for, and wish to pursue, installation of

permanent shoreline protection structures will be afforded a streamlined permitting

process. Any long-term impacts to sea turtle nesting habitat that may occur as the result

of permanent structures on the beach will be authorized under the County’s ITP and will

be mitigated through implementation of this HCP.

2.3.3 Parties to Memorandum of Agreement

As discussed in Section 1.4 of this HCP, several parties entered into a covenant to have

their legal disputes over the governance of emergency shoreline protection activities

resolved through the issuance of a Federal ITP. Specifically, parties to the Interim

Agreement will benefit from the HCP as follows:


11

Indian River County will be able to continue to exercise its emergency

permitting authority with the benefit of Federal protection from take as

afforded under Section 10 of the ESA;

FDEP will be assured that emergency shoreline protection measures initiated

under an Emergency Permit issued by IRC will be implemented in a manner

and extent compatible with the protection of sea turtles, and that any take that

occurs as a result of such measures will be authorized by the Federal

government. Additionally, FDEP will be able to issue permits for permanent

shoreline protection structures to replace temporary measures initiated under

local emergency authorization with similar assurances;

CCC will be assured that the County will implement mitigation programs that

provide quantifiable benefits to sea turtles in excess of the amount of take that

is anticipated to occur as the result of emergency shoreline protection

measures and that the County’s approach to shoreline protection will

minimize the potential for permanent armoring structures on the beach; and

The Summerplace and Gerstner Petitioners will receive FDEP permits to

complete construction of shoreline protection structures installed under the

County’s emergency authorization without additional threat of lawsuits.


12

3.0 PLAN AREA

This section of the HCP defines and describes the Plan Area, the area within which

authorization for take is being requested.

3.1 Geographical Location

Indian River County is located on the southeast coast of Florida between Brevard and St.

Lucie Counties (Figure 1). It has 22.4 22.25 miles of continuous beachfront property that

are uninterrupted by any inlets or ocean passes.

3.1.1 North-South Boundaries

The Plan Area is bounded on the north by the Sebastian Inlet, the centerline of which

separates Indian River County from Brevard County. On the south, the Plan Area is

defined as the Indian River/St. Lucie County Line.

3.1.2 East-West Boundaries

The eastern and western limits of the Plan Area are the mean low water (MLW) line of

the Atlantic Ocean and Highway A1A, respectively.

3.2 Population

In 1996, there were 102,211 people permanently residing in Indian River County, and the

numbers were growing at about 2.1 percent each year (IRC 1998a). By 2010, the U.S.

Census data indicated that the population has since had increased to 138,02812,947, a

(2.2) percent increase from the 1996 population data. Information collected from the

U.S. Census Bureau indicate a 2016 population estimate of 151,563 residents, a (9.8)

percent increase in the last six years. As of 2016, Indian River County is the 32nd largest

county in Florida, where over ninety (90) percent of the County’s residents live within 10

miles of the beach.

There are three municipalities that front the beach in IRC: the Town of Orchid, the Ttown

of Indian River Shores, and the City of Vero Beach (Figure 1). Collectively, they

comprise approximately 9.7 miles (43 percent) of the County’s coastline. With

3.94.2miles of shoreline, Vero Beach is the largest municipality within Indian River

County.

3.3 Coastal Characterization

3.3.1 Upland Development

Single and multi-family residential, time-share, and commercial properties make up the

bulk of the oceanfront development in IRC. In the unincorporated areas of the County


13

north of the Town of Orchid, there are considerable stretches of undeveloped and

publicly owned lands. Developed properties in that area consist almost exclusively of

single-family residences. Multi-family residences (i.e. condominiums) predominate the

coastal landscape within the Town of Orchid, while a combination of single- and multi-

family residential units and tourist resorts are found in the unincorporated area between

Orchid and Indian River Shores. Numerous upscale residential communities including

both single and multi-family residences are found in the Town of Indian River Shores. In

the City of Vero Beach, the coastline is largely built out and consists of hotels,

condominiums, commercial tourist establishments, and single and multi-family

residential units. In the unincorporated areas south of Vero Beach, development consists

almost exclusively of single-family residences.

3.3.2 Natural Resources and Community Types

Within the Plan Area there are four natural community types, as defined by the Florida

Natural Areas Inventory: beach/dune, coastal strand, maritime hammock and tidal

swamp. Each of these supports a variety of flora and fauna.

3.3.2.1 Beach/Dune

The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) defines the “beach/dune” system in Indian

River County as an active coastal dune with sand substrate, xeric conditions, temperate or

subtropical climate, occasional or rare fire events, and a vegetative community consisting

of salt-spray tolerant grasses and herbs. Dominant vegetation within this zone consists

of sea oats (Uniola paniculata) and a variety of “pioneer plants” that exist above the

seasonal high water line. These include railroad vine (Ipomoea pes-caprae), dune

sunflower (Helianthus debilis) and sea rocket (Cakile lanceolata).

It is estimated that only about 30 percent of the vegetative community within the

beach/dune system of the Plan Area is in a relatively natural state (Myers and Ewel

1990). About 15 percent of this zone is in a semi-natural state, and the majority (55

percent) is in a non-natural condition.

Due to harsh environmental conditions, few animals permanently inhabit the beach/dune

system, although various shorebirds, such as black-bellied plovers (Pluvialis squatarola),

ruddy turnstones (Arenarea interpres), willets (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) and

sanderlings (Calidris alba) often forage at the beach/ocean interface. The most

conspicuous and characteristic resident animal species on the beach is the ghost crab

(Ocypode quadrata). A variety of infaunal macroinvertebrates, including the coquina

(Donax spp.) and sand flea/mole crab (Emerita talpoida) inhabit intertidal sands.


14


15

3.3.2.1 Coastal Strand

The FNAI defines the coastal strand in Indian River County as a stabilized coastal dune

with sand substrate, xeric conditions, subtropical or temperate climate, occasional or rare

fire events, with vegetation consisting of dense stands of salt-spray tolerant and xeric

plant species. This back dune community varies in coverage throughout the Plan Area.

It is largely absent from areas of residential development and largely intact in publicly-

owned and undeveloped tracts.The dominant vegetation is in the coastal strand is saw

palmetto (Serenoa repens) and sea grape (Coccoloba uvifera). Other vegetation present

includes beach bean (Canavalia maritima), seaside elder (Iva imbricata), creeping oxeye

(Wedelia trilobata), yucca (Yucca aloifolia), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia stricta) and

various mixed stunted shrubs. Animal life in this zone includes various small mammals

such as the cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) marsh and

eastern cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus palustris paludicola and S. floridanus floridanus,

respectively) and spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius ambarvalis).

3.3.2.2 Maritime Hammock

The FNAI defines the maritime hammock in Indian River County as a stabilized coastal

dune with sand substrate, xeric-mesic conditions, subtropical or temperate climate, rare or

no fire events, with vegetation consisting of mixed hardwoods and/or live oak. With the

exception of large publicly-owned tracts, only small remnants of this natural community

are present within the Plan Area.

The dominant vegetation within the maritime hammock consists primarily of tree and

shrub species, such as the cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), red bay (Persea borbonia),

coral bean (Erythrina herbacea) and wild lime (Zanthoxylum fagara). Ground cover

species are comparatively few.

Animals present within this community include the mammals that also frequent the

coastal strand described above, plus raccoons (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus

caolinensis), bobcat (Felis rufus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and a variety of

resident and migratory birds, such as the northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) and

warbler (Dendroica spp).

3.3.2.3 Tidal Swamp

The FNAI defines the tidal swamp in Indian River County as an expansive intertidal and

supratidal area occupied primarily by woody vascular macrophytes (e.g., black

mangrove, buttonwood, red mangrove, and white mangrove) and various epiphytes and

epifauna. Only very small areas of this habitat are present within the Plan Area. They

are located almost exclusively in the northern portion of the County in narrow corridors

on the east side of State Road A-1-A. Some are tidally connected to the Indian River

Lagoon through culverts that extend westward under A-1-A. The dominant plant within

these areas is the black mangrove (Avicennia germinans). Wildlife species include

raccoons, fiddler crabs (Uca minax) and various small fish.


16


17


18


19

Table 1

Publicly Owned Beachfront Property Within the Plan Area

General

Area

Parcel Name Approximate

Length (ft)

Approximate

Length

(miles)

Management

Responsibility

Shoreline

Development1

ACNWR SISRASISP 10,900 2.064 State Few

Amenities21

Unnamed Access 100 0.019 County Few Amenities

Ambersand Beach Access 100 0.019 County Few Amenities

ACNWR 2,435 0.461 Federal Natural2

Ocean Hideaway 325 0.062 Federal Few Amenities

Unnamed 640 0.121 County Natural

Unnamed 1,485 0.281 County Natural

Treasure Shores Park 1,000 0.189 County Few Amenities



Unnamed 160 0.030 Federal Natural

Unnamed 250 0.047 Federal Natural

South Treasure Shores Parcel 545 0.103 County Natural

Spallane Tract 110 0.021 County Natural

Golden Sands Park 750 0.142 County Few Amenities

SUB-TOTAL 19,592 3.711

ACNWR

to the

City of

Vero

Beach3

Wabasso Beach Park 350 0.066 County Developed4

Jungle Trail Conservation Area – North Parcel 520 0.098 County Natural

Jungle Trail Conservation Area – South Parcel 980 0.186 County Natural

Sea Grape Trail Beach Access 100 0.019 County Developed

Turtle Trail Beach Access 100 0.019 County Few Amenities

Tracking Station Beach Park 1,100 0.208 County Developed

SUB-TOTAL 3,150 0.597


20

Table 1

(Continued)

General

Area

Parcel Name Approximate

Length (ft)

Approximate

Length

(miles)

Responsibility

Management

Shoreline

Development1

City of

Vero

Beach

Jaycee Park 510 0.097 City Developed

Conn Beach 1,440 0.273 City Developed

Sexton Plaza 150 0.028 City Developed

Humiston Park 500 0.095 City Developed

Riomar Beach Access 100 0.019 City Developed

South Beach Park 560 0.106 City Few Amenities

SUB-TOTAL 3,260 0.617

South

County

Round Island Park 340 0.064 County Few Amenities

TOTAL 26,342 4.989 1 Few Amenities = Some amenities, such as dune crossovers, parking areas, and restrooms present but dune system and most seaward

portions of property largely in natural condition. 1 2 Natural = Entire parcel largely in natural condition. 2 Few Amenities = Some amenities, such as dune crossovers, parking areas, and restrooms present but dune system and most seaward

portions of property largely in natural condition. 3 Since preparation of the original HCP, a new beach access, Beachcomber, was added in the Town of Indian River Shores. It

occupies approximately 50 feet of direct beachfront and is managed by the Town. 34 Developed = Dune system not intact and large portions of property altered.


21

3.3.1 Publicly Held Lands

About 5.0 miles or 22.4 percent of all beachfront property within the Plan Area is

publicly owned (Figures 2-4; Table 1). The majority of this occurs in the northern part

of the County, where the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge is located (Figure 2).

The ACNWR is dedicated to the conservation of critical nesting habitat for sea turtles

through acquisition and management of coastal properties. That portion of the ACNWR

within Indian River County (a large portion lies in Brevard County) extends from the

Sebastian Inlet south approximately six miles. However, within these north-south

boundaries are properties owned and/or managed by the State and County, as well as

numerous private inholdings (Figure 2). Collectively, 3.7 miles (62 percent) of all

beachfront property within the ACNWR in Indian River County is in public ownership

(Table 2). As used throughout this HCP, reference to the ACNWR shall mean to include

all local, State, Federal, and private beachfront properties within the geographic

boundaries of the Refuge.

The Sebastian Inlet State Recreation AreaPark (SISRASISP; previously Sebastian Inlet

State Recreation Area) is at the north end of the ACNWR in Indian River County and

encompasses approximately 2.1 miles of shoreline (Figure 2). This State-managed

property is probably the most heavily utilized park in the County. South of the SISPRA,

a little over a mile of beachfront property within the ACNWR is managed by the County

and about 0.6 miles are managed by the USFWS (Table 2).

Table 2

Management Responsibilities of Publicly-owned Beachfront Property Within the

Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, Indian River County, Florida

Management

Responsibility

Approximate

Length of

Shoreline (ft)

Approximate

Length of

Shoreline (miles)

Percentage of

Refuge

Federal 3,170 0.60 16.2

State 10,900 2.06 55.6

County 5,522 1.05 28.2

TOTAL 19,592 3.71 100.0

In addition to the ACNWR, there are numerous other County Parks and public beach

access locations within the County and several beachfront parks in the City of Vero

Beach (Figures 3 and 4; Table 2). However, whereas most of the County-owned parcels

are largely in a natural state, most of the city parks are developed and have few intact

dunes.


22

3.3.2 Economic Importance of Beaches

As indicated earlier, the vast majority of IRC’s permanent residents live within 10 miles

of the beach. Additionally, the primary industry in the County is tourism, and the most

popular tourist destination is the beach (ATM 1999). Consequently, the County

considers its barrier island beaches to be a vital economic asset.

The total appraised land value of barrier island properties in 1998 was approximately

$2.9 billion (ATM 1999), representing 35.7 percent of the total value of all properties

within the County. Because of the disproportionate contribution of oceanfront properties

to the local tax base, the County, as well as property owners, have a vested interest in

preserving real estate values. Since the original HCP was prepared, new data indicate

that barrier island properties now (2016) have an appraised land value of $4 billion,

accounting for 59.6 percent of the total value of all properties within the County (CB&I

CPE 2015, IRC Tax Roll 2016). When building values are included, the total assessed

value of barrier island properties increases by $4.4 billon (IRC Tax Roll 2016).

County Beaches are also a tremendous recreational asset. Through tourist-related

industries and beach use by local residents, it is estimated that County Beaches have a

recreational benefit of $3.66 million annually (ATM 1999). This value can only be

expected to increase as both the resident population and tourist base grow. Consequently,

the restoration and preservation of recreational beach assets is a high priority for the

County. Data assembled in support of the most recent BPP update show that the

County’s beaches have a current recreational value of $33.1 million (CB&I CPE 2015).

Narrow beaches bordered by seawalls detract from the recreational value of local

beaches. The County’s BPP is intended to restore lost recreational values by widening

the beaches along critically eroded sections of coastline through a series of beach

nourishment projects (Figure 5). At the time the original HCP was prepared in 2003,

tThe projected cost of the fully implemented (30-year) beach nourishment planBPP iswas

$33.9 million (ATM 1999). It will was expected to result in $102.8 million in storm

protection and recreational use benefits, representing a 3.0:1 benefit to cost ratio. In the

most recent update to the BPP (CP&I CPE 2015), the cost to fully implement the plan

was estimated at $8.2 million annually. However, in the absence of these vital shore

protection measures, the loss of land, property, taxes and recreational value would be

approximately $29.6 million per year, yielding a 3.1:1 benefit to cost ratio over the 30-

year period of analysis.

3.3.3 Coastal Processes

Littoral drift of sediment in the nearshore zone combined with offshore/onshore sand

transport plays a dominant role in shaping the County’s beaches. As in other east coast

Florida counties, there is a net southerly migration of sand along the coastline (IRC

1998b). Beaches are dynamic systems, with beach width varying in response to local

conditions such as tides, currents, wind and waves. In general, beaches in IRC tend to

accrete sand during the summer when the ocean is relatively calm, and lose sand during


23


24

the winter or during severe weather events, such as northeasters and tropical storms (IRC

1998b).

One of the primary functional values of the beach/dune system is to dissipate the forces

of waves, tides, and currents. A healthy beach/dune system provides upland properties

with a strong line of defense against the destructive erosional forces of storms.

Unfortunately, much of the County’s beach/dune system is in poor health.

At the time the original HCP was prepared, iIt iswas estimated that County Beaches

arewere losing approximately 187,218 cubic yards (cy) of sand per year to erosion (IRC

1998b). About 9.2 miles (41.3 percent) of the County’s shoreline have had been

designated by the State of Florida as “critically eroded” (J. Tabar, Indian River County

Coastal Engineer, personal communication, 2001). This term is applied to beaches where

natural processes or human activity have caused erosion to such a degree that upland

development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat and/or cultural resources are being

lost or threatened. The continued and unabated loss of sand from County Beaches is

likely to have a significant adverse impact on the recreational and economic values of the

County’s coastline. As of 2016, the amount of shoreline designated as critically eroded

had increased to 15.7 miles, representing 70.6 percent of the County’s total coastline

(FDEP 2016). However, the County’s beach management efforts during the period that

the HCP has been in effect (2005-2014) have been very successful. Implementation of

the BPP has resulted in an average shoreline advance (accretion) of 2.6 feet per year

compared to an estimated average shoreline retreat (erosion) of 1.0 foot per year in the

absence of effective beach management (CB&I CPE 2015).

Erosion rates along the County’s beaches vary and are affected by the downdrift effects

of inlets, prevailing currents, shoreline contours, adjacent water depths, and other

localized physical features. Sebastian Inlet, at the north end of the County, interrupts the

natural transport of sediment from the north to the south. As a result, a large portion of

the sand volume captured by the inlet has been placed within the first three miles of

shoreline south of the Inlet. The Sebastian Inlet District’s efforts in bypassing sand and

placing it along the beaches to the south have helped to maintain the natural transport and

input of sediment into the County (CB&I CPE 2015). is responsible for a large amount

of the County’s annual sand deficit. The extensive jetties that frame the inlet presently

interrupt the longshore transport of about 72,400 cubic yards (cy) of sand per year to

downdrift beaches (Olsen Associates 1998). During flood tides, some of the sand that

would normally flow south from Brevard County onto County Beaches is transported into

the Indian River Lagoon where it settles to the bottom. During ebb tides, sand is carried

offshore into deeper waters. In both instances, sand is lost from the littoral system and a

deficit results. It is estimated that erosion effects associated with the Sebastian Inlet have

resulted in an historical deficit of 8.65 million cy of sand to downdrift beaches (Olsen

Associates 1998). The area of impact extends up to 7.6 miles south of the inlet.


25

4.0 LISTED SPECIES IN PLAN AREA

Best available data Existing data regarding protected flora and fauna within the Plan Area

used for preparation of the original HCP were obtained from the following sources:

South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (MSRP; USFWS, 1999). The USFWS

developed this document to describe all of the federally threatened and endangered

wildlife present in south Florida. The South Florida MSRP provides information on the

population status, habitat requirements, and limiting factors for each listed species along

with objectives, criteria, and needed actions for each species’ recovery.

Sebastian Inlet State Recreation Area Unit Management Plan, November 1988. Approximately 2 miles of this stateState-owned, beachfront tract lie within the Plan Area.

The surveys of flora and fauna conducted within the park provide the most

comprehensive inventory for Indian River County’s coastline.

Final Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan for the Proposed

Expansion of Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, March 1991. The USFWS

developed this document in support of its assessment to incorporate additional beachfront

properties within the Plan Area into lands owned and managed as part of the Pelican

Island/Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge.

Avalon State Recreation Area Unit Management Plan, April 1997. Although this

State-owned tract is situated in St. Lucie County, its northern boundary is less than 2

miles south of the Indian River County line. Review and analysis of this data was

deemed prudent because the tract contains beachfront habitat that is comparable to that

present within the Plan Area. Additionally, the plan contained results of fairly detailed

biological resource surveys.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory, January 2000. The FNAI maintains the single most

comprehensive database for protected species in Florida. Based in Tallahassee, FNAI

continually updates the locations of protected species as verified reports are provided by

governmental and private entities involved in fieldwork throughout the State.

Review of these data sources combined with recent cursory field surveys have indicated

the presence or likely occurrence of numerous State and federally protected species of

plants and animals within, or in close proximity to, the Plan Area (Table 3). The

abundance and distribution of these species is affected primarily by the quantity and

quality of requisite habitat. Accounts of all federally protected species within or adjacent

to the Plan Area are provided below.


26

Table 3

State and/or Federally-Listed Species Potentially Occurring

Within or Adjacent to the Plan Area

Species Federal

Status1

State

Status1

Scientific Name Common Name

Fauna

Mammals

Peromyscus polionotus

niveiventris Southeastern Beach Mouse T T

Trichechus manatus latirostris West Indian Manatee TE E

Reptiles

Caretta caretta Loggerhead Turtle T T

Chelonia mydas Green Turtle ET E

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Turtle E E

Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern Indigo Snake T T

Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill Turtle E E

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise C SSCT

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s Ridley Turtle E E

Nerodia fasciata taeniata Atlantic Salt Marsh Snake T T

Birds

Ajaia ajaja Roseate Spoonbill SSCT

Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron SSCT

Egretta rufescens Reddish Egret SSCT

Egretta thula Snowy Egret SSC

Egretta tricolor Tri-colored Heron SSCT

Eudocimus albus White Ibis SSC

Falco peregrinus tundris Peregrine Falcon E

Haematopus palliatus American Oystercatcher SSCT

Mycteria americana Wood Stork ET E

Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican SSC

Rhynchops niger Black Skimmer SSCT

Sterna antillarum Least Tern T

Fish

Centropomus undecimalis Common Snook SSC

Rivulus marmoratus Mangrove Rivulus SSC


27

Table 3

(Continued)

Species Federal

Status

State

Status

Scientific Name Common Name

Flora

Achrostichum danaeifolium Giant Leather Fern E

Encyclia tampensis Butterfly Orchid T

Glandularia maritima Coastal Vervain E

Halophila johnsonii Johnson’s Seagrass T

Opuntia stricta Prickly Pear Cactus T

Remirea maritima Beach Star E

Scaevola plumieri Inkberry T

Myrcianthes fragrans Simpson’s Ironwood T

Tephrosia angustissima var.

curtissii Coastal Hoary-Pea E

Tilandsia fasciculata Common Wild Pine Airplant T 1 E = Endangered; T= Threatened; C = Candidate species; and SSC = Species of Special

Concern.. FWC established an imperiled species management system and revised its

imperiled species rules in November 2010; the State listing status changes proposed in

2011 became official in 2017 following approval of Florida’s Imperiled Species

Management Plan by FWC Commissioners. Thus, the statuses of many species listed

have changed since the original HCP was prepared, including some species removed

from Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species List.


28

4.1 Southeastern Beach Mouse

4.1.1 Biological Information

Southeastern beach mice are small, buff-colored rodents that once inhabited the

beach/dune zone within the Plan Area. They are designated as “threatened” at both the

State and Federal levels. Adult beach mice average approximately 136 mm (5.4 inches)

in body length and have tails approximately 53 mm (2.1 inches) long. Average weights

are approximately 14.5 g (0.5 oz).

Southeastern beach mice typically reside and forage in the sea oats (Uniola paniculata)

zone of the primary coastal dune (Ehrhart 1978). Other vegetation often found in beach

mouse habitat includes dune panic grass (Panicum amarum), railroad vine (Ipomaea pes-

caprae), beach morning glory (Ipomaea stolonifera), salt-meadow cordgrass (Spartina

patens), lambs’ quarters (Chenopdium album), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and camphor

weed (Heterotheca subaxillaris).

Beach mice are generally nocturnal and live in burrows consisting of an entrance tunnel,

escape tunnel, and a nest chamber. Usually the nest chamber is about 0.6 to 0.9 m (24 to

35 inches) deep.

Beach mice can reach sexual maturity at about 6 weeks of age and produce litters

throughout the year. Their peak in reproductive activity is late summer through early

winter when their food source is the greatest. The seeds of sea oats and dune panic grass

are the primary forage of beach mice; however small invertebrates will also be eaten in

the late spring to early summer when seeds are scarce (Ehrhart 1978). Predators of beach

mice include snakes, bobcats, gray foxes, raccoons, skunks, armadillos, raptors and

shorebirds, red-imported fire ants, and domestic cats and dogs (USFWS 1999).

Although once numerous along Florida’s east coast from Palm Beach County to Volusia

County, recent surveys for this species have shown it to be largely absent in the southern

portion of its range (USFWS 1999). The general loss of the sea oat community and

predation by house cats associated with urbanization of coastal areas are thought to be

largely responsible for the decline.

4.1.2 Site-Specific Information

Southeastern beach mice have historically been documented living on the primary dunes

in several locations of Indian River County (SISRASISP, Treasure Shores Park, and

several private properties). However, the South Florida MSRP (USFWS 1999) suggests

that this species is now most likely extirpated from the County’s coastal dune habitat

(Bard 1997, Tritaik 1997). One of the last remaining beach populations was located in

Treasure Shores Park in Wabasso Beach (Figure 2). The population there declined

steadily during the 1990’s, and no mice have been documented during the past few years


29

(P. Tritaik, Manager, Pelican Island and ACNWR, personal communication, 2000). This

decline has been attributed to loss of habitat caused by beach/dune erosion.

4.2 West Indian Manatee


West Indian manatees are large, air-breathing aquatic mammals that are found in both

fresh and salt waters. They are designated as “endangeredthreatened” at both at the State

and Federal levels. Adult manatees range from 2.8 to 3.5 m (9.2 to 11.5 ft) in length and

weigh 400 to 900 kg (882 to 1,984 lb). Newborn calves weigh approximately 20 to 30 kg

(44 to 66 lb) and are 1 to 1.5 m (3.3 to 4.9 ft) in length. Manatees consume large

amounts of aquatic vegetation, including seagrasses, bank vegetation, overhanging plants

and submerged, rooted or floating vegetation. They are warm-blooded and migrate

seasonally. During the winter many congregate at sites in south Florida or seek thermal

refugia (e.g., springs and power plant discharges) in north Florida.

Aerial surveys conducted during the winter by FWC (formerly FDEP) indicate that the

population of manatees in Florida is between 2,200 and 2,700 individuals (USFWS

1999). Although the number of animals observed during annual counts has increased in

recent years, it is unknown whether the population is actually increasing or if the

techniques and accuracy of the aerial surveys are improving. Manatees have no natural

predators, and a substantial proportion of manatee mortality each year is related to human

activities, particularly boat collisions.


West Indian manatees have been documented within both inshore (Indian River Lagoon)

and nearshore (Atlantic Ocean) waters of Indian River County. They occasionally use

the Sebastian Inlet as a passageway between the two water bodies. Although manatees

prefer the calmer waters of the lagoon, they may venture into the ocean to migrate to

other areas, feed around the inlet jetties, escape mating aggregations, or if they are sick or

disoriented (A. Spellman, Biologist, FWC, personal communication, 2000).

4.3 Atlantic Salt Marsh Snake


Salt marsh snakes are small, slender aquatic reptiles that inhabit estuarine wetlands.

They are designated as “threatened” at both the State and Federal levels. This rough-

scaled snake is identified by a pattern of dorsal longitudinal stripes and blotches on a

mainly pale olive-colored background. Although they appear to prefer salt marsh habitat

dominated by Spartina and/or Salicornia, they have also been observed along tidal

creeks, ditches and pools and in black mangroves. Although adults may reach 61 cm (2

ft) in length, they are infrequently observed due to their nocturnal behavior.


30

There are no estimates concerning the population size of salt marsh snakes, but it is

assumed that their numbers are in decline. The species’ geographic distribution at the

time of Federal listing was restricted to the estuarine marshes on Florida’s east coast from

Volusia County south through Indian River County (McDiarmid 1978, USFWS 1999).

However, the South Florida MSRP (USFWS 1999) indicates that the current distribution

of the Atlantic salt marsh snake is largely confined to the brackish and coastal marshes of

Volusia County. The biggest threat to the continued existence of the species is loss of

habitat.


The South Florida MSRP (USFWS 1999) indicates that the distribution of the Atlantic

salt marsh snake in Indian River County is uncertain. Even if some individuals were still

present, they would likely be limited to the estuarine wetlands near the north end of the

County.

4.4 Eastern Indigo Snake


Eastern indigo snakes are large dark-colored reptiles that are known to inhabit coastal

strand communities within the Plan Area. They are designated as a “threatened” species

at both the State and Federal levels. They are mild tempered, smooth-scaled snakes that

often reach lengths of 1.8 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 ft), making them one of the largest snakes in

North America. Their diet includes small mammals, birds, frogs, lizards and other

snakes.

Indigo snakes are present in a variety of habitats throughout Florida, and will often use

the burrows of gopher tortoises, especially during colder winter months. Due to their

comparatively large size, indigo snakes have few natural enemies. Although their passive

demeanor previously caused them to be heavily collected for the pet trade, their listing as

a threatened species has diminished this threat. The single leading threat to the continued

existence of the species is the loss and fragmentation of habitat, as indigo snakes require

fairly large tracts for survival.


Eastern indigo snakes are found throughout Florida, including Indian River County

(McDiarmid 1978, USFWS 1999). However, because of their habitat requirements, it is

likely that they would be infrequent residents of the largely developed, fragmented

habitats along the Atlantic shoreline.


31

4.5 Wood Stork


Wood storks are large, white birds with black wing and tail feathers that are known to

inhabit the mangrove islands in the Indian River Lagoon immediately west of the Plan

Area. They are designated as “endangeredthreatened” at both the State and Federal

levels. The only species of stork that is native to North America, wood storks are present

in relatively sparse numbers in Florida and southeastern Georgia. They are long-legged

wading birds that average approximately 85 to 115 cm (35 to 45 in) in head-to-tail length

and have a wingspread of approximately 150 to 165 cm (60 to 65 in). They typically nest

in cypress swamps and mangrove forests and forage for small fish and aquatic organisms

in shallow ponds, flooded pastures and ditches. Their annual nesting success is highly

dependent on hydrologic regimes, and nesting failures are typically associated with water

levels being either unusually low or high. Field surveys indicate that there are between

2,300 and 5,600 mating pairs of wood storks in Florida (USFWS 1999). Because wood

storks have no major natural threats, loss of wetlands and modifications to natural

hydrological cycles are the primary threats to the continued existence of the species.


Wood storks are found throughout Florida, including Indian River County. Breeding

colonies have been located on islands in the Indian River Lagoon adjacent to the Plan

Area (Kale 1978, USFWS 1999). However, because of their prevalent use of freshwater

and estuarine habitats for nesting, roosting, and foraging, they would not likely be found

along the Atlantic shoreline in the Plan Area.

4.6 Johnson’s Seagrass


Johnson’s seagrass is a short-bladed aquatic plant inhabiting shallow estuarine waters

along the east coast of peninsular Florida. It has recently been designated as a

“threatened” species by the Federal government, but is not listed by the State of Florida.

Johnson’s seagrass often inhabits tidal shoals near open-water inlets, where it appears to

aid in stabilizing shifting sediments. The major threats to this species are loss of habitat

through dredge/fill activities and degradation of water clarity.


Johnson’s seagrass has been documented in the Indian River Lagoon adjacent to the Plan

Area. However, this portion of the lagoon is not designated as critical habitat (NOAA 50

CFR Part 226). Due to the high degree of turbulence in the surf zone, this species would

not likely occur on the Atlantic side of the barrier island.


32

4.7 Sea Turtles

Of the seven extant species of sea turtles found in the world, five are known to inhabit

eastern Florida waters: hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys

kempi), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green

(Chelonia mydas) turtles. Loggerhead, green, and leatherback turtles nest regularly on

the County’s beaches. Kemp’s ridley and hawksbill turtles are infrequent nesters on

Florida’s east coast, and have never been recorded nesting in the Plan Area (Meylan et.

al. 1995). Much of our current understanding of the biology and ecology of sea turtles is

summarized in a recent publication, The Biology of Sea Turtles, edited by Lutz and

Musick (1997).

4.7.1 Loggerhead Turtle

4.7.1.1 Biological Information

The loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) was federally-listed on July 28, 1978 as a

threatened species under the ESA (43 FR 32800). Internationally, it is considered

“endangered” by the World Conservation Union (Hilton-Taylor 2000) and is listed in

Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES). Circumglobal in range, this species can be found in temperate,

subtropical, and tropical waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans (Dodd 1988).

With the exception of brief periods when adult females emerge on sandy beaches to nest,

loggerheads, as do other sea turtles, spend their entire lives in marine and estuarine

waters.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the USFWS (1991a) summarized the

geographic distribution of loggerhead turtle nesting. Approximately 88 percent of nesting

by this species occurs in the southeastern United States, Oman, and Australia.

Approximately 50,000 to 70,000 loggerhead turtle nests are deposited on southeastern

U.S. beaches annually, ranking this rookery as the second largest in the world (NMFS

and USFWS 1991a, FWC unpublished data, Georgia Department of Natural Resources

unpublished data, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources unpublished data,

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission unpublished data). The vast majority of

nesting in the U.S. occurs in Florida. The beaches of east central and southeast Florida

from Brevard to Broward Counties are especially prolific nesting areas, accounting for

about 90 percent of the total nests deposited each year in Florida (Meylan et al. 1995).

The adult loggerhead foraging grounds for the south Florida nesting population are

thought to be around the Caribbean Islands, such as Cuba and the Dominican Republic,

as well as around the eastern seaboard of the United States, the Bahamas, Florida Keys,

and Gulf of Mexico (Meylan et al. 1983, Henwood 1987, Rankin-Baransky 1997). The

average female makes reproductive migrations between her foraging grounds and nesting

beach every two or three years (Richardson and Richardson 1982, Murphy and Hopkins

1984).


33

Mating season in southeastern Florida begins in early March, prior to commencement of

nesting. The first loggerhead nests begin to appear in late April, and the last nests are

deposited in early to mid-September (NMFS and USFWS 1991a; Meylan et al., 1995).

Nesting peaks during the months of June and July. Aerial surveys have shown the

numbers of adult turtles off the east coast of Florida to be about 15 times higher in the

spring and summer than in the fall and winter, indicating that adults migrate from

elsewhere to mate and nest (Thompson 1984, National Research Council 1990).

The general nesting process for all species of sea turtles is stereotypical, with subtle

variations (Miller 1997). Hailman and Elowson (1992) documented the sequential

behaviors associated with loggerhead turtle nesting (ascending the beach, making the

body pit, digging the egg chamber, laying eggs, filling the egg chamber, covering the

body pit, and returning to the surf). Unless otherwise noted, the phases described below

for loggerheads apply to the other sea turtle species as well.

Nesting occurs almost exclusively at night. Female sea turtles emerge from the surf zone

and ascend the beach in search of an appropriate place to construct their nests. If a

suitable nesting site cannot be found, the turtle will return to the ocean and will typically

select another site either later that night or the next night (Miller et al. 2000).

Sea turtle eggs require a low-salinity, high-humidity, well-ventilated substrate that is not

inundated by tidal overwash for development (Miller 1997). Various authors have

suggested that abrupt changes in temperature, moisture, salinity and/or beach slope along

the beach profile may aid in nest site selection (Stoneburner and Richardson 1981, Wood

and Bjorndal 2000). Nest placement may also be influenced by local lighting conditions

and/or the presence of structures on the beach. On urban beaches, where a bright sky

glow is often present landward of the beach, Salmon et al. (1995) found that females

tended to concentrate their nests on the beach within the darker silhouettes of large

condominiums, and nested with lower frequency in the more illuminated areas between

the structures. Mosier (1998) and Bouchard et al. (1998) observed that nest densities in

front of armoring structures were reduced relative to areas of natural dune vegetation.

Once a suitable site is found, the turtle will begin excavating a shallow body pit. At the

rear of this depression she will then excavate an egg chamber, which is about 60 cm (24

inches) deep (Ernest and Martin 1999). Into the egg chamber, the loggerhead female will

usually deposit between 100 and 120 eggs, (Ehrhart 1979, Raymond 1984, Ehrhart and

Witherington 1987, Ehrhart and Witherington 1987, Steinitz 1990, Broadwell 1991,

Ernest and Martin 1993, Ehrhart 1995). Once egg-laying is complete, the female packs

the top of the nest chamber with moist sand with her rear flippers then covers the entire

body pit by throwing sand backwards with her front flippers. The turtle then crawls back

to ocean. The average time that a loggerhead turtle spends on dry land during the entire

nesting process is 63.0 minutes (Hailman and Elowson 1992). The young receive no

subsequent parental care.

Female sea turtles typically lay several clutches of eggs during each season that they nest

(Ehrhart 1982). In a review of literature on loggerhead turtles, Ehrhart (1989) concluded


34

that the estimate of 4.1 nests per female made by Murphy and Hopkins (1984) was the

current best estimate of mean intraseasonal clutch frequency in this species. Renesting

intervals are approximately two weeks (Hirth 1980, Ehrhart 1982). Individuals usually

return to the same general area to lay successive clutches (Carr 1967, Dodd 1988).

Recent genetic evidence supports long-held beliefs that sea turtles exhibit a natal homing

instinct; upon reaching reproductive age, they return to their natal beaches to nest

(Meylan et al. 1990, Bowen et al. 1993, Allard et al. 1994).

Sea turtle nests incubate for variable periods of time. The loggerhead turtle incubation

period ranges from approximately 49 to 80 days for nests left in situ (in place; Dodd

1988). The warmer the temperature of the sand surrounding the egg chamber, the faster

the embryos develop (Mrosovsky and Yntema 1980). Sediment temperatures prevailing

during the middle-third of the incubation period also determine the sex of hatchling sea

turtles (Mrosovsky and Yntema 1980). Moisture conditions in the nest similarly

influence incubation period, hatching success, and hatchling size (McGehee 1990).

Sea turtle hatchlings do not typically emerge from the nest immediately after hatching

from their eggs. Instead, they remain in the egg chamber for several days before

ascending to the beach surface (Christens 1990). The inclusive time between the date a

clutch of eggs is laid and the date the first hatchling emerges from the nest is termed the

incubation period. The average incubation period for loggerhead nests along the central

and south Florida east coast is typically between 49 and 54 days (Ehrhart and

Witherington 1987, EAI 2000a and 2001a).

Hatchlings emerge from their nests almost exclusively at night, presumably using

decreasing sand temperature as a cue (Hendrickson 1958, Mrosovsky 1968, Witherington

et al. 1990). Nighttime emergences are beneficial, because the risks of predation and

hyperthermia are reduced. An abrupt lowering of sand temperatures after nightfall

apparently increases hatchling activity and elicits an emergence response. Even after the

initial emergence of hatchlings from the nest, there may be secondary emergences on

subsequent nights (Carr and Ogren 1960, Ernest and Martin 1993). The number of

hatchlings leaving each nest is extremely variable. Ehrhart and Witherington (1987)

reported that average emerging success (percentage of eggs that produce hatchlings

which escape from the nest) of 85 nests in southern Brevard County was 63.7 percent.

Thus, the average loggerhead nest (116 eggs) would produce about 74 hatchlings.

Emergence marks the beginning of a period of high activity during which hatchlings

enter the sea and swim away from land in a “frenzy” (Wyneken and Salmon 1992).

Hatchlings may use a variety of cues to guide them from the nest to offshore, pelagic

environments where they spend their early years (Carr 1987, Bolten et al. 1993,

Witherington 1994, Bolten and Balazs 1995). Hatchlings first use light cues to find the

ocean. On natural, undeveloped beaches, ambient light reflected off the ocean creates a

relatively bright horizon compared to the dark dune and vegetation landward of the nest.

This contrast guides the hatchlings to the ocean (Witherington 1992, Salmon et al. 1992).


35

Upon entering the surf, hatchlings swim incessantly in an offshore direction for about 20

hours (Wyneken and Salmon 1992). Wave direction and magnetic fields are thought to

be responsible for leading the hatchlings to offshore habitats where they spend the next

phase of their life history (Carr 1986 and 1987, Salmon and Lohmann 1989, Lohmann et

al. 1990, Wyneken et al. 1990, Lohman 1991, Wyneken and Salmon 1992, Light et al.

1993, Lohmann and Lohmann 1994).

Western Atlantic loggerheads are estimated to spend about ten years in the pelagic

environment (Bolton and Balazs 1995). When loggerhead turtles reach the size of 40 to

60 cm (16 to 24 inches) straight carapace length, they move into various inshore estuaries

or reef-system habitats in the shallow coastal waters of the western Atlantic (Carr 1986

and 1987). The nearshore regions where juvenile and subadult loggerheads live and

forage have been termed developmental habitats. Loggerheads may reside in these

developmental habitats either seasonally or year-round until they reach sexual maturity,

which is estimated to occur between 20 to 30 years or more of age (Frazer and Ehrhart

1985, Klinger and Musick 1995, Parham and Zug 1997).

Genetic research involving mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has identified five distinct

loggerhead nesting sub-populations/nesting aggregations in the western North Atlantic

(Bowen 1994 and 1995, Bowen et al. 1993, Encalada et al. 1998, Pearce 2001):

Northern (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and northeast Florida);

South Florida (from 29N latitude on Florida’s east coast to Sarasota on Florida’s

west coast);

Dry Tortugas, Florida

Northwest Florida (Eglin Air Force Base and the beaches near Panama City); and

Yucatan (eastern Yucatan Peninsula).

Data indicate that gene flow between these five regions is very low. If nesting females

are extirpated from one region, dispersal from adjacent sub-populations will not be

sufficient to replenish the depleted stock. The Northern Sub-population has declined

substantially since the early 1970s, but most of that decline occurred prior to 1979. No

significant trend has been detected in recent years (TEWG 1998 and 2000). Adult

loggerheads of the South Florida Sub-population have shown significant increases over

the last 25 years, indicating that the sub-population is recovering, although a trend could

not be detected from the State of Florida’s Index Nesting Beach Survey program from

1989 to 1998. Nesting surveys in the Northwest Florida and Yucatan Sub-populations

have been too irregular to date to allow for a meaningful trend analysis (TEWG 1998 and

2000). The Dry Tortugas Sub-population has only recently been identified as a distinct

management unit (Pearce 2001).

4.7.1.2 Site-Specific Information

At the time of preparation of the original HCP, Indian River County’s 22.25 miles of

beach supporteds about 4.6 percent of the total loggerhead nesting in the State of Florida

(Meylan et al. 1995). An estimatedOn average of, about 5,603 loggerhead nests are were

deposited in the County each season yielding an overall nest density of 252 nests per mile


36

(Tables 4 and 5). The areas of highest nest densities are were north of Vero Beach, while

lowest densities occurred in the urban area of Vero Beach and southern County

beaches(Figures 6). SISPRA and Wabasso Beach have beenwere deemed critically

important nesting areas and hoeld some of the highest loggerhead turtle nesting densities

in the State (Meylan et al. 1995).

Implementation of the County’s HCP in 2005 has resulted in a more consistent

monitoring program with universal survey coverage. Data collected under the new HCP

monitoring protocol (2005-2016) indicates that, on average, about 4,600 loggerhead nests

are now deposited in the County each season, yielding an overall nest density of 205

nests per mile (Table 6). This apparent reduction from the number presented in the

original HCP may result from the inclusion of a period of relatively low loggerhead nest

numbers following a dramatic decrease in loggerhead nesting Statewide between 1998

and 2006(Witherington et al. 2009) or could reflect a more comprehensive dataset.

Regardless, loggerhead nesting in IRC has increased substantially since the HCP has

been in effect, reflecting the Statewide trend.

It should be noted that the County’s BPP and FDEP’s Division of Water Resource

Management, the State agency responsible for tracking long-term erosion patterns on

Florida’s sandy beaches, report the length of IRC’s coastline as 22.4 miles. The

discrepancy between that value and the 22.25 miles used throughout the original HCP is

unknown. However, all new nesting data presented herein and reported annually to the

USFWS is based on 22.4 miles. Additionally, the original HCP reported nesting data for

eight survey areas (Table 5), whereas the current monitoring program has reduced the

number of permanent survey segments, or Management Areas, to six (Table 7). Under

the current program, the ACNWR now encompasses what was previously the Wabasso

North and Middle survey areas and a portion of Wabasso South, while Disney now

occupies the remainder of Wabasso South and the area previously labeled as Baytree, Sea

Oaks and Surrounding Areas.

At the time the original HCP was prepared, tThe earliest recorded nesting by a

loggerhead in Indian River County was on April 15 (Table 68). The latest nest was

recorded on September 15. The period during which loggerhead nesting occurs is now

slightly longer, encompassing the period from April 13 through October 6 (Table 8).


37

Table 4

Sea Turtle Nest Densities Along Indian River County Beaches, 1994-2000.1

Survey Area Length

(miles)

Average Number of Nests Per Mile

Loggerhead Green Leatherback

Sebastian Inlet State

Recreation AreaPark

2.03 368.6 10.3 0.2

Wabasso Beach North 2.44 573.3 15.4 0.3

Wabasso Beach Middle 2.60 319.5 20.4 0.9

Wabasso Beach South 0.77 212.2 7.4 0.7

Baytree, Sea Oaks, &

Surrounding Areas

5.98 276.3 27.1 1.5

Vero Beach 4.21 97.0 3.0 0.4

Unsurveyed2 0.72 95.9 2.5 0.6

South County Beaches 3.50 94.7 2.0 0.8

All County Beaches 22.25 251.8 13.5 0.8

1 See Table 5 for survey area boundaries and data analyzed. 2 Nest numbers are the average for Vero Beach and South County Beaches.


38

Table 5

Spatial Boundaries of the Beach Segments Used to Survey for Sea Turtle Nesting in Indian River County Prior to 2005 and

Sources of Data Used to Assess Temporal and Spatial Nesting Patterns During Preparation of Original HCP.

SEA TURTLE SURVEY

AREA

NORTHERN

BOUNDARY

SOUTHERN

BOUNDARY

LENGTH

(miles)

SOURCE OF NESTING

DATA

YEARS

ANALYZED

SISRASISP Sebastian Inlet (~500 ft

N or R001) 130 ft S of R011 2.03

FWC Unpublished Annual

Nesting Data 1995-2000

Wabasso Beach North 130 ft S of R011 260 ft S of R024 2.44 Adjusted FWC Unpublished

INBS data1 1994-2000

Wabasso Beach Middle 260 ft S of R024 400 ft S of R038 2.60 Adjusted FWC Unpublished

INBS data1 1994-2000

Wabasso Beach South 400 ft S of R038 400 ft S of R042 0.77 FWC Unpublished Annual


Baytree, Sea Oaks &

Surrounding Areas (Includes

Indian River Shores)

400 ft S of R042

N Vero Beach City

Limit

(325 ft N of R074)

5.98 FWC Unpublished Annual

Nesting Data2 1998-2000

Vero Beach

N Vero Beach City

Limit (325 ft N of

R074)

S Vero Beach City

Limit

(600 ft N of R097)

4.21 FWC Unpublished Annual


Unsurveyed

S Vero Beach City

Limit (600 ft N of

R097)

R100 0.72

Average of Numbers for

Vero Beach and South

County Beaches

NA

South County Beaches R100 St. Lucie County Line

(R119) 3.50

Ecological Associates, Inc.

Unpublished Nesting Data3 1997-98

All County Beaches Sebastian Inlet (~500 ft

N or R001)

St. Lucie County Line

(R119) 22.25 NA NA

1 INBS = Index Nesting Beach Survey. INBS is a Statewide survey designed to estimate the size of nesting populations of sea turtles in Florida. It is performed

each year from May 15 through August 31. However, some nesting occurs outside of these dates. To estimate the number of nests for the entire year, data

were adjusted using a correction factor derived from complete data sets from comparable survey areas. The adjustment factor was 1.163 for loggerheads,

1.068 for greens, and 1.4 for leatherbacks. 2 Prior to 2000, much of the survey area between Wabasso Beach South and Vero Beach was not systematically surveyed. During those years, data for Baytree

& Sea Oaks was extrapolated to the entire area. Data for 2000 are actual numbers for the entire area. 3 Monitoring in 1998 was terminated July 18. Data for 1998 were adjusted based on comparable data for the entire 1998 season on nearby Hutchinson Island,

Florida. The adjustment factor was 1.2203 for loggerheads, 2.3077 for greens, and 1.0 for leatherbacks.


39

Table 6

Sea Turtle Nest Densities Along Indian River County Beaches, 2005-20161.

Survey

Area3

Length

(Miles)

Total and Average Number of Nests Per Mile2


Total Mean Total Mean Total Mean

SISP 2.00 5,684 235.9 409 16.6 44 1.7

ACNWR 5.00 17,683 296.1 3,507 59.6 146 2.3

Disney 1.30 3,461 228.8 1,121 74.1 38 2.7

IRS 5.50 11,974 182.6 3,028 44.1 197 3.0

Vero 3.90 5,973 139.2 314 7.3 73 1.7

SIRC 4.70 10,419 185.6 498 8.3 136 2.5

TOTAL 22.40 55,194 205.3 8,877 33.0 634 2.4 1 Indian River County HCP Program Data. 2 Totals are for 2005-2016. Due to several changes in survey responsibilities between

2005 and 2006, means for individual survey areas are for 2006-2016. 3 See Table 7 for survey area boundaries.


40

Table 7

Spatial Boundaries of the Beach Management Areas Used to Survey for Sea Turtle

Nesting in Indian River County Since 2006.

MANAGEMENT

AREA DESIGNATION

NORTHERN

BOUNDARY

SOUTHERN

BOUNDARY

LENGTH

(Miles)

Sebastian Inlet

State Park SISP

Sebastian Inlet

(~500 ft N or

R001)

R11 2.0

Archie Carr

National Wildlife

Refuge

ACNWR R11 300 ft S of

R38 5.0

Disney Disney 300 ft S of

R38

125 ft N of

R60 1.3

Indian River

Shores IRS

125 ft N of

R60

690 ft S of

R73 5.5

City of Vero

Beach Vero

690 ft S of

R73

175 ft N of

R93 3.9

South Indian River

County Beaches SIRC

175 ft N of

R93

St. Lucie

County Line

(R119)

4.7

All County

Beaches

Sebastian Inlet

(~500 ft N or

R001)

St. Lucie

County Line

(R119)

22.4


41

Table 86

Comparison of Temporal Nesting Patterns of Florida Sea Turtles in Indian River

County, Florida: 1979-2000 versus 2005-2016.

Species Earliest Date Latest Date

1979-2000 2005-2016 1979-2000 2005-2016

Loggerhead April 15 April 13 September 15 October 6

Green May 9 April 11 September 22 October 26

Leatherback March 26 February 28 July 7 August 7

Sources: Meylan et al. 1995 (1988-1992).

FWC unpublished data (1993-2000).

Indian River County HCP Program Data (2005-2016).

4.7.2 Green Turtle


In 1978, the breeding populations of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Florida and on

the Pacific Coast of Mexico were federally-listed as endangered; all other populations

were listed as threatened (43 FR 32800). However, in 2016, the USFWS and NOAA

changed the green turtle listing status to include eleven distinct population segments

(DPS), eight of which were listed as “threatened” and three as “endangered.” The

Northwest Atlantic DPS is currently listed as “threatened” (81 FR 20057).

The green turtle is a circumglobal species in tropical and subtropical waters. The major

green turtle nesting colonies in the Atlantic Ocean occur on Ascension Island, Aves

Island, Costa Rica, and Surinam (NMFS and USFWS 1991b). Nesting in the United

States occurs in small numbers in the U.S. Virgin Islands and on Puerto Rico and in

larger numbers along the east coast of Florida, particularly in Brevard, Indian River,

St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties.

Allard et al. (1994) concluded that the Florida nesting population of green turtles is

genetically distinct, and Meylan et al. (1995) stated that the Florida green turtle nesting

aggregation deserves recognition as a regionally significant colony. Brevard County

accounts for nearly 39.5 percent of nesting green turtles in Florida.

The nesting behavior and life history stages of green turtles are similar to those of

loggerheads, although there are slight differences. For example, the eggs of green turtles

tend to be larger and deposited deeper on the beach than those of loggerheads.


42

Additionally, green turtles typically do not begin nesting in Florida until late May.

Estimates of the number of green turtle nests deposited each year in Florida range from

several hundred to over 8,400 (FWC, unpublished data).

Like the loggerhead, green turtles lay multiple clutches of eggs during the nesting season.

Based on research conducted in south Brevard County during 1991 and 1992, Johnson

(1994) estimated that green turtles deposited one to seven clutches during the nesting

season with an average of about three nests per female. However, he cautioned that,

because of inherent biasing factors, the true mean probably lies between 3 and 4.

The mean clutch size of green turtle nests is usually 110 to 115 eggs, but this mean varies

among populations (NMFS and USFWS 1991b). Witherington and Ehrhart (1989)

reported an average clutch size of 136 eggs for 130 clutches on the east coast of Florida.

In south Brevard County, Johnson (1994) reported a mean clutch size of 131 eggs. When

data from 1985-1990 were combined, Johnson (1994) estimated overall hatchling

emerging success to be 56.7 percent. Thus, the average green turtle nest in south Brevard

County produces 74.8 hatchlings. Incubation periods for green turtle nests range from

approximately 48 to 70 days (Marquez 1990).

In the State of Florida, green turtle nesting appears to be increasing, at least in the last

half of the twentieth century (Dodd 1982, Meylan et al. 1995). During the period from

1989 to present, green turtle nesting in Florida has shown a clear biannual periodicity,

with relatively low nest numbers being recorded in odd-numbered years and high nest

numbers being documented in even-numbered years (Witherington and Koeppel 1999,

FWC unpublished data).


At the time the original HCP was prepared, Indian River County Beaches supported

about 5.4 percent of the State’s green turtle nests (Meylan et al. 1995). During an

average year, about an estimated 300 nests are were deposited on County Beaches for an

average of 13.5 nests per mile (Table 4). This equates to about 33.013.5 nests per mile

for the entire Plan Area. As with the loggerhead, green turtle nest densities tend to be

higher north of Vero Beach and lower from Vero Beach south. The ACNWR in Brevard

and Indian River Counties contains some of the State’s highest concentrations of green

turtle nests. Additionally, the nearshore reefs that parallel much of the IRC’s coastline

serve as an important developmental habitat for juvenile green turtles (Ehrhart 1992).

Using data collected under the new HCP monitoring protocol from 2005-2016, an

average of about 33 green turtle nests per mile are now deposited on County Beaches

each year (Table 6). The biannual nesting pattern noted above has been very apparent in

recent years, as record numbers of nests have been documented. The trends observed in

Indian River County are mirrored in data maintained by the FWC, as green turtle nesting

continues to increase Statewide (http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/

beach-survey-totals).

http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/%20beach-survey-totals

http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/%20beach-survey-totals


43

At the time the original HCP was prepared, tThe earliest recorded nesting by a green

turtle in Indian River County was on May 9 (Table 68). The latest nest was recorded on

September 22. The period during which nesting now occurs has expanded by two

months to encompass the period from April 11 through October 26 (Table 8).

4.7.3 Leatherback Turtle


The leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), the largest of the extant species of sea

turtle, was federally-listed as an endangered species in 1970 (35 FR 8491). Unlike other

sea turtles, the carapace, or top shell, of the leatherback is not covered with bony plates.

Rather, its carapace is composed of a black, oil-saturated, rubber-like tissue that is

strengthened by a mosaic of thousands of small bones just below the outer skin of the

carapace. The morphology of the leatherback is so distinct that it is placed in a separate

family (Dermochelyidae) from other extant species of sea turtles (Cheloniidae; NMFS

and USFWS 1992).

Whereas the other species of sea turtles tend to inhabit relatively shallow coastal waters

where they feed on bottom dwelling plants and animals, leatherbacks tend to be pelagic

(Pritchard and Trebbau 1984). They feed primarily on soft-bodied animals, such as

jellyfish, that are abundant in the open ocean (Lazell 1980, Hendrickson 1980, Shoop and

Kenney 1992).

Circumglobal in range, leatherback turtles travel great distances between their winter

foraging and summer nesting grounds (Goff et al. 1994, Girondot and Fretey 1996). The

leatherback turtle is found in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans and has been

spotted as far north as the Barents Sea, Canadian Maritime Provinces and Alaska, and as

far south as Chile, the Cape of Good Hope, and New Zealand (Pritchard and Trebbau

1984). The leatherback can inhabit colder waters than other sea turtles, because it is

apparently able to maintain an internal temperature that exceeds ambient water

temperature; it may be active at temperatures reportedly as low as 0 degrees Celsius

(Frair et al. 1972, Goff and Lien 1988).

Nesting grounds are distributed circumglobally (40º North to 35º South Latitude), with

the largest known nesting ground occurring on the Pacific Coast of southern Mexico.

The total population of mature females worldwide has been estimated to be 34,500

(Spotila et al. 1996). At present, two of the largest populations of leatherbacks occur in

the Western Atlantic in French Guiana and Suriname (Spotila et al. 1996). In French

Guiana, over 50,000 nests were recorded in 1988 and 1992 (Girondot and Fretey 1996).

Nesting occurs frequently, but in lesser numbers, from Costa Rica to Columbia and in

Guyana and Trinidad (National Research Council 1990). Nesting in the United States

occurs primarily in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and southeastern Florida. Only

about 16 to 31 leatherback turtles were thought to nest annually in Florida (Meylan et al.

1995, NMFS and USFWS 1992). However, that figure appears to have increased

significantly over the last decade (Witherington and Koeppel 1999). The majority (more


44

than 90 percent) of the leatherback turtle nests recorded in Florida between 1988 and

1992 occurred in St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties.

Leatherbacks are thought to migrate to their nesting beach about every two to three years

and nest about six times during the nesting season (NMFS and USFWS 1992, Miller

1997). Nesting by this species in Florida typically begins and ends earlier in the season

than for the other species, with the first nests being recorded in late February or early

March and the last nests in July (Meylan et al. 1995). Tucker (1989) and Tucker and

Frazer (1991) reported that leatherback turtles nested an average of five to seven times

per year, with a mean internesting interval of about nine to ten days.

The mean annual clutch size of leatherback turtles varies from 65 to 80 yolked eggs

(Tucker and Frazer 1991, NMFS and USFWS 1992), and incubation periods vary from

55 to 75 days (NMFS and USFWS 1992). On Hutchinson Island, Florida in Martin and

St. Lucie Counties, the average leatherback nest contains 75.7 yolked eggs, and the

average emerging success is 50.3 percent (Ecological Associates, Inc., unpublished data).

Thus, a typical leatherback nest unaffected by predation or storms produces about 38

hatchlings. Incubation periods for leatherback nests in Florida are generally longer than

for loggerhead and green turtle nests mainly because of the leatherback’s tendency to

deposit nests earlier in the season when cooler temperatures prevail.


The bulk of leatherback nesting in Florida occurs just south of IRC in St. Lucie, Martin,

and Palm Beach Counties (Meylan et al. 1995). At the time the original HCP was

prepared, Indian River County only receivesd about 1.7 percent of the State’s leatherback

nesting each year. On average, there are were about 0.8 nests per mile in IRC, totaling

about 18 nests per year Countywide (Table 4). Leatherback nests have been recorded

throughout County Beaches.

Based on data collected under the new HCP monitoring protocol from 2005-2016, an

average of about 2.4 nests per mile are now recorded in IRC each year (Table 6).

Although nesting by leatherbacks in the County has been in decline during recent years,

significant increases have been reported elsewhere in Florida (Stewart et al. 2011).

Prior to issuance of the ITP in 2004, tThe earliest recorded nesting by a leatherback in

Indian River County was had been on March 26 and the latest on July 7 (Table 68). The

latest nest was recorded on July 7.The period during which nesting now occurs (2005-

2016) stretches from February 28 through August 7 (Table 8).

4.7.4 Hawksbill Turtle


The hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) occurs in all of the tropical and subtropical

oceans. It was federally-listed as endangered in 1970 (35 FR 8491). Throughout their


45

range, hawksbills typically nest at lower densities compared to green and loggerhead

turtles (National Research Council 1990). The low numbers may be the direct result of

long-term over-fishing. Although they are regularly spotted in coastal waters and reefs

off south Florida, few hawksbills nest on Florida beaches (Meylan et al. 1995). Most of

the Western Atlantic nesting takes place on the Yucatan Peninsula, Belize, Nicaragua,

Panama, Venezuela, Antiqua, and other Caribbean islands (NMFS and USFWS 1993).

Hawksbills have an apparent preference for remote beaches with dense shrubbery on the

landward side of the intertidal zone where offshore reefs or rock outcrops are in the

vicinity (National Research Council 1990).

Hawksbills share many of the same life-history traits as loggerhead and green turtles.

They are thought to migrate to their nesting beach about every 3 years, and nest about 2

to 3 times during the nesting season (Miller 1997). The average renesting interval is

about 14.5 days. Hawksbills lay an average of 140 eggs per clutch, and the average

incubation period is 59.2 days (NMFS and USFWS 1993).


Between the years of 1979 and 1992, only 11 hawksbill nests were reported in the State

of Florida. These nests were documented in Broward, Dade, Martin, Monroe, Palm

Beach, and Volusia Counties (Meylan et al. 1995). Nine hawksbill nests were counted in

Florida from 1993 to 1999. All were in Broward, Dade, Monroe and Palm Beach

Counties and deposited between June and December (FDEP Unpublished Annual Nesting

Data, 1999 and 2000). However, hawksbill tracks are difficult to differentiate from

those of loggerheads and may not be recognized by monitoring personnel. Therefore,

nesting surveys in Florida likely underestimate the actual number of hawksbill nests

deposited each year (Meylan et al. 1995).

Although no hawksbill nests have been documented in Indian River County, the turtles

can probably be found inhabiting some reefs and ledges in nearshore waters of the

County.

4.7.5 Kemp’s Ridley Turtle


The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) has received protection in Mexico

since the 1960’s and was listed as endangered under United States law in 1970 (35 CFR

18320). Together with the olive ridley, they are the smallest of the extant species of sea

turtles. Kemp’s ridley distribution is mainly limited to the Gulf of Mexico and Western

Atlantic with occasional sightings in the Eastern Atlantic. Adult turtles are thought to

spend most of their time in the Gulf of Mexico, while juveniles and subadults also

regularly occur along the eastern seaboard of the United States (USFWS and NMFS

1992). The Kemp’s ridley is carnivorous, feeding on swimming crabs, mollusks,

jellyfish, and fish, with blue crabs apparently a preferred food.


46

Kemp’s ridleys nest singly or in large groupings called arribadas. Unlike the loggerhead,

Kemp’s ridley nesting occurs during the day. The majority of nesting takes place on

western Gulf of Mexico beaches primarily in the Mexican states of Tamaulipas and

Veracruz (USFWS and NMFS 1992; USFWS 2001). Kemp’s ridleys are thought to nest

every one or two years, depositing an average of 2.5 clutches per nesting season (TEWG

2000). The renesting interval is between 20 and 28 days, and the mean clutch size is

about 110 eggs (Miller 1997).


At the time the original HCP was prepared, oOnly seven Kemp’s ridley nests hadve been

documented in the State of Florida from 1979 through 1999prior to 2000 (Johnson et al.

1999, FDEP, unpublished nesting data). The nests were found in Volusia, Pinellas,

Sarasota, and Lee Counties in the months of May and June. In recent years, Kemp’s

ridleys have been documented nesting in both the ACNWR and the SISP in Brevard

County. While it is likely that Kemp’s ridleys utilize the nearshore Atlantic waters of

Indian River County and may occasionally occur in the Indian River Lagoon (Ehrhart et

al. 1999, unpublished data), there still have been no documented nests on Indian River

County beaches (Meylan et al. 1995, FDEP, unpublished nesting data).

4.8 Species Covered Under Plan

The only federally protected species likely to be affected by shoreline protection

measures initiated under the County’s emergency permitting authority are sea turtles.

Although beach mice have historically occupied dune habitat in IRC, they were almost

exclusively limited to undeveloped public lands in the north end of the County. Insofar

as there is no beachfront development on those properties, they would not be eligible for

emergency permitting, and thus, no impacts associated with the County’s proposed

activities are likely to occur.

Accordingly, take is only being requested for the following species:

Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta);

Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas);

Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea);

Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata); and

Kemp’s Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii).


47

5.0 FACTORS AFFECTING IMPACTING SEA TURTLES IN PLAN

AREA

Sea turtles nesting on the County’s beaches, as elsewhere in Florida, face a variety of

natural and human-related threats (NMFS and USFWS 1991a and b). Natural threats

include nest depredation, beach erosion, and invasion of exotic dune vegetation (e.g.,

Australian pine, Causarina equisetifolia). Various anthropogenic threats to nesting

habitat include beach armoring, beach nourishment, coastal construction, artificial

lighting, increased human presence on the beach at night, beach cleaning, recreational

beach equipment, beach vehicular driving, and poaching. Threats to turtles in the water

include oil and gas exploration, dredging, marina and dock development, commercial and

recreational fisheries, boats, power plant entrapment, and ingestion of marine debris

(National Research Council 1990). Most pertinent to this HCP are impacts associated

with coastal development and beachfront construction activities.

5.1 Natural Events

5.1.1 Predation

Depredation of sea turtle eggs and hatchlings by natural and introduced species occurs on

almost all nesting beaches. Most The most common predators in the State of Florida are

ghost crabs (Ocypode quadrata), native and imported ant species, raccoons (Procyon

lotor), coyotes (Canis latrans), feral hogs (Sus scrofa), foxes (e.g., Urocyon

cinereoargenteus) and armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus). Raccoons, ghost crabs,

coyotes, and red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are the primary predators found

on the beaches of IRC. Although not considered a typical form of predation, roots of

sea oats (Uniola paniculata), railroad vine (Ipomoea pescapre), and other dune plants

sometimes invade the nest cavity and penetrate incubating eggs. This occurs primarily in

nests laid high on the beach at or landward of the toe of the dune.

In the last few nesting seasonsPrior to 2005, raccoons were assumed to have been

responsible for destroying up to 15 percent of all loggerhead nests deposited on in the

ACNWR management areaWabasso Beach (P. Tritaik, Manager, Pelican Island and

ACNWR, personal communication, 2000). Other IRC survey management areas have

reported depredation rates of less than 5 percent (C. Perretta, FWC principal permit

holder, private consultant, personal communication, 2000, R. Johns, Manager, Sebastian

Inlet State Recreation Area, personal communication, 2000, W. Stay, FWC principal-

permit holder, City of Vero Beach, personal communication, 2000). However, because

there is was no uniform method of marking and monitoring nests, it wasis difficult to

compare data collected by the four different groups currently monitoring nesting

activities on the County’s beaches prior to implementation of the HCP. Furthermore,

there wasis presently no monitoring program at all in place for a substantial section of

beach at the south end of the County. Consequently, an accurate assessment of

Countywide predation rates prior to 2005 could notannot be determined.


48

Using data collected from 2005-2016, following implementation of the HCP, the County

was able to determine that the rate of raccoon predation inside the ACNWR was well

below the assumed 15 percent annual nest loss. Over that 12-year period, below (2)

percent of all nests within the Refuge were destroyed by predators, and Countywide, the

average was below (1) percent. The primary predator of turtle nests documented within

the County prior to 2005 was the raccoon; however, additional species have begun

impacting nests in recent years. In 2008, the coyote was recorded destroying sea turtle

nests for the first time within the ACNWR. In addition, domestic dogs have been

recorded digging into nests and damaging eggs in other areas of the County. These

mammalian predators have since been observed to completely destroy incubating nests

and have impacted multiple nests per season.

5.1.2 Tidal Inundation

Erosion, inundation, and accretion appear to be the major abiotic factors that negatively

affect incubating egg clutches (NMFS and USFWS 1991a). Short-term erosion events

(e.g., storms) are a natural phenomenon throughout the tropics and sub-tropics where

both the number of turtle nests, and the amount of storm activity vary considerably from

year to year. Turtles have evolved a strategy to offset episodic impacts to hatchling

productivity by laying large numbers of eggs, and distributing their nests both spatially

and temporally. Thus, rarely is the total annual reproductive output affected by a storm

that impacts a nesting beach. However, chronic erosion exacerbated by human activities

along the coastline can result in a permanent reduction in both the quantity and quality of

available nesting habitat leading to long-term impacts to hatchling productivity.

During erosion events, nests deposited closest to the water’s edge may be completely

washed out. Nests incubating higher on the beach can be uncovered or inundated with

seawater during unusually high tides, both of which can reduce reproductive success.

Accretion of sand above incubating nests may also result in egg and hatchling mortality.

Ehrhart and Witherington (1987) reported that 17.5 percent of the loggerhead nests

deposited in their Brevard County study area did not emerge due to erosion, accretion,

and storm surge. No data are were available at the time of HCP preparation to assess the

effects of erosion and wave overwash on turtle nests in Indian River County.

Nests that are not washed out of the beach may suffer reduced reproductive success as the

result of tidal inundation. Eggs saturated with seawater are particularly susceptible to

embryonic mortality (Bustard and Greenham 1968, Milton et al. 1994, Martin 1996).

Accretion of sand above incubating nests may also result in egg and hatchling mortality.

Although occasional overwash of nests on Hutchinson Island, Florida appeared to have

minimal effect on reproductive success, prolonged or repeated exposure resulted in fewer

emergent hatchlings (Ernest and Martin 1993).


49

5.2 Human-Related Activities

5.2.1 Vehicular Impacts

The public is not permitted to operate motorized vehicles on the beaches of Indian River

County. However, public safety vehicles may occasionally access the beach for

emergency situations and maintenance vehicles may be called upon to remove debris

from the beach if it poses a public safety hazard (e.g., following storm events). If

vehicles are on the beach during the sea turtle nesting season, they may run over nests.

Nighttime operations could potentially result in direct take of adult and hatchling sea

turtles. Additionally, the ruts left by vehicles in the soft sand may prevent or impede

hatchlings from reaching the ocean following their emergence from the nest.

Most public safety operations in Indian River County, primarily by the County Sheriff’s

Office, involve the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). These lightweight vehicles have

wide, low-pressure tires that minimize the potential for impacts to unmarked turtle nests.

5.2.2 Artificial Lighting

Both nesting and hatchling sea turtles are adversely affected by the presence of artificial

lights near the beach (Witherington and Martin 2000). Experimental studies have clearly

demonstrated that bright lights can deter adult female turtles from emerging from the

ocean to nest (Witherington 1992). Thus, not surprisingly, many researchers have noted a

relationship between the amount of lighted beach development and sea turtle nest

densities. For example, Mattison et al. (1993) noted that emergences of nesting turtles in

Broward County, Florida were reduced in areas where lighted piers and roadways were

near the beach. In areas where a glow of artificial light is present behind the dune,

loggerhead turtles prefer to nest in the darker areas silhouetted by tall buildings and dune

vegetation (Salmon et al. 1995).

Although there is a tendency for turtles to prefer dark beaches, many do nest on lighted

shores. As noted by Witherington and Martin (2000), in doing so, they place the lives of

their hatchlings at risk. That is because artificial lighting can impair the ability of

hatchlings to properly orient to the ocean once they leave their nests.

Hatchling sea turtles exhibit a robust sea-finding behavior. A direct and timely migration

from the nest to sea may be vital to their survivorship. Although the cues involved in sea

finding are complex, hatchlings rely primarily on vision for proper orientation

(Witherington and Martin 2000, Salmon et al. 1992, Lohmann et al. 1997). A

combination of light and shapes is thought to be responsible. The extent to which one or

the other drives the process may be a function of the relative strength of each stimulus.

Hatchlings have a tendency to orient toward the brightest direction. On natural

undeveloped beaches, the brightest direction is almost always away from elevated shapes

(e.g., dune, vegetation, etc.) and their silhouettes and toward the broad open horizon of

the sea, which reflects light provided by the moon and stars. On developed beaches, the


50

brightest direction is often away from the ocean and toward lighted structures.

Hatchlings unable to find the ocean, or delayed in reaching it, are likely to incur high

mortality from dehydration, exhaustion, or predation (Carr and Ogren 1960, Witherington

and Ehrhart 1987, Witherington and Martin 2000). Hatchlings lured into lighted parking

lots or toward street lights are often crushed by passing vehicles (McFarlane 1963,

Philibosian 1976, Peters and Verhoeven 1994, Witherington and Martin 2000). Data

collected in Indian River County under the HCP have also documented hatchlings being

lured to lighted hotels and condominiums where they are often found swimming

feverishly in chemically treated swimming pools.

To reduce the harmful effects of artificial beachfront lighting, many communities have

adopted lighting regulations. Indian River County’s Sea Turtle Protection Ordinance,

updated in 2015 to reflect recommendations contained in Florida’s Model Lighting

Ordinance, prohibits illumination of the beach during the sea turtle nesting season (March

1 through October 31) of each year (IRC 1998a). The County also requires a beachfront

lighting evaluation before issuing Certificates of Occupancy for new construction and

shielding of all exterior lights visible from the beach. Property owners are also

encouraged to use long wavelength lights on all exterior fixtures. The intent of these

regulations is not to prohibit lighting of beachfront properties, but rather to manage light

so it is confined to the property. Properly managed lighting can ensure public health and

safety and does notwithout shine out onto illuminating the beach. A variety of measures

are available for effectively managing lights (Witherington and Martin 2000).

5.2.3 Human Activity on the Beach

Up until the time a nesting sea turtle begins laying eggs, she may be frightened back into

the ocean by human activity and lighting on the beach (McFarlane 1963). It is not

known if the fright response has a long-term negative effect on nesting success. Once a

turtle leaves the beach she may return to the same location or select a new site later that

night or the following night. However, repeated interruption of nesting may cause a

turtle to place her nest in a sub-optimum incubation environment (Murphy, 1985). The

extent to which heavy nighttime beach use by humans may cause a turtle to abandon its

historical nesting range is not known.

Visitors using flashlights or lanterns on the beach at night during the nesting season may

deter nesting females from coming ashore and may temporarily disorient hatchlings.

Direct harassment may also cause adult turtles already on the beach to abandon their

nesting activity (Johnson et al. 1996). Little information is available on the potential

impacts of typical nighttime beach users on adult and hatchling sea turtles on Indian

River County’s beaches.

On some Florida beaches, human poaching of turtle nests has been a problem (Ehrhart

and Witherington 1987). However, there have been few reported cases of poaching in

Indian River County.

It is unlawful for beach visitors to disturb sea turtle nests, hatchlings, or adults.

Nevertheless, uninformed beachgoers, particularly children, have been reported digging


51

into nests in search of eggs and/or hatchlings, presumably out of curiosity. Most often,

though, impacts are indirect. For example, hatchlings and adults may become trapped in

large holes dug on the beach that are not filled in. Additionally, research has shown that

human footprints on the beach can interfere with the ability of hatchlings to reach the

ocean (Hosier et al. 1981), and heavy pedestrian traffic may possibly compact sand over

unmarked nests. Visitors are generally sympathetic to hatchlings and may pick them up

and release them into the surf. The negative impacts of this activity may include some

loss of imprinting to the beach (LeBuff 1990).

5.2.4 Recreational Equipment

The use and storage of lounge chairs, cabanas, umbrellas, catamarans, and other types of

recreational equipment on nesting beaches can hamper or deter nesting by adult females

and trap and/or impede hatchlings during their nest to sea migrations. The recovery plan

for Atlantic loggerhead turtles (NMFS and USFWS 1991a) indicates “the documentation

of false crawls at these obstacles is becoming increasingly common as more recreational

beach equipment is left in place nightly on nesting beaches.” The recovery plan cites

documented reports of adult turtles being trapped under heavy wooden lounge chairs,

eggs being destroyed by equipment (e.g., beach umbrellas) penetrating the egg chamber,

and hatchlings being hampered during emergence by equipment inadvertently placed on

top of the nest. The extent to which recreational equipment is impacting turtles in Indian

River CountyInteractions between sea turtles and recreational furniture and equipment

left on the beach overnight have been recorded in Indian River County since HCP

monitoring began in 2005. For example, in 2016, adult females came into contact with

numerous removable pieces of furniture or equipment causing them to abandon their

nesting attempt 61.5 percent of the time. These data are similar throughout the years that

monitoring has been in place throughout the Plan Area.is unknown.

5.2.5 Shoreline Protection

5.2.5.1 Armoring

Seawalls, rock revetments and other types of armoring structures are constructed to

prevent both landward retreat of the shoreline and inundation or loss of upland property

by wave action or flooding (Kraus and McDougal 1996). Although these structures are

generally effective in protecting beachfront property, they do little to promote or maintain

sandy beaches.

Over 21 percent (145 miles) of Florida’s beaches are armored (NMFS and USFWS 1991a

and b). At the time the original HCP was preparedBy comparison, there were are

presently 34 permanent armoring structures in Indian River County, collectively

encompassing slightly more than 1 mile of shoreline (Table 97). Thus, or about 5 percent

of the County’s beaches being are presently armored. About 30 percent of that

construction was initiated under the County’s emergency permitting authority. The

remainder was permitted through FDEP’s standard permitting process. Currently,

pPermanent structures line 10.8 percent of along IRC’s coastline and consist of rock


52

revetments, geotextile bags, wooden retaining walls, and steel, aluminum and concrete

seawalls. The majority of armoring are in areas considered by FDEP as critically eroded,

including (56.5 percent of affected shoreline) is located in the City of Vero Beach.

IRC issued the first Eemergency Ppermit in 1996. A total of six (6) Eemergency

pPermits, encompassing 20 upland structures have been issued. Although the permits

issued by Indian River County only allow for the implementation of temporary shoreline

protection measures, permittees have the right to petition FDEP to erect permanent

structures on their property. Four (4) of the Eemergency Ppermits (protecting 13

structures) issued by the County resulted in permanent structures on the beach, and FDEP

permits for the remaining seven (7) structures are were pending the outcome of the

County’s application for an ITP.

Armoring structures have the potential to affect natural shoreline processes and the

physical beach environment. However, current scientific understanding on these effects

is incomplete. It is clear that seawalls prevent long-term recovery of the beach/dune

system (i.e. building of the back beach) by physically prohibiting dune formation by

wave uprush and wind-blown sand. However, reported topographic effects seaward and

adjacent to seawalls often vary and conflict between project sites (Kaufman and Pilkey

1979, Pilkey et al. 1984, Kraus 1988, Kraus and McDougal 1996). Much of the

controversy surrounding these effects can be attributed to the difficulty in distinguishing

between what Pilkey and Wright (1988) term “passive” and “active” erosion. Passive

erosion relates to the natural tendencies of the shoreline (e.g., erosion or accretion) at a

site prior to the presence of a seawall. Active erosion results from the interaction of the

wall with local coastal processes.


53

Table 79

Summary of Existing Armoring Structures in Indian River County by Sea Turtle Monitoring Area Prior to 2005

SEA TURTLE

SURVEY AREA1

LENGTH

(miles)

TYPE OF STRUCTURE

TOTAL Rock

Revetment Geotextile Bags

Wooden

Retaining Wall Sea Wall2

No. Ft. No. Ft. No. Ft. No. Ft. No. Ft.

SISRASISP 2.03 1 427 1 427

Wabasso Beach

North 2.44 1 54 1 69 2 123

Wabasso Beach

Middle 2.60 4 434 4 434

Wabasso Beach

South 0.77 8 828 83 8283

Baytree, Sea Oaks &

Surrounding Areas 5.98 0 0

Vero Beach 4.21 1 360 2 222 11 2,647 14 3,229

Unsurveyed 0.72 0 0

South County

Beaches 3.50 5 670 54 6704

All County Beaches 22.25 1 427 1 360 3 276 29 4,648 34 5,711 1 See Table 5 for boundaries of survey areas. 2 Includes steel, aluminum, and concrete structures. 3 Does not include an existing temporary structure, 450 ft in length and fronting 6 properties, which was installed under the County’s

emergency authorization. 4 Does not include an existing temporary structure, 100 ft in length in front of 1 property, which was installed under the County’s

emergency authorization.


54

Erosion of adjacent downdrift beaches can occur if the updrift wall acts as a jetty and

impounds sand (Kraus 1988, Tait and Griggs 1990). Additionally, seawalls can cause

wave reflection and scour, processes that accelerate erosion seaward of the structure and

steepen the offshore profile (Pilkey et al. 1984). Sand can move alongshore past a

seawall, but it is not clear if the longshore sediment transport rate changes (Kraus and

McDougal 1996). Pilkey et al. (1984) contend that the intensity of longshore currents

does increase in front of seawalls and this hastens removal of beach sand. Most likely,

the extent to which any of these potentially harmful effects may be realized is largely

dependent upon a structure’s physical position on the beach relative to the surf zone

(Kraus 1988, Tait and Griggs 1990). The closer a seawall is to the surf zone, the greater

its potential for altering shoreline processes.

Considerable anecdotal information exists to suggest that permanent armoring structures

can diminish the quality of sea turtle nesting habitat. However, there have been few

experimental studies designed specifically to assess the impacts of these structures on sea

turtle nesting. Mosier (1998) and Mosier and Witherington (2000) recorded the behavior

of nesting turtles in front of seawalls and adjacent unarmored sections of beach. Because

their study sites were located in Brevard and Indian River Counties, their findings are

directly applicable to assessment of impacts associated with the County’s proposed

activities. Both studies reported that fewer female sea turtles crawled out of the surf onto

beaches fronted by seawalls than on beaches where similar structures were absent. Of

those turtles that did emerge in the presence of seawalls, proportionally fewer nested.

Additionally, turtles on armored sections of beach tended to wander greater distances

than those that emerged on adjacent natural beaches. It is unknown if this additional

energy expenditure might reduce reproductive output.

Studies by Mosier (1998) and Mosier and Witherington (2000) demonstrate that seawalls

create sub-optimal nesting habitat and incubation environments for sea turtles. Seawalls

can effectively eliminate a turtle’s access to upper regions of the beach/dune system.

Consequently, nests on armored beaches in Brevard and Indian River Counties were

generally found at lower elevations than those on non-walled beaches. Lower elevations

subject nests to a greater risk of tidal inundation and can potentially alter thermal

regimes, an important factor in determining the sex ratio of hatchlings (Mrosovsky and

Provancha 1989, Mrosovsky 1994, Ackerman 1997, Delpech and Foote 1998).

High tides frequently reach the base of armoring structures, particularly during spring

tides and storm events. Thus, nests deposited in front of these structures are often subject

to tidal inundation. For this reason, nests on some armored nesting beaches have to be

relocated each year to a more suitable incubation environment (EAI 2000b). The

negative effects of seawalls become more pronounced the closer the seawalls are to the

surf zone. Thus, the quality of beach habitat seaward of armoring structures on eroding

sections of coastline can be expected to diminish as the shoreline recedes.

The potential effects of armoring structures on nesting and reproductive success are

summarized in Table 810. In addition to those effects discussed above, impacts can

occur if the installation of structures takes place during the sea turtle nesting season.


55

Unmarked nests can be crushed or unearthed by heavy equipment. Vibrations and water

runoff from jetting operations during installation of structures can also damage nests.

There have also been reported incidents of nesting turtles and hatchlings caught in

construction debris or trapped in excavations at the construction site.

Once a structure is in place, it can continue to cause problems for sea turtles (FWC,

unpublished data). For example, hatchlings have been trapped in holes or crevices of

exposed riprap and geotextile tubes. Both nesting turtles and hatchlings have been

entangled or entrapped in the debris of failed structures. There have also been reports of

injuries to nesting turtles that have been able to climb onto a seawall via adjacent

properties and have subsequently fallen off.

As the extent of armoring on beaches increases, the probability of a nesting turtle

encountering a seawall or depositing a nest in sub-optimal habitat increases.

Additionally, the displacement of nests from armored locations may increase the density

of nests in a dwindling number of suitable nesting sites thereby increasing the potential

for density-dependant nest mortality (e.g., turtles digging up existing nests).

In Volusia County, where detailed information is maintained regarding obstacles

encountered by turtles during their nesting activities, loggerhead turtles contacted

seawalls, rock revetments, or other types of armoring structures on 16.7 and 22.8 percent,

respectively, of all crawls during 1999 and 2000 (EAI 2000b and 2001b). Ninety-one

(91) and 83 percent, respectively of those encounters resulted in the turtle returning to the

ocean without nesting. Overall, armoring was responsible for nearly one third of all non-

nesting emergences (false crawls) on Volusia County’s beaches. Nesting success was

particularly low in the southern portion of the county where armoring was prevalent.

5.2.5.2 Beach Nourishment

Due to the uncertainty regarding the effects of armoring structures on the beach

ecosystem, beach nourishment has received preferential treatment as a means for

combating erosion and providing shoreline protection. Beach nourishment typically

involves the dredging of sand from inlets or offshore “borrow” areas and placing it on an

eroded section of coastline. Inland sand sources may also be used. State and County

rules require that the introduced material be of compatible and comparable physical

nature to the native sands it replaces.

IRC’s Beach Preservation Plan currently proposes four major beach nourishment

projects, encompassing 8.3 miles of beach, or 37 percent of the County’s coastline

(Figure 5; IRC 1998b). The projects are scheduled to commence in 2002 and will be

phased in over a four-year period. Once each project has been built, it will be replenished

at approximately 8-year intervals over the next 30 years.


56

Table 810

Potential Impacts of Shoreline Protection Activities on Sea Turtles

LIFE

HISTORY

STAGE

PERIOD OF

IMPACT POTENTIAL IMPACT

Eggs

Construction

Eggs may be crushed, unearthed or otherwise destroyed during construction activities (e.g., heavy

equipment, excavation, pile driving, water jetting, etc.).

Eggs may be buried beneath sand placed on the beach, resulting in mortality of developing embryos.

Developing embryos may suffer movement-induced mortality during relocation.

Post

Construction

Eggs may be deposited in sub-optimum incubation environment. Nests deposited at lower

elevations on the beach are more likely to suffer detrimental effects from tidal inundation.

Hatchlings

Construction

Hatchlings may be trapped beneath equipment, supplies and/or construction debris on the beach.

If large quantities of sand are placed over incubating nests, hatchlings may not be able to escape

from the nest.

The migration of hatchlings to the ocean may be impeded by equipment/supplies on the beach.

Holes and ruts left on the beach by construction activities may trap or misdirect hatchlings,

increasing energy expenditures and susceptibility to predation.

Construction lighting may disorient hatchlings.

Post

Construction

Holes, crevices, and deteriorating materials associated with structures composed of riprap, sand bags

and geotextile tubes may trap or entangle hatchlings.

Nesting

Females

Construction

Construction lighting and/or construction activities may deter nesting females from emerging onto

the beach and reduce nesting success.

Females may become entangled or trapped in building equipment and materials while searching for

a nest site.

Disturbed soil and holes left overnight in the construction areas may trap or topple nesting females.

Post

Construction

Fewer nesting females may emerge on beaches fronted by seawalls.

Nesting success of turtles emerging on beaches fronted by seawalls may be reduced.

Adult females contacting armoring structures in search of nesting sites may engage in increased

wandering, which may increase overall energy expenditures.

If sand and dunes build up along the sides of a seawall (e.g., along the tie-back) nesting turtles may

be able to crawl onto or behind the structure. Injuries have been reported for turtles that fall off

these walls while trying to return to the ocean (FWC unpublished data).


57

Although beach nourishment is generally viewed as a more environmentally benign

solution to shoreline protection than armoring, it too has potential for impacting sea

turtles. It can affect the sea turtle reproductive process in a variety of ways. Although

nourished beaches may provide a greater quantity of nesting habitat, the quality of that

habitat may be less suitable than pre-existing natural beaches. Sub-optimal nesting

habitat may decrease nesting, place an increased energy burden on nesting females, result

in abnormal nest construction, and reduce the survivorship of eggs and hatchlings. A

thorough review of the processes associated with each of these potential effects was

presented by Crain et al. (1995).

Most nourishment projects on heavily nested beaches are planned so construction occurs

outside of the main portion of the nesting season to minimize take of turtles.

Nevertheless, construction impacts can occur. Unmarked nests may be crushed by

construction equipment or buried during deposition of dredged materials on the beach.

Nests relocated out of harm’s way may experience reduced reproductive success (Moody

1998).

Nourished beaches tend to differ in several important ways from natural beaches. They

are typically wider, flatter, more compact, and the sediments are moister than those on

natural beaches (Ackerman et al. 1991, Nelson et al. 1987, Ernest and Martin 1999). On

severely eroded sections of beach, where little or no suitable nesting habitat previously

existed, nourishment can result in increased nesting (Ernest and Martin 1999). However,

on most beaches, nesting success typically declines for the first one or two years

following construction, even though more habitat is available for turtles (Trindell et al.

1998). Reduced nesting success on nourished beaches has been attributed to increased

compaction of sediments, scarping, and changes in beach profile (Nelson et al. 1987,

Crain et al. 1995, Davis et al. 1994, Lutcavage et al. 1997, Steinitz et al. 1998, Ernest

and Martin 1999). Compaction presumably inhibits nest construction, while scarps often

cause female turtles to return to the ocean without nesting or deposit their nests seaward

of the scarp where they are more susceptible to tidal inundation.

On Jupiter Island, Florida, nesting patterns reportedly cycle over the life of a nourished

beach (Steinitz et al. 1998). Prior to nourishment, when the beaches are badly eroded,

nesting is relatively low. After project construction, more turtles emerge onto the beach

but nesting success is relatively low. As the beaches are reworked by natural processes in

subsequent years, sediment compaction and the frequency of scarps decline, and nesting

and nesting success return to levels similar to those found on natural beaches. As erosion

eventually returns the beach to its pre-nourishment condition, nest densities once again

decline and the cycle is repeated.

Beach nourishment can affect the incubation environment of nests by altering the

moisture content, gas exchange, and temperature of sediments (Ackerman et al. 1991,

Ackerman 1997, Parkinson and Magron 1998). The extent to which the incubation

environment is altered is largely dependent on the similarity of the nourished sands and

the natural sediments they replace. Consequently, results of studies assessing the effects

of nourishment on reproductive success have varied among study sites.


58

Even though nourished beaches are wider, nests deposited there may experience higher

rates of wash out than those on relatively narrow, steeply sloped beaches (Ernest and

Martin 1999). This occurs because nests on nourished beaches are more broadly

distributed than those on natural beaches, where they tend to be clustered near the base of

the dune. Nests laid closest to the waterline on nourished beaches may be lost during the

first one or two years following construction, as the beach experiences an equilibration

process during which seaward portions of the beach are lost to erosion. Increased nest

loss due to erosion may reduce the productivity of nourished beaches as sea turtle nesting

habitat.

Take of sea turtles associated with beach nourishment projects is authorized under the

Federal permits issued for such projects. Minimization of impacts is established during

consultations among Federal agencies as stipulated in Section 7 of the ESA.

Consequently, environmental impacts associated with beach nourishment projects

undertaken by the County as part of its BPP will be addressed independently of this HCP.

5.2.5.3 Inlet Sand Bypassing

Work and Dean (1990) estimate that on the east coast of Florida, 85 percent of beach

erosion is due to inlet navigational entrances, especially those stabilized by jetties. In

Indian River County, Cubit Engineering (1988) calculated that, minimally, the erosive

effects of Sebastian Inlet adversely impacted the northern-most eight (8) miles of County

Beaches. However, others have suggested that the impacts may be far greater. Currently,

the Sebastian Inlet Tax District’s sand bypassing program greatly reduces the amount of

erosion in SISRASISP, Ambersand Park, and northern Wabasso Beach (FDEP

Monuments R01 to R19; IRC 1998b). However, between FDEP Monument R19 and

R52 (Indian River Shores), beach erosion continues, with the highest rates (-3.6 ft/yr)

occurring in Wabasso Beach.

Although the effects of the inlet on the County’s sediment budget were evident as early

as 1936, the Sebastian Inlet Tax District (SITD), the agency responsible for inlet

management, did not begin efforts to bypass sand until 1972. In 1987, the SITD prepared

an Inlet Management Plan Study to better assess downdrift deficits. The plan indicated

that on average 57,000 cy of sand per year should be bypassed to offset downdrift losses.

That volume was targeted between 1986 and 1994. However, in 1994 a group of local

property owners known as the Downdrift Coalition claimed that the volume of sand being

bypassed was insufficient to offset downdrift losses. They filed a petition with FDEP

questioning the accuracy of the SITD Inlet Management Plan Study. A restudy

conducted by SITD in 1997 resulted in an increase in bypass volume to 70,600 cy/yr.

Further independent analysis relating to the Downdrift Coalition lawsuit (Olsen

Associates 1998) concluded, “The sediment deficit caused by Sebastian Inlet has resulted

in significant erosion and shoreline recession south of the inlet.” Impacts have been

greatest nearest the inlet but extend at least 30,000 to 40,000 ft (5.7 –7.6 miles) to the

south. It was estimated that by 1993, the inlet had impounded 9.86 million cy of sand

destined for downdrift beaches. After subtracting the 1.21 million cy of sand bypassed


59

prior to 1993, an historical deficit of 8.65 million cy remains. In the absence of

bypassing, deficits will continue at the current rate of 72,400 cy per year.

The SITD’s bypassing program consists of a catch basin constructed inside the inlet.

Most of the beach-compatible sediments carried inshore with ebb tides are deposited in

the basin. Once the basin is full, a dredge is used to remove the sand and deposit it on the

beach immediately south of the inlet. This replenished area then acts as a feeder beach

for County Beaches farther south. Dredging of the catch basin and beach disposal are

performed outside the nesting season to eliminate construction impacts, and the material

placed on the beach is largely compatible with native sands. Even though an average of

70,600 cy of material per year is targeted for bypassing, the actual amount placed on the

beach during any one year may vary depending on the status of the catch basin.

Occasionally, sand removed from the catch basin is supplemented with material trucked

in from outside sources to ensure that targeted bypass volumes are achieved.

Reduced nesting typically occurs near inlets. Although the exact cause(s) is not clear,

this phenomenon has been observed all along Florida’s east coast (B. Witherington,

Florida Marine Research Institute, personal communication, 2000). On Hutchinson

Island, for example, where nesting is documented within 1 km (0.62 mile) segments of

beach, nesting in the section of beach immediately south of the Ft. Pierce Inlet is the

lowest of any survey segment on the island (ABI 1991). Nesting then increases steadily

in a southern direction away from the inlet.

In addition to reducing the amount of available nesting habitat, the erosion caused by

inlets has the potential to impact turtles in other ways as well. On eroded sections of

beach, escarpments and toppled trees can pose obstacles to nesting turtles, preventing

them from using what little habitat might otherwise be available. Nests deposited in

areas subject to frequent overwash typically experience reduced reproductive success.

Collectively, these factors reduce the reproductive potential of a beach.

Although the sand bypassing effort at Sebastian Inlet has the potential to offset erosion

effects by increasing the quantity of available nesting habitat, it can affect the

reproductive process in other ways. Several researchers have evaluated the effects of the

SITD’s sand bypassing program on sea turtle reproductive success. The first of those

studies detected no significant differences in hatchling emergence success between the

beach receiving bypassed sand and a control beach farther south (Ryder 1993). However,

in a subsequent investigation, Herren (1999) found a significant reduction in hatchling

emerging success on the nourished beaches compared to a control. Differences in results

between studies probably relates to the characteristics of the sediments placed on the

beach. Sometimes, sand placed on the feeder beach south is dredged from the catch basin

inside the inlet, while other times it is trucked in from upland sources.

In addition to impacts on reproductive success, Herren (1999) also noted a decline in

nesting success south of the inlet during the first year or two following a sand bypass

project. Scarps forming on the beach after project construction led to reduced nesting.


60

5.2.5.4 Sand Fences

Sand fences have been known to trap hatchling turtles and act as barriers to nesting

turtles (National Research Council 1990). The extent to which sand fences are used for

dune stabilization in Indian River County is not known. However, all sand fences are

permitted by FDEP through the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) permit

system. The design and placement of these fences are regulated through these permits to

avoid negative impacts on turtles.

5.2.6 Coastal Construction

In addition to shoreline protection activities, there are a variety of other types of coastal

construction activities, each of which may affect sea turtles. These include, but are not

limited to the following:

Construction of new and repair/maintenance of existing upland structures and

dune crossovers;

Construction of jetties and groins;

Installation of utility cables;

Installation and/or repair of public infrastructure; and

Dune restoration.

Many of these activities may alter nesting habitat and impact sea turtle nests, adults, and

hatchlings as described for coastal armoring (Table 8). If vehicles are used on the beach

in support of coastal construction both direct and indirect impacts to nests and hatchlings

may also occur. Construction-related impacts can largely be minimized by requiring that

non-emergency activities be performed outside of the nesting season.

All construction seaward of the State’s CCCL requires a FDEP permit that incorporates

measures for sea turtle protection. Similar safeguards are contained within Federal

permits issued for coastal construction projects conducted below the Mean High Water

Line.

5.2.7 Stormwater Outfalls

Rainfall incidents on the dunes and beaches percolate rapidly into the permeable sands

and produce little, if any, runoff. Runoff from most developed areas on the barrier

islands, typically collected by storm sewers, discharges into the Indian River Lagoon.

However, runoff from beachfront parking lots, roads, and swimming pool decks adjacent

to the beach may be discharged directly to the beaches and dunes either by sheet flow or

through stormwater collection system outfalls. The water from hotel swimming pools is

also occasionally pumped onto the beach when the pools are cleaned. Collectively, these

outfalls sometimes create localized erosion channels, prevent natural dune establishment,

and wash out sea turtle nests. The extent to which these factors affect sea turtles in

Indian River County is unknown. The area most likely impacted would be in the City of

Vero Beach where armoring is heaviest and numerous hotels/motels and commercial

establishments abut the beach.


61

6.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

6.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)

Indian River County is seeking Federal authorization for take of sea turtles, as afforded

under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, causally related to shoreline protection activities

initiated under the County’s emergency authorization. As provided under Florida law,

the County has been delegated emergency permitting authority and wishes to continue to

exercise that authority, because it feels it can provide its citizens with a more timely and

effective response to emergency situations following major storm events.

Activities potentially undertaken as the result of an Emergency Permit issued by IRC,

include the following:

Placing beach-compatible sand from upland sources on the beach;

Creating a temporary barrier seaward of the structure using sand bags and/or

geo-textile (fabric) tubes filled with sand;


Installing temporary wooden retaining walls, cantilever sheetpile walls

(without concrete caps, tie backs, or other reinforcement), or similar structures

seaward of the vulnerable structure.

Any structures placed on the beach as the result of an Emergency Permit issued by IRC

are intended to be a temporary response to threatening erosion conditions. However,

following initiation of emergency shoreline protection measures, property owners can

petition FDEP to retain the temporary structure or allow for alternative protection.

Consequently, permanent structures may replace temporary measures initiated under the

County’s emergency authorization. If FDEP denies the application for a permanent

structure, the temporary structure must be removed from the beach in accordance with

provisions contained in this HCP.

Based on the possible scenarios described above, the County is seeking take for the

following:


during the implementation of emergency shoreline protection measures under

an Emergency Permit issued by IRC;

Movement induced mortality and sub-lethal impacts to sea turtle eggs

resulting from their relocation from construction areas during implementation

of shoreline protection measures under an Emergency Permit issued by IRC;


physical interaction with temporary shoreline protection structures installed



62


physical changes in beach conditions resulting from the presence of temporary

shoreline protection structures installed under an Emergency Permit issued by

IRC. Changes in beach conditions may include, but are not limited to,

changes in beach profile, elevation, increased incidence of wave overwash,

reflection and scour, compaction and sediment moisture content. Changes in

these conditions may reduce nesting success (percentage of crawls resulting in

nests) and/or reproductive success (percentage of eggs that produce hatchlings

which emerge from the nest);


the removal of temporary shoreline protection structures installed under an



during the installation of permanent shoreline protection structures installed




physical interaction with permanent shoreline protection structures installed






FDEP when the permanent structure replaces temporary measures initiated



the removal of temporary shoreline protection structures and/or installation of

permanent armoring at the properties of the Gerstner and Summerplace

Petitioners under a permit issued by FDEP;

Direct post-construction impacts to sea turtle nests, adults, and/or hatchlings

as the result of physical interaction with permanent shoreline protection

structures installed at the properties of the Gerstner and Summerplace

Petitioners under a permit issued by FDEP; and



permanent shoreline protection structures installed at the properties of the

Gerstner and Summerplace Petitioners under a permit issued by FDEP.

The County is seeking an ITP for a period of 30 years, which coincides with the BPP

implementation schedule. As the County proceeds with implementing its BPP, the need

for emergency shoreline protection and permanent armoring structures on the beach will

diminish. In addition to the benefits derived from the BPP, the County has developed

and commits to implementing additional measures to minimize the potential for take

causally related to shoreline protection measures initiated under local emergency

permitting authority. Those measures, described in Section 8.0 of this HCP, include the

following:


63

Implementation of a public awareness program advocating a proactive

approach to shoreline protection;


issued;

Regulating the type and siting of temporary structures;

Requirements for monitoring and nest protection during implementation of

emergency shoreline protection measures and/or construction of permanent

structures resulting from temporary measures; and


permitting activities and ensure compliance with State regulations regarding

emergency shoreline protection activities.

Despite the minimization measures identified above, some take is likely to be

unavoidable. Consequently, the County has developed and commits to implementing a

mitigation program that will provide conservation benefits to sea turtles commensurate

with the level or extent of take likely to result from the proposed activities. These

measures, which are described in detail in Section 10.0 of this HCP, include the

following:

Acquisition and management of 1,500 feet of shoreline property as sea turtle

nesting habitat; and

A predator control program on County-managed beachfront property to

increase hatchling productivity (the average number of hatchlings per nest

entering the ocean from the Plan Area).

6.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

In the absence of Federal authorization for take, the County is presented with several

options. It can either relinquish all emergency permitting authority back to the State or

continue to issue Emergency Permits with no Federal coverage for take. The County

could also pursue measures to reduce the need for emergency shoreline protection by

either acquiring threatened properties or by requiring property owners to relocate

vulnerable structures landward. As described below each of these alternatives would

come at high financial and/or social costs.

6.2.1 No Action Alternative

Under this alternative (non-issuance of an ITP), IRC could either relinquish local

emergency permitting authority or continue to issue emergency shoreline protection

permits without the benefit of protection for take as afforded under Section 10 of the

ESA. Continued issuance of Eemergency Ppermits in the absence of an ITP places the

County at risk of penalty under Federal law. Although shoreline protection activities

could still be sanctioned through the State of Florida’s permitting process, the elimination

of local permitting authority could potentially delay a timely response to emergency

situations and thereby increase the vulnerability of eligible structures to storm-related

damage. In the absence of local authorization to respond to emergencies, the extent of


64

damage to habitable structures might increase. This could lead to legal challenges from

property owners, loss of beachfront property, a reduction in tax revenues, and impacts to

historic and cultural resources and/or public infrastructure.

Should the County relinquish its emergency permitting authority, the State of Florida

could issue Eemergency Ppermits with or without Section 10 ESA protection for take.

The State believes that current rules and regulations regarding emergency permitting

have been constructed to prevent the take of sea turtles. However, in addition to the

temporary measures associated with emergency permitting, the County is requesting

authorization for take resulting from the subsequent State permitting of permanent

structures at those sites where emergency measures were initiated under County

authorization. The USFWS has indicated that it considers permanent shoreline armoring

structures to diminish the functional value of available nesting habitat and therefore cause

take, as defined under the ESA. In the context of these longer-term impacts, it is not

known what measures might be implemented by the State to minimize and mitigate take.

The County is committed to implementing its BPP, irrespective of whether the USFWS

issues an ITP to the County for shoreline protection activities. This will reduce but not

eliminate the need for future emergency shoreline protection measures. Some structures

will undoubtedly remain vulnerable to severe erosion events and will need the benefit of

emergency protection, as allowed under State law. Thus, regardless of whether the State

reassumes emergency permitting authority or the County continues to issue Emergency

Permits in the absence of an ITP, take is likely to occur. Furthermore, the level of take

occurring under the No Action Alternative could be higher than that described for the

Preferred Alternative, because the minimization measures contained in this HCP would

be absent. Finally, any take that does occur under the No Action Alternative would not

be offset by the mitigation programs proposed by the County under the Preferred

Alternative.

6.2.2 Land Acquisition Alternative

One means of reducing the need for emergency shoreline protection would be for the

County to purchase threatened properties, demolish or relocate the vulnerable structures,

and convert the properties to beachfront conservation land. This would basically require

the County to buy all threatened structural properties built prior to the State’s current

CCCL regulations along those sections of beach with a history of erosion problems.

Based on historical erosion patterns, it is estimated that 31 structures are likely to require

emergency shoreline protection over the 30-year life of the County’s BPP (see Section

7.0 of this HCP). Those properties have an approximate assessed value of $11.3 million.

Additional costs would be incurred during demolition or relocation of the structures,

although some of those costs could be recovered if the structures were sold at auction and

moved at owner’s expense.

In addition to the prohibitive acquisition costs, there are a number of pitfalls associated

with the acquisition strategy:


65

There are no assurances that only 31 structures will be vulnerable to acute

erosion events over the life of the County’s BPP;

Because of potential shifts in erosional patterns over the next 30 years, there is

no precise way of knowing precisely which structures will be vulnerable;

Assuming that all vulnerable structures could be accurately identified, it

would take considerable time for all of the real estate transactions to be

completed, and in the interim, some of the vulnerable properties might still

require emergency protection;

Property owners might be unwilling to sell;

County taxes might have be raised to generate the money needed for property

acquisition; and

The County’s tax base would be diminished as developed private oceanfront

parcels lands are converted to public ownership.

6.2.3 Retreat Alternative

Another option for reducing the need for emergency shoreline protection would be to

require property owners to relocate vulnerable structures further landward. Although this

alternative would take many structures out of harm’s way, it too has substantial

drawbacks. For this approach to be effective, all structures potentially vulnerable over

the next 30 years would have to be identified. As for the acquisition alternative, there are

no assurances that only 31 structures will be vulnerable to acute erosion events during

that period, nor is there any way of determining precisely which structures may be

affected.

It is likely that even if every structure potentially vulnerable to erosion could be

identified, not all could be relocated. In some cases, there may be inadequate landward

space to accommodate the move. In others, relocation might be constrained by

regulations regarding the proximity of septic fields, utilities, set backs, and rights of

ways.

Insofar as many of the vulnerable structures are located seaward of the State’s CCCL,

FDEP permits would be required. The construction activities involved in moving the

structures landward could impact sea turtles in much the same manner as construction of

emergency shoreline protection activities. Additionally, relocation might cause impacts

to other sensitive ecosystems. If property owners had preserved coastal strand and

maritime hammock on the property, plants and animals found there could be harmed

during land clearing to accommodate the relocation.

Although the technology exists to safely move most beachfront structures, the cost would

undoubtedly be prohibitive for many property owners. The cost of relocation is estimated

to be in excess of $35.00 per square foot (T. Youngblood, Youngblood Housemovers,

personal communication, 2000; K. Brownie, Brownie Moving Engineers, personal

communication, 2000). For the 31 structures likely to be vulnerable to erosion over the

next 30 years, this could easily exceed $100,000 per structure. In addition to the actual

moving costs, additional expenses would be incurred for engineering, planning,

permitting, new foundations, utility hookups and related contractual services.


66

The legal constraints associated with requiring a homeowner to move his/her structure

landward are also at issue. Property owners highly regard their ocean views, which might

be forfeited as the result of a landward retreat. The extent to which property owners

could be forced to move is unknown. Unquestionably, those that were willing to move

would seek full compensation. Thus, as for the acquisition alternative, the retreat

alternative could have substantial financial impact on the County.

Under both the acquisition and retreat alternatives, the County would incur substantial

economic impacts without assurances that either would completely eliminate the need for

future emergency shoreline protection measures. Thus, some take might occur, and it

would be without the benefit of the minimization and mitigation measures contained in

this HCP under the preferred alternative.


67

7.0 ANTICIPATED LEVEL OF TAKE

Take of sea turtles can occur both during and following implementation of emergency

shoreline protection measures. Impacts can be direct or indirect and can affect sea turtle

eggs, adults, and/or hatchlings (see Section 5.2.5.1, Table 8, of this HCP). During

construction, incubating eggs in unmarked or missed turtle nests may be crushed,

smothered, unearthed or otherwise damaged. Nests relocated from the construction area

may suffer movement-induced mortality if not properly handled. Equipment and

materials left on the beach overnight may effectively eliminate, or prevent nesting adults

from reaching, otherwise suitable nesting habitat. Those same materials, as well as holes,

ruts and construction debris on the beach, may entrap both adult and hatchling turtles.

Removal of temporary structures following an erosion event may induce impacts similar

to those occurring during initial construction.

Both temporary and permanent structures on the beach can induce changes in the nesting

habitat of sea turtles. Beaches seaward of seawalls and other armoring structures are

typically narrower than natural unarmored beaches (Pilkey and Wright 1988). On

eroding shorelines, poorly designed and sited seawalls may increase swash velocity,

duration and elevation, thereby accelerating erosion in front of the structure (Plant and

Griggs 1992, Terchunian 1988). Additionally, buried portions of a seawall may alter

beach porosity, permeability, beach groundwater elevation, and beach slope variability.

Collectively, these changes in beach characteristics can diminish the quality of the beach

as nesting habitat for sea turtles. These changes may contribute to reduced nesting

success and/or reproductive success for extended periods.

7.1 Direct Impacts

Direct impacts are those that may occur during construction or as the result of interaction

between turtles and structures on the beach. These were discussed in detail in Section

5.2.5.1 of this HCP.

It is impossible to quantify the amount of take that is likely to occur as a result of direct

impacts to sea turtles during implementation of emergency shoreline protection measures.

The following factors, all of which are presently unknown, will influence the extent of

take:

The specific location where shoreline protection activities covered under this

HCP will occur (nest densities vary in different parts of the County);

The type of emergency protection that will be authorized (some types of

construction have greater potential for impacting turtles than others);

The time of year when emergency shoreline protection will occur (no impacts

will occur if done outside the nesting season); and

The siting of temporary and permanent structures relative to the beach.


68

Because of the minimization measures contained in this HCP it is anticipated that direct

impacts during construction will be relatively limited. The principal impact would be to

any unmarked nests in the area of a project. However, any major storm affecting the

coast to such an extent as to render structures vulnerable to erosion damage will most

likely have washed out most nests or rendered them unviable due to tidal inundation.

Impacts during construction will be temporary and can be effectively minimized.

During construction, nesting turtles might encounter obstacles on the beach that could

cause them to abandon their nesting attempt. Monitoring of project sites during

construction would document these effects and would ensure that any adults or hatchlings

trapped by structures, excavations, and/or equipment on the beach would be rescued.

Collectively, direct impacts causally related to shoreline protection activities initiated

under emergency authorization of IRC are expected to be minimal over the 30-year life of

the County’s BPP. However, quantification of these impacts requires so many

assumptions as to render an estimate highly imprecise.

7.2 Indirect Impacts

A substantially greater potential for take relates to changes in beach characteristics

caused by the physical presence of shoreline protection structures. The USFWS

considers that these structures diminish the functional value of available nesting habitat

and therefore cause take, as defined under the ESA. Under this HCP, temporary

measures initiated under the County’s emergency authorization could be replaced by

permanent armoring structures. The amount of take that will occur as a result of any

particular structure is related to the length of shoreline affected, its proximity to the surf

zone, and the inclusive period during which the structure affects nesting behavior and/or

reproductive success. Presumably, impacts related solely to a structure’s presence will

cease once the affected beach/dune system is restored and maintained through beach

nourishment or another type of habitat restoration project implemented under the

County’s BPP.

For the purpose of the analysis that follows, it is assumed that all shoreline protection

activities initiated under the County’s emergency authorization will ultimately result in

the construction of a permanent seawall or other type of State-approved armoring

structure. As discussed in previous sections of this HCP, changes in beach conditions

seaward of armoring structures may result in increased nest loss due to washout and

decreased reproductive success. However, no data are currently available to quantify the

extent of this type of take likely to occur as the result of armoring installed under the

County’s HCP. It is assumed that take associated with decreased productivity of nests

deposited seaward of armoring structures are adequately accommodated in the

conservative approach used to estimate take caused by nest displacement, as discussed

below.

Best available data indicate that on eroded beaches, such as those in Indian River County,

the primary effect of permanent armoring structures is an overall reduction in nesting


69

seaward of the structures (Mosier 1998). It is presumed that a turtle deterred from

nesting by the presence of a structure will leave the site and nest elsewhere. Thus, nests

are not necessarily lost to the parent population but, rather, are displaced to other

locations. Nevertheless, time spent unsuccessfully searching for a suitable nesting site on

armored beaches may exact some, as yet unquantified, cost to a turtle’s total annual

reproductive output.

The County plans to restore portions of its eroded coastline over the next 30 years

through a series of beach nourishment projects. Beach restoration seaward of an

armoring structure will generally serve to eliminate any reduction in nesting that might

otherwise be attributable to the structure. Once a beach nourishment project is

constructed, it will be maintained by placing additional sand on the beach at

approximately 8-year intervals. Thus, nesting should only be reduced in front of a

permanent structure from the time the structure is constructed until the time a beach

nourishment project is initiated at that location. Presumably, emergency shoreline

protection will not be required at any location where an active beach nourishment project

is in place.

Beach profile data analyzed during preparation of the BPP and subsequent updates

provided estimates of current erosion rates along County Beaches. These data were

utilized to estimate take. It should be noted that although the County’s proposed beach

nourishment projects effectively serve to minimize the need for future emergency

shoreline protection activities, beach nourishment is not proposed in the HCP as a formal

minimization strategy. It has been used only as an end point in determining the length of

time during which armoring structures are likely to cause take. Because beach

nourishment alters natural shoreline conditions, it too can affect the sea turtle

reproductive process (see Section 5.2.5.2 of this HCP). Impacts associated with

implementation of the County’s BPP will be addressed during Federal permitting (U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers) for each specific project.

Using measured erosion rates for various sections of the IRC coastline, the County was

able to predict the number of eligible structures likely to be vulnerable to storm-related

erosion events. Using the dune erosion model prescribed by the State of Florida in

Chapter 62B-33, FAC, recent beach profile and shoreline data for IRC were used to

predict how close a structure must be to the dune escarpment to be considered vulnerable

to impact from a 15-year return interval storm, the State’s standard criteria for

vulnerability. The model predicted that distance to be 19.5 ft. Once this number was

determined, the crest of the dune along eroding sections of shoreline was located on

recent (1999) scaled aerial photographs of the County. Average annual dune erosion

rates were then utilized to project the extent of shoreline recession over various time

intervals. Within each time interval evaluated, a structure was considered vulnerable

once the receding dune line moved to within 20 ft of the structure. This process was

continued until the dune line was receded over the entire 30-year life of the County’s

BPP. Vulnerable structures determined in this manner might reasonably be expected to

apply for an emergency shoreline protection permit from the County following a storm


70

event that has been officially declared an emergency. A more thorough description of

data and analytical methods used to conduct this assessment are provided in Appendix C.

Under the County’s current BPP schedule, 31 single and multi-family homes,

encompassing 3,196 linear feet of shoreline, may be in need of shoreline protection prior

to construction of a beach nourishment project at their respective locations (Table 911).

This includes 520 feet of beach where temporary structures were installed under the

County’s previous emergency authorization. These may be replaced with permanent

structures pending the outcome of the County’s application to the USFWS for an ITP (see

Section 8.11 of this HCP).

Thirteen (13) of the structures projected to be vulnerable to erosion will be protected

upon completion of the first phase of the County’s planned beach nourishment program

scheduled for construction in 2002/2003 (Sectors 1 and 2) and 2003/2004 (Sector 7;

Figures 2 and 5). Another 12 structures will be protected during the final phase of the

County’s BPP, which is scheduled for construction in 2004/2005 (Sectors 3 and 5). Only

6 eligible structures projected to be vulnerable to erosion over the next 30 years are

outside of any of the County’s planned beach nourishment project areas.

The only available relevant data concerning the effects of armoring structures on sea

turtle nesting was collected by Mosier (1998). She evaluated three sites in Brevard and

Indian River Counties and compared loggerhead nesting on various sections of beach

with and without seawalls. On average, nesting success (the percentage of all turtle

crawls resulting in nests) was 69 percent lower at sites fronted by seawalls than at sites

without seawalls. This value was applied to nesting data for all of Indian River County to

determine how many nests would be displaced (i.e. how much take would occur) as a

result of shoreline protection measures initiated under the County’s emergency

authorization.

Based on data available at the time the original HCP was prepared, iIt is was estimated

that seawalls built in front of the 31 properties vulnerable to erosion would result in an

annual displacement of 100.5 loggerhead nests (Table 1012). Over the 30-year life of the

County’s BPP, that would equate to 1,150 nests (Table 1113). Assuming that similar

reductions in nesting can be expected for other species, it was estimated that 4.1 green

and 0.3 leatherback nests would be displaced annually (Tables 12 14 and 1416). This

would result in a total displacement of 56 green and 3 leatherback nests over the same 30-

year period (Tables 13 15 and 1517). At current nest densities, these figures represent

only 0.68 percent of all loggerhead, 0.62 percent of all green, and 0.56 percent of all

leatherback nests projected to be deposited on County Beaches over the 30-year life of

the ITP.

Although no hawksbill or Kemp’s ridley turtles have been documented nesting on County

Beaches, it is possible that previous nesting activity may have gone undetected or that

they may nest here in the future. To account for this potential, the County is seeking

authorization for take for both species. It is estimated that no more than one nest per


71

species will be displaced or impacted by shoreline protection measures initiated under the

County’s emergency authorization over the 30-year life of the ITP.


72

Table 911

Number and Location of Eligible Structures Potentially Vulnerable to Erosion in Relation to

Indian River County’s Planned Beach Nourishment Projects

SEA

TURTLE

SURVEY

AREA

BEACH

NOURISHMENT

PROJECT

AREAS

YEARS

UNTIL

PROJECT

BEGINS

NUMBER OF

VULNERABLE

STRUCTURES

PROTECTED BY BEACH

NOURISHMENT

NUMBER OF

VULNERABLE

STRUCTURES

UNPROTECTED BY

BEACH NOURISHMENT

TOTAL NUMBR OF

VULNERABLE

STRUCTURES

Structures Feet of

Shoreline Structures

Feet of


Feet of

Shoreline

SISRASISP R 04 to R 17

(Phase I)1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wabasso

Beach North

R 04 to R 17

(Phase I) 2 5 318 1 120 6 438

Wabasso

Beach

Middle

R 37 to R 49

(Phase II) 4 4 368 5 541 9 909

Wabasso

Beach South

R 37 to R 49

(Phase II) 4 62 420 0 0 6 420

Baytree, Sea

Oaks &

Surrounding

Areas

R 37 to R 49

(Phase II) 4 0 0 0 0 0 0


73

Table 911

(Continued)

SEA

TURTLE

SURVEY

AREA

BEACH

NOURISHMENT

PROJECT

AREAS

YEARS

UNTIL

PROJECT

BEGINS

NUMBER OF

VULNERABLE

STRUCTURES

PROTECTED BY BEACH

NOURISHMENT

NUMBER OF

VULNERABLE

STRUCTURES

UNPROTECTED BY

BEACH NOURISHMENT

TOTAL NUMBER OF

VULNERABLE

STRUCTURES

Structures Feet of


Feet of


Feet of

Shoreline

Vero Beach R 74 to R 86

(Phase II)3 4 2 385 0 0 2 385

Unsurveyed No Project NA 0 0 0 0 0 0

South

County

Beaches

R 100 to R 107

(Phase I) 2 84 1,044 0 0 8 1,044

All County

Beaches

25 2,535 6 661 31 3,196

1 Phase I projects are scheduled to commence between 2002 and 2004. 2 Properties where temporary shoreline protection structures are presently installed under the County’s emergency authorization. 3 Phase II projects are scheduled to commence in 2004 or later. 4 Includes one property (100 ft) where a temporary shoreline protection structure is presently installed under the County’s emergency

authorization.


74

Table 1012

Estimate of Annual Loggerhead Turtle Nest Displacement

Over the 30-year Life of Indian River County’s Beach Preservation Plan1

SEA TURTLE

SURVEY

AREA

A B C D E F G

AVERAGE

NESTS PER

MILE

AVERAGE

NESTING

SUCCESS2

PROJECTED

MILES OF

ARMORING3

AVERAGE

CRAWLS IN

AFFECTED

AREA4

AVERAGE

NESTS IN

AFFECTED

AREA5

AVERAGE

NESTS AFTER

ARMORING6

TOTAL NESTS

DISPLACED

PER YEAR7

SISRASISP 368.6 0.560 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wabasso Beach

North 573.3 0.525 0.083 90.6 47.6 14.7 32.9

Wabasso Beach

Middle 319.5 0.506 0.172 108.6 55.0 17.0 38.0

Wabasso Beach

South 212.2 0.452 0.080 37.6 17.0 5.3 11.7

Baytree, Sea

Oaks &

surrounding

areas

320.6 0.565 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Vero Beach 97.0 0.493 0.073 14.4 7.1 2.2 4.9

Unsurveyed 95.9 0.491 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

South County

Beaches 94.7 0.490 0.198 38.3 18.8 5.8 13.0


75

Table 1012

(Continued)

SEA TURTLE

SURVEY

AREA

A B C D E F G

AVERAGE

NESTS PER

MILE

AVERAGE

NESTING

SUCCESS2

PROJECTED

MILES OF

ARMORING3

AVERAGE

CRAWLS IN

AFFECTED

AREA4

AVERAGE

NESTS IN

AFFECTED

AREA5

AVERAGE

NESTS AFTER

ARMORING6

TOTAL NESTS

DISPLACED

PER YEAR7

ALL COUNTY

BEACHES 251.8 NA 0.606 289.5 145.5 45.0 100.5

1 This analysis assumes that all emergency shoreline protection measures eventually result in the installation of permanent armoring

structures. 2 Nesting Success = percentage of all emergences (crawls) resulting in nests. 3 Based on total feet of shoreline from Table 911. 4 Average Crawls in Affected Area = (1/Column B) x Column A x Column C. 5 Average Nests in Affected Area = Column D x Column B. 6 Average Nests in Affected Area with Armoring = [Column B - (0.691 x Column B)] x Column D. Estimate based on Mosier

(1998) where nesting success was reduced by an average of 69.1% in front of seawalls. 7 Total Nests Displaced per Year = Column E - Column F.


76

Table 1311

Estimate of Cumulative Loggerhead Turtle Nest Displacement


SEA

TURTLE

SURVEY

AREA

YEARS

UNTIL

BEACH

NOURISH-

MENT

LINEAR FEET OF

SHORELINE

POTENTIALLY

ARMORED UNDER

THE ITP2

NUMBER OF NESTS

DISPLACED PRIOR

TO PHASE I

NUMBER OF

NESTS

DISPLACED

BETWEEN PHASE

I AND PHASE II

NUMBER OF

NESTS

DISPLACED

AFTER PHASE II

TOTAL

NUMBER

OF NESTS

DISPLACED

OVER 30

YEARS5

Within

Nourish-

ment

Zones

Outside

Nourish-

ment

Zones

Per Year3 Total Per Year4 Total Per Year Total

SISRASISP 2 (Phase I) 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wabasso

Beach North 2 (Phase I) 318 120 32.9 65.8 9.0 18.0 9.0 234.0 317.8

Wabasso

Beach

Middle

2 (Phase II) 368 541 38.0 76.0 38.0 76.0 22.6 587.6 739.6

Wabasso

Beach South 2 (Phase II) 420 0 11.7 23.4 11.7 23.4 0.0 0.0 46.8

Baytree, Sea

Oaks &

Surrounding

Areas

2 (Phase II) 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Vero Beach 4 (Phase II) 385 0 4.9 9.8 4.9 9.8 0.0 0.0 19.6


77

Table 1113

(Continued)

SEA

TURTLE

SURVEY

AREA

YEARS

UNTIL

BEACH

NOURISH-

MENT

LINEAR FEET OF

SHORELINE

POTENTIALLY

ARMORED UNDER

THE ITP2

NUMBER OF NESTS

DISPLACED PRIOR

TO PHASE I

NUMBER OF

NESTS

DISPLACED

BETWEEN

PHASE I AND

PHASE II

NUMBER OF

NESTS

DISPLACED

AFTER PHASE II

TOTAL

NUMBER

OF NESTS

DISPLACED

OVER 30

YEARS5

Within

Nourish-

ment

Zones

Outside

Nourish-

ment

Zones


Unsurveyed NA 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

South

County

Beaches

4 (Phase I) 1,044 0 13.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.0

All County

Beaches 2,535 661 100.5 201.0 63.6 127.2 31.6 821.6 1,149.8


structures. 2 Taken from feet of shoreline in Table 911. 3 Taken from Column G in Table 1012.

4 For Phase I, calculated by multiplying the proportion of shoreline outside of the nourishment zones by the annual number of nests

displaced prior to Phase I. 5 Sum of nests displaced prior to Phase I, between Phase I and II, and after Phase II.


78

Table 1214

Estimate of Annual Green Turtle Nest Displacement


SEA TURTLE

SURVEY

AREA

A B C D E F G

AVERAGE

NESTS PER

MILE

AVERAGE

NESTING

SUCCESS2

PROJECTED

MILES OF

ARMORING3

AVERAGE

CRAWLS IN

AFFECTED

AREA4

AVERAGE

NESTS IN

AFFECTED

AREA5

AVERAGE

NESTS AFTER

ARMORING6

TOTAL NESTS

DISPLACED

PER YEAR7

SISRASISP 10.3 0.598 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wabasso Beach

North 15.4 0.559 0.083 2.3 1.3 0.4 0.9

Wabasso Beach

Middle 20.4 0.547 0.172 6.4 3.5 1.1 2.4

Wabasso Beach

South 7.4 0.455 0.080 1.3 0.6 0.2 0.4

Baytree, Sea

Oaks &

surrounding

areas

27.1 0.711 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Vero Beach 3.0 0.595 0.073 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1

Unsurveyed 2.5 0.681 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

South County

Beaches 2.0 0.667 0.198 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.3


79

Table 1214

(Continued)

SEA TURTLE

SURVEY

AREA

A B C D E F G

AVERAGE

NESTS PER

MILE

AVERAGE

NESTING

SUCCESS2

PROJECTED

MILES OF

ARMORING3

AVERAGE

CRAWLS IN

AFFECTED

AREA4

AVERAGE

NESTS IN

AFFECTED

AREA5

AVERAGE

NESTS AFTER

ARMORING6

TOTAL NESTS

DISPLACED

PER YEAR7

ALL COUNTY

BEACHES 13.5 NA 0.606 11.0 6.0 1.9 4.1





80

Table 1315

Estimate of Cumulative Green Turtle Nest Displacement


SEA

TURTLE

SURVEY

AREA

YEARS

UNTIL

BEACH

NOURISH-

MENT

LINEAR FEET OF

SHORELINE

POTENTIALLY

ARMORED UNDER

THE ITP2

NUMBER OF NESTS

DISPLACED PRIOR

TO PHASE I

NUMBER OF

NESTS

DISPLACED

BETWEEN PHASE

I AND PHASE II

NUMBER OF

NESTS

DISPLACED

AFTER PHASE II

TOTAL

NUMBER

OF NESTS

DISPLACED

OVER 30

YEARS5

Within

Nourish-

ment

Zones

Outside

Nourish-

ment

Zones



Wabasso


Wabasso

Beach

Middle

2 (Phase II) 368 541 2.4 4.8 2.4 4.8 1.4 36.4 46.0

Wabasso


Baytree, Sea

Oaks &

Surrounding

Areas

2 (Phase II) 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Vero Beach 4 (Phase II) 385 0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4


81

Table 1315

(Continued)

SEA

TURTLE

SURVEY

AREA

YEARS

UNTIL

BEACH

NOURISH-

MENT

LINEAR FEET OF

SHORELINE

POTENTIALLY

ARMORED UNDER

THE ITP2

NUMBER OF NESTS

DISPLACED PRIOR

TO PHASE I

NUMBER OF

NESTS

DISPLACED

BETWEEN

PHASE I AND

PHASE II

NUMBER OF

NESTS

DISPLACED

AFTER PHASE II

TOTAL

NUMBER

OF NESTS

DISPLACED

OVER 30

YEARS5

Within

Nourish-

ment

Zones

Outside

Nourish-

ment

Zones


Unsurveyed NA 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

South

County

Beaches

4 (Phase I) 1,044 0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

All County

Beaches 2,535 661 4.1 8.2 3.1 6.2 1.6 41.6 56.0






82

Table 1416

Estimate of Annual Leatherback Turtle Nest Displacement


SEA TURTLE

SURVEY

AREA

A B C D E F G

AVERAGE

NESTS PER

MILE

AVERAGE

NESTING

SUCCESS2

PROJECTED

MILES OF

ARMORING3

AVERAGE

CRAWLS IN

AFFECTED

AREA4

AVERAGE

NESTS IN

AFFECTED

AREA5

AVERAGE

NESTS AFTER

ARMORING6

TOTAL NESTS

DISPLACED

PER YEAR7

SISRASISP 0.16 0.667 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Wabasso Beach

North 0.32 0.955 0.083 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02

Wabasso Beach

Middle 0.86 0.828 0.172 0.18 0.15 0.04 0.11

Wabasso Beach

South 0.74 0.800 0.080 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.04

Baytree, Sea

Oaks &

surrounding

areas

1.53 1.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vero Beach 0.44 0.929 0.073 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02

Unsurveyed 0.62 0.777 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

South County

Beaches 0.80 0.625 0.198 0.25 0.16 0.05 0.11


83

Table 1416

(Continued)

SEA TURTLE

SURVEY

AREA

A B C D E F G

AVERAGE

NESTS PER

MILE

AVERAGE

NESTING

SUCCESS2

PROJECTED

MILES OF

ARMORING3

AVERAGE

CRAWLS IN

AFFECTED

AREA4

AVERAGE

NESTS IN

AFFECTED

AREA5

AVERAGE

NESTS AFTER

ARMORING6

TOTAL NESTS

DISPLACED

PER YEAR7

ALL COUNTY

BEACHES 0.080 NA 0.606 0.53 0.43 0.13 0.30





84

Table 1517

Estimate of Cumulative Leatherback Turtle Nest Displacement


SEA

TURTLE

SURVEY

AREA

YEARS

UNTIL

BEACH

NOURISH-

MENT

LINEAR FEET OF

SHORELINE

POTENTIALLY

ARMORED UNDER

THE ITP2

NUMBER OF NESTS

DISPLACED PRIOR

TO PHASE I

NUMBER OF

NESTS

DISPLACED

BETWEEN PHASE

I AND PHASE II

NUMBER OF

NESTS

DISPLACED

AFTER PHASE II

TOTAL

NUMBER

OF NESTS

DISPLACED

OVER 30

YEARS5

Within

Nourish-

ment

Zones

Outside

Nourish-

ment

Zones



Wabasso


Wabasso

Beach

Middle

2 (Phase II) 368 541 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.22 0.07 1.82 2.26

Wabasso


Baytree, Sea

Oaks &

Surrounding

Areas

2 (Phase II) 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vero Beach 4 (Phase II) 385 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04


85

Table 1517

(Continued)

SEA

TURTLE

SURVEY

AREA

YEARS

UNTIL

BEACH

NOURISH-

MENT

LINEAR FEET OF

SHORELINE

POTENTIALLY

ARMORED UNDER

THE ITP2

NUMBER OF NESTS

DISPLACED PRIOR

TO PHASE I

NUMBER OF

NESTS

DISPLACED

BETWEEN

PHASE I AND

PHASE II

NUMBER OF

NESTS

DISPLACED

AFTER PHASE II

TOTAL

NUMBER

OF NESTS

DISPLACED

OVER 30

YEARS5

Within

Nourish-

ment

Zones

Outside

Nourish-

ment

Zones


Unsurveyed NA 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

South

County

Beaches

4 (Phase I) 1,044 0 0.11 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22

All County

Beaches 2,535 661 0.30 0.60 0.16 0.32 0.08 2.08 3.00






86

7.3 Cumulative Impacts

Mosier (1998) developed a simple simulation model to predict the effects of armoring

structures on sea turtle nesting as the linear feet of armored shoreline increases. She

found that the cumulative impacts of beachfront armoring may be substantially greater

than the sum of impacts from individual structures. Thus, as the linear extent of armored

shoreline increases, proportionately fewer nests are deposited. On some beaches, nesting

could be reduced to zero if the entire shoreline was armored with structures that were

close to the surf zone.

It is estimated that 3,196 feet of shoreline could be armored as a result of issuance of the

ITP. Coupled with the existing 5,711 feet of armoring, a total of 8,907 feet or 1.7 miles

of beach could be armored. This would represent 7.6 percent of the County’s shoreline.

FDEP is the only non-federal agency that can authorize activities similar to those

proposed by Indian River County under the Plan. FDEP could potentially authorize the

installation of additional new structures independent of the County’s proposed activities.

This would further increase the linear extent of armoring within the Plan Area.

However, the potential for this additional armoring is likely to be minimal. New

habitable structures built along the coastline are ineligible for armoring under the State’s

CCCL regulations. Those existing habitable structures likely to be vulnerable to erosion

over the 30-year life of the Plan have already been accounted for under the County’s take

assessment. For other less-vulnerable structures, the placement of sand on the beach

during the County’s planned beach nourishment projects will reduce shoreline erosion

and the need for future armoring. Consequently, it would seem reasonable to assume that

cumulative impacts during the 30-year life of the ITP will be insignificant relative to the

indirect effects of the County’s proposed action. Quantification of cumulative impacts

would require so many assumptions as to render an estimate highly imprecise.


87

8.0 PERMITTING PROCESS

8.1 Declaration of Emergency

The County will not issue any emergency shoreline protection permits (Emergency

Permits) unless a storm that has been declared an emergency impacts the Plan Area and

the Coastal Engineer determines that beach erosion has occurred as a result of the

declared emergency. A declaration of emergency can be made by the Board of County

Commissioners of Indian River County or by the State of Florida. If the State of Florida

issues a declaration of emergency that includes Indian River County in its scope, a local

declaration is not required.

When an emergency or disaster has occurred or is imminent, the Emergency

Management Director or his/her designee may activate the County’s Comprehensive

Emergency Management Plan. Activation of the Plan may be followed by a Declaration

of Local Emergency, as authorized under Chapter 252.38, Florida Statutes and described

in County Ordinance 91-18. In such case, the Emergency Management Director or

his/her designee will draft a Resolution for the approval of the Board of County

Commissioners. The Resolution describes the basis and conditions for declaring an

emergency (see example in Appendix D).

A Declaration of Local Emergency triggers communication and coordination between the

Emergency Management Director and various County departments. The Superintendent

of Public Schools is consulted to determine if schools should be closed. The Emergency

Operations Center is opened and all emergency personnel must report in. Consequently,

an emergency is declared only when truly hazardous conditions threaten. However, the

declaration must be made sufficiently in advance of an approaching storm to allow for

adequate evacuation and emergency preparations, if necessary. There have been three

Declarations of Local Emergency in Indian River County during the past 10 years, all in

response to named tropical storms.

The County shall notify FDEP in writing by the most expeditious means available

whenever it has declared an emergency pursuant to this HCP. Notification shall include

documentation from the County Commission authorizing the Declaration of Local

Emergency and shall provide the date and details of the storm event that created the

emergency.

8.2 Initiation of Emergency Permitting Process

Following the passage of a coastal storm for which a State or local declaration of

emergency has been issued, several different scenarios may initiate an evaluation to

determine if emergency shoreline protection measures are warranted.


88

An oceanfront property owner may contact the County and request a

determination as to whether or not his/her structure qualifies for emergency

protection. The County’s Coastal Engineer (or designee) will then perform a

shoreline damage assessment of the affected property;

The County may initiate a post-storm shoreline damage assessment and make

a determination as to which structures warrant emergency protection based on

that assessment; or

The State of Florida may initiate a post-storm shoreline damage assessment

and determine that a need for emergency protection exists for particular

structures.

Regardless of the scenario used to ascertain that shoreline protection is warranted,

emergency shoreline protection measures shall not be authorized unless an affected

property owner makes a formal request to the County. This request may initially be

verbal but must be followed-up in writing within 10 business days of the storm event.

Upon receipt of a formal request from an affected property owner, the County’s Coastal

Engineer shall determine if the respective structure is eligible and vulnerable.

Emergency Permits will only be issued to structures that are both eligible and vulnerable,

as defined in the County’s “Rules and Regulations for Issuance of Emergency Permits for

Shoreline Protection” (Appendix E).

8.3 Determination of Eligibility

The Coastal Engineer will make a determination as to a structure’s eligibility for

emergency shoreline protection. Records obtained from the affected property owner(s)

and/or Property Appraiser’s Office may assist in this determination. Eligible structures

include:

Public infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, etc.);

Non-conforming habitable structures (businesses and houses not constructed

under a permit issued by FDEP after March 17, 1985); and

Non-habitable structures (e.g., garages, pools, etc.) structurally attached to

non-conforming habitable structures whose failure would cause the adjoining

habitable structure to become vulnerable.

8.4 Determination of Vulnerability

A site visit must be made to determine if an eligible structure is vulnerable to erosion as

the result of a declared emergency. As described in Section 8.2 above, this may occur at

the request of an affected property owner or during a post-storm shoreline assessment

conducted by the County or State.

An eligible structure will be determined to be vulnerable if:

The structural foundation (not including ancillary decks, porches, or stairs) is

exposed or undermined; or


89

The seaward most edge of the structural foundation is within 20 feet of the dune

escarpment, as measured perpendicular to the shoreline; and

The shoreline condition(s) for which an Emergency Permit has been requested is

the result of erosion caused by the declared emergency.

8.5 Emergency Shoreline Protection Options

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 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 of factors such as:

Potential for physical damage to the structure because of erosion;

Extent of storm damage to the beach/dune system;

Distance of the structure from the dune escarpment;

Pre-storm conditions at the site (i.e., critically eroding, eroding, accreting, etc.);

Potential consequences to coastal processes and downdrift properties potentially

resulting from different shoreline protection options;

Time of year when the emergency occurs (e.g., during or outside of the nesting

season, likelihood for additional storm activity, etc.);

Presence/absence of sea turtle nesting habitat and/or marked nests; and

Construction schedules for permitted beach nourishment projects at the site.

Based on the criteria listed above, one or a combination of the following protective

measures will be authorized:

Placing beach compatible sand from upland sources on the beach;

Creating a temporary barrier seaward of the structure using sand bags and/or

geo-textile (fabric) tubes filled with sand;

Shoring up (reinforcing foundations); and

Installing temporary wooden retaining walls, cantilever sheetpile walls

(without concrete caps, tie backs, or other reinforcement), or similar structures

seaward of the vulnerable structure.

Because each site is unique, it is not possible to establish a matrix to identify the

appropriate protective measure for all possible scenarios. “Soft” solutions, such as the

placement of beach-compatible sand seaward of the structure and sand bags, will be

utilized whenever possible. “Hard” solutions, such as wooden retaining walls, cantilever

sheetpile walls and similar structures will only be permitted when soft solutions cannot

reasonably be expected to provide adequate protection for a vulnerable structure.


90

Any physical structures placed on the beach as the result of an Emergency Permit issued

by Indian River County shall be designed and sited to minimize excavation of the beach

and frontal dune and impacts to native vegetation, sea turtle habitat, and adjacent

beachfront properties. These temporary structures must also be designed and sited to

facilitate their removal.

8.6 Siting of Protective Structures

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 escarpment and as close to the

vulnerable structure as practicable to provide sufficient protection. In no case may the

structure be sited farther than 20 feet from the seaward most edge of the vulnerable

structure. The Coastal Engineer shall use his/her best professional judgment in

determining the appropriate location of protective structures. Information that will

influence the location includes:

The type of protective material(s) to be used;

Construction methods;

Site topography;

Distance between the vulnerable structure and the dune escarpment;

Extent of erosional threat to the vulnerable structure;

Presence/absence of sea turtle nesting habitat and/or marked nests; and

Other site-specific conditions.

8.7 Implementation of Emergency Shoreline Protection Measures

All shoreline protection activities initiated under the County’s emergency authorization,

with the exception of those specifically allowed under Section 8.11 below, shall be

conducted in conformance with the County’s Rules and Regulations for Issuance of

Emergency Permits for Shoreline Protection (Appendix E). Any changes to these Rules

and Regulations must be approved in writing by the USFWS prior to their

implementation. No construction may be initiated on any portion of the beach until an

Emergency Permit has been issued by the County.

8.8 Timing Constraints

Emergency Permits will only be issued to eligible and vulnerable structures following the

passage of severe storm events that have been declared an emergency by the State or

Board of County Commissioners (see Section 8.1 above). These events typically occur

during late summer (tropical storm activity) or fall/winter (northeasters), and thus are

most likely to occur near the end or outside of the sea turtle nesting season. However, it

is essential that property owners be able to respond quickly to these events, even if they

occur during the nesting season. In most instances where an eligible structure is

vulnerable to damage from erosion caused by a severe storm event, the nesting habitat


91

will have been seriously impacted and any nests present will have, in all likelihood, been

washed out or destroyed by tidal inundation.

Under this HCP, emergency shoreline protection measures may be undertaken at any

time of the year. However, if construction is to occur during any portion of the sea turtle

nesting season, the following precautions must be in place:

1. A standardized, daily sea turtle monitoring program (see Section 11.2 of this

HCP), encompassing the project area, must be in place at least 65 days prior to

commencement of construction or March 1st, whichever is later;

2. A pre-construction assessment of nesting habitat in the project area (see

Section 9.2 of this HCP) must be performed to determine if sentinel nests are

present;

3. Any sentinel nests in the project area that cannot be safely left in place during

construction activities must be relocated to a nearby, safe, suitable location;

and

4. A daily sea turtle monitoring and nest protection program, as described in

Sections 9.3 and 11.2.4.3 of this HCP must be performed throughout the

project area from the date of determination that a structure is eligible for

emergency protection until the first of the following:

a. The end of the sea turtle nesting season (October 31), or

b. The temporary structure is removed from the beach.

If Indian River County issues an Emergency Permit, the permittee has a maximum of 30

days from the date of issuance of the permit to complete implementation of authorized

measures. Indian River County may grant a 30-day extension to complete emergency

protection measures provided the permittee can demonstrate that emergency conditions

still exist at the site. If the permittee fails to complete emergency protection measures

within 60 days of issuance of the Emergency Permit, all construction activities at the site

must cease. If a temporary protective structure was installed or partially completed

during the authorized period of construction, the property owner (or legal agent) may

submit an application to FDEP for the retention of that structure or alternative protection,

as described in Section 8.9 below.

8.9 Applications for Permanent Structures

The County shall notify FDEP in writing within 3 working days of the date of issuance of

an Emergency Permit. This notification shall provide the location of the affected

property, characterize the physical conditions at the site upon which the structure was

determined to be eligible and vulnerable, and describe the shoreline protection measures

that have been authorized.

Upon receipt of the notification described above, FDEP will assign an FDEP permit

number to facilitate tracking of the project from its inception through authorization of a

permanent solution, if applicable. The County shall append this number to its emergency

shoreline protection permit issued for the project.


92

Within 60 days from the date that a temporary shoreline protection structure is installed

under an Emergency Permit issued by the County, the property owner (or legal agent)

must submit a completed application to FDEP for a State permit authorizing retention of

the temporary structure or allowing for alternative protection. If a complete permit

application is not submitted to FDEP within the allocated time frame, the temporary

structure must be removed in accordance with provisions contained in Section 9.5 of this

HCP.

If temporary armoring has been installed under an Emergency Permit issued by Indian

River County and the property owner submits a complete application to FDEP for the

retention of the temporary structure or alternative protection, the temporary structure may

remain in place until one of the following occurs:

1. FDEP issues a permit for permanent armoring.

In this case, the temporary structure may remain in place until it can be

reinforced to serve as a permanent structure or alternative protection is

installed. All activities associated with the replacement of a temporary

structure with permanent armoring shall be conducted in accordance with

Section 9.7 of this HCP.

2. FDEP denies the permit application.

In this case, the temporary structure shall be removed at the earliest possible

date in accordance with Section 9.5 of this HCP.

Upon issuance of an Emergency Permit, the County shall consult with the affected

property owner (or agent) to ensure that the rules and regulations associated with the

retention of temporary structures or installation of alternative protection are clearly

understood and shall provide guidance to the affected party during the preparation of an

FDEP permit application, as applicable. The County will acquire guidance materials

and/or a standard permit application package for permanent shoreline protection

measures from FDEP and will provide this information to affected property owners upon

issuance of an Emergency Permit. Following application to FDEP for a permit to retain a

temporary shoreline protection structure or install alternative protection, the Coastal

Engineer shall assist FDEP in obtaining site-specific information germane to the review

of the permit application.

8.10 Rejection of Applications for Permanent Structures

Any emergency shoreline protection measure deemed appropriate by the Coastal

Engineer shall be allowed at any location along the County’s beaches in accordance with

the rules and regulations contained in this HCP. However, under a Memorandum of

Agreement with FDEP (Appendix F), application for a permanent shoreline protection

structure shall be denied by FDEP if the application is determined to be inconsistent with


93

state laws and rules, with the exception of those provisions pertaining to the take of sea

turtles. (The USFWS will explicitly authorize take of sea turtles associated with

shoreline protection activities initiated and conducted in accordance with the terms and

conditions of the County’s ITP.) Applications for a permanent structure shall also be

denied by FDEP if a beach nourishment, beach restoration, sand transfer or other similar

project that would provide protection for the vulnerable structure is scheduled for

construction within nine (9) months of receipt of the FDEP application, all State and/or

Federal permits for the project have been issued, and funding is available. Each year, the

County shall provide FDEP with a schedule and status report of all constructed and

pending County-sponsored beach nourishment projects. This information will be

contained within the State of Florida Beach Erosion Control Program Annual Budget

Request, an annual report submitted to the State that indicates the status of the County’s

various beach projects and requests funding for planned projects during the subsequent

fiscal year.

If FDEP rejects an application for the retention of a temporary structure or alternative

protection, the temporary structure must be removed within 60-days of the official notice

denying the application or final adjudication of any administrative hearings between

FDEP and the applicant, as applicable. Removal of temporary structures shall be in

accordance with Section 9.5 of this HCP.

8.11 Exceptions to Standard Emergency Permitting Process

The Interim Agreement between Indian River County, FDEP, CCC, and the

Summerplace and Gerstner Petitioners (Appendix A) is the basis for allowing limited

exceptions to the County’s standard emergency permitting process, as described above,

and was one of the primary forces driving Indian River County’s application to the

USFWS for an ITP. All parties to the agreement acknowledged that it was in their best

interests for the County to develop an HCP to allow for a reasoned approach to

emergency shoreline protection while ensuring a net conservation benefit to sea turtles.

To underscore that sentiment, FDEP agreed to provide the County with up to $100,000 in

funding to facilitate development of the HCP. All parties agreed to abide by the terms of

the Interim Agreement and refrain from further legal action while the County prepared

the HCP and applied for an ITP. All parties were apprised of the HCP as it progressed

through various stages of development and have had an opportunity to review previous

drafts.

Under the Interim Agreement, 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 structures protect seven (7) upland

structures and encompass approximately 520 feet of shoreline, as shown below.

Summerplace Petitioners – 420 feet of temporary sheetpile armoring

protecting six (6) upland structures in Wabasso Beach South; and

Gerstner Petitioner – 100 feet of temporary sheetpile armoring protecting one

(1) upland structure in the South County Beaches.


94

Upon issuance of an ITP, the standard process for initiating emergency shoreline

protection activities, as described in Section 8.2 above, will not apply to the

Summerplace and Gerstner Petitioners. In its place the procedures set forth in the Interim

Agreement shall be followed. This exception is made in recognition of the unique

circumstances of these seawalls, which fall outside the standards by which future

permitting decisions under this HCP will be made. All activities associated with

construction of the permanent seawalls and removal of, or modifications to, existing

temporary structures of the Petitioners, must comply with FDEP permit conditions and all

applicable provisions of this HCP (refer to Sections 9.5 through 9.7). Following issuance

of an ITP, the County will notify the USFWS in writing of initiation of the activities

covered under the Interim Agreement.

8.11.1 Coverage for Take Associated With Permitting Exceptions

For the purposes of calculating the amount of take that is likely to occur under this HCP

(see Section 7.0 of this HCP), the temporary structures at both the Summerplace and

Gerstner properties were treated as if they do not presently exist. Thus, the seven (7)

upland structures that will be protected under the County’s Emergency Permits following

issuance of the ITP are included in the 31 total structures expected to require emergency

protection over the 30-year life of the permit. Any take occurring as the result of these

temporary structures, or the permanent structures that may replace them, will be covered

for the period that the ITP is in effect. However, any take that may have occurred prior to

issuance of the ITP will not be covered.


95

9.0 MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS

This section of the HCP describes the programs, policies, and other measures that will be

implemented by Indian River County to minimize impacts to sea turtles causally related

to shoreline protection activities initiated under the County’s emergency authorization.

Short-term impacts can occur during implementation of emergency measures and/or

during removal of temporary erosion control devices. Longer-term impacts can result if

permanent armoring structures replace temporary structures installed under emergency

authorization.

9.1 Proactive Planning

One of the principal methods of minimizing the potential for impacts to sea turtles under

this HCP is to reduce the need for emergency shoreline protection. Many beachfront

property owners, particularly those that have recently moved to Indian River County

from other areas, may be unfamiliar with the highly eroded nature of the County’s

coastline. It is imperative that these individuals be alerted to the potential threats of

erosion and provided with a synopsis of the County’s beach management program. It is

also important that they are made aware of sea turtle protection and nesting beach

management issues affecting shoreline protection activities adjacent to their properties.

Indian River County will develop a public awareness brochure that will be distributed to

all beachfront property owners within the Plan Area advising them of the dynamic nature

of the coastline and identifying areas of critical erosion. A schedule of planned beach

nourishment projects will be presented. Owners of potentially vulnerable structures

fronting critically eroded sections of beach will be encouraged to take appropriate action,

as provided under Chapter 161, F.S., to ensure protection of their properties in advance of

major storm activity. This may include:

Structural modifications to homes and other buildings to make them less

vulnerable to storm damage (e.g., elevation on pilings);

Relocation of structures sited in close proximity to eroding beaches farther

landward; and

Construction of protective structures between the vulnerable structure and the

beach in accordance with the FDEP CCCL permitting process.

Insofar as the first two alternatives may be impractical, infeasible, or financially

prohibitive, owners of eligible and potentially vulnerable structures on eroding sections

of beach where no beach nourishment projects are planned will be encouraged to consult

with FDEP regarding the feasibility of permanent shoreline protection structures. The

design and siting of armoring structures built under a standard permit issued by FDEP,

along with the timing of their construction, are intended to avoid impacts to sea turtles

and their nesting habitat.


96

In addition to the proactive alternatives described above, the brochure will contain

contact numbers of County and State agencies that can provide technical guidance and

assistance on shoreline protection issues. Procedures for applying for Eemergency

Ppermits will also be included.

The public awareness brochure will be developed within one year of issuance of the ITP.

Draft copies of the document will be provided to FDEP and USFWS for review and

approval prior to distribution. At least one mailing will be made to all beachfront

property owners within six months of USFWS approval. The County will then assess the

most effective method for subsequent distributions, such as during real estate

transactions. The County will send out subsequent educational information every 5 years

as part of the pre-season lighting letter notification packet.

9.2 Pre-permitting Assessment of Nesting Habitat

Due to the extensive erosion typically associated with a storm that triggers an emergency

declaration, it is unlikely that suitable nesting habitat would be present in the vicinity of

an emergency shoreline protection project. Most nests incubating at the time of the storm

event will probably be washed out or destroyed by tidal inundation. However, some

viable nests, particularly those deposited in the dune or high on the beach, may remain.

As part of the County’s sea turtle monitoring program, monitoring personnel will

routinely mark all nests at or landward of the toe of the dune along sections of beach

designated by the State of Florida as critically eroded (see Section 11.2 of this HCP).

These nests shall be termed sentinel nests (Figure 6), and their location determined with a

Global Positioning System (GPS) possessing sufficient precision as to allow the

reestablishment of nest barriers should they be vandalized. Marking of sentinel nests

shall not be required on undeveloped properties (with the exception of routine equipment

access points designated by the County’s Coastal Engineer) or where a permanent

shoreline protection structure is already in place.

As used here and throughout this HCP, monitoring personnel shall mean those

individuals listed on a valid Marine Turtle Permit issued by FWC and having the

necessary training and practical experience needed to fulfill their responsibilities under

this HCP (see Section 11.2.7 of this HCP). County staff shall ensure that Marine Turtle

Permit Holders (MTPH) within the County and his/her approved staff implement all

monitoring activities in conformance with the FWC marine turtle conservation handbook

and HCP requirements.

Prior to implementation of any emergency shoreline protection activities during the sea

turtle nesting season (March 1 through October 31), monitoring personnel will inspect the

site of any property for which an Emergency Permit has been requested to assess nesting

habitat suitability. This will typically be done in conjunction with the Coastal Engineer’s

site visit to assess a structure’s vulnerability (see Section 8.4 of this HCP).


97


98

The absence of sentinel nests at the site of a proposed emergency shoreline protection

project shall be indicative of the absence of viable nests. If sentinel nests are present, it is

likely that erosion has been minimal and shoreline protection is not warranted. However,

the presence of sentinel nests alone shall not preclude emergency shoreline protection

activities. Should marked nests be present at the site, and the Coastal Engineer

determines that shoreline protection measures are warranted, he/she, in consultation with

sea turtle monitoring personnel, will determine if the nest(s) can be safely left in place (in

situ). Those that can will be marked in accordance with procedures established in

Section 11.2.4.3 of this HCP.

If marked nests at the site of a proposed emergency shoreline protection project are likely

to interfere with implementation of effective shoreline protection measures, the nests may

be relocated from the project area. However, no nest relocation can occur until after an

Emergency Permit is issued for the property. All activities associated with the relocation

of eggs from a project shall be performed in accordance with the most current FWC

guidelines, with the following exceptions:

Nests can be relocated because of construction activities; and

Sentinel nests can be moved at any time during their incubation period.

The pre-construction assessment of nesting habitat suitability and presence/absence of

marked nests will be factored into the Coastal Engineer’s decision as to the type of

shoreline protection measures and/or the siting of temporary structures allowed under an

Emergency Permit (see Sections 8.5 and 8.6 of this HCP). To the greatest extent

practicable, the Coastal Engineer will only allow those activities that will avoid impacts

to marked nests while providing adequate temporary protection for the vulnerable

structure.

9.3 Precautions During Implementation of Emergency Measures

9.3.1 Inclusive Period of Monitoring

If any construction activities are to occur on the beach during any portion of the sea turtle

nesting season (March 1 through October 31), a sea turtle monitoring program must be in

place for any areas of the beach potentially affected. The intent of construction-phase

monitoring is to identify and protect any new nests that may be deposited in the project

area during the period of construction and to ensure that marked nests, if present, are

unaffected by construction activities. At the time the original HCP was prepared, Tthe

latest documented nest by any species of sea turtle in Indian River County was on

September 22 (Table 68). Consequently, daily monitoring shall commence on March 1

or the date of Emergency Permit issuance, whichever is later and shall continue

uninterrupted until the completion of construction or September 30, whichever is earlier

(Table 1618). If construction proceeds beyond September 30 and marked nests remain

within the project area, daily monitoring will continue until the last marked nest has

hatched.


99

9.3.2 Establishing Project Boundaries

Daily sea turtle monitoring shall be performed at the construction site, the beach access

point for construction equipment, and the beach corridor used by equipment to travel

between the access point and construction site, as applicable (see Section 9.3.3 below).

Based on the nature of authorized emergency measures and construction techniques, the

Coastal Engineer may include a 25-foot buffer zone on either end of the construction site

to allow for the maneuvering of equipment. The north and south boundaries of the

inclusive area encompassing the construction site, buffer zone, access point, and travel

corridor, as applicable, shall be considered the project area. The project area shall be

conspicuously marked and monitored each day, as prescribed in Section 9.3.1 above.

Table 1618

Sea Turtle Monitoring Requirements During Construction of

Emergency Shoreline Protection Measures in Indian River County

Construction

Start Date

Construction

End Date

Monitoring

Required

Monitoring

Area

Start Date

for Daily

Monitoring

End Date

for Daily

Monitoring

Outside

Nesting

Season

Outside

Nesting

Season

No NA NA NA

During

Nesting

Season

Yes Project

Area1 March 1

Completion

of

Construction

During

Nesting

Season

Outside

Nesting

Season

Yes Project

Area

Date of

Issuance of

Emergency

Permit

September

30 or Last

Nest Has

Hatched,

Whichever

is Later

During

Nesting

Season

Yes Project

Area

Date of

Issuance of

Emergency

Permit

Completion

of

Construction

1 Project area includes construction site, buffer zones, equipment access points and

equipment travel corridors, as applicable.


100

9.3.3 Equipment on the Beach and Access Locations

To the greatest extent practicable, construction shall be conducted from the upland

portion of the property for which an Emergency Permit has been issued. No heavy

equipment (e.g., tracked or wheeled motorized machinery, such as bobcats, bulldozers,

front-end loaders, etc.) shall be operated on the beach, unless no reasonable upland

alternative exists, as determined by the Coastal Engineer. If heavy equipment must be

operated on the beach in support of a permitted emergency shoreline protection project,

an access site as close to the construction site as possible will be selected by the County’s

Coastal Engineer in consultation with sea turtle monitoring personnel. A marked path no

wider than 50 feet and running perpendicular to the beach from the dune to the high tide

line will be used for beach access. Equipment ingress and egress shall be confined to this

marked corridor. Once on the beach, equipment may only be moved to and from the

construction site at low tide along the wetted portion of the beach (i.e. below the previous

high tide line).

9.3.4 Time of Monitoring and Daily Commencement of Construction

Monitoring of a project area shall be performed as early as possible each day in

accordance with the most current FWC guidelines. No construction activities, including

the movement of heavy equipment on the beach, may commence until the daily survey is

completed. The Coastal Engineer shall ensure that there is an effective line of

communication between sea turtle monitoring personnel and construction crews and shall

incorporate the above condition into the Emergency Permit.

9.3.5 Data Collection

The HCP Coordinator shall develop standardized data sheets for monitoring emergency

shoreline protection project areas during the sea turtle nesting season. The data sheet will

segregate the project area into the construction site (including the buffer zone, as

applicable), equipment access point, and equipment travel corridor. Sea turtle monitoring

personnel will carefully interpret all crawls evident from the previous night to determine

which species of sea turtle came ashore and whether or not it nested. The species and

crawl type (nest or false crawl) will be recorded in the appropriate area field on the data

sheet.

In addition to species and crawl type, the following information will be entered into the

appropriate fields on the data sheet:

Date of monitoring;

Inclusive time of monitoring (i.e. start and end times);

Name of monitoring personnel;

Type of nest protection (e.g., relocated or marked in situ), as applicable;

Observations of any construction-related impacts to marked sea turtle nests,

adults or hatchlings: and

Observations of any hatchling disorientation events or erosional loss of nests.


101

Following the end of each nesting season, project monitoring reports will be forwarded to

FWC.

9.3.6 Nest Protection

During the period of construction, nests within the project area, if any, must be protected.

If a newly deposited nest within the immediate construction area is likely to unavoidably

interfere with construction activities, as determined by the County’s Coastal Engineer,

sea turtle monitoring personnel will relocate the nest to a nearby, safe, sheltered location

in accordance with the most current FWC guidelines. If a newly deposited nest within

the construction area can be safely left in place, it will be marked in accordance with

procedures established in Section 11.2.4.3 of this HCP. All newly deposited nests within

equipment access and travel corridors will be marked and left in situ. It shall be the

responsibility of the construction crew to avoid encroachment on marked turtle nests.

Occasionally, turtles begin to construct a nest but then abandon the site before nesting. If

sea turtle monitoring personnel are unsure as to whether a disturbed area along the path

of a crawl at a construction site is a nest, and the disturbed area is in an area potentially

affected by construction, the disturbed area will be extensively excavated to determine if

eggs are present. If eggs are found, they will be relocated from the project area. If a

questionable nest (i.e. disturbed area) is located within an area of the construction site

that will not be affected by construction activities or if it’s in an equipment access or

travel corridor, it will be marked and left in situ as for other nests.

It is the intent of this HCP to minimize impacts to sea turtle nests during implementation

of emergency shoreline protection projects. Consequently, nests shall be marked and

avoided, whenever possible.

The location of all marked nests within a project area will be determined with GPS

equipment possessing sufficient precision as to allow the reestablishment of nest barriers

should they be vandalized.

9.3.7 Nest Monitoring

Sea turtle monitoring personnel will maintain a geographically sequenced inventory of all

marked nests within the project area, including GPS coordinates. Each morning that the

project area is surveyed, all nests listed on the inventory will be inspected. If a nest

barrier has been damaged, the circumstances (e.g., stake knocked down by another

nesting turtle, stakes run over by construction equipment, stakes pulled out of ground,

stakes washed out by tide, etc.) will be noted on the field data sheet and the barrier

repaired. If the barrier of a nest listed on the inventory has been washed out by tides, it

will be presumed that the nest was destroyed.

9.3.8 Incidental Exhumation of Eggs

If an unmarked sea turtle nest is exhumed or exposed during the course of implementing

shoreline protection measures, construction in the vicinity of the nest shall cease


102

immediately and the HCP Coordinator and sea turtle monitoring personnel shall be

notified. The Coastal Engineer shall ensure that there is an effective line of

communication between sea turtle monitoring personnel and construction crews and shall

incorporate the above condition into the Emergency Permit.

Sea turtle monitoring personnel shall respond to the site and document the extent of

damage, if any. The number of eggs in the clutch and the number of eggs destroyed

during the incident will be recorded. Any remaining intact eggs will be relocated from

the construction area. Construction may not resume until the relocation is complete. The

HCP Coordinator will prepare a report of the incident for inclusion in the Annual Report

(see Section 16 of this HCP) and will notify FWC the same day.

9.3.9 Nighttime Precautions

If construction activities are to occur during any portion of the sea turtle nesting season,

the following conditions shall be incorporated into the Emergency Permit:

Construction shall be confined to daylight hours;

Temporary security lighting, if required, shall be designed and/or positioned

such that the source(s) of light and any reflective surface of the light fixture(s)

are not visible from the beach and there is no direct or indirect illumination of

the beach; and

No equipment or materials shall be left on the beach overnight, unless:

1. Tidal conditions preclude reasonable daily movement of equipment

between the construction site and the access point (see Section 9.3.3.

of this HCP); or

2. The storage of equipment on the beach at night poses less risk to sea

turtles than the daily movement of equipment to and from the

construction site, as determined by sea turtle monitoring personnel in

consultation with FWC.

If construction on the beach poses a hazard to turtles (e.g., large holes, trenches, etc.),

those areas shall be effectively barricaded at night so turtles are not trapped or injured.

These barricades shall be:

Constructed of materials that will not entrap or cause injury to turtles;

The minimum length required to effectively prevent turtles from accessing the

hazardous area; and

Sited as close to the hazard as possible to minimize the amount of nesting

habitat pre-empted by construction activities.

Sea turtle monitoring personnel shall inspect barricaded areas each morning prior to

commencement of any construction activities to ensure that turtles have not breached the

barricade and/or been trapped by materials on the beach. Any trapped but otherwise

healthy turtle shall be released, and a standard FWC Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage

Network Stranding Report shall be completed and submitted to FWC the same day. A


103

copy of the stranding report shall be provided to the HCP Coordinator on the date of the

incident. The HCP Coordinator will inspect the construction site and work with the

construction crew to improve methods of excluding turtles from hazardous areas.

Construction will be halted and not resumed until improved turtle excluding measures

have been completed. The HCP Coordinator will prepare a report of the incident for

inclusion in the Annual Report (see Section 16 of this HCP).

If a turtle is found injured at a construction site, monitoring personnel will complete a

FWC Stranding Form and will immediately report the incident to the FWC. The turtle

will then be handled in accordance with FWC directives. As for trapped turtles, a copy of

the stranding form will be provided to the HCP Coordinator on the date of the incident so

appropriate corrective measures, if applicable, can be implemented before nightfall. The

HCP Coordinator will prepare a report of the incident for inclusion in the Annual Report

(see Section 16 of this HCP).

9.3.10 Impact Assessment

To assess impacts of construction activities, sea turtle monitoring personnel will excavate

all nests relocated from, or marked within, the project area after the nests have hatched.

The contents of these nests will be interpreted in accordance with the most current FWC

guidelines and resultant data furnished to the HCP Coordinator. The HCP Coordinator

will calculate appropriate measures of reproductive success and compare results with data

collected from outside the project area, if available. This analysis will be included in the

Annual Report (see Section 16 of this HCP).

For each Emergency Permit issued, the following information, as applicable, shall be

documented and tabulated for inclusion in the Annual Report:

Permit number;

Date of issuance;

Project particulars, including but not limited to:

1. Project location (address and adjacent FDEP monuments);

2. Type of shoreline protection measure authorized;

3. Construction methods;

4. Inclusive dates of construction;

5. Total length of beach affected, broken down by construction site,

(including buffer zone), equipment access point, and equipment travel

corridor;

6. Date of application to FDEP for retention of a temporary structure or

alternative protection; and

7. Resolution of FDEP permit application (date of issuance or denial and

type of shoreline protection authorized);

Results of pre-permitting assessment of nesting habitat, including number of

marked nests present on that date;

Records of daily sea turtle monitoring (dates and times of monitoring and

names of monitoring personnel);


104

Nesting activity (nests and false crawls) within the project area by date and

species;

Numbers of nests marked in-situ within the project area;

Numbers of nests relocated from the project area;

Reported incidents of impacts to sea turtle nests, adults and/or hatchlings

during the period of construction;

Reproductive success of all nests relocated from the project;

Reproductive success of all nests marked in-situ within the project area; and

Date of removal of temporary structure.

9.4 Monitoring of Project Areas Following Construction

9.4.1 Construction Completed During the Sea Turtle Nesting Season

Following completion of construction, daily monitoring, as described in Section 9.3

above, shall continue within the marked boundaries of the construction site through

September 30 or the removal of the temporary structure, as applicable (Table 1719). The

intent of this monitoring is to document the response of sea turtles to changed beach

conditions resulting from the implementation of emergency shoreline protection

measures.

During post-construction monitoring, any new nests shall be marked in-situ in accordance

with procedures established in Section 11.2.4.3 of this HCP. If marked nests are present

at the construction site after September 30, periodic monitoring, at a frequency deemed

appropriate by sea turtle monitoring personnel, shall continue until the last marked nest

has hatched.

9.4.2 Construction Completed Outside the Sea Turtle Nesting Season

If construction is completed outside of the sea turtle nesting season, no further monitoring

shall be required unless a temporary structure is still in place at the beginning of the

following nesting season (Table 1719). Temporary structures built under an Emergency

Permit issued by Indian River County may remain in place for more than 60 days if the

property owner submits an application to FDEP for retention of the temporary structure

as a permanent structure (see Section 8.9 of this HCP). If such application is made, the

length of time that the temporary structure may remain in place will be predicated on the

length of time required by FDEP to review and make a determination on the application.

If a temporary structure is in place on March 1, daily monitoring of the entire project

area, including the construction site, buffer zones, equipment access points, and travel

corridors, as applicable, will commence March 1 and continue uninterrupted through

September 30 or the temporary structure is removed, whichever occurs earlier.


105

Table 1719

Sea Turtle Monitoring Requirements Following Construction of

Emergency Shoreline Protection Measures in Indian River County

Construction

End Date

Temporary

Structure

Installed

Temporary

Structure

Present on

Following

March 1

Monitoring

Required

Nesting

Season

Affected

Monitoring

Area

Start Date

for Daily

Monitoring

End Date for

Daily

Monitoring

Outside

Nesting

Season

No NA No NA NA NA NA

Yes

No No NA NA NA NA

Yes Yes Season After

Construction Project Area March 1

Removal of

Temporary

Structure or

September 301,

Whichever is

Earlier

During

Nesting

Season

No NA Yes Season of

Construction

Construction

Area2

Completion

of

Construction

September 301

Yes

No Yes Season of

Construction

Construction

Area2

Completion

of

Construction

September 301

Yes Yes Season of

Construction

Project

Area3

Completion

of

Construction

Removal of

Temporary

Structure or

September 301,

Whichever is

Earlier


106

Table 1719

(Continued)

Construction

End Date

Temporary

Structure

Installed

Temporary

Structure

Present on

Following

March 1

Monitoring

Required

Nesting

Season

Affected

Monitoring

Area

Start Date for

Daily

Monitoring

End Date for

Daily

Monitoring

During

Nesting

Season

Yes Yes Yes Season After

Construction Project Area March 1

Removal of

Temporary

Structure or

September 301,

Whichever is

Earlier 1 If marked nests are still present within the project area on September 30, periodic monitoring will continue until the last

marked nest has hatched. 2 Construction area is the marked area seaward of a vulnerable structure within which emergency shoreline protection

measures were implemented. 3 Project area includes the construction area, buffer zones, equipment access points, and beach travel corridors, as applicable.


107

9.4.3 Evaluating the Effects of Temporary Shoreline Protection Measures

Temporary structures installed under an Emergency Permit shall be closely inspected

each day during the sea turtle nesting season by State-permitted monitoring personnel to

ensure that they do not trap or pose hazards to nesting or hatchling sea turtles. If hazards

are identified, the HCP Coordinator shall be notified. The HCP Coordinator will inspect

the temporary structure, and in consultation with the Coastal Engineer and sea turtle

monitoring personnel, shall require modification of the structure and/or implementation

of other protective measures to eliminate the hazard.

The HCP Coordinator shall compile and analyze all sea turtle monitoring data collected

at the construction site during the period from completion of construction through

September 30, the date the last marked nest has hatched, or the temporary structure is

removed from the beach, as applicable (Table 1719). This information shall be included

in the project impact assessment (see Section 9.3.10 above) and shall minimally include

the following information:

Nesting success;

Nest fate (e.g., hatched, washed out, depredated, etc.) of all in-situ marked

nests;

Reproductive success of all in-situ marked nests; and

Documentation of all known direct impacts to adult and hatchling sea turtles

resulting from implementation of emergency shoreline protection measures.

9.5 Precautions During Removal of Temporary Structures

Temporary shoreline protection structures, including sheetpile seawalls, wooden retaining

walls, geotextile tubes, sand bag installations, and similar structures installed pursuant to

an Emergency Permit from Indian River County, shall be removed within 60 days of their

installation unless:

A complete application for retention of the temporary structure or alternative

protection has been submitted to FDEP; or

Removal of the temporary structure is likely to impact sea turtle nests to a

greater degree than the impact resulting from the structure remaining in place

until the end of the nesting season, as determined by FWC in consultation

with sea turtle monitoring personnel.

The Coastal Engineer shall incorporate the above condition into the Emergency Permit.

To minimize impacts to sea turtle nests, removal of temporary structures shall be in

accordance with the following guidelines:

1. If the 60-day installation period expires between October 31 and March 1,

removal of the temporary structure must be completed prior to March 1.


108

2. If the 60-day installation period expires between March 1 and May 1, the

temporary structure must be removed prior to May 1 in conjunction with a sea

turtle monitoring and nest protection program, as described for initial

construction activities (see Section 9.3 above).

3. If the 60-day installation period expires between May 1 and October 31, the

temporary structure will be removed after the last marked nest in the project

area has hatched, unless the structure can be effectively removed without

encroaching on any marked nests, as determined by the Coastal Engineer in

consultation with sea turtle monitoring personnel. If existing or newly

deposited nests impede structure removal activities, structure removal will

cease until those nests have hatched.

4. Construction activities associated with the removal of temporary structures

shall not exceed 20 days.

5. All debris and structural material, including tie downs and fabric from

geotextile tubes, must be removed from the beach/dune area and deposited off

site, landward of the CCCL.

To the greatest extent practicable, construction associated with the removal of temporary

structures shall be conducted from the upland portion of the affected property. No heavy

equipment (e.g., tracked or wheeled motorized machinery, such as bobcats, bulldozers,

front-end loaders, etc.) shall be operated on the beach, unless no reasonable upland

alternative exists, as determined by the Coastal Engineer. If heavy equipment must be

operated on the beach to effectively remove a temporary structure, an access point as

close to the construction site as possible will be selected by the County’s Coastal

Engineer. A marked path no wider than 50 feet and running perpendicular to the beach

from the dune to the high tide line will be used for beach access. Equipment ingress and

egress shall be confined to this marked corridor.

If removal of a temporary structure occurs during any portion of the nesting season,

equipment may only be moved to and from the construction site at low tide along the

wetted portion of the beach (i.e. below the previous high tide line). Additionally, all

beachside construction activities must conform to the guidelines contained in Section

9.3.9 of this HCP.

Upon completion of construction activities, the HCP Coordinator will assess the

condition of the beach/dune system within the project area and will convey his/her

findings to the Coastal Engineer. Any damage to the beach dune system resulting from

authorized activities must be repaired to its pre-construction condition prior to the

beginning of the next nesting season. All beach/dune restoration activities shall occur

outside of the sea turtle nesting season.

9.6 Failure of Temporary Structures

If a temporary structure fails (breaks apart, becomes dysfunctional, etc.), all debris and

structural material, including tie downs and fabric from geotextile tubes, shall be

removed from the beach and deposited off site landward of the CCCL. This activity must


109

be completed within 20 days of the structure’s failure, provided such removal is not

likely to impact sea turtle nests, as determined by the Coastal Engineer in consultation

with sea turtle monitoring personnel. All protective measures for sea turtles related to the

removal of a failed structure shall be the same as those described for the removal of a

temporary structure (see Section 9.5 above).

9.7 Installation of Permanent Shoreline Protection

If FDEP 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 during the first non-nesting season (November 1 – February 28/29)

following issuance of the FDEP permit. The only exception to this requirement will be if

all work can be performed from the upland portion of the property in a manner that will

not impact sea turtles and/or nesting habitat, as determined by FDEP in consultation with

FWC. In such cases the work may proceed at any time of the year in accordance with

conditions attached to the FDEP permit.

For work that is likely to impact sea turtles and/or nesting habitat, every reasonable effort

shall be made to complete construction prior to the beginning of the next nesting season.

If there is insufficient time to complete construction prior to March 1, the following

options are available:

1. The temporary structure may remain in place and construction may be

postponed until the following non-nesting season. If this option is elected, the

temporary structure may be fortified to ensure its effectiveness. Any

modifications to temporary structures prior to their permanent replacement

shall require the approval of the Coastal Engineer. All protective measures

for sea turtles related to the fortification of temporary structures, as applicable,

shall be the same as those described for the removal of temporary structures

(see Section 9.5 above).

2. Construction may commence during the non-nesting season and continue into

the nesting season provided a nest monitoring and marking program is in

place as described in Section 9.3 of this HCP. However, during installation of

permanent armoring, nests may not be relocated due to construction activities,

as allowed during construction or removal of temporary structures in the

absence of a FDEP permit. All new nests deposited within the project area

shall be marked and avoided in accordance with procedures described in

Section 11.2.4.3.2 of this HCP. Construction must be conducted in a manner

that does not encroach on or impact these marked nests.

A copy of all FDEP permits issued for shoreline protection pursuant to this HCP shall be

provided to the Coastal Engineer. Upon issuance of a FDEP permit, the HCP

Coordinator shall consult with affected property owners. Through written notice or other

means, the HCP Coordinator shall ensure that property owners clearly understand HCP

requirements related to construction activities during the nesting season. In particular,

they will be advised that nests within a project area could effectively delay or exclude


110

certain activities, thereby resulting in additional construction costs. This dialogue is

intended to ensure that construction activities initiated during the non-nesting season are

completed in a timely manner and, in those cases where a FDEP permit is issued late in

the non-nesting season, to initiate thoughtful consideration as to whether or not

construction should be postponed until after the next nesting season.

All activities associated with the installation of permanent structures shall conform to the

conditions and requirements of the FDEP permit issued for such activities. Any

discrepancies regarding the timing of construction and/or protective measures for sea

turtles between the FDEP permit and this HCP shall be brought to the immediate

attention of the HCP Coordinator. Until such time as those discrepancies are resolved, no

construction authorized by the FDEP permit may occur.

In addition to the ongoing, standardized, Countywide sea turtle monitoring program,

more detailed data will be collected at the site of any permanent shoreline protection

structure installed as the result of the County’s emergency authorization for at least two

complete nesting seasons or until a beach nourishment project is constructed at the site,

whichever occurs first. Specific data to be collected at these project sites is itemized in

Section 11.2.4.4 of this HCP.

9.8 Implementation of Beach Preservation Plan

Implementation of the County’s BPP will serve as de facto minimization, because it will

provide shoreline protection for upland properties and thereby limit the number of

Emergency Permits that must be issued. However, planned beach nourishment projects

will be governed under separate Federal permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and

therefore are not offered as a formal minimization measure under this HCP.


111

10.0 MITIGATION

Section 7.0 of this HCP provided the rationale and methods for estimating the amount of

take that may occur over the 30-year life of the County’s ITP. The County took a

conservative approach in estimating take by assuming that every emergency shoreline

protection permit it issues will result in the installation of a permanent armoring structure.

Furthermore, it assumed that all of the Eemergency Ppermits would be issued during the

first year that the ITP is in effect. Using this conservative approach, it is estimated that

1,150 loggerhead, 56 green, and 3 leatherback nests will be displaced due to the presence

of armoring structures during the period that the ITP is in effect (Tables 1113, 13 15 and

15)17).

Below, the County describes mitigation programs that have been developed to provide

conservation benefits to sea turtles in excess of the amount of take projected to occur

over the life of the ITP. In addition to these quantifiable benefits, the County has also

proposed standardization of existing sea turtle monitoring programs, expansion of

monitoring into areas not previously or routinely surveyed, and consolidation of nesting

data into a Countywide database (See Section 11.2 of this HCP). Although these

programs will not directly result in a minimization or mitigation of the number of turtles

and/or nests impacted by various activities on or near the beach, it will provide the

information needed to develop and implement programs that will. Additionally, the

County has committed to improving its existing light management program for

unincorporated portions of the County (See Section 11.5 of this HCP).

In calculating the benefits of quantifiable mitigation measures (public acquisition of sea

turtle nesting habitat and predator control), best available scientific information was

utilized. In those cases where available data were inadequate to fully support the

analyses, certain assumptions were required. These assumptions, some of which are

necessarily arbitrary, are clearly identified.

10.1 Acquisition of Beachfront Property

Between 1996 and 1998, Indian River County cost-shared (50 percent) in the purchase of

several parcels of land through Florida’s Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL)

acquisition program. The purchase price was approximately 13.2 million dollars.

Collectively, the land referred to as the Jungle Trail Conservation Area encompasses 110

acres of barrier island habitat between the Indian River Lagoon and the Atlantic Ocean

just north of the town of Indian River Shores (Figure 3; Appendix G). Seventeen (17) of

these acres front the beach and comprise about 1,500 linear feet of shoreline. Although

the State holds title to the land, the County is responsible for its management.

The CARL property was purchased and is managed primarily for conservation and

passive recreation. The property includes maritime hammock and coastal strand

vegetation, two sensitive and increasingly rare plant communities along Florida’s east

coast. The beach adjacent to the property (Baytree, Sea Oaks, & Surrounding Areas;


112

Table 4) supports some of the highest sea turtle nesting densities in Indian River County

(approximately 305 nests/mile). On average, it is estimated that 78.5 loggerhead, 7.7

green, and 0.4 leatherback turtle nests per year are deposited on the beaches fronting the

CARL property. The Federal recovery plans for both the Atlantic loggerhead and

Atlantic green turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1991a and b) rank the acquisition of nesting

beaches between Melbourne and Wabasso Beach, Florida as a number one priority. The

CARL property lies within that section of coastline. A number one ranking in the

recovery plan identifies “an action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent

the species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future.”

The purchase of the CARL property ensures that no private development can occur there,

and thus it eliminates potential impacts to sea turtles associated with human habitation

adjacent to nesting beaches. Public access is limited to one small parking lot and a single

dune crossover, and access is limited to daylight hours only. The nearest adjacent public

access is more than one mile away. There are no plans for expanding public facilities

(restrooms, parking, etc.) at the park.

The CARL property is in an area zoned for single and multi-family (i.e., condominiums)

residential development. If the property were fully developed, the two principal impacts

to sea turtles would be human disturbances to nesting females and artificial lighting

impacts to both nesting females and hatchlings.

People residing on oceanfront property frequently walk on the beach at night. Many

times this activity is undertaken specifically to observe nesting sea turtles. In a

comparable area in south Brevard County, Johnson et al. (1996) encountered as many as

80 people a night on a 1.86-mile section of beach.

Turtles encountered on the beach at night prior to commencement of oviposition (egg

laying) are easily frightened back into the ocean (Murphy 1985, Witherington 1992).

Hailman and Elowson (1992) estimated that a loggerhead spends, on average, 66.7

minutes on the beach prior to, during, and following oviposition. Of that, 25.7 minutes

(38.4 percent) are spent as the turtle ascends the beach and selects a nesting site.

Johnson et al. (1996) arrived at a similar estimate (40.6 percent) for turtles on south

Brevard County Beaches.

Sea turtle nesting occurs almost exclusively at night. During the nesting season in south

Florida nightfall occurs around 9:00 PM and sunrise about 6:00 AM. Thus, turtles may

be encountered over a 9-hour period. However, the majority of humans on the beach at

night typically depart by midnight. Thus, assuming that nesting is evenly distributed

throughout the night, the potential for human/turtle interactions is primarily limited to

one third (3 out of 9 hours) of all emergences (crawls). At the CARL property, this

equates to 25.9 loggerhead, 2.6 green, and an insignificant number of leatherback turtles

per year. Assuming (arbitrarily) that one half of these turtles are intercepted by humans

at some point during their nesting activity and that there is a 38.4 percent chance of

encountering the turtle prior to oviposition (Hailman and Elowson’s 1992 estimate), an

average of 5.0 loggerhead turtles and 0.5 green turtles per year would be encountered


113

prior to oviposition. Assuming human interaction, these turtles would in all likelihood

abandon their nesting attempt and would deposit their eggs at another time and/or place.

Thus, analogous to the effects of armoring structures, human encounters with sea turtles

on the beach fronting the CARL property would result in the displacement of 150

loggerhead, 15 green, and less than one leatherback turtle nests over the 30-year life of

the ITP.

In addition to substantially reducing the potential for human disturbances to sea turtles,

the acquisition of the CARL property will eliminate the potential for lighting impacts

along that stretch of beach. Artificial beachfront lighting deters adult female turtles from

coming ashore to nest and interferes with the natural ability of hatchling sea turtles to

properly orient to the ocean after leaving the nest (Witherington and Martin 2000). The

survivorship of hatchlings deprived of a direct and timely nest to sea migration is

reduced. Hatchlings drawn by artificial lighting into parking lots and onto roadways may

be killed outright. Those that wander aimlessly on the beach are more susceptible to

predation, use up valuable energy reserves, and may succumb to heat exhaustion.

There are no reliable empirical studies that quantify the benefits of light management

directly applicable to the Indian River County CARL property. However, an assessment

performed in the City of Fort Pierce, in neighboring St. Lucie County, provides an

illustrative example of the effects of artificial beachfront lighting. Ecological Associates,

Inc. (EAI, unpublished data) marked every sea turtle nest deposited along a 1.3-mile

section of renourished beach during the 2000 nesting season. This section of beach is

fronted primarily by single- and multi-family residences, although a few small

commercial establishments are present near the Ft. Pierce jetty were nesting activity is

very low. Thus, the land use in that portion of the Ft. Pierce study area where most

nesting occurs is similar to what might be expected on the CARL property if it were

developed.

Even though Ft. Pierce has adopted beachfront lighting regulations, hatchlings from 34 of

the 99 nests (34.3 percent) documented during 2000 were disoriented by artificial lights.

The average number of hatchlings disoriented per nest was 20.4. At the similarly zoned

CARL property, it is estimated that 78.5 loggerhead, 7.7 green, and 0.4 leatherback turtle

nests are deposited annually. If the property were developed in a manner similar to Ft.

Pierce and lighting affected hatchlings similarly, an average of 26.9 loggerhead, 2.6

green, and 0.15 leatherback turtle nests would be disoriented each year. Based on 20.4

hatchlings per disoriented nest, lighting would affect a total of 549 loggerhead, 53 green,

and 3 leatherback turtle hatchlings.

Loggerhead nests in southern Brevard County have a mean clutch size of 116 eggs and an

average emerging success (percentage of eggs that produce hatchlings which emerge

from the nest) of 63.6 percent (Ehrhart and Witherington 1987). Thus, each nest

produces, on average, 73.8 hatchlings. Therefore, the 549 disoriented loggerhead

hatchlings potentially disoriented each year at the CARL property represent 7.4 nest

equivalents. Projected over the 30-year life of the ITP, this equals 222 loggerhead nests.


114

Green turtles in southern Brevard County have an average clutch size of 132 eggs and an

average emerging success of 56.7 percent (Johnson 1994). On Hutchinson Island,

Florida, the average leatherback nest contains 75.7 yolked eggs, and the average

emerging success is 50.3 percent (Ecological Associates, Inc., unpublished data).

Applying the same analysis as was used above for loggerhead turtles, the 53 green and 3

leatherback turtle hatchlings potentially disoriented each year at the CARL property

represent 0.7 and 0.1 nest equivalents, respectively. Thus, by extension, the acquisition

and management of the CARL property will has the potential to protect 21 green and 3

leatherback turtle nests from lighting impacts over the 30-year life of the ITP.

In a study conducted to assess the affects effects of artificial lighting on sea turtle nesting

behavior, lights were placed near the beach and the numbers of nests deposited each night

were compared between illuminated and adjacent dark sections of beach (Witherington

1992). Lights reduced nesting by 54.3 percent for loggerheads and 41.4 percent for green

turtles. Thus, if the CARL property was developed in the absence of an effective light

management program, it could result in a reduction of 42.6 loggerhead and 3.2 green

turtle nests per year. Although no empirical data are available to assess lighting impacts

on adult leatherbacks, effects are likely similar to those documented for the other two

species. Using the most conservative of these (41.4 percent), lighting at the CARL

property could result in a reduction of 0.2 leatherback nests per year. Thus, similar to the

affects effects of armoring and human disturbance, as many as 1,278 loggerhead, 96

green, and 6 leatherback turtle nests could be displaced over the 30-year life of the ITP

because of artificial lighting associated with the development of the CARL property.

Although the analysis presented above is based on best available information, some of the

assumptions used are necessarily arbitrary. It could be argued that the data pertaining to

lighting effects on adult turtles is not directly applicable to a “traditional” residential

setting, or that if the property were developed, some of the beachfront residents would

comply with lighting regulations (thereby reducing lighting impacts), or that human

disturbances on the beach would be less disruptive than estimated. In consideration of

these factors, the County has equitably reduced the estimated amount of benefits

attributed to the CARL property by 50 percent.

The CARL property has not previously been used to satisfy the mitigation requirements

of any other ITP nor has it been used as part of a project description or voluntary

conservation recommendation in an ESA Section 7 consultation for another Federal

action.

10.2 Predator Control

Some of the highest nesting densities in Indian River County occur in the primarily

undeveloped regions at the northern end of the County (Figure 67). Sea turtle

reproductive success in natural areas is frequently reduced by a variety of animals that

prey upon eggs and hatchlings. Raccoons, coyotes, foxes, feral pigs and armadillos cause

considerable damage to turtle nests in various areas of east central and south Florida

(Ehrhart and Witherington 1987). Along a 5.8-mile section of beach (Wabasso Beach)


115


116

south of the Sebastian Inlet State Recreation AreaPark, including portions of the Archie

Carr National Wildlife Refuge, predators destroyed 14.8 percent of all nests (all species

combined) deposited during 1999 (Paul Tritaik, Manager, Pelican Island and ACNWR,

unpublished data). Based on average nesting densities for Wabasso Beach, this equatesd

to approximately 354.2 loggerhead, 14.3 green, and 0.5 leatherback turtle nests per year

(Table 1820).

Successful predator control programs have been implemented in other wildlife refuges

with moderate to high success. Trapping and selective culling of predators are the most

effective methods. In the Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge and contiguous St.

Lucie Inlet State Preserve in Martin County, Florida, predators partially or completely

destroyed 48.4 percent of all sea turtle nests during 1998 (Engeman et. al In Preparation).

Since then, a professional trapper, specifically targeting raccoons and armadillos

responsible for raiding nests, reduced overall predation rates to 27.7 percent. Thus, an

effective predator removal program reduced the number of nests destroyed between 1998

and 2000 by 42.8 percent.

If a comparable predator control program were implemented in the entire 5.8-mile extent

of the Wabasso Beach area, an average of 151.6 loggerhead, 6.1 green, and 0.2

leatherback turtle nests might be saved each year (Table 1820). However, the County’s

predator control program offered for mitigation cannot supplant a similar program

planned for federally managed lands within the Refuge. Within the 5.8-mile area, 0.6

miles, or about 10.3 percent, are managed by the federal government (see Section 3.3.3 of

this HCP, Tables 1 and 2); the County is legally responsible for managing the remaining

public lands. Therefore, only 89.7 percent (non-federal lands) of the benefit can be

applied. Nevertheless, over the 30-year life of the ITP, the County’s proposed predator

control program will increase hatchling productivity by saving approximately 4,080

loggerhead, 165 green, and 6 leatherback turtle nests (Table 1820).

10.3 Cumulative Benefits

Collectively, the mitigation benefits identified above total 4,905 loggerhead, 231 green,

and 11 leatherback turtle nests (Table 1921). Thus, the County proposes to mitigate the

destruction and/or displacement of turtle nests caused by emergency shoreline protection

activities at the ratio of about 4:1 for both loggerhead and green turtles and 3.6:1 for

leatherbacks. Considering that the estimates of nest displacement due to shoreline

armoring are very conservative (i.e. all Eemergency Ppermits will result in permanent

armoring installations during the first year that the ITP is in effect), the mitigation

described above provides conservation benefits substantially outweighing any impacts

likely to occur as a result of issuance of the ITP. Furthermore, the take being mitigated

is, for the most part, related to nest displacement, a non-lethal form of take, whereas the

proposed mitigation measures largely reduce lethal take.


117

Table 1820

Mitigation Benefits of a Predator Control Program Within and Adjacent to

The Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge

Survey

Area

Length

(miles)

Average Annual Nests Per

Mile Total Annual Nests2

CC1 CM DC CC CM DC

Wabasso

Beach

North

2.44 573.3 15.4 0.3 1,398.9 37.6 0.7

Wabasso

Beach

Middle

2.60 319.5 20.4 0.9 830.7 53.0 2.3

Wabasso

Beach

South

0.77 212.2 7.4 0.7 163.4 5.7 0.5

Total

For All

of

Wabasso

Beach

5.81 411.9 16.6 0.6 2,393.0 96.3 3.5

Number of Nests Currently Depredated Each Year

in Wabasso Beach32 354.2 14.3 0.5

Number of Nests Depredated Annually in Wabasso

Beach With Predator Control Program43 202.6 8.2 0.3

Number of Nests Saved Annually in Wabasso

Beach With Predator Control Program 151.6 6.1 0.2

Number of Nests Saved Annually on Non-federally

Managed Lands in Wabasso Beach54 136.0 5.5 0.2

Total Number of Nests Saved on Non-federally

Managed Lands in Wabasso Beach Over 30

years

4,080 165 6

1 CC = Loggerhead, CM = Green, and DC = Leatherback 2 Numbers based on best available data at the time the original HCP was prepared. 32 Based on 14.8 percent depredation rate reported in 1999 for that portion of the Refuge

south of SISRASISP 43 Based on a 42.8 percent reduction in depredation following implementation of an

effective predator control program 54 10.3 percent of land within the ACNWR is federally managed and cannot be included

in calculations of mitigation benefits


118

Table 1921

Summary of Nest Equivalents for Mitigation Measures

Proposed by Indian River County to Offset Potential Impacts to Sea Turtles

Resulting From Emergency Shoreline Protection Measures Initiated Under

Emergency Authorization1

Mitigation Effort SPECIES


Reduce Potential for Human Interactions

Through Acquisition of CARL Property21 75.0 7.5 0.4

Eliminate Lighting Impacts on Hatchlings

Through Acquisition of CARL Property1 111.0 10.5 1.5

Eliminate Lighting Impacts on Nesting

Turtles Through Acquisition of CARL

Property1

639.0 48.0 3.0

Protect Nests Through Predator Control 4,080.0 165.0 6.0

TOTAL MITIGATION BENEFITS 4,905.0 231.0 10.9

NEST DISPLACEMENT DUE TO

EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES 1,149.8 56.0 3.0

COST/BENEFIT RATIO 4.3:1.0 4.1:1.0 3.6:1.0 1 Based on existing conditions at the time the original HCP was prepared. 21 Only applies one-half of the estimated benefit.


119

11.0 PROTECTED SPECIES MANAGEMENT

11.1 Biological Goal

The beaches of Indian River County provide important nesting habitat for three species of

sea turtles. It is the intent of this HCP to facilitate State and Federal recovery efforts for

sea turtles by improving the productivity of the County’s beaches as nesting habitat. This

will be accomplished through the following programs, as described below and elsewhere

within the HCP:

Countywide sea turtle nesting survey to document temporal and spatial

nesting patterns and identify factors reducing hatchling productivity (e.g.,

artificial lighting, predation, erosion, etc.);

Management of a Countywide database so available resources can be

effectively directed to alleviate those conditions that are having the greatest

adverse impact on hatchling productivity;

Permitting and regulation of emergency shoreline protection projects to

minimize impacts to sea turtles; and

Predator control and light management.

11.2 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program

At presentPrior to implementation of the HCP, monitoring for sea turtle nesting in Indian

River County wasis performed under the auspices of four separate jurisdictional entities.

Monitoring objectives, data collection methodologies, and reporting variedy among

survey areas. Furthermore, there wereare sections of the County’s shoreline where

routine monitoring wasis not currently routinely performed, despite the fact that theose

areas are were in close proximity to some of the most densely nested beaches in the

western Hemisphere. Federal Recovery Plans for both loggerhead and green turtles

recognize the need to monitor trends in nesting activity through standardized surveys

(NMFS and USFWS 1991a and 1991b). Consequently, under this HCP, the County

committed towill coordinateding the efforts of existing monitoring groups and will

expandexpanding monitoring efforts into those areas where no systematic program is

currently in placepreviously existed. All sea turtle monitoring activities will be

conducted in accordance with the FWC Marine Turtle Conservation

GuidelinesHandbook, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the ITP (see Section

9.2 of this HCP).

11.2.1 Current Historic Survey Areas

Prior to 2000, there were three areas of County beaches where routine sea turtle

monitoring was performed: Sebastian Inlet State Recreation AreaPark (SISRASISP),

beaches within and adjacent to the ACNWR (Wabasso Beach), and the City of Vero

Beach (Table 205; Figure 78). Collectively, these survey areas comprised approximately


120

12.3 miles or about 55 percent of Indian River County’s coastline. Beginning in 2000,

the Town of Indian River Shores began monitoring its beaches for sea turtle nesting in

accordance with conditions attached to a FDEP permit that allowed for the use of public

safety vehicles on the beach. This placed an additional 5.1 miles or 23 percent of the

County’s beaches under surveillance. This left a 0.7-mile stretch of beach between

Wabasso Beach and the Town of Indian River Shores and a 4.2-mile section between

Vero Beach and the south County line unsurveyed. Collectively, these two areas

comprised about 22 percent of County beaches.


121


122

11.2.2 Expanded Survey Coverage

At presentPrior to the HCP, nearly a quarter of the County’s beaches wereare not

routinely surveyed. Additionally, FDEP-required monitoring in Indian River Shores

wasis linked to the usage of a dune ramp that provideds beach access for motorized

vehicles utilized for routine beach patrols and emergency operations. The Town iwass

only required to perform sea turtle monitoring when the ramp wasis in use. Thus, there

wasis no guarantee that monitoring will would continue uninterrupted over the 30-year

life of the County’s ITP.

To ensure complete and uninterrupted monitoring of the entire coastline in support of

Indian River County’s emergency shoreline protection program, the County proposeds to

expand monitoring to beaches that are were not currently routinely surveyed. This would

create two new survey areas, one from the south end of Wabasso Beach to the north

Town Limit of Indian River Shores and the other from the south City Limit of Vero

Beach to the Indian River/St. Lucie County Line (Figure 7; Table 20). Thus, the County

would be responsible for monitoring 4.92 miles of beach, or about 23 percent of the

County’s shoreline. This would increased to 9.97 miles, or about 45 percent of the

County’s shoreline,if and when the Town of Indian River Shores discontinueds its

currentmonitoring program. By extending daily nesting surveys into areas not previously

monitored, the County will also improved surveillance of beaches for stranded turtles as

part of Florida’s Sea Turtle Stranding & Salvage Network, a responsibility of all MTPHs

in the State.

Following implementation of the HCP, the County began coordinating a comprehensive

and unified sea turtle monitoring program encompassing the entire 22.4 miles of beaches

within the Plan Area. Six management areas were established: SISP, ACNWR, Disney,

IRS, Vero, and South County Beaches (Table 7; Figure 9). Each area is surveyed by a

different MTPH and the data is compiled by the County to meet its responsibilities under

the HCP and ITP, as described in Section 17 of this HCP. These management areas

allow the collection of requisite HCP data while accommodating the research and

monitoring needs of the individual MTPHs.

The management areas identified above overlap multiple beach sectors outlined in the

County’s BPP, and thus, periodically require special monitoring activities to comply with

State and Federal permits issued for beach nourishment and dune restoration projects. In

some cases, the MTPH within whose management area the project is located may

conduct the monitoring, while in other instances, a separate group may be contracted to

conduct the work. The County will assign responsibilities for monitoring these beach


123


124

projects annually at an HCP summary meeting. In those instances when another MTPH

is brought into an existing MTPH’s management area to conduct monitoring in support of

a County or Sebastian Inlet District beach nourishment, dune restoration, or sand bypass

project, the County will carefully coordinate monitoring activities between the two permit

holders to ensure that all requisite project data are collected in a manner that does not

interfere with HCP data collection or other unique research or public awareness programs

routinely conducted by the MTPH responsible for that particular management area.

11.2.3 Coordination of Monitoring Activities

Sea turtles know no jurisdictional boundaries. A systematic program to protect sea turtles

and enhance their nesting habitat throughout Indian River County is predicated on

reliable scientific information obtained through a coordinated monitoring effort. It is not

the County’s intent to supplant existing programs conducted by other agencies but rather

to: (a) augment those programs with logistical support, where needed; (b) expand

monitoring into areas not presently surveyed; and (c) standardize monitoring activities

among groups to ensure that the County can fulfill its objectives and obligations under

this HCP and the ITP.

Within 60 days of issuance of the ITP, the County will meet with the State’s MTPHs

Principal Permit Holders (previously Principal Permit Holders or PPHs; see Section 12.3

of this HCP) in Indian River County and FWC staff to review current monitoring

objectives and develop a standardized monitoring program. To the greatest extent

practicable, the County will incorporate the monitoring objectives of existing programs

into the new program. The standardized monitoring program, as detailed in Section

11.2.4 below, will consist of the following principal components:

Uniform survey area boundary markers to allow segregation of nesting data

by current survey areas, FDEP monuments, planned beach nourishment

project areas, areas of critical erosion, and/or other coastal features as may be

deemed appropriate;

Uniform field data sheets and data recording methodology to facilitate data

entry into a Countywide database;

Standardized nest marking and monitoring;

Consistent methodology for marking and monitoring construction areas,

buffer zones, equipment access points, and/or equipment travel corridors, as

applicable, at emergency shoreline protection project sites; and

Effective lines of communication between the PPHs MTPHs and the HCP

Coordinator for the efficient and timely transfer of data and information

pursuant to implementation of this HCP.

The County will coordinate its monitoring program with the Florida Marine Research

Institute Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI)(FMRI). To the extent

practicable, survey boundaries and data collection techniques will be adapted to provide

the type of information needed to compliment FWMRI’s on-going investigations into the

effects of armoring structures on sea turtle nesting and reproductive success.


125

11.2.4 Description of Monitoring Activities

The standardized Countywide monitoring program will consist of: (a) daily nesting

surveys; (b) nest marking and monitoring; (c) documentation of natural and

anthropogenic impacts to sea turtle nests, adults and hatchlings; and (d) estimations of

hatchling productivity.

11.2.4.1 Daily Surveys

The entire 22.4 22.25 miles of the County’s coastline will be partitioned into individual

survey segments that will be conspicuously marked with standard posts and/or signs

developed, purchased/constructed, and deployed by the County. By recording nesting

information by discrete survey segments, the County will be better able to:

Isolate natural and/or anthropogenic factors affecting hatchling productivity;

Assess the probability of nests being present in the general vicinity of a site

for which an Emergency Permit has been requested; and

Assess the effects of seawalls and other coastal features on nesting and

reproductive success.

Additionally, the information and data collected through the sea turtle monitoring

program will be an integral complement to engineering and other types of monitoring

activities needed to support the County’s Beach Preservation Plan.

Daily monitoring will commence each year on March 1 and will continue uninterrupted

through September 30. Thereafter, monitoring will continue at a schedule deemed

appropriate by the PMTPH until the last marked nest has hatched.

Monitoring will commence each day at or shortly after sunrise. The surveys will be

conducted on foot or by all-terrain vehicle (ATV) or similar vehicle having wide, low-

pressure tires, unless otherwise authorized by FWC. The numbers of nesting and non-

nesting emergences (crawls) will be enumerated by species within each marked survey

segment. Unless otherwise stipulated in this HCP, crawl interpretation and all other

aspects of monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the most recent FWC

guidelines.

When human interactions with nesting or hatchling sea turtles are recorded during daily

monitoring nesting surveys, FWC law enforcement is notified immediately. To reduce

human impacts, MTPHs are instructed to educate beachgoers whenever they witness an

activity that could pose a risk to sea turtles. The County is also training lifeguards to

answer beachgoer questions and inform guests about activities that impact sea turtles on

County Beaches.


126

11.2.4.2 Documenting Impacts to Nesting Turtles and Hatchlings

If during the course of daily nesting surveys, there is any evidence of impacts to sea

nesting turtles at any life stage, the nature of the incident will be recorded on the field

data sheet. Impacts include but are not limited to:

Turtles contacting or being stuck in recreational beach furniture or equipment;

Turtles contacting or being trapped by armoring structures;

Turtles disoriented by artificial light;

Turtles prevented or impeded from nesting because of coastal construction

activities

Turtles prevented or impeded from nesting because of debris; and

Turtles impeded from reaching otherwise suitable nesting areas because of

escarpments on the beach.

11.2.4.3 Marking and Monitoring Nests

There will be sixfour primary reasons for marking nests along County beaches:

1. To note the location of nests high on the beach in critically eroded survey

areas (i.e., sentinel nests) as a means of assessing the extent of available

nesting habitat should an emergency shoreline protection project be initiated,

2. To create a protective barrier around in-situ nests in emergency shoreline

protection project areas and other areas of concern,

3. To determine nest fate for all nests inside and a representative sample of nests

outside the boundaries of emergency shoreline protection projects, and

4. To determine reproductive success for all nests inside and a representative

sample of nests outside the boundaries of emergency shoreline protection

projects.

5. To support public educational programs authorized by the FWC, and

6. To conduct FWC-authorized research to benefit the management of nesting

females, incubating nests, and hatchlings.

11.2.4.3.1 Nests in High Risk Areas

The County’s Coastal Engineer will prepare a list of critically eroded areas along the

County’s coastline. These areas will comprise some of the marked survey segments. The

list will be furnished to each PMTPH involved in the monitoring program. Each day that

the nesting survey is performed, personnel will mark any nest deposited at or landward of

the toe of dune on developed property in these designated areas, unless a permanent

armoring structure is already present. These sentinel nests will be considered to be in a

hazardous area and will be marked in accordance with FWC guidelines or as otherwise

agreed to by the HCP Coordinator and the PMTPHs.

The County will obtain GPS location data for all sentinel nests to allow the

reestablishment of nest barriers should they be vandalized. Should a sentinel nest barrier


127

be lost due to factors other than erosion, the PMTPH will contact the County and

collectively, the nest barrier will be reestablished using stored GPS location data.

In addition to those nests marked in support of emergency construction projects, nests in

other high-risk areas may be marked as a conservation practice. This may include nests

at the base of dune walkover stairs, high pedestrian traffic areas, areas used for

recreational digging, and areas to be avoided during State and/or federally-approved

construction projects, etc.

11.2.4.3.2 Nests in Emergency Construction Zones

At those locations where an emergency shoreline protection project has been initiated, the

Coastal Engineer and appropriate PMTPH will visit the site prior to construction and

assess the suitability of nesting habitat. If any marked sentinel nests are present (see

Section 9.2 of this HCP), the Coastal Engineer will make a determination as to whether

or not the nests are likely to interfere with authorized construction activities. If the nests

cannot be safely left in place, they will be relocated to a nearby in-beach location. All

activities associated with the relocation of eggs from a project shall be performed in

accordance with the most current FWC guidelines, with the following exceptions:

Nests can be relocated because of construction activities; and

Sentinel nests can be moved at any time during their incubation period.

Nests that can be safely left in place will be surrounded by a series of stakes having a

radius of at least 10 feet around the clutch. The stakes will be connected with brightly

colored surveyor’s tape. The County may develop alternative methods of marking in situ

nests, as long as the barriers are conspicuous and provide an equivalent buffer around the

clutch.

The Coastal Engineer in consultation with the PMTPH will mark the construction site,

buffer zones, equipment access point, and equipment travel corridor, as applicable (see

Section 9.3 of this HCP). Any new nests laid in the project area during the period of

construction will be evaluated to determine if they should be relocated or left in place.

Those left in-situ will be barricaded as indicated above.

11.2.4.3.3 Nests Used to Monitor Nest Fate in Emergency

Construction Areas

Following construction, all nests deposited in emergency shoreline protection project

areas will be marked and monitored in situ to determine nest fate and/or reproductive

success. Additionally, the County will mark a representative sample of in situ nests

outside of the project area for this purpose throughout those survey segments for which it

has monitoring responsibility. The County will also encourage PMTPHs to do the same

within their respective survey areas. This will be in addition to the required marking of

all sentinel nests. The HCP Coordinator will assist the PMTPHs in developing a method


128

for selecting a representative sample of non-sentinel nests outside of emergency shoreline

protection project area boundaries.

Nests used to monitor nest fate will provide the County with general information

regarding the percentage of nests washed out or depredated, while those used to monitor

reproductive success will provide a gauge of hatchling productivity. The clutch for each

nest used to monitor nest fate will be marked in a manner mutually agreed upon by the

HCP Coordinator and PMTPHs. If a nest is marked to determine nest fate only and not

reproductive success, the clutch does not have to be located; its location only has to be

approximated. Nest fate will be assigned to one of the following categories:

Hatched, as evidenced by hatchling tracks emerging from the nest barrier;

Depredated, as evidenced by an exposed egg chamber and broken eggs;

Washed out, as evidenced by the loss of all nest stakes following a period of

excessive wave overwash during high tides;

Vandalized/poached, as evidenced by the loss of nest stakes in the absence of

overwash during high tides or signs of nest tampering; or

Unknown (no apparent damage to the nest or nest barrier, but no signs of

hatchling emergence).

If hatchling emergence is noted at a marked nest used to monitor nest fate, the following

information will be recorded, as applicable:

Date of first hatchling emergence (used to calculate incubation period);

Hatchlings safely reached the ocean;

Signs of Hhatchlings disorientedation;

Hatchlings impeded in reaching the ocean because of debris or obstacles; and

Nest scavenged after hatching, as evidenced by exposed egg chamber and

scattered egg shells.

Whenever hatchling disorientation is documented, whether at a marked or unmarked nest

site, monitoring personnel will complete a standard FWC disorientation reporting form.

A copy of the form will be provided to the HCP Coordinator.

11.2.4.3.4 Nests Used to Monitor Reproductive Success

Nests used to monitor reproductive success will be marked in a manner slightly different

than identical to those used only to monitor nest fate., with the exception thatThe

location of the clutch will first be determined following the most current FWC guidelines.

One of the stakes used to mark the nest site will then be placed a known distance from the

clutch, and this information recorded on the field data sheet. Additionally, to assist in

locating the clutch when there are no signs of hatchling emergence, an additional stake(s)

will be hidden in the dune a known distance from the clutch.

All nests used to monitor nest fate during an emergency shoreline protection project in

areas of the beach surveyed by the County will also be excavated to determine


129

reproductive success. The County will encourage other PPHMTPHs to do the same. All

nests relocated from emergency shoreline protection project areas must be marked and

monitored to determine reproductive success, regardless of which survey segment they

occur in.

Nests marked for reproductive success will be excavated and nest contents interpreted in

accordance with the most recent FWC guidelines. All related data will be entered on

special field data sheets developed and provided to the PMTPHs by the HCP

Coordinator. Data collected during nest excavations will be assigned to one of the

following categories:

Buried – Sand accretion over nest;

Could Not Evaluate – Nest incubated for a period of 70 days or greater with

no evidence of hatchling emergence but was washed out or scavenged prior to

excavation, the wrong clutch was inadvertently marked, or stakes were

damaged and nest site was lost prior to excavation;

Could Not Locate Clutch – Clutch not located at time of initial nest marking

and no subsequent signs of hatchling emergence observed;

Depredated (Partial or Complete) – Clutch partially or completely destroyed

by predators prior to incubating full term;

Did Not Hatch – No evidence of hatchling emergence, as no eggs hatched;

Hatched – Evidence of hatchling emergence observed;

Hatched but Clutch Not Located – Evidence of hatchling emergence observed,

but clutch not located at time of excavation;

Hatched but Not Analyzed – Evidence of hatchling emergence observed, but

not included in analyses of hatching or emerging success due to unreliable

data (nest was excavated early, its contents were washed out prior to

excavation, contents were too decomposed to accurately interpret, or its

location was lost i.e. when nest stakes were inadvertently removed or

disturbed). Used in analyses of incubation period;

Hatchling Emergence Not Observed – No evidence of hatchling emergence

observed even though some eggs hatched;

Nested on by Another Turtle – New nest placed on or very near a marked nest,

making it difficult to separate the two clutches;

Poached – Evidence of human tampering or removal of eggs from nest;

Scavenged – Clutch disturbed by predator during/after hatchling emergence,

but before nest was excavated;

Washed Out (Partial or Complete) – Clutch partially or completely destroyed

by wave or tidal action;

Vandalized – Nest barrier removed by humans; or

Unreliable Data – No evidence of hatchling emergence and nest contents too

decomposed to enumerate.


130

11.2.4.3.5 Nests Monitored for Conservation

Nests deposited in areas of concern will be marked and monitored in situ to avoid

potential disturbances. The County will also encourage MTPHs to do the same within

their respective survey areas. The clutch will not need to be located for these nests;

however, the entire nest mound will be barricaded.

11.2.4.3.6 Nests Used for Public Education

If authorized by the FWC, a MTPH may mark nests for public outreach and education

purposes. The County will coordinate with the MTPH to ensure that these nests will not

interfere with normal data collection activities conducted in support of the HCP. Nests

marked for education will be excavated and the nest contents interpreted as outlined

above for nests marked for reproductive success.

11.2.4.3.7 Nests Used for Scientific Research

If authorized by the FWC, a MTPH may mark nests for scientific research purposes. The

County will coordinate with the MTPH to ensure that these nests will not interfere with

normal data collection activities conducted in support of the HCP.

11.2.4.4 Monitoring of Temporary and Permanent Structures

Monitoring of emergency shoreline protection project areas shall be performed by the

appropriate PMTPHs in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Sections 9.3 through

9.6 of this HCP. Any evidence of impacts to turtles associated with the project will be

adequately documented and furnished to the HCP Coordinator.

If a permanent shoreline protection structure is installed as the result of measures initiated

under the County’s emergency authorization, monitoring of the site shall be conducted

for at least two nesting seasons following its installation or until a beach nourishment

project is constructed at the site, whichever occurs first. All nests deposited in the project

area during that period shall be marked and monitored. Data to be recorded include, but

are not limited to the following:

Number of nests and false crawls by date and species;

The number of crawls contacting the structure and the resulting outcome for

each (e.g., false crawl, nested along the edge of the structure, nested outside

the project areas, wandered along the structure before nesting, etc.); and

Nest fate and reproductive success for each nest deposited in the project area.

11.2.5 Monitoring Responsibilities

Upon issuance of the ITP, monitoring responsibilities will initially remain unchanged

from those currently in effect, with the exception that the County will expand monitoring

into all areas not presently surveyed and will assume monitoring responsibilities in Indian


131

River Shores if and when the Town terminates its current program (Table 207). Over the

30-year life of the ITP, monitoring responsibilities may be shifted among PMTPHs if

deemed mutually beneficial to the parties involved. For example, the County may elect

to assume monitoring in the Town of Indian River Shores prior to the Town’s termination

of its current program or in other areas currently surveyed by government agencies.

Monitoring responsibilities will be coordinated annually at an HCP summary meeting

that must be attended by all MTPHs within the Plan Area. However, there are presently

no plans for such transitions. Ultimately, it will be the County’s sole responsibility to

ensure that all 22.422.25 miles of the County’s coastline are monitored in accordance

with the provisions of this HCP. The County may enter into inter-local or interagency

agreements to fulfill this requirement.

11.2.6 Reporting

The PMTPHs will provide copies of all data collected under the new sea turtle program

to the HCP Coordinator. This information will be submitted daily, weekly, or as

otherwise mutually agreed to, provided that relevant data is transferred at a schedule that

permits the County to abide by the conditions of its ITP. Data to be provided include:

Copies of daily field data sheets;

Documentation of impacts associated with emergency shoreline protection

activities;

Documentation of impacts due to predation;

Documentation of impacts attributable to artificial lighting;

Documentation of stranded sea turtles found within Plan Area;

Inventories of marked nests;

Results of nest fate and/or reproductive success determinations; and

Monitoring results for sites where temporary and/or permanent shoreline

protection was installed as the result of a County-issued Emergency

Permit.

11.2.7 Organization of Monitoring Personnel

All sea turtle monitoring programs in Florida are conducted under the authority of the

FWC’s Bureau of Protected Species Management, which issues permits to qualified

individuals, firms and corporations to perform specific activities in support of the State’s

sea turtle protection programs. These individuals or organizations are referred to as

Principal Marine Turtle Permit Holders (MTPHs) (PPHs).

All personnel involved in monitoring activities germane to this HCP must be listed on a

Marine Turtle Permit issued by the FWC. These individuals will be under the sole

direction and management of the PPHMTPH on whose permit they are listed. The

PPHMTPH shall ensure that all listed personnel have sufficient training and practical

experience to conduct requisite monitoring activities in accordance with prevailing FWC

guidelines and/or requirements of this HCP.


132

A PPHMTPH may assign HCP responsibilities referenced within this HCP to other

individuals listed on his/her Marine Turtle Permit. It will be the responsibility of the

PPHMTPH to ensure that delegated responsibilities are effectively carried out. As used

throughout this HCP, actions requiring approval or consultation with sea turtle

monitoring personnel, shall mean the collective group of individuals listed on a Marine

Turtle Permit for the respective area within which the activity is being undertaken.

Any discrepancies between FWC guidelines and the HCP shall be brought to the

immediate attention of the HCP Coordinator. Until such time as those discrepancies are

resolved, procedures contained in this HCP shall prevail. The HCP Coordinator shall

communicate with the FWC, as necessary, to resolve conflicts between the State’s sea

turtle guidelines conservation handbook and HCP requirements.

Upon issuance of the ITP, all PPHMTPHs in Indian River County will be provided a

copy of the HCP. Within 60 days of issuance of the ITP, the HCP Coordinator will meet

with the PPHMTPHs and the FWC to review HCP programs and related monitoring

requirements. Thereafter, recurrent HCP training sessions will be held at a frequency

deemed appropriate by individual PPHMTPHs. PPHMTPHs will be notified in writing

of any substantive changes to monitoring requirements or procedures that may occur over

the life of the ITP.

In the event that a PPHMTPH is unable, or does not wish, to perform the monitoring

activities necessary for the County to successfully implement this HCP, the County will

obtain the services of another FWC-permitted individual. This may be accomplished

through the use of staff from municipal, County, State or Federal agencies, members of

non-profit organizations, unaffiliated volunteers, and/or professional contractors

possessing sufficient skills and practical experience to perform required monitoring

activities. The County will work cooperatively with the FWC to identify and select

alternative PPHMTPHs to ensure that both HCP and State monitoring objectives are

satisfied.

11.2.8 Initiation of Monitoring Activities and Coverage for Take

Indian River County will initiate its Countywide monitoring program within four (4)

months of issuance of the ITP or the first March 1 following issuance of the ITP,

whichever occurs later. Under this HCP, no Emergency Permits will be issued for

projects during the sea turtle nesting season unless a monitoring and nest marking

program, as described in Section 11.2.4.3.1 above, has been in effect at the affected

property for at least 65 days prior to the date that the Emergency Permit is requested or

since March 1, whichever period is shorter.

11.3 Data Management

Indian River County has developed a Beach Preservation Plan and will be issuing

Emergency Permits for shoreline protection pursuant to the terms and conditions of this

HCP and the ITP. Germane to these activities is the establishment of a County-wide sea

turtle database upon which sound beach management decisions can be based. Complete


133

and reliable data are needed to ensure that coastal projects are designed, constructed, and

maintained in a manner that minimizes impacts to sea turtles and enhances the quality of

nesting habitat on County beaches.

The County will receive data collected by various PPHMTPHs along its entire 22.422.25-

mile long coastline and enter this data into an Access or comparable electronic database.

Data will be compiled and analyzed in such a manner as to:

Depict temporal and spatial nesting patterns;

Depict temporal and spatial reproductive success patterns;

Identify areas of the County’s coastline where natural (e.g., predation and

erosion) and anthropogenic factors (e.g., artificial lighting, coastal

construction, etc.) are impacting hatchling productivity;

Maintain an inventory of new shoreline protection structures installed as the

result of the County’s emergency permitting program; and

Compare nest fate and reproductive success among survey segments affected

by emergency shoreline protection projects.

Based on the results of the above analyses, the County can work with its PPHMTPHs to

identify conservation methods for improving the productivity of the County’s beaches as

nesting habitat. To that end, the County will provide PPHMTPHs with maps, data

summaries and other relevant information needed to assist in their sea turtle management

activities. Additionally, all information germane to implementation of this HCP will be

tabulated and/or summarized for inclusion in an Annual Report furnished to the USFWS

each year (see Section 16 of this HCP).

11.4 Predator Control

The principal mitigation for the take of sea turtles causally related to shoreline protection

measures initiated under the County’s emergency authorization will be a predator control

program. The County will implement a professionally-managed predator control

program to increase hatchling productivity on non-Federal lands within the ACNWR and

on other publicly and privately held lands where predation is identified as a substantial

problem. The primary objective of the program will be to selectively remove raccoons

and other mammalsmammalian predators of sea turtle eggs and hatchlings from the

beachthat are preying upon sea turtle eggs.

A detailed Predator Control Plan (PCP) will be developed and submitted to the USFWS

for approval within 6 months of issuance of the ITP. The plan will be developed by the

County in consultation with the PPHMTPHs and their respective staffs at the SISRASISP

and ACNWR. Current and planned State and Federal predator control objectives will be

considered during formulation of the plan. To the extent practicable, resources and

personnel may be shared among agencies to reduce costs and increase efficiencies of

operation.


134

Predator control activities will be undertaken in accordance with federally accepted

practices and in conformance with applicable law. The majority of activities contained in

the PCP will take place at night on the beach proper between the mean high water line

and vegetated dune; however, some trapping may occur within the dune system. The

County will obtain consent of all private landowners upon whose property predator

control measures are deemed necessary, prior to initiation of any such activities. Insofar

as predators may travel considerable distances along the beach in search of food

(Engeman et al. In Preparation), it is not critical to obtain access consent from all private

landowners for the predator control program to be successful. A reduction in predator

pressure on one parcel is likely to reduce depredation of nests on adjacent properties.

The PCP will be implemented during the first full nesting season following its approval.

It will contain the following information:

Name(s) of individuals and/or agencies involved in the program;

Methods to be used for predator control;

Amount of time to be devoted each nesting season to predator control;

Maps showing locations where predator control will be implemented;

Quantifiable goal(s) of the PCP; and

Methods for determining if predator control objectives are being met.

Minimally, the goal of the PCP shall bewas to reduce predation rates over time within the

5.8-mile Wabasso Beach area by at least 40 percent below baseline levels over time.

Current Prior to 2005, predation rates in that area there are were estimated to be about 15

percent, and that was caused almost entirely by raccoons (P. Tritaik, Manager, Pelican

Island and ACNWR, unpublished data). This estimate will serveserved as the predation

baseline level until more information could be collected following HCP implementation.

ThereforeThus, based on best available information at the time the original HCP was

prepared, the County committed to reducing mammalian predation will ultimately have to

be reduced to nine (9) percent or less of all nests within the Wabasso Beach area to nine

(9) percent or less of all nests each year. The County must committed to meeting itsthat

targeted goal at the rate of at least 10 percent per year beginning with the first full year

that the PCP is was in effect. Thus, predation in the Wabasso Beach area must had to be

reduced to 40 percent of background levels by the fourth full year that the PCP is was in

effect, and this average rate of predation reduction must thereafterhad to be sustained

over the life of the ITP.

Based on HCP data collected from 2005-2016, the predation of sea turtle nests by

raccoons within the Plan Area was far less than originally estimated, and thus, the goal of

achieving a total annual predation rate of nine (9) percent or less within the first four

years of Plan implementation was met. Nevertheless, the County will continue its

predator control efforts, focusing not only on raccoons but also on coyotes and

domesticated dogs, which have more recently been documented to have an even greater

negative impact on sea turtle nests.

The 2008 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the ACNWR established a maximum

allowable depredation rate of five (5) percent or less each year after its first year. The


135

County will voluntarily adopt this threshold as part of its approved PCP with the goal of

maintaining rates of mammalian predation within each management area and throughout

the entire Plan Area to five (5) percent or less. If the County is unable to achieve

andmaintain an average annual rate of predation of five (5) percent or less within and

throughoutin all management areas of 40 percent of background levels by the fourth full

year following HCP implementation, it will, in addition to those measures prescribed by

the PCP, implement the following additional predator control measures shall be

implemented in accordance with the following step-down adaptive management

approach:

A nest screening program will be implemented within the 5.8-mile Wabasso

Beach areawithin any management area documented to have predation rates in

excess of five (5) percent until such time as the annual rate is reduced to

below the five (5) percent threshold; and/or

Based on predation data generated by the County’s comprehensive sea turtle

monitoring program, a nest screening program will be implemented at

selected sites outside the 5.8-mile Wabasso Beach area; and/orBased on

predation data generated by the County’s comprehensive sea turtle monitoring

program,Initiation of professionally-managed, selective predator removal

program will be initiated on other publicly and/or privately-owned properties

(with proper authorizations) outside of the 5.8-mile Wabasso Beach area.

These supplemental actions are intended to protect a sufficient number of additional nests

from predation so as to achieve calculated mitigation benefits presented in Section 10.2

of this HCP. The County will continue to coordinate its predator control activities with

the respective staffs of the SISP, ACNWR, and local municipalities, as all parties

understand the necessity of maintaining predation rates at or below a level that can be

sustained without impacting sea turtle nesting populations. Should a 40 percent reduction

in predation rates within the 5.8-mile Wabasso Beach area not be achieved solely through

a predator removal program, these supplemental actions are intended to protect a

sufficient number of additional nests from predation as to achieve calculated mitigation

benefits presented in Section 10.2 of this HCP.

11.5 Light Management

Indian River County has adopted an ordinance to reduce lighting impacts to nesting and

hatchling sea turtles (Section 932.09 of County Codes). The ordinance was updated in

2015 to reflect standards contained in Florida’s Model Lighting Ordinance (Witherington

and Martin 2000). The County currently reviews plans for new construction in

unincorporated areas of the County (approximately 15-25 per year) for conformance with

lighting standards and responds to complaints of lighting problems (about 5-10 per year).

Additionally, the County mails preseason notices to coastal property owners in

unincorporated areas notifying them of the sea turtle nesting season and applicable

lighting regulations; educational material(s) are typically included in these mailings.


136

Until recently, Llimited resources have had been available for proactive lighting

enforcement and other public awareness programs in Indian River County. Additionally,

prior to 2005, Although there is little empirical evidence to date to was available to

indicate the extent to whichthat lighting is posinged a substantial problem for turtles on

the County’s beaches. It was assumed that many hatchling disorientations probably

gowent unreported, and Aabout 4.2 miles of beach at the south end of the County were

are not even routinely monitored. Furthermore, even in the absence of signs of hatchling

disorientation, non-compliant beachfront lights may beare known to disrupting nesting

females, evidence of which is typically elusive. In consideration of these factors, a

proactive light management program will bewas implemented throughout all

unincorporated areas of the County as indirect, compensatory mitigation for the potential

take of sea turtles associated with shoreline protection measures initiated under the

County’s emergency authorization.

Since implementation of the HCP, County staff have identified a substantial problem

from artificial lighting as development has continued to increase on the barrier island.

Between 2005 and 2016, an average of 75 nests were reported disoriented each year,

representing approximately 1.5 percent of all nests. As might be expected, the majority

of reported disorientations occur in the more developed portions of the Plan Area. As

more resources for education, training, and proactive enforcement have become

available, the average number of disoriented nests has begun to decrease. The goal of the

County’s Light Management Program (LMP) shall be to reduce and maintain the average

proportion of reported disoriented nests at or below one (1) percent across the entire Plan

Area. To achieve this goal, the LMPThis program will consist of the following

initiatives:

1. The County will conduct annual lighting evaluations of all beachfront

properties in unincorporated areas and will develop public awareness and

technical assistance programs to help affected property owners bring

identified lighting problems into compliance with County code. Code

enforcement action will be brought against those property owners that fail to

resolve identified lighting problems. The lighting evaluations will be

conducted during the early part of the nesting season (March – May), prior to

the time hatchlings begin emerging from their nests in earnest, and again

during the middle of the nesting season (June – July).

2. The County will receive copies of hatchling disorientation report forms from

the PPHMTPHs. If a disorientation event occurs in unincorporated areas of

the County, the site will be visited at night to determine if non-compliant

lights were responsible. Code enforcement action will be brought against

those property owners that fail to resolve identified lighting problems.

3. If, following implementation of the County’s light management programLMP,

as described above, data indicate that disorientations rates in unincorporated

areas are unacceptably high, additional changes will be made to the County’s

lighting regulations. Although the intent of the County’s current code is clear,

its enforcement may be hindered by differences of interpretation. The County

ordinance, as well as all local municipal lighting ordinances, currently reflect


137

recommendations contained As written, the ordinance prohibits lights from

illuminating the beach, a determination that can sometimes be subjective in

the field. A more straightforward approach would be to use the criteria

promoted in Florida’s Model Lighting Ordinance for Marine Turtle Protection

(Chapter 62B-55, FAC). In addition to prohibiting lights that illuminate the

beach, all lighting ordinances in Indian River CountyThe Model Lighting

Ordinance now requires that light fixtures to be removed, shielded,

repositioned, or otherwise modified so that the point source of light (e.g.,

bulb, filament, etc.) or any reflective surface of the light fixture is not directly

visible from the beach. The County also encourages property owners to use

low-wavelength LED bulbs in any exterior light fixtures used during the sea

turtle nesting season (March – October). Florida’sThe Model Lighting

Ordinance will serve as the basis for any future changes to County code, and

any changes to the Model Lighting Ordinance shall be taken into

consideration., if needed. Future changes may also be guided by advances in

lighting technology, recommendations of the Florida Beaches HCP, and

advances in our understanding of sea turtle biology.

The County shallwill work cooperatively with its municipal partners to identify,

coordinate and resolve lighting problems in incorporated areas.

11.6 Education

To help achieve the goals set forth in the PCP and LMP and further minimize human-

related impacts to sea turtles within the Plan Area, the County will develop and

implement a public outreach and education program. This program will be phased in

over the life of the HCP and will be designed to target a variety of audiences, including

beachfront property owners, commercial establishments, such as restaurants and hotels,

tourists, local beachgoers, and fishermen. To the extent practical and budgets allow, the

program will include, but is not limited to, presentations at schools and public events,

press releases and interviews with local radio and TV stations, interactive booths at

festivals, distribution of educational materials, posting of environmental information on

the County’s website, and the deployment of informational signs at strategic beach access

locations.

11.7 Sea Turtle Stranding Response

Between 2005 and 2016, an average of 60 sea turtle strandings were documented in

Indian River County each year. Considerable ecological information can be gleaned

from sick, injured, and even dead sea turtles that wash up on the County’s shores, and

this information is used by State and Federal agencies to help craft conservation policies.

MTPHs in each beach management area will complete a standard Sea Turtle Stranding

and Salvage Network Stranding Report whenever a stranded sea turtle is encountered.

These reports are submitted to the FWC, and copies will be provided to the County for


138

compilation into a Countywide database. Stranding information will be provided to the

USFWS each year in an Annual Report (see Section 17.1 of this HCP).


139

12.0 PLAN ADMINISTRATION

12.1 Administration of the HCP and ITP

Indian River County shall be solely responsible for meeting the terms and conditions of

its ITP and for allocating sufficient personnel and material resources to ensure that the

HCP can be effectively implemented. The organizational structure described below is

designed to enhance communication and coordination among the various County

divisions, departments, and offices, sea turtle monitoring personnel, County

contractors, and other individuals and groups involved in implementation of the HCP.

12.2 HCP Coordinator

Under this HCP, sea turtle monitoring activities and related conservation programs will

be managed and/or coordinated by the HCP Coordinator. The HCP Coordinator will also

be responsible for administering the ITP. This position may be filled by County staff or

through contractual agreement with outside individuals or professional firms.

The person or firm assigned to the role of the HCP Coordinator shall at a minimum have

the following qualifications:

A Bachelor’s Degree (Master’s Degree preferred) in the biological sciences

or closely related fields and at least three (3) years of practical experience

managing projects in the coastal zone;

A thorough knowledge and understanding of sea turtle biology and

conservation and sufficient practical experience to obtain a FWC marine

turtle permit to conduct nesting surveys and other activities required under

this HCP;

Knowledge of scientific data collection and analytical techniques,

familiarity with database programs and related computer applications, and

practical experience preparing technical reports;

Ability to develop and manage multi-faceted programs;

Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing; and

A good professional demeanor and the ability to effectively interface with

diverse stakeholder groups.

Upon assuming the position, the HCP Coordinator will review and become thoroughly

familiar with the following: the HCP and ITP; Indian River County’s Beach

Preservation Plan; Elements in Chapter 932 of the Indian River County Code relating to

Dune and Shoreline Protection (Sec. 932.06) and Sea Turtle Protection (Sec. 932.09);

Section 161, Florida Statutes (FS), and Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code

(FAC) regarding rules and procedures for the State’s shoreline protection program;

Federal recovery plans for the loggerhead, green and leatherback turtles; and other State


140

and Federal regulations pertaining to the protection of sea turtles on the County’s

beaches.

The purpose of the HCP Coordinator is to provide professional leadership to all aspects

of sea turtle management on the County’s beaches. Specifically, the HCP Coordinator

shall perform the following functions under the HCP:

Develop and implement a standardized sea turtle monitoring program for

Indian River County;

Coordinate the activities of sea turtle monitoring personnel to ensure that

HCP objectives are achieved;

Provide HCP training to sea turtle monitoring personnel and supply them

with data sheets, field equipment, and other logistical support, as may be

needed to effectively implement this HCP;

Interface with the PPHMTPHs and the Coastal Engineer during emergency

shoreline protection projects to ensure that the County’s obligations under

this HCP and its Memorandum of Agreement with FDEP are being met;

Document impacts to sea turtles causally related to shoreline protection

measures initiated under the County’s emergency authorization;

Manage and analyze sea turtle data through a Countywide database;

Assess the effectiveness of the HCP in achieving its biological goals;

Develop public education and awareness materials and programs, as

necessary;

Prepare data reports and HCP program evaluations for submission to the

USFWS in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITP;

Provide guidance and oversight to all technical aspects of the HCP;

Ensure that personnel and equipment directed by the County toward

implementation of sea turtle monitoring and related programs is sufficient to

achieve HCP objectives;

Coordinate the activities of various County departments, divisions and

offices, PPHMTPHs, outside contractors, and others involved in

implementation of the HCP;

Develop annual budgets for required HCP programs; and

Serve as the County’s point of contact with State and Federal regulatory

agencies regarding all issues related to the HCP and ITP.

If the position of HCP Coordinator is vacated at any time during the 30-year period that

the ITP is in effect, Indian River County will use all of its available resources to fulfill

the duties of the HCP Coordinator until the position is filled. Indian River County will

seek to fill the position immediately upon any vacancy.

12.3 Coastal Engineer

Under this HCP, emergency permitting activities will be managed and coordinated by the

County’s Coastal Engineer. This position may be filled by County staff or through

contractual agreement with outside individuals or engineering firms. Should the title of


141

Coastal Engineer be changed during the life of the ITP, the new position shall assume the

responsibilities of the Coastal Engineer.

The Coastal Engineer shall be a professional engineer duly licensed to perform

engineering services in the State of Florida. He/she may delegate HCP responsibilities to

other County staff or independent contractors, provided such individuals possess the

requisite professional skills needed to fulfill their responsibilities under this HCP. The

Coastal Engineer will ultimately be responsible for ensuring that all emergency shoreline

protection activities initiated pursuant to this HCP are conducted in accordance with the

terms and conditions of the County’s ITP. As used throughout this HCP, the term

Coastal Engineer shall refer to the collective management team of engineering

professionals that will oversee emergency permitting activities.

The responsibilities of the Coastal Engineer under this HCP include, but are not limited

to, the following:

Coordinating with the County’s Emergency Management Department

following a Declaration of Local Emergency and notifying FDEP of same;

Conducting post-storm assessments of the coastline following State or local

declarations of emergency;

Receiving and processing applications for Emergency Permits;

Conducting site-specific assessments following requests for Emergency

Permits to determine if affected structures are eligible and vulnerable and to

verify that erosion conditions at the site resulted from the declared emergency;

Determining the most appropriate shoreline protective measure(s) for site-

specific conditions;

Determining the most appropriate location for siting temporary protective

structures;

Providing guidance to property owners applying for an FDEP permit to retain

a temporary structure or install alternative protection following initiation of

emergency shoreline protection measures;

Providing input and site-specific information to FDEP to assist in their review

of permit applications for the retention of a temporary structure or installation

of alternative protection following initiation of emergency shoreline

protection measures;

Coordinating with PPHMTPHs at shoreline protection project sites to

determine which nests can be left in place and which must be relocated;

Determining when equipment may be used on the beach for shoreline

protection activities, including the installation and removal of temporary

structures;

Setting operational standards for equipment used on the beach;

Marking emergency shoreline protection project area boundaries, including

buffer zones, equipment access points, and travel corridors, as applicable;

Establishing effective lines of communication between construction crews

engaged in emergency shoreline protection activities and sea turtle monitoring

personnel;


142

Working with construction crews to alleviate hazardous conditions for sea

turtles at construction sites;

Managing Emergency Permits to ensure that any damage to the beach/dune

system as the result of an emergency shoreline protection project is repaired to

its pre-construction condition; and

Providing the HCP Coordinator with current information on erosion patterns

and planned beach projects for use in managing the sea turtle monitoring

program.

12.4 Principal Marine Turtle Permit Holders

One or more PPHMTPHs will be responsible for monitoring the County’s beaches in

support of this HCP. These individuals may include staff of municipal, County, State and

Federal agencies, members of non-profit organizations, unaffiliated volunteers, and/or

professional contractors.

The PPHMTPH shall ensure that all personnel listed on his/her Marine Turtle Permit

have sufficient training and practical experience to conduct their monitoring activities in

accordance with the most current FWC protocolsguidelines and the procedures described

in this HCP. The PPHMTPH shall also be responsible for ensuring that data collected

pursuant to this HCP are accurate, complete, and transmitted to the County in a timely

manner.

The PPHMTPHs will communicate regularly with the HCP Coordinator to discuss

operational matters and will immediately alert the HCP Coordinator to known problems

that could undermine the County’s ability to meet its obligations under the HCP or ITP.

The PPHMTPHs may periodically request the HCP Coordinator to provide them with

maps, data summaries or other database products to assist in their monitoring activities.

Additionally, the County will provide other logistical support, such as nest marking

supplies, as necessary. To bring unity to the County’s sea turtle monitoring program, the

HCP Coordinator will meet with the PPHMTPHs and the FWC annually, or as otherwise

mutually agreed upon, to review HCP programs and discuss Countywide nesting trends

and issues affecting hatchling productivity.

12.5 Indian River County Office of Emergency Services

Indian River County’s Office of Emergency Services, under the supervision of the

Emergency Services Director will be responsible for storm tracking and emergency

planning leading to a Declaration of Local Emergency. If conditions become threatening,

the Office will draft a declaration for approval by the Board of County Commissioners.

The Emergency Services Director will assign an individual within his/her office to serve

as liaison with the HCP Coordinator. Once a Declaration of Local Emergency has been

passed by the Board of County Commissioners, this individual shall notify the County’s

HCP Coordinator. The HCP Coordinator will then alert the Coastal Engineer to prepare

for the potential issuance of Eemergency Ppermits and will notify FDEP of the


143

declaration as required by the County’s Memorandum of Agreement with the State

(Appendix F; also see Section 8.1 of this HCP).

12.6 Indian River County Public Works Department

The Indian River County Public Works Department, under the management of the Public

Works Director, will provide logistical and administrative support for implementation of

the HCP. The Public Works Director will be responsible for filling the positions of HCP

Coordinator and Coastal Engineer and for allocating sufficient material and fiscal

resources to ensure that these individuals are able to effectively fulfill their

responsibilities under this HCP. The annual budget prepared by the Public Works

Department shall include a separate line item(s) that identifies HCP program expenses.

Upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the HCP budget shall be

provided to the HCP Coordinator for transmittal to the USFWS in accordance with the

terms and conditions of the ITP.

12.7 Indian River County Attorney’s Office

The Indian River County Attorney, or his/her designee, will provide guidance and legal

support to the HCP Coordinator to ensure that the County complies with the terms and

conditions of its ITP, in accordance with prevailing law. Accordingly, the Indian River

County Attorney’s Office will:

Assist in crafting new and/or revising existing regulations, inter-local

agreements, and other legal instruments needed to improve protection for

sea turtles and nesting habitat on the County’s Beaches;

Advise the Board of County Commissioners of its legal responsibilities and

obligations under the HCP;

Provide legal guidance to all County departments involved in

implementation of the HCP issues; and

Review contracts with outside parties involved in the implementation of the

HCP, as applicable.

12.8 Indian River County Administrator’s Office

The Indian River County Administrator, or his/her designee, will coordinate with the

Public Works Department to ensure that the County has dedicated sufficient fiscal and

material resources to implement the terms and conditions of this HCP and ITP. The

County Administrator’s Office will ensure that effective lines of communication and

cooperation are maintained among County divisions, departments and offices involved in

HCP implementation and will resolve any disputes that may arise concerning

responsibilities under this HCP. The County Administrator may periodically reassign

responsibilities and/or personnel among County government units to ensure that HCP

program management is properly integrated into the County’s overall organizational

structure and to ensure that available fiscal and personnel resources are most effectively

utilized.


144

12.9 Coordination With Regulatory Agencies

Indian River County will work with the ACOE, USFWS, FDEP, and FWC to identify

appropriate methods for allowing County input into permitting decisions for projects on

County Beaches. The HCP Coordinator will take the lead role in this interagency

coordination effort.


145

13.0 FUNDING

Indian River County is committed to the success of the HCP and will commit the funds

necessary to implement the Plan. The County operates on an October 1 through

September 30 fiscal year (FY) and will appropriate funds on an annual basis. Insofar as

the governing board cannot bind a subsequent board to funding operational expenses,

provision for longer-term Plan funding is not possible. Failure to appropriate funding

for the HCP prior to October 1 each year may result in USFWS revocation of the ITP.

To assure a stable, long-term source of funding for the HCP, the County will use

monies derived from its Beach Preservation Fund (the Fund). The Fund is a dedicated

one and one-half cent tourist development tax established in 1994 to provide funding

for beach nourishment and other shoreline protection projects. HCP funding will be

authorized on an annual basis from the Fund. Once each year’s budget is approved it

will be provided to the USFWS. Although the County may explore additional fiscal

and material resources for HCP programs through public donations, grants, and other

sources, the Fund will remain the primary funding source.

Within three (3) months of issuance of the ITP, the County will provide the USFWS

with a budget for the remainder of the current FY. No Emergency Permits may be

issued by the County pursuant to this HCP until sufficient resources are in place to

comply with the terms and conditions of the ITP.

The first budget prepared by the County will include, but is not limited to, the following:

Position of HCP Coordinator;

Position of Coastal Engineer;

Production/purchase and deployment of sea turtle survey markers;

Development of procedures, database, and supporting materials for a

standardized, Countywide sea turtle monitoring program;

Costs for monitoring approximately 4.92 miles of previously unsurveyed

beaches in the County;

Sea turtle monitoring supplies and logistical support to other PPHMTPHs;

Monitoring of construction sites and permanent structures;

Preparation of an Annual Report; and

Development of a Predator Control Plan.


146

14.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Upon issuance of an ITP by the USFWS, Indian River County will commence

implementation of its approved HCP. A schedule of implementation activities is

presented in Table 2122. A summary of County actions and reporting responsibilities

associated with issuance of Emergency Permits is provided in Table 2223.

147

Table 2122

Schedule of Implementation Activities

Activity Information/Materials Furnished to

USFWS Deadline for Completion1

Notify USFWS of Issuance of FDEP

Permits for Construction at Summerplace

and/or Gerstner Properties

Copy of FDEP Permit(s), Timing of

Construction, Required Sea Turtle

Protection Measures, as Applicable

Upon Issuance of FDEP Permit(s)

Develop Public Awareness Brochure

Regarding Coastal Issues

Copy of draft brochure for review and

approval 1 Year

Distribution of Public Awareness Brochure NA 3 Months Following USFWS Approval

Meeting to Standardize Monitoring

Activities Among PPHMTPHs Notification of Meeting 60 Days

Initiation of Countywide Sea Turtle

Monitoring Program Copy of Monitoring Plan 4 Months or March 1, Whichever is Later

Develop Predator Control Plan (PCP)

Names of Individuals and/or Agencies

Involved, Goals, Methods, Locations,

Authorizations, as Appropriate, and Time

Allocations

6 Months

Implement Predator Control Plan NA

During First Full Nesting Season

Following USFWS Approval of PCP With

Full Implementation in Four Years

Initiate Light Management Program Copies of Procedures, Forms, and

Schedules 1 Year

HCP Budget Proposed Budget for HCP Programs for

Remainder of Fiscal Year 3 Months

Table 22

Schedule of Implementation Activities

(Continued)

148

Activity Information/Materials Furnished to

USFWS Deadline for Completion1

Unforeseen Circumstances Not

Specifically Addressed in HCP Having

Potentially Significant Impacts on Sea

Turtles

Description of the Event/Situation,

Geographic and Temporal Extent to Which

the Beach is Affected, and the Potential for

Impacts to Sea Turtles and/or Other

Protected Species in the Plan Area

5 Business Days Following Unforeseen

Circumstance

Annual Report Data Summary and HCP Program

Evaluation

March 31 of Each Year (Commencing

With March 31 Following the First

Nesting Season That the HCP is in Effect)

Formal HCP Review Review and Evaluation of HCP Programs

and Sea Turtle Protection Measures

Annually For First 3 Years and

Every 5 Years Thereafter

HCP Updates Revisions to Reflect USFWS-Approved

Changes To HCP Programs Every 5 Years

1 All deadlines are from date of issuance of ITP, unless otherwise specified.

149

Table 2223

Schedule of Activities Associated With Issuance of Emergency Permits and Related Monitoring

Event/

Benchmark

Responsible

Party Reporting To Requirements

Deadline for

Completion

Declaration of Local

Emergency

HCP

Coordinator FDEP

Copy of Declaration Including the Date and

Details of the Storm Event

ASAP by the Most

Expeditious Means

Available

Application for

Emergency Permit

Affected

Property

Owner

Coastal

Engineer Completed Application Form

10 Business Days

Following the Storm

Event

Issuance of

Emergency Permit

Coastal

Engineer

Property

Owner

Type of Emergency Measures Authorized,

Siting of Any Materials Placed Seaward of

The Vulnerable Structure, and Sea Turtle

Protection Requirements

3 Business Days

Following Issuance of

Emergency Permit

Construction of

Temporary Emergency

Shoreline Protection

Property

Owner NA

In Conformance With Conditions Attached

to Emergency Permit

60 Days Following

Issuance of Emergency

Permit

Application for

Retention of

Temporary Structure

as Permanent Structure

Property

Owner FDEP

Standard FDEP Application Form and

Supporting Documents

60 Days Following

Installation of Temporary

Structure

Table 23

Schedule of Activities Associated With Issuance of Emergency Permits and Related Monitoring Activities

(Continued)

150

Event/

Benchmark

Responsible


Deadline for

Completion

Removal of

Temporary Structure

Property

Owner NA

In Conformance With Conditions Attached

to Emergency Permit

60 Days Following

Installation of Temporary

Structure if no

Application Has Been

Made to FDEP to Retain

the Temporary Structure

as a Permanent Structure

Status Report of Beach

Nourishment Projects

Coastal

Engineer FDEP

Schedule and Status of All Constructed And

Pending County-Sponsored Beach

Nourishment Projects

Annually

Notification of

Initiation of

Construction at

Summerplace and

Gerstner Properties

HCP

Coordinator USFWS

Copy of FDEP Permit(s), Timing of

Construction, Required Sea Turtle Protection

Measures, as Applicable

Upon Issuance of FDEP

Permit(s)

Shoreline Protection

Monitoring Reports

HCP

Coordinator FWC

Name and Location of Vulnerable Structure,

Protection Methods, Documented Impacts to

Sea Turtles, Sea Turtle Monitoring Results

Annually

Exhumed Nests or

Trapped/Injured

Turtles at Construction

Sites

HCP

Coordinator FWC Details of Incident Date of Incident

Meeting to

Standardize

Monitoring Activities

HCP

Coordinator &

FWC

PPHMTPH

Establish Survey Boundaries, Develop

Standard Data Form, Discuss Logistical

Needs, Review HCP Requirements

60 Days Following ITP

Issuance

Table 23

Schedule of Activities Associated With Issuance of Emergency Permits and Related Monitoring Activities

(Continued)

151

Event/

Benchmark

Responsible


Deadline for

Completion

Initiation of

Countywide Sea Turtle

Monitoring Program

IRC USFWS

Coordinate and Standardize Monitoring

Activities of Current PPHMTPHs and

Expand Monitoring Into Areas Not

Previously Surveyed

4 Months Following ITP

Issuance or March 1,

Whichever is Later

Annual Report HCP

Coordinator USFWS Data Summary and HCP Program Evaluation

March 31 of Each Year

That ITP is in Effect


152

15.0 CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES

In preparing an HCP, an applicant for an ITP is required to consider circumstances that

could foreseeably change over the life of the ITP and thereby increase the scope and/or

extent of impacts to listed species within the Plan Area.

15.1 Underestimate of Take

Pursuant to this HCP, the principal issue of concern to the USFWS is whether the level of

take estimated by the County is reasonably accurate. An underestimate of take could

occur if:

The frequency of storms and related rates of erosion exceed historical

averages;

Fewer miles of beach are nourished than are currently planned under the

County’s Beach Preservation Plan;

Beach nourishment projects are constructed later than currently scheduled;

The linear beach frontage of eligible and vulnerable structures applying for

Emergency Permits exceeds the estimate developed by the County; and/or

There are significant increases in nesting density over the period that the ITP

is in effect.

The County believes that it has used very conservative assumptions in estimating take,

and therefore even if the changed circumstances listed above are realized, actual take is

not likely to exceed that estimated in Section 7 of this HCP. Furthermore, the USFWS

has indicated its intent to limit the total amount of take authorized under the ITP to that

estimated in this HCP.

The County will maintain a record of cumulative take occurring as the result of

implementation of this HCP. To the extent permitted, the assumptions used to estimate

take (nest displacement) will be replaced with actual data collected through monitoring

programs contained in the Plan. For each Emergency Permit issued the following

information will serve as the basis for calculating actual take:

1. If beach-compatible sand is placed on the beach for emergency shoreline

protection, it will be presumed that no nest displacement will occur.

2. For temporary structures, the period of nest displacement will be calculated as

the inclusive period between the installation and removal of the structure.

3. If a permanent structure replaces a temporary structure installed under an

Emergency Permit, the period of nest displacement will be calculated as the

inclusive period between the installation of the temporary structure and the

initial construction of a beach nourishment project at that site. If no beach


153

nourishment project is planned for the site, take will be calculated as the

period between the installation of the temporary structure and the expiration

of the ITP.

4. The length of shoreline affected by a temporary or permanent structure will be

the actual shore-parallel length of the structure.

5. Nest densities and nesting success shall be calculated from the most recent

and reliable data available. If available, the 5-year average that encompasses

the period of nest displacement shall be utilized.

6. Reduction in nesting success caused by the presence of a temporary or

permanent structure shall be calculated using the most applicable and recent

data available.

The County shall calculate take on the basis shown above for each Emergency Permit

issued. The County will also calculate cumulative take for all Emergency Permits issued

to date projected over the life of the ITP. This information, as well as all data upon

which the calculations were based will be tabulated for inclusion in the Annual Report

(see Section 16 of this HCP). At any point that the amount of take projected over the life

of the ITP exceeds the amount of take authorized by the ITP, the USFWS shall be

notified immediately. From that point forward, no additional Emergency Permits shall be

issued by Indian River County unless explicitly authorized by the USFWS.

15.2 Delisting and/or Listing of New Species

Should at any time during the life of the ITP, a species covered under the HCP be

delisted, or a currently non-listed species inhabiting or utilizing the Plan Area be listed as

a threatened or endangered species under the ESA, the County will consult with the

USFWS to determine if modifications to the HCP are warranted.


154

16.0 UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES

Unforeseen circumstances are those events, conditions, or situations that are completely

unanticipated at the time of preparation of this HCP. If, during the implementation of

this HCP, an unforeseen circumstance occurs that could have a significant negative

impact on sea turtles or other protected species in the Plan Area or could affect the ability

of Indian River County to effectively manage activities under this HCP, the following

procedures will be followed:

1. Within five (5) business days of the date the Unforeseen Circumstance is brought to

the County’s attention, the HCP Coordinator will advise the USFWS South Florida

Ecological Services Office by certified letter of the following:

The nature of the situation;

The geographic and temporal extent to which the beach will be affected by

the situation; and

The potential impact of the situation on sea turtles and/or other protected

species in the Plan Area.

2. Within three (3) days of USFWS receipt of the written notification described above,

the County will discuss the Unforeseen Circumstance with USFWS personnel and

other affected parties, as applicable. An appropriate response to the situation, such

as modifying the HCP and/or ITP, shall be developed and implemented upon

approval of the USFWS. The County and USFWS shall determine the extent to

which additional information is needed to document the merit and/or significance of

the Unforeseen Circumstance or assess its relative impact on protected species in

the Plan Area. As mutually agreed to, a special monitoring plan may be formulated.

The plan will contain the following:

A description of the data and/or information to be collected;

Procedures for collecting the data/information;

Data/information collection responsibilities;

A schedule for implementing the plan; and

Reporting requirements.

3. Upon obtaining all necessary information, the USFWS, Indian River County, and

other third-party individuals or agencies, as applicable, shall meet to analyze and

review the data and develop an action plan to successfully resolve issues associated

with the Unforeseen Circumstance.


155

17.0 COMPLIANCE MONITORING & REPORTING

Indian River County will monitor the performance of the HCP in minimizing impacts to

turtles causally related to emergency shoreline protection activities and in achieving its

biological goals of increasing the productivity of the County’s beaches as nesting habitat.

HCP program evaluations will be provided to the USFWS through Annual Reports,

formal reviews, and periodic communications, as described below.

17.1 Sea Turtle Data Analysis and Annual Reporting

At the end of each calendar year, the HCP Coordinator will be responsible for

compiling and analyzing sea turtle and ancillary data collected under this HCP. This

data will be summarized in a manner that allows an assessment of natural and

anthropogenic impacts to sea turtles on County beaches. Direct, indirect, and

cumulative impacts to sea turtles causally related to emergency shoreline protection

activities will be identified. Mitigation benefits of the County’s predator control

program will also be calculated to ensure that targeted goals are being met.

Additionally, results of the County’s light management and public education programs

will be analyzed to assess conservation benefits to adult and hatchling turtles. Known

deficiencies with HCP programs will be identified and potential remedial actions

proposed. The above information will be incorporated into an Annual Report that will

be submitted to the USFWS by March 31 of each year.

During the first three (3) years that the ITP is in effect, the County will meet annually

with the USFWS and FWC to review HCP performance and discuss the County’s

monitoring program. As needed, adjustments to monitoring protocol and nest

protection measures will be implemented. Thereafter, every five (5) years that the ITP

is in effect, the USFWS and the County will meet formally to review HCP program

performance and discuss adjustments to policies, procedures, and/or mitigation needed

in response to changes in organizational structure, beach conditions, sea turtle nesting

trends, and/or the level of take occurring on County beaches. However, at any time

during the 5-year interval, the USFWS or the County may request a program

assessment meeting, if needed.

17.2 HCP Program Documentation

Data will be collected and maintained by the HCP Coordinator to demonstrate that

minimization and mitigation measures required under this HCP are being implemented in

accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITP. This information may include, but

is not limited to, the following:

Records of emergency shoreline protection projects, including but not limited

to all information indicated in Sections 9.3 through 9.7 of this HCP;


156

Correspondence pursuant to the terms and conditions of the County’s

Memorandum of Agreement with FDEP (Appendix F);

Dates, group, and content of training classes and other meetings with

PPHMTPHs;

Documentation to show that all County beaches are being surveyed in

accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITP;

Copies of any public education/awareness materials developed by the County

pursuant to this HCP; and

A summary of activities related to implementation of the Predator Control

Plan and Light Management Program.

The above information will be provided to the USFWS upon request and will be

summarized each year in tabular form for inclusion in the Annual Report.

17.3 Documentation of Take and Mitigation Benefits

The County will maintain a record of cumulative take occurring as the result of

emergency shoreline protection activities, as described in Section 7.2 of this HCP. This

information, as well as all data upon which the calculations of take are based, will be

tabulated for inclusion in the Annual Report. At any point that the amount of take

projected over the life of the ITP exceeds the amount of take authorized by the ITP, the

USFWS shall be notified immediately. From that point forward, no additional

Emergency Permits shall be issued by Indian River County unless explicitly authorized

by the USFWS.

The County will maintain records quantifying the benefit of its predator control

program, as described in Section 11.4 of this HCP. This information, as well as all data

upon which the calculations of mitigation benefit are based, will be tabulated for

inclusion in the Annual Report. If the County cannot meet its targeted goal of reducing

predation rates by 40 percent by the fourth full year that the Predator Control Plan is in

effect, the County, upon consultation with the USFWS, may have to implement

additional predator control measures and/or develop alternative mitigation measures.

Although not part of its formal mitigation plan, the County will assess the conservation

benefits of its light management and public education programs. Results of the

activities associated with these programs will also be included in the Annual Report.

17.4 Enforcement of Laws and Regulations

The HCP Coordinator will be responsible for coordinating the activities of appropriate

departments and divisions within Indian River County government and local

municipalities who are responsible for the enforcement of Federal, State, and County

regulations pertaining to protected species on County Beaches. The HCP Coordinator

will ensure that County enforcement staff is properly educated and organized to

effectively carry out their responsibilities under the HCP and that there are effective

inter- and intra-departmental lines of communications. The HCP Coordinator will


157

periodically review County regulations, codes, and directives to determine if they

require change or stricter enforcement to achieve HCP objectives. Indian River County

will coordinate enforcement of State and Federal protected species laws with outside

agencies, such as the FWC and USFWS, as necessary.

17.5 Changes to the HCP and ITP

The HCP Coordinator may from time to time request changes to the HCP and/or ITP to

improve HCP performance, streamline permit administration, and/or eliminate

unnecessary restrictions on emergency shoreline protection activities that are

demonstrated to provide no conservation benefit. These requests must be submitted to

the USFWS in writing with appropriate supporting data. No changes in standard

operating procedures may occur without the expressed written consent of USFWS.

Over the 30-year life of the ITP, administrative changes to the ITP may be requested at

any time. However, formal revisions to the HCP will occur only once every five years

after a joint review by the County and USFWS. Consequently, there may be occasions

when the letter and/or intent of the ITP and HCP are in conflict. In those cases, the ITP

shall prevail. Additionally, any changes to the ITP shall be construed as to affect a

corresponding change to the HCP.

17.6 Change of Authority

50 CF Section 13.24(a)-(c) and Section 13.25 were amended in 1999 to provide for the

right of succession by certain persons and transfer of permits and scope of permit

authorization, respectively. Thus, if Indian River County delegates regulatory authority

over all or a portion of the County’s beaches to another governmental entity, or if

regulatory authority over the beaches is by any other means transferred or usurped by law

or agreement, one of the following may occur:

The ITP may be revoked by the USFWS; or

The ITP may remain in force while a revised HCP is prepared, provided the new

management entity agrees in writing to assume the responsibilities previously

held by the County, on the applicable sections of beach.


158

GLOSSARY

Armoring—The placement of man-made structures or devices in or near the coastal

system for the purpose of preventing erosion of the beach or the upland dune system or to

protect upland structures from the effects of coastal wave and current activity.

Artificial Lighting—Any source of temporary, fixed, or movable light emanating from a

man-made device, including, but not limited to, incandescent mercury vapor, metal

halide, or sodium lamps, spotlights, streetlights, construction or security lights.

Beach—The zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the mean low

water line to the place where there is marked change in material or physiographic form,

or to the line of permanent vegetation.

Beach Nourishment—The process of adding sand to a beach area, typically from inlets

or offshore borrow areas but also from upland sources, to compensate for the effects of

erosion.

Beach Preservation Fund—A dedicated one and one-half cent tourist development tax

established by Indian River County in 1994 to provide funding for beach nourishment

and other shoreline protection projects.

Beach Preservation Plan—A 30-year program developed by Indian River County to

manage the County’s beach/dune system through beach nourishment and other shoreline

protection and enhancement projects.

Beach Profile—The shore-perpendicular shape of the beach/dune system as seen in cross

section.

Buffer Zone—A 25-foot area designated by the Coastal Engineer on either side of a

beach construction site for the maneuvering of construction equipment.

Clutch—The collective number of eggs laid in a nest by a sea turtle.

Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL)—The Indian River County Coastal

Construction Control Line established by the State of Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems, to define that portion

of the beach and dune system which is subject to severe fluctuations based on a 100-year

storm surge, storm-induced waves or other predicted weather conditions (Section

161.053, Florida Statutes).

Coastal Engineer—A professional engineer or collective management team of

engineering professionals appointed by Indian River County responsible for the oversight

of emergency permitting activities.


159

Crawl—The distinctive tracks left by a turtle on the beach at night.

Critically Eroded Beach—Beaches identified by the State of Florida where natural

processes or human activity have caused erosion to such a degree that upland

development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat and/or cultural resources are being

lost or threatened.

Declaration of Local Emergency—A Resolution by the Indian River County Emergency

Management Director or his/her designee in response to an emergency or disaster that has

occurred or is imminent, which allows for mobilization and/or initiation of emergency

management activities.

Disorientation—The disruption of the natural sea-finding behavior of hatchling sea

turtles most typically associated with the presence of artificial light in the nesting

environment. Technically refers to hatchlings that are unable to orient in any particular

direction and wander aimlessly, but in its broadest sense, also includes hatchlings that are

well oriented, but travel in a direct path that leads them away from the ocean (i.e.,

misorientation).

Dune—A mound or ridge of loose sediment, usually sand-sized, lying upland of the

beach or shore, deposited by any natural or artificial mechanism. The term may also

include a beach ridge, dune ridge, chenier, or similar topographic feature.

Dune Crest—The highest point of a beach dune.

Dune Escarpment—A near vertical aspect in the beach profile at or near the dune caused

by erosion.

Dune Toe—The point of interface between the dune and beach marked by a perceptible

change in slope, material or physiographic form.

Eligible Structure—Public infrastructure and private non-conforming habitable

structures, as defined under Section 161, F.S., and Chapter 62B-33, FAC, built prior to

the State of Florida’s current rules regulating coastal development (i.e., not constructed

under a permit issued by FDEP after March 17, 1985).

Emergency Permit—A permit issued by Indian River County authorizing the initiation of

shoreline protection measures for eligible and vulnerable beachfront structures following

a storm event for which a Declaration of Local Emergency has been adopted.

Emerging Success— The percentage of eggs in a clutch of turtle eggs that produce

hatchlings that successfully emerge from the nest.

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.


160

False Crawl— A non-nesting emergence of a female turtle onto the beach.

Global Positioning System—An electronic device used to measure one’s location on the

earth’s surface.

HCP Coordinator—Individual appointed by Indian River County to implement the HCP

and administer the ITP.

Habitat Conservation Plan—A plan developed to regulate shoreline protection activities

initiated under an Emergency Permit issued by Indian River County in a manner and

extent compatible with the protection of sea turtles.

Harass—An intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of

injury to listed wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal

behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, and

sheltering.

Harm—An act which actually kills or injures listed wildlife and may include significant

habitat modification or significant impairing of essential behavioral patterns, including

breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

Hatching Season—The time of year when the hatchling sea turtle nests are emerging

from their nests.

Hatching Success—The percentage of eggs in a clutch of turtle eggs that produce

hatchlings that successfully extricate themselves from their egg shells.

Hatchling—A newly hatched sea turtle.

Hatchling Productivity—An estimate of the total number of hatchlings entering the

ocean from nests within the Plan Area based upon nest fate and reproductive success of a

representative sample of nests.

Incidental Take Permit—A permit issued by the Federal government pursuant to Section

10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that authorizes the

“take” of listed species resulting from specified activities conducted in accordance with

the terms and conditions of the permit.

In situ—A nest in its natural condition and original location on the beach.

Incidental Take—Take of any federally-listed species of wildlife that is incidental to, but

not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities.

Incubation Period—The inclusive time between the date a clutch of eggs is laid and the

date the first hatchling emerges from the nest.


161

Listed Species—Flora or fauna that are afforded protection under the promulgations of

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

Marine Turtle Permit—A permit issued by the FWC’s Bureau of Protected Species

Management for the performance of activities in support of the State’s sea turtle

protection program.

Marine Turtle Permit Holder—Qualified individuals who are issued a Marine Turtle

Permit by the FWC to perform specific activities in support of the State of Florida’s sea

turtle protection programs.

Mean High-Water Line—The intersection of the tidal plane of the high water with the

shore.

Mitigation—Actions required by an incidental take permit to compensate for unavoidable

environmental impacts resulting from permitted activities.

Motorized Vehicle—Any wheeled or tracked vehicle that is self propelled, including golf

carts, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and motorcycles.

Native Vegetation—Non-introduced vegetation naturally adapted to prevailing

environmental conditions.

Nest—An area where sea turtle eggs have been naturally deposited or subsequently

relocated.

Nest fate—The final disposition of a sea turtle nest. Typical nest fate categories include,

hatched, infertile, destroyed by tidal inundation or root invasion, depredated, washed out,

vandalized, and unknown.

Nesting Season—The inclusive period during which turtles are emerging onto the

beaches to lay their eggs and hatchlings are emerging from their nests. In Indian River

County, the nesting season runs from March 1 through October 31 each year.

Nesting Success—The percentage of all crawls made by female turtles on the beach that

result in nests.

Permanent Structure—A coastal armoring structure permitted by FDEP that is designed

to remain in place for a protracted period of time, such as a seawall or rock revetment.

Principal Permit Holder—Qualified individuals who are issued a Marine Turtle Permit

by the FWC to perform specific activities in support of the State of Florida’s sea turtle

protection programs.


162

Project Area—The area within which shoreline protection activities are authorized

encompassing the construction site, vehicles access points, vehicle travel corridors, and

buffer zones, as applicable.

Public Safety Vehicles—All motorized vehicles involved in routine or emergency public

safety operations, such as those used by lifeguards, and County and municipal law

enforcement and fire/rescue personnel.

Renesting interval—The period of time between successive egg laying episodes by a sea

turtle within a given nesting season.

Reproductive Cost—The decrease in total annual egg production suffered by an

individual as a result of increasing energy expenditures during nesting.

Reproductive Success—The relative success of a female turtle’s egg laying efforts,

typically expressed as either hatching success or emerging success.

Revetment—A sloped armoring structure composed of materials such as quarry stone,

concrete, or geotextile fabric built to protect an escarpment, embankment, or upland

structure against erosion by wave action or currents.

Sand Bypassing—The process of mechanically moving impounded sand from the updrift

side of a structure (such as a jetty) to the downdrift side.

Scour—Erosion caused by the interaction of waves and currents with man-made

structures or natural features.

Seawall—A vertical armoring structure separating land from water areas, primarily

designed to prevent upland erosion and other damage as a result of wave action.

Sentinel Nest—Nests at or landward of the toe of the dune along eroding sections of

coastline that are marked for the purpose of providing an indication of nest loss following

storm events.

Shoreline Protection—The placement of sand, sandbags, or physical structures along

eroding shorelines to prevent damage to eligible and vulnerable structures.

Stranding—A dead, ill, or injured sea turtle that washes up onto the beach.

Take—To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to

attempt to engage in any such conduct with regard to federally-listed endangered or

threatened wildlife species.

Temporary Structure— A coastal armoring structure permitted by Indian River County

or FDEP that is designed to facilitate its removal. Temporary structures can remain in


163

place for only 60 days, unless during that period application is made to FDEP for

retention of the structure as a permanent structure or alternative protection.

Vulnerable Structure—Beachfront properties susceptible to erosion damage caused by a

15-year return interval storm. In Indian River County, vulnerable structures are those

within 20 feet of a dune escarpment.


164

REFERENCES

Ackerman, R.A. 1997. The nest environment and the embryonic development of sea

turtles. Pages 83-106 in Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (editors), The Biology of Sea

Turtles. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Ackerman, R.A., T. Rimkus and R. Horton. 1991. The hydric structure and climate of

natural and renourished sea turtle nesting beaches along the Atlantic coast of Florida.

Unpublished report to Florida Department of Natural Resources.

ABI. 1991. Florida Power & Light Company, St. Lucie Unit 2 annual environmental

operating report, 1990. Volume 1. AB-610. Prepared by Applied Biology, Inc.,

Atlanta, Georgia, for Florida Power & Light Company.

Allard, M.W., M.M. Miyamoto, K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, and B.W. Bowen. 1994.

Support for natal homing in green turtles from mitochondrial DNA sequences.

Copeia 1994(1):34–41.

ATM. 1998. Indian River County Beach Preservation Plan Economic Analysis and Cost

Allocation Plan. Prepared by Applied Technology and Management, Inc.,

Gainesville, Florida, for Indian River County, Florida.

ATM. 1999. Indian River County Beach Preservation Plan Economic Analysis and Cost

Allocation Plan Phase II Funding Sources and Financial Planning. Prepared by

Applied Technology and Management, Inc., Gainesville, Florida, for Indian River

County, Florida.

Bard, A. 1997. Data summaries for southeastern beach mouse trapping effort at

Sebastian Inlet State Recreation Area, Indian River County. On file at the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecosystem Office, Vero Beach, Florida.

Bolton, A.B. and G.H. Balazs. 1995. Biology of the early pelagic stage – the lost year.

Pages 579-581, in Bjorndal, K.A. (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles.

Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

Bolten, A.B., H.R. Martins, K.A. Bjorndal, and J. Gordon. 1993. Size distribution of

pelagic-stage loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the waters around the

Azores and Madeira. Arquipélago, Life and Marine Sciences 11A:49–54.

Bouchard, S., K. Moran, M. Tiwari, D. Wood, A. Bolten, P. Eliazar, and K. Bjorndal.

1998. Effects of Exposed Pilings on sea turtle nesting activity at Melbourne

Beach, Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 14(4): 1343-1347.

Bowen, B.W. 1994. Letter dated November 17, 1994 to Sandy Macpherson, Sea Turtle


165

Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida.

University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida

Bowen, BW. 1995. Letter dated October 26, 1995 to Sandy Macpherson, Sea Turtle

Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida.

University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida

Bowen, B., J.C. Avise, J.I. Richardson, A.B. Meylan, D. Margaritoulis, and S.R.

Hopkins-Murphy. 1993. Population structure of loggerhead turtles (Caretta

caretta) in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Conservation

Biology 7(4):834–844.

Broadwell, A.L. 1991. Effects of beach nourishment on the survival of loggerhead sea

turtles. Master’s Thesis. Florida Atlantic University. Boca Raton, Florida.

41 pp.

Carr, A.F. 1967. So Excellent a Fish. Natural History Press. New York, New York.

248 pp.

Carr, A. 1986. Rips. FADs, and little loggerheads. Bioscience 36: 92-100.

Carr, A. 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development.

Conservation Biology 1 (2): 103-120.

Carr, A. and L. Ogren. 1960. The Ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 4. The green

turtle in the Caribbean Sea. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History

121(1): 1-48.

CB&I CPE (Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc.). 2015. Beach Preservation Plan,

Indian River County, Florida. CB&I Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Boca

Raton, Florida. 72 pp + appendices.

Ceriani, S. A., and A. Meylan. 2015. Caretta caretta (North West Atlantic

subpopulation), Loggerhead Turtle. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

2015 8235:e.T84131194A84131608.

Christens, E. 1990. Nest lag in loggerhead sea turtles. Journal of Herpetology 24(4):

400-402.

Crain, D.A., A.B. Bolten, and K.A. Bjorndal. 1995. Effects of beach nourishment on sea

turtles: Review and research initiatives. Restoration Ecology 3(2): 95-104.

Cubit Engineering, 1988. Beach Preservation Plan, Indian River County, Florida.

Technical Report Prepared for Indian River County, Florida.


166

Davis, P.W., P.S. Mikkelsen, J. Homcy, and P.J. Dowd. 1994. Sea turtle nesting activity at

Jupiter/Carlin Parks in Northern Palm Beach County, Florida. Pages 217-221, in

B.A. Schroeder and B. E. Witherington (compilers), Proceedings of the Thirteenth

Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-341.

Dean, R.G. 1990. Channel entrances: Impacts on coastal erosion. Pages 51-53, in

Proceedings of the 53rd Meeting of the Coastal Engineering Research Board,

Vicksberg, Mississippi (held 5-7 June 1990 in Ft Lauderdale/Dania, FL.). CERC

Final Report.

Delpech, Y.J. and J.J. Foote. 1998. Effects of three soil cement step-faced revetments on

sea turtle nesting habit and hatch success on Casey Key, Florida. Pages 160-163,

in S.P. Epperly and J. Braun. (compilers), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual

Sea Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-415.

Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1978. Terrestrial critical habitat and marine turtles. Bulletin Maryland

Herpetological Society 14(4): 233-240.

Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1982. Nesting of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (L.), in Florida:

historic review and present trends. Brimleyana 7: 39-54.

Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle

Caretta caretta (Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological

Report 88(14). Gainesville, Florida. 110 pp.

EAI. 1997. Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge, 1997 Sea Turtle Nesting Report.

Prepared by Ecological Associates, Inc., Jensen Beach, Florida for U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, ARM Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. 31 pp.

EAI. 2000a. Martin County Beach Nourishment Project: Results of 2000 Sea Turtle

Monitoring, Hutchinson Island, Florida. Ecological Associates, Inc., Jensen

Beach, Florida. Report prepared for Martin County, Florida. 31pp.

EAI. 2000b. Sea Turtle Monitoring & Habitat Conservation Plan Assessment, Volusia

County, Florida – 1999 Annual Report. Ecological Associates, Inc., Jensen Beach

Florida. Report prepared for Volusia County, Florida. 121 pp. + Appendices.

EAI. 2001a. Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge, Results of 2000 Sea Turtle

Monitoring. Ecological Associates, Inc., Jensen Beach, Florida. Report prepared

for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ARM Loxahatchee NWR. 31 pp.

EAI. 2001b. Sea Turtle Monitoring & Habitat Conservation Plan Assessment, Volusia

County, Florida – 2000 Annual Report. Ecological Associates, Inc., Jensen Beach

Florida. Report prepared for Volusia County, Florida. 123 pp. + Appendices.


167

Ehrhart, L.M., 1978. Pallid beach mouse. Pages 8-9 in J.N. Layne (ed.), Rare and

Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. I: Mammals. University Presses of Florida.

Gainesville, Florida..

Ehrhart, L.M. 1979. Reproductive characteristics and management potential of the sea

turtle rookery at Canaveral National Seashore, Florida. Pages 397-399 in

Proceedings of the First Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks.

Volume 1. National Park Service. Transactions Proceedings Series No. 5.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1982. A review of sea turtle reproduction. Pages 29–38 in Biology and

Conservation of Sea Turtles. Proceedings of the World Conference on Sea Turtle

Conservation, November 26–30, 1979. Smithsonian Institution Press.

Washington, D.C.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1989. Status Report of the Loggerhead Turtle. Pages 122-139, in

Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium, October 12-16,

1987.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1992. Turtles of the worm-rock reefs. The Florida Naturalist: 9-11.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1995. The relationship between marine turtle nesting and reproductive

success and the beach nourishment project at Sebastian Inlet, Florida, in 1994.

Unpublished report to Florida Institute of Technology. 55 pp.

Ehrhart, L.M. and B.E. Witherington. 1987. Human and natural causes of marine turtle

nest and hatchling mortality and their relationship to hatchling production on an

important Florida nesting beach. Final Report, Project No. GFC-84-018. Florida

Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program, Technical

Report No. 1. Tallahassee, Florida. 141 pp.

Ehrhart, L. M., D.A. Bagley, and W. E. Redfoot. 1999. A Study of the population

ecology of in-water marine turtle populations on the east-central Florida coast, in

1997-98. Final report to NOAA & National Marine Fisheries Service. 56 pp.

Ehrhart, L. M., W. Redfoot, D. Bagley, and K. Mansfield. 2014. Long-term trends in

loggerhead (Caretta caretta) nesting and reproductive success at an important

Western Atlantic rookery. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 13(2): 173-181.

Encalada, S.E., K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, J.C. Zurita, B. Schroeder, E. Possardt, C.J.

Sears, and B.W. Bowen. 1998. Population structure of loggerhead turtle (Caretta

caretta) nesting colonies in the Atlantic and Mediterranean regions as inferred

from mtDNA control region sequences. Marine Biology 130:567-575.


168

Engeman, R.M., R.E. Martin, B. Constantin, R. Noel, and J. Woolard. In preparation.

Monitoring predators to optimize marine turtle nest protection through control.

Ernest, R.G. and R.E. Martin. 1993. Sea turtle protection program performed in support

of velocity cap repairs, Florida Power & Light Company St. Lucie Plant. Applied

Biology, Inc. Jensen Beach, Florida. 51 pp.

Ernest, R. G. and R. E. Martin. 1999. Martin County Beach Nourishment Project; Sea

turtle monitoring and studies; 1997 Annual report and final assessment.

Ecological Associates, Jensen Beach, Florida.

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). August 2016. Critically Eroded

Beaches in Florida. FDEP Division of Water Resource Management,

Tallahassee, Florida. 88 pp.

Frair, W., R.G. Ackman, and N. Mrosovsky. 1972. Body temperature of Dermochelys

coriacea: Warm turtle from cold water. Science, Vol. 177, pp. 791-793.

Frazer, N. B. and L. M. Ehrhart. 1985. Preliminary growth models for Green, (Chelonia

mydas), and loggerhead, (Caretta caretta), turtles in the wild. Copeia 1: 73-79.

Girondot, M. and J. Fretey. 1996. Leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, nesting in

French Guiana, 1978-1995. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 2(2): 204-208.

Goff, G.P. and J. Lien. 1988. Atlantic leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, in cold

water off Newfoundland and Labrador. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 102: 1-5.

Goff, G.P., J. Lien, G.B. Stenson, and J. Fretey. 1994. The migration of a tagged

leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, from French Guiana, South America, to

Newfoundland, Canada, in 128 Days. Canadian Field-Naturalist 108 (1): 72-73.

Hailman, J.P. and A.M. Elowson. 1992. Ethogram of the nesting female loggerhead

(Caretta caretta). Herpetologica 48(1):1–30.

Hendrickson, J.R. 1958. The green sea turtle Chelonia mydas (Linn.) in Malaya and

Farawak. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 130: 455–535.

Henwood, T.A. 1987. Movements and seasonal changes in loggerhead turtle Caretta

caretta aggregations in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral, Florida (1978-84).

Biological Conservation 40:191-202.

Herren, R.M. 1999. The effect of beach nourishment on loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

nesting and reproductive success at Sebastian Inlet, Florida. Master’s Thesis.

University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. 138 pp.


169

Hilton-Taylor, C. 2000. 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland,

Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xviii + 61 pp.

Hirth, H.F. 1980. Some aspects of the nesting behavior and reproductive biology of sea

turtles. American Zoology 20:507–523.

Hosier, P.E., M. Kochhar, and V. Thayer. 1981. Off-road vehicle and pedestrian track

effects on the sea-approach of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Environmental

Conservation 8:158–161.

IRC (Indian River County). 1998a. 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Volumes I and II.

Adopted in 1998 by IRC Community Development Department.

IRC (Indian River County). 1998b. Indian River County Beach Preservation Plan

Update. Indian River County Public Works Department, Coastal Engineering

Division.

Johnson, S.A., 1994. Reproductive ecology of the Florida Green Turtle (Chelonia

mydas). Master’s Thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. 108

pp.

Johnson, S.A., K.A. Bjorndal, and A.B. Bolten. 1996. Effects of organized turtle

watches on loggerhead (Caretta caretta) nesting behavior and hatchling

production in Florida. Conservation Biology April 10(2): 570-577.

Johnson, S.A., A.L. Bass, B. Liebert. M. Marshall and D. Fulk. 1999. Kemp’s ridley

(Lepidochelys kempi) nesting in Florida. Florida Scientist 62 (3/4): 194-204.

Kale II, H.W. (Editor). 1978. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume Two.

Birds. Pritchard, P.C. (series ed.). 121 pp.

Kaufman W. and O. Pilkey. 1979. The beaches are moving: The drowning of America’s

shoreline. Anchor Press/Doubleday. Garden City, NY.

Klinger, R. E. and J.A. Musick, 1995. Age and growth of loggerhead turtles (Caretta

caretta) from Chesapeake Bay. Copeia 1: 204-208.

Kraus, N.C. 1988. The effects of seawalls on the beach: Part I, An updated literature

review. Journal of Coastal Research. SI 4: 1-28.

Kraus, N.C. and W. G. McDougal, 1996. The effects of seawalls on the beach: Part I, An

updated literature review. Journal of Coastal Research 12(3): 691-701.

LeBuff, Jr., C.R. 1990. The Loggerhead Turtle in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Caretta

Research, Inc. Sanibel, Florida. 216 pp.


170

Lazell, Jr., J.D. 1980. New England waters: critical habitat for marine turtles. Copeia 2:

290-295.

Light, P., M. Salmon, and K. Lohmann. 1993. Geomagnetic orientation of loggerhead

sea turtles: Evidence for an inclination compass. Journal of Experimental Biology

182: 1-10.

Lohmann, K.J. 1991. Magnetic orientation by hatchling loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta

caretta). Journal of Experimental Biology 155: 37-49.

Lohmann, K.J. and C.M.F. Lohmann. 1994. Acquisition of magnetic directional

preference in hatchling loggerhead sea turtles. Journal of Experimental Biology

190: 1–8.

Lohmann, K.J., M. Salmon, and J. Wyneken. 1990. Functional autonomy of land and sea

orientation systems in sea turtle hatchlings. Biological Bulletin 179: 214-218.

Lohmann, K.J., B.E. Witherington, C.M.F. Lohmann, and M. Salmon. 1997. Orientation,

navigation, and natal beach homing in sea turtles. Pages 107-135 in Lutz, P.L. and

J.A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L.Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on

sea turtle survival. Pages 387-409, in Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (eds.), The

Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (Editors). 1997. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press. Boca

Raton, Florida. 432 pp.

Marquez, M.R. 1990. FAO Species Catalogue, Volume 11: Sea Turtles of the World.

FAO Fisheries Synopsis, No. 125, Vol. 11. FAO, Rome. 81 pp.

Mattison, C., C.M. Burney, and L. Fisher. 1993. Trends in the spatial distribution of sea

turtle activity on an urban beach (1981-192). Pages 102-104, in B.A. Schroeder and

B.E. Witherington (compilers), Proceedings of the 13th Annual Symposium on Sea

Turtle Biology and Conservation. Jekyll Island Georgia, 23-27 February, 1993.

McDiarmid, R.W. (Editor). 1978. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume Three.

Amphibians & Reptiles. Pritchard, P.C. (series ed.). 74 pp.

McFarlane, R.W. 1963. Disorientation of loggerhead hatchlings by artificial road

lighting. Copiea 1: 153.

McGehee, M.A. 1990. Effects of moisture on eggs and hatchlings of loggerhead sea

turtles (Caretta caretta). Herpetologica 46(3): 251–258.


171

Meylan, A.B., K.A. Bjorndal, and B.J. Turner. 1983. Sea turtles nesting at Melbourne

Beach, Florida, II. Post-nesting movements of Caretta caretta. Biological

Conservation 26: 79-90.

Meylan, A.B., B.W. Bowen, and J.C. Avise. 1990. A genetic test of the natal homing

versus social facilitation models for green turtle migration. Science 248:724–727.

Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the State

of Florida, 1979–1992. Florida Marine Research Publications Number 52. 51 pp.

Miller, J.D. 1997. Reproduction in sea turtles. Pages 51-81, in P.L. Lutz and J.A.

Musick (eds), The Biology of the Sea Turtle. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Miller, J.D., C.J. Limpus, and M.H. Godfrey. In press. .Nest site selection, oviposition,

eggs, development, hatching and emergence of loggerhead turtles. Paper given at

the 20th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. Orlando,

Florida

Moody, K. 1998. The effects of nest relocation on hatching success and emergence

success of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in Florida. Pages 107-108, in R.

Byles and Y. Fernandez (compilers, Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual

Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412.

Mosier, A. 1998. The impact of coastal armoring structures on sea turtle nesting

behavior at three beaches on the East Coast of Florida. Master’s Thesis.

University of South Florida. Tampa, Florida. 111 pp.

Mosier, A. and B.E. Witherington. 2000. Documented effects of coastal armoring

structures on sea turtle nesting behavior in Florida (USA). Poster presentation at

20th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. Orlando,

Florida.

Mrosovsky, N. 1968. Nocturnal emergence of hatchling sea turtles: control by thermal

inhibition of activity. Nature 220(5174): 1338–1339.

Mrosovsky, N. 1994. Sex ratios of sea turtles. The Journal of Experimental Zoology

270: 16-27.

Mrosovsky, N. and J. Provancha, 1989. Sex ratio of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles:

data and estimates from a five year study. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70: 530-

538.

Mrosovsky, N. and C.L. Yntema. 1980. Temperature dependence of sexual


172

differentiation in sea turtles: implications for conservation practices. Biological

Conservation 18: 271–280.

Murphy, T.M. 1985. Telemetric monitoring of nesting loggerhead sea turtles subjected

to disturbance on the beach. Paper presented at Fifth Annual Workshop on Sea

Turtle Biology and Conservation, 13-16 March, Waverly, GA.

Murphy, T. M. and S. R. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle

nesting beaches in the southeast region, U.S. Final Report to National Marine

Fisheries Service. 73 pp.

Myers, R.L. and J.J. Ewel (Editors). 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central

Florida Press. Orlando, Florida. 765 pp.

National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention.

National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 259 pp.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service). 1991a. Recovery plan for U.S. population of loggerhead turtle.

National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington, D.C. 64 pp.


Service). 1991b. Recovery Plan for U.S. population of Atlantic green turtle.

National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington, D.C. 52 pp.


Service). 1992. Recovery plan for leatherback turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea,

Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service.

Washington, D.C. 65 pp.


Service). 1993. Recovery plan for hawksbill turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea,

Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service.

St. Petersburg, Florida.

Nelson, D.A., K. Mauck and J. Fletemeyer. 1987. Physical effects of beach nourishment on

sea turtle nesting, Delray Beach, Florida. Technical Report EL-87-15, U.S. Army

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Olsen Associates, Inc. 1998. Sebastian Inlet Sediment Budget and Assessment of

Historical Impact to Adjacent Shorelines. Prepared for Plaintiffs in Machata et al.

v. Board of Commissioners of the Sebastian Inlet District Civil Case No. 95-

0371-ca-05 (19th Judicial Court).


173

Palmer, J.W. 1998. Florida and global warming. Florida Scientist 61(3/4): 96-105.

Parham, J.F. and G.R. Zug. 1997. Age and growth of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta

caretta) of coastal Georgia: an assessment of skeletochronological age-estimates.

Bulletin of Marine Science 61(2): 287-304.

Parkinson, R.W. and J.P. Magron, 1998. Biological Monitoring Programs: Marine

Turtles – Physical Attributes Sebastian Inlet, Florida. Sebastian Inlet Tax District

Permit Compliance Report. Indiatlantic, Florida. August 1998. 29 pp.

Pearce, A.F. 2001. Contrasting population structure of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta

caretta) using mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers. Master’s Thesis.

University of Florida. 71pp.

Peters, A. and K.J.F. Verhoeven, 1994. Impact of Artificial Lighting on the seaward

orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Journal of Herpetology 28 (1): 112-

114.

Philibosian, R. 1976. Disorientation of hawksbill turtle hatchlings, Eretmochelys

imbricata, by stadium lights. Copeia: 824.

Pilkey, O.H. and H.L. Wright III. 1988. Seawalls versus beaches. Pages 41-66, in N.C.

Kraus and O.H. Pilkey (eds.), The Effects of Seawalls on the Beaches. Journal of

Coastal Research, Special Issue 4.

Pilkey, Jr. O.H., D.C. Sharma, H.R. Wanless, L.J. Doyle, O.H. Pilkey, Sr., W. J. Neal,

and B.L. Gruver. 1984. Living with the East Florida Shore. Duke University

Press. Durham, North Carolina. 55 pp.

Plant, N.G. and G.B. Griggs. 1992. Interactions between nearshore and processes and

beach morphology near a seawall. Journal of Coastal Research 8(1): 183-200.

Pritchard, P.C.H. and P. Trebbau. 1984. The Turtles of Venezuela. Society for the

Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Oxford Press. 403 pp.

Rankin-Baransky, K.C. 1997. Origin of Loggerhead Turtles (Caretta caretta) in the

Western North Atlantic Ocean as determined by mtDNA analysis. Masters

Thesis, Drexel University. 48 pp.

Raymond, P.W. 1984. The effects of beach restoration on marine turtles nesting in south

Brevard County, Florida. Master’s Thesis. University of Central Florida.

Orlando, Florida. 121 pp.

Richardson, J. I., and T.H. Richardson. 1982. An experimental model for the loggerhead

sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Pages 189-195, in Bjordal, K.A. (ed.) Biology and

Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.


174

Ryder, C. E. 1993. The Effect of beach renourishment on sea turtles nesting and

hatching success at Sebastian Inlet State Recreation Area, East-Central, Florida.

Master’s Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. B lacksburg,

Virginia. 109pp.

Salmon, M. and K.J. Lohmann. 1989. Orientation cues used by hatchling loggerhead sea

turtles (Caretta caretta L.) during their offshore migration. Ethology 83: 215-

228.

Salmon, M, R. Reiners, C. Lavin, and J. Wyneken. 1995. Behavior of Loggerhead sea turtles

on an urban beach. I. Correlates of nest placement. Journal of Herpetology 29(4):

560-567.

Salmon, M., J. Wyneken, E. Fritz and M. Lucas. 1992. Seafinding by hatchling sea

turtles: role of brightness, silhouette and beach slope as orientation cues.

Behaviour 122 (1-2): 56-77.

Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distribution and abundances of loggerhead

and leatherback sea turtles in waters of the Northeastern United States.

Herpetological Monographs 6: 43-67.

Spotila, J. R., A.E. Dunham , A.J. Leslie, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin, and F.V. Paladino.

1996. Worldwide populatiuon decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback

turtles going extinct? Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2): 209-222.

Steinitz, J. 1990. Reproductive success of sea turtles on Jupiter Island, Florida.

Unpublished report submitted to the Town of Jupiter Island. November 6, 1990.

Steinitz, M.J., M. Salmon, J. Wyneken. 1998. Beach renourishment and loggerhead

turtle reproduction: A seven year study at Jupiter Island, Florida. Journal of

Coastal Research 14(3): 1000-1013.

Stewart, K., M. Sims, A. Meylan, B. Witherington, B. Brost, and L. B. Crowder. 2011.

Leatherback nests increasing significantly in Florida, USA; Trends assessed over

30 years using multilevel modeling. Ecological Applications 21:263–273.

Stoneburner, D.L. and J.I. Richardson, 1981. Observations on the role of temperature in

loggerhead turtle nest site selection. Copeia (1): 238-241.

Tait, J.F. and G.B. Griggs. 1990. Beach Response to the presence of a seawall. A

comparison of field observations. Shore and Beach April 1990: 11-28.

Terchunian, A.V. 1988. Permitting coastal armoring structures: can seawalls and beaches

coexist? Journal of Coastal Research SI(4): 65-75.


175

TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 1998. An Assessment of the Kemp’s Ridley

(Lepidochelys kempii) and Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) Sea Turtle Populations

in the Western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-

409. 96pp.

TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 2000. Assessment Update for the Kemp’s

Ridley and Loggerhead Sea Turtle Populations in the Western North Atlantic.

U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-

444. 115pp.

Thompson, N.B., 1984. The Status of Loggerhead, Caretta caretta; Kemp’s Ridley,

Lepidochelys kempi; and green, Chelonia mydas, sea turtles in U.S. waters.

Marine Fisheries Review. 16 pp.

Trindell, R., D. Arnold, K. Moody, and B. Morford. 1998. Post-construction marine

turtle nesting monitoring results on nourished beaches. Pages 77-92, in L.S. Tait,

(compiler), Rethinking the Role of Structures in Shore Protection. Proceedings of

the 11th Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology. Florida

Shore & Beach Preservation Association, Tallahassee, Florida.

Tritaik, P. 1997. Data summaries for southeastern beach mouse trapping effort at

Treasure Shores Park. On file at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida

Ecosystem Office; Vero Beach, Florida.

Tucker, A.D. 1989. Revised estimate of annual reproductive capacity for leatherback

sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) based on intraseasonal clutch frequency.

Pages 345-346, in Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle

Symposium, October 12-16, 1987, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226.

Tucker, A.D. and N.B. Frazer. 1991. Reproductive variation in leatherback turtles,

Dermochelys coriacea, at Culebra National Wildlife Refuge, Puerto Rico.

Herpetologica 47(1): 115–124.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service).

1992. Recovery plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) .

National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. 40 pp.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service).

1996. Endangered Species Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999. South Florida Multi-Species Recovery

Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 2172 pp.


176

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2001. Report on the Mexico/United States of

America population restoration project for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle,

Lepidochelys kempii, on the coasts of Tamaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico 2001.

USFWS report. 34 pp.

Weishempel, J.F., D.A. Bagley, L.M. Ehrhart, and B.L. Rodenbeck. 2003.

Spatiotemporal patterns of annual sea turtle nesting behaviors along an East

Central Florida Beach. Biological Conservation 110(2):295-303.

Witherington, B.E. 1992. Behavioral Responses of Nesting sea turtles to artificial lights.

Herpetologica 48(1): 31-39.

Witherington, B.E. 1994. Some lost-year turtles found. Pages 194-197, in Proceedings

of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation,

February 23–27, 1993, Jekyll Island, Georgia. National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-341.

Witherington, B.E. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1987. Status and reproductive characteristics of

green turtles (Chelonia mydas) nesting in Florida. Poster presented at WATSII,

Mauaquez, Puerto Rico, 12-16 October 1987.

Witherington, B.E. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1989. Status and reproductive characteristics of

green turtles (Chelonia mydas) nesting in Florida. Pages 351-352, in Proceedings

of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium, October 12–16, 1987,

Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226.

Witherington, B.E. and C.M. Koeppel. 1999. Sea Turtle nesting in Florida, USA, during

the decade 1989-1998: An analysis of trends. Pages 94-96, in Proceedings of the

19th Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, March 2-6, 1999, South

Padre Island, Texas. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443.

Witherington, B.E. and R.E. Martin. 2000. Understanding, Assessing, and Resolving

Light-Pollution Problems on Sea turtle nesting beaches. 2nd ed. rev., Florida Fish

and Wildlife Conservation Commission, F.M.R.I. Technical Report TR-2. 73 pp.

Witherington, B.E., K.A. Bjorndal, and C.M. McCabe. 1990. Temporal pattern of

nocturnal emergence of loggerhead turtle hatchlings from natural nests. Copeia 4:

1165-1168.

Witherington, B., P. Kublis, B. Brost, and A. Meylan. 2009. Decreasing annual nest

counts in a globally important loggerhead sea turtle population. Ecological

Applications 19(1):30-54.


177

Wood, D.W. and K.A. Bjorndal. 2000. Relation of temperature, moisture, salinity, and

slope to nest site selection in loggerhead sea turtles. Copeia (1): 119-128.

Work, P.A. and R.G. Dean. 1990. Shoreline Changes Adjacent to Florida’s East Coast

Tidal Inlets. Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of

Florida. Unpublished Report.

Wyneken, J. and M. Salmon. 1992. Frenzy and postfrenzy swimming activity in

loggerhead, green and leatheback hatchling sea turtles. Copeia (2): 478-484.

Wyneken, J., M. Salmon, and K.J. Lohmann. 1990. Orientation by hatchling loggerhead

sea turtles Caretta caretta L. in a wave tank. Journal of Experimental Marine

Biology and Ecology 139:43–50.


178

APPENDIX A - INTERIM AGREEMENT


191

APPENDIX B - EXISTING MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT


198

APPENDIX C - EROSION VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS

199

Indian River County, Florida

Erosion Vulnerability Analysis

&

Expected Seawall Construction

Over the Next 30-Years

Technical Report No.1

PPrreeppaarreedd aass SSuuppppoorrttiivvee DDooccuummeennttaattiioonn ttoo tthhee

HHaabbiittaatt CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn PPllaann ffoorr MMaarriinnee TTuurrttllee PPrrootteeccttiioonn

FLORIDA

IN

DIA

NRIVERC

OU

NT

Y

Submitted to:

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems

Majory Stoneman Douglas Building

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Untied States Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

South Florida Ecological Services Office

1339 20th Street


&

Indian River County

Public Works Department

Coastal Engineering Division

1840 25th Street


Submitted by:

142 Bay Street S.E., Suite 3

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

June 2001

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE: ………………………………………………………………. 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION: …………………………………………………………………… 1

1.2 VULNERABILILTY ANALYSIS: ………………………………………………….. 2

1.3 EVALUATION OF COASTAL EROSION: ……………………………………….. 6

1.4 EXPECTED SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION: …………………………………….. 10

REFERENCE: ……………………………………………………………………………….. 13

EXHIBIT 1 …………………………………………………………………………………… 14

1

1.0 Purpose:

Woods Hole Group, Inc. (WHG) was contracted by the Indian River County Board of

County Commissioners on April 10, 2001 to conduct a county-wide erosion vulnerability

analysis. This analysis was completed as part of the County’s development of a Habitat

Conservation Plan (HCP) for marine turtle protection. This information was prepared in support

of the HCP and a Section 10 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) application submitted to the United

States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

The County found itself facing legal challenges from the issuance of emergency coastal

armoring (seawall) permits and subsequent construction. The litigation was brought forth from

alleged environmental impacts to marine turtles. A solution was negotiated between all parties,

which required Indian River County to obtain a Section 10 ITP from the Federal Government.

The erosion analysis was needed as part of the application to document the number of seawalls

expected over the life of the permit, and is presented herein.

1.1 Introduction:

During the 1990’s the State of Florida revised regulations concerning coastal armoring.

These changes enabled local governments to authorize emergency protection permits for

oceanfront structures. Indian River County was the first agency to initiate this authority and

issue an emergency permit for the construction of a seawall along several oceanfront properties.

This action promoted several more emergency permits, doubling the number of armoring

structures along the County over a short period of time. Following the construction/completion

of several seawalls, the Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC) Sea Turtle Survival League,

a non-profit environmental group, initiated litigation against Indian River County. CCC and

FDEP contended that the seawalls were built further seaward than allowed by State Rules &

Regulations and likely results in a ‘take’ of endangered marine turtles. In response to legal

pressures Indian River County, CCC, FDEP and local petitioners (homeowners) entered into an

Interim Agreement. This agreement required Indian River County to develop a Habitat

Conservation Plan (HCP) and apply for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the United State

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This permit would authorize

the ‘take’ of marine turtles, which resulted from the placement of emergency coastal armoring

2

structures. ‘Take’ is defined: as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, kill, wound, trap, capture,

or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct against wildlife.

Following the execution of the Interim Agreement, the County hired an environmental

consultant to prepare the necessary documentation for the permit application. One element

essential to the application was the calculation of the number of seawalls likely to be constructed

over the next 30-years. This evaluation was completed by WHG and broken into several tasks as

follows:

1) Establish criteria to determine if a structure is vulnerable.

2) Conduct a 30-year erosion analysis of the County shoreline.

3) Calculate the number of seawalls expected over the 30-year time period.

The following sections present the methods and results from the engineering erosion analysis.

1.2 Vulnerability Analysis:

It is required that the ITP application, and subsequent permit, be consistent with Florida

Law. The Federal Government cannot issue a permit that does not meet State Rules &

Regulations. Consequently, any emergency permit issued by Indian River County must meet

State requirements as well. Therefore, the ITP application shall be consistent with Florida

Statue 161, Rules & Procedures Chapter 62B-33 whereby a structure (home) must be considered

“vulnerable” in order to receive an armoring protection permit. Vulnerable is defined in Chapter

62B-33.002(60) as when an eligible structure is subject to either direct wave attack or to erosion

from a 15-year return interval storm which exposes any portion of the foundation.

The determination of vulnerability is made by utilizing the dune erosion model contained

in the report entitled “Erosion due to High Frequency Storm Events”, by the University of

Florida, dated November 22, 1995. The aforementioned report presents a method and numerical

model for calculating dune erosion due to high frequency storm events for twenty-four coastal

counties around Florida. A high frequency storm is identified as having return intervals less than

or equal to 25 years. The model predicts the extent of erosion resulting from this high frequency

storm event.

Model input data consists of several parameters including storm duration, storm surge

height, astronomical tide, wave height, scale parameter “A” associated with the existing survey

profile, and survey profile data. Vulnerability is established when the model predicts the dune or

3

escarpment, resulting from a 15-year return interval storm, falls landward of the structure (Figure

1).

Procedures were developed by WHG to calculate the extent of erosion along the

County’s coastline. The County was divided into three regions using FDEP Reference

Monuments R-1 to R-49, R-72 to R-86, and R-100 to R-110, which represent the areas presently

experiencing erosion and likely to request emergency protection (Figure 2). Beach profile data

was recovered at these FDEP reference monument locations. The County’s beaches are

monitored by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) through a beach

profile survey program. The FDEP regularly collects beach profile data through a system of

fixed monuments. These monuments are located approximately 1000 feet apart and are

numbered R-1 through R-119 beginning at the north end of the County. Survey profile data from

1999 was used to complete the model computations. The model predicted the magnitude of

erosion for each profile and results were analyzed at contour elevations of 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, and

12.0 feet NGVD.

Following an emergency coastal erosion event, an accurate and simple way of

establishing vulnerability was needed through field-based measurement. Procedures were

developed to allow for a measurement to be taken between the structure and dune escarpment.

The dune escarpment is a feature easily recognizable in the field and a measurement can be

readily take between it and the structure. A separate evaluation was completed to determine the

average dune escapement elevation for the three regions. This dune escarpment elevation is used

to evaluate the results of the erosion model. It was determined that the 12.0 ft contour represents

the average dune escarpment elevation for the three regions of study (Table 1).

Table 1 – County Dune Elevations

Average Elevation (ft.) NGVD

Region /Location Top (or crest) of Dune Toe of Dune

R-1 to R-49 13.2 8.2

R-72 to R-86 18.6 9.6

R-100 to R-110 15.3 8.9

Total 14.6 8.7

*Dune Escarpment Elevation 11.7

*Note: Dune Escarpment Elevation is estimated as the average distance between the top (or

crest) and toe of the dune.

4

5

6

The results of the erosion model predict that, on average, the 12.0 ft. contour elevation

will erode 19.5 ft from a 15-year storm event. Thus, following an emergency shoreline erosion

event, if the escarpment comes within 20 feet of a structure, the structure would be considered

vulnerable, because its foundation could become undermined by a subsequent 15-year storm

event. Table 2 presents the results from the erosion model analysis, and a complete set of model

output data can be found in Exhibit 1. These results were used to establish a uniform county-

wide standard for determining vulnerability following a declared shoreline emergency.

As shown in Table 1, the 12.0 ft. contour represents an average county-wide dune

escarpment elevation. The 12.0 ft. contour is expected to erode 19.5 feet during a 15-year storm

event. This distance (19.5 ft.) was determined by averaging the expected erosion losses for all

three regions. As mentioned previously, an accurate and simple way of establishing

vulnerability was needed through a simple field-based measurement

Two of the three regions revealed higher expected erosion losses than the suggested 20 ft

(R-72 to R-86 with 50.4 ft. and R-100 to R-110 with 26.4 ft.). The model predicts that these two

regions could have erosion losses considerably greater than 20 ft. Moreover, if each individual

profile were used to determine vulnerability a greater number of seawalls would be expected.

Therefore, the recommended 20 ft. distance is considered restrictive in limiting the number of

armoring structures.

Table 2 – Erosion Model Results

Erosion in Feet @ Contour Elevation NGVD

Region /Location 7.0 ft. 8.0 ft. 9.0 ft. 10.0 ft. 12.0 ft.

R-1 to R49 27.6 19.3 16.4 13.6 11.3

R-72 to R-86 92.5 83.9 65.8 55.8 50.4

R-100 to R-110 62.5 53.2 47.2 45.1 26.4

Average Erosion Loss 46.4 37.8 31.5 27.6 19.5

1.3 Evaluation of Coastal Erosion:

Once a method was established to determine vulnerability, it was necessary to complete

an analysis to document the amount of “normal” erosion the County shoreline will experience

over the next 30-years. This time period was used because the County has recently adopted a

beach management plan (The Beach Preservation Plan) that considers preserving the coastline

7

over a project horizon of 30-years. Within this plan, the County was divided into eight planning

Sectors with each representing a portion of the coastline that is considered relatively uniform and

continuous in physical and jurisdictional boundaries. Figure 3 shows the eight Sectors and the

project boundaries. A two-tiered approach was recommended to address the County’s erosion

problems as follows:

Restore and maintain the beaches south of Sebastian Inlet, which have been adversely

impacted by the Inlet’s presence.

Restore and maintain areas of critical erosion.

Figure 3 - Beach Preservation Plan, Project Boundaries & Planning Sectors.

Feeder Beach (7000')

Sector 1

Sector 2

Sector 3

Ambersand Beach (6000')

Wabasso Beach (7000')

Natural Beach

Vero Beach (9000')

Natural Beach

South County Beach (7000')

Natural Beach

Sector 4

Sector 5

Sector 6

Sector 7

Sector 8

Indian River County St. Lucie County

Brevard County Indian River County

Sebastian

Little Hollywood

Sebastian Inlet R-1

R-10

R-11

R-19 R-

20

R-30

R-40

R-50

R-60

R-70

R-80

R-71

R-86

R-90

R-94

R-100

R-110

R-113

R-119

R-45

Roseland

Vero Beach

1

1

5

60

60

A1A

A1A 5

Atlantic Ocean

Indian River Shores

Pine Island

Orchid

Wabasso

Winter Beach

Airport

Vero

Beach Municipal Airport

95

95

8

Indian River County has 22 miles of which the Florida Department of Environmental

Protection has classified 13.83 miles (62% of the County shoreline) as “critically eroded areas”.

A unique aspect to the County’s shoreline is that a coastal inlet defines the northern boundary

(Sebastian Inlet). Typical of most inlets, the interruption of the longshore transport has resulted

in severe erosion to the downdrift beaches. Continued erosion has limited the availability of

quality beaches and has contributed to the increased cost of protecting the shoreline.

Additionally, an unprecedented number of seawalls have been constructed in the past few years,

further degrading the quality of the shoreline. Efforts to protect upland structures include rock

revetments, seawalls, submerged breakwaters and sand filled tubes. The proposed beach

nourishment projects are centered on these “critically eroded areas” and will provide protection

to a total of approximately 44,000 feet (8.3 miles) of shoreline.

The principal objective for implementing the Beach Preservation Plan is to ensure the

protection of existing upland properties from shoreline erosion associated with normal (seasonal)

wave conditions and high-frequency storm events. Equally important to these design initiatives

is minimization of environmental impacts to the extensive nearshore hardbottom resources and

marine turtle nesting habitat. As will be presented in a subsequent section of this document, the

proposed beach nourishment projects greatly reduce the number of expected seawalls built along

the County shoreline.

To determine the amount of erosion expected over the next 30-years, aerial photography

and beach profile survey data were utilized. Georeferenced images and survey data from 1999

were used to trace the approximate location of the dune escarpment for the three regions of this

investigation (FDEP Reference Monuments R-1 to R-49, R-72 to R-86, and R-100 to R-110).

The dune line was drawn on the aerials to produce a position that could be manipulated to

represent changes to the shoreline. Dune line erosion rates were used from the County’s Beach

Preservation Plan, which indicated 0.3 ft/yr for R-1 to R-49, 0.5 ft/yr for R-72 to R-86, and 2.4

ft/yr for R-100 to R-110. These rates were applied to the dune line, established on the aerials,

and moved landward for different time increments, 5, 10, 20, and 30 years. This procedure was

carried out for all three regions to identify the amount of erosion to the dune or escarpment over

the next 30-years (Figure 4).

9

Figure 4 - Erosion Analysis of the Dune Line.

DRAFT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

10

1.4 Expected Seawall Construction:

Following the conclusion of the erosion analysis, an evaluation was completed to

determine the number of seawalls that would be constructed for the next 30-years. As described

in the vulnerability analysis, once the dune line comes within 20 feet of the structure it would be

considered vulnerable and qualify for emergency protection. During the erosion analysis, a

vulnerability-line was placed 20 feet in front of all existing oceanfront structures. If the eroding

dune line reached the vulnerability-line then a seawall was assumed for that structure (Figure 5).

All the oceanfront structures evaluated were considered eligible under State Rules &

Regulations. Eligible structures include public infrastructure, private non-conforming (built

prior to FDEP CCCL Rules) habitable structures, and private non-habitable structures attached to

non-conforming habitable structures whose failure would cause the adjoining habitable structure

to become vulnerable. A complete definition can be found in Florida Statue 161, Rules &

Procedures Chapter 62B-33.002(18).

Results indicate 64 coastal armoring structures (seawalls) could be built over the next 30-

years, totaling approximately 1.7 miles of beach. These results were calculated with “no” beach

nourishment implemented through the County’s Beach Preservation Plans and presented in Table

3. A similar evaluation including beach nourishment was performed, and the results indicate that

the number of armoring structures would be greatly reduced, by approximately 50%. This

evaluation was completed to demonstrate the importance of nourishing beaches in Florida.

Beach nourishment provides additional protection and eliminates the need for hardening

structures within the boundaries of the project. Table 4 presents the results of the number of

seawalls expected with beach nourishment.


11

Figure 5 - Evaluation for Expected Seawall Construction.


12

Table 3 – Expected Number of Seawalls (with no beach nourishment).

Time Progression

5 Years 10 Years 20 Years 30 Years Total

Region/Location

Number

of

Seawalls

Linear ft.

of

Shoreline

Number

of

Seawalls

Linear ft.

of

Shoreline

Number

of

Seawalls

Linear ft.

of

Shoreline.

Number

of

Seawalls

Linear ft.

of

Shoreline

Number

of

Seawalls

Linear ft.

of

Shoreline.

R-1 to R-49 25 2,927 0 0 2 143 2 218 29 3,288

R-72 to R-86 6 1,305 1 144 1 304 2 562 10 2,316

R-100 to R-110 8 1,044 5 654 6 973 6 824 25 3,495

Total 39 5,276 6 798 9 1,421 10 1,604 64 9,099

Table 4 – Expected Number of Seawalls (with beach nourishment).

Time Progression

5 Years 10 Years 20 Years 30 Years Total

Region/Location

Number

of

Seawalls

Linear ft.

of

Shoreline

Number

of

Seawalls

Linear ft.

of

Shoreline

Number

of

Seawalls

Linear ft.

of

Shoreline.

Number

of

Seawalls

Linear ft.

of

Shoreline

Number

of

Seawalls

Linear ft.

of

Shoreline.

R-1 to R-49 21 1,767 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1,767

R-72 to R-86 2 385 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 385

R-100 to R-110 8 1,044 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1,044

Total 31 3,196 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 3,196

13

References:

Florida Statues, Chapter 161 Beach and Shore Preservation, Part I, II and II, Florida

Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Statues, Chapter 62B-33, Rules and Procedures, Coastal Construction and

Excavation (Permits for Construction Seaward of the Coastal Construction

Control Line and Fifty-Foot Setback), Florida Department of Environmental

Protection, Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Tallahassee, Florida.

Malakar, S. B., and Dean, R.G., November 22, 1995, “EROSION DUE TO HIGH

FREQUENCY STORM EVENT (18 Selected Coastal Counties of Florida), User’s

Manual, Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Office of

Beaches and Coastal Systems, Tallahassee, Florida.

Zheng, J., and Dean, R.G., 1997, “Comparison of Erosion Models for Storms at Ocean

City, MD”, Technical Report, Coastal Engineering, University of Florida,

Gainesville, Florida.

Tabar, J.R., April 1998, “Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, Beach

Preservation Plan Update”, Indian River County, Department of Public Works,

Division of Coastal Engineering, Florida.


194

APPENDIX D - DRAFT DECLARATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY

RESOLUTION 2001 -

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY RESOLUTION DECLARING

STATE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY

WHEREAS, the National Hurricane Center recognizes the danger to coastal residents of

Florida from Hurricane , by posting a hurricane from

to; and

WHEREAS, Indian River County has high evacuation times to evacuate residents from

the hazards of a hurricane; and

WHEREAS, the current forecast error of the National Hurricane Center does not allow

for a confident prediction of the track of Hurricane at that point in time,

coinciding with Indian River County's high evacuation times; and

WHEREAS, Hurricane has the potential for causing extensive damage to

public utilities, public buildings, public communication systems, public streets and roads,

public drainage systems, commercial and residential buildings and areas; and

WHEREAS, Chapter 252.38(6)(e), Florida Statutes, provides authority for a political

subdivision such as Indian River County to declare a State of Local Emergency and to

waive the procedures and formalities otherwise required of political subdivisions by law

pertaining to:

1. Performance of public work and taking whatever action is necessary to

ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the community.

2. Entering into contracts.

3. Incurring obligations.

4. Employment of permanent and temporary workers.

5. Utilization of volunteer workers.

6. Rental of equipment.

7. Acquisition and distribution, with or without compensation of supplies,

materials and facilities.

8. Appropriation and expenditure of public funds.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of

Indian River County, Florida, this day of 20 ,

that

1. Hurricane poses a serious threat to the lives and property of

residents of Indian River County and that a State of Local Emergency

shall be declared, effective immediately, for all of Indian River County,

including, all unincorporated and incorporated areas.

2. The Board of County Commissioners hereby exercises its authority and

waives the procedures and formalities required by law of a political

subdivision, as provided in Chapter 252.38(6)(e), Florida Statutes.

The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner and the motion

was seconded by Commissioner , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was

as follows:

Chairman Caroline D. Ginn

Vice-Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge

Commissioner Fran B. Adams

Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht

Commissioner John W. Tippin

The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this day of

, 20 .

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS


BY Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman

Attest

Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk


197

APPENDIX E - RULES AND REGULATIONS

FOR ISSUANCE OF EMERGENCY PERMITS FOR SHORELINE

PROTECTION

ATTACHMENT A

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY RULES & REGULATIONS FOR

ISSUANCE OF EMERGENCY PERMITS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION

Definitions:

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

Commissioners declaring a state of emergency due to the approach or passage of a coastal storm,

as authorized by Chapter 252.38, Florida Statutes.

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 non-habitable

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.

FDEP/THE DEPARTMENT - Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Office of

Beaches and Coastal Systems.

Indian River County Page 2

Emergency Permitting Rules & Regulations

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 County.

Hatchling – 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 of

local governmental, 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.

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, or 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 15-year 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

fabrics 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 facilitate 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 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 of

factors 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 downdrift 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 of shell 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 escarpment and as close to the vulnerable structure as practicable

to provide sufficient protection. The Coastal Engineer shall use his/her best professional

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 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.

13. If a temporary structure fails, all debris and structural material shall be removed from the

beach within 20 days of the structure failure. If removal of a failed 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.


203

APPENDIX F – PENDING MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

BETWEEN FDEP AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

PURSUANT TO HCP IMPLEMENTATION

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (THIS AGREEMENT) is entered

into this ______ day of ________________, 2001, by and between the Board of County

Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida (THE COUNTY) and the Florida

Department of Environmental 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 for 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” [Appendix E of this HCP] 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 (FAC), with the exception of provisions pertaining to

the protection of marine turtles; and

WHEREAS, regulations contained in Chapter 62B-33, FAC, 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 under 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, under THIS AGREEMENT, those portions of the above

referenced FAC 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

2

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 structures 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 THIS AGREEMENT, 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 structures

in accordance with the “Rules & Regulations” set forth in Attachment A [Appendix E

of this HCP]. 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 it’s 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 structure is eligible for an emergency permit, THE

COUNTY shall notify THE DEPARTMENT in writing within 3 working days. This

3

notification shall provide the location of the affected property, characterize the

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 notification described in Paragraph 6 above, THE

DEPARTMENT will assign an FDEP permit number to facilitate 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 of the following options:

a. Submit 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 ensure that

the implications of Paragraph 9 above are fully understood and shall provide guidance

during the preparation of a DEPARTMENT permit application, as applicable. THE

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 issuance of the emergency shoreline

protection permit.

11. 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 similar project that would provide protection for the vulnerable

structure is scheduled for construction within nine (9) months of receipt of the

application 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 ensure 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.

4

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 of the 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, downdrift 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 site-

specific 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 farther

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 emergency 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.

5

19. All correspondence between THE COUNTY and THE DEPARTMENT pursuant to

THIS AGREEMENT shall be addressed to the following Points of Contact:

THE COUNTY THE DEPARTMENT

Coastal Engineer Program Administrator

Indian River County Public Works Dept. Florida Department of Environmental Protection

1850 25th Street Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems

Vero Beach, Florida 32960 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., Mail Station 300

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

ENTERED INTO this _______ day of _____________________, 2001.

Attest:


By its Board of County Commissioners

By By

Caroline D. Ginn, Chairperson

Printed Name and Title

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT

OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

By

David B. Struhs, Secretary

FILED AND ACKNOWLEDGED on this date, under Section 120.52 of the Florida

Statutes, with the designated Department Clerk, receipt of which is hereby

acknowledged.

CLERK DATE


209

APPENDIX G – LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CARL PROPERTY

JUNGLE TRAIL CONSERVATION AREA IS COMPOSED

OF TWO TRACTS (SEE FIGURE 3 OF THIS HCP):

CAIRNS TRACT - NORTHERN TRACT TOGETHER WITH THE NORTH

HALF OF THE SOUTHERN TRACT

IRWIN TRACT - SOUTH HALF OF SOUTHERN TRACT

CAIRNS TRACT

EXHIBIT A

All of the following land in Indian River County, Florida described as follows:

South 165.00 feet of the North 825 feet of Government Lot 11, Section 26, Township 31

South, Range 39 East, said 165.00 feet being measured along the West boundary line of

said Government Lot 11.

TOGETHER WITH

The North 660 feet of Government Lot 10, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39

East (said 660 feet being measured along the East boundary line of said Government Lot

10) less and except Jungle Trai1, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 40A, Public Records

of Indian River County, Florida.

TOGETHER WITH

The North 660 feet of Government Lot 11, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39

East (said 660 feet being measured along the West boundary line of said Government Lot

11).

TOGETHER WITH

All of Government Lot 3, Section 25, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, EXCEPTING

therefrom the following four parcels:

EXCEPTION 1

That portion of the South 500 feet of Government Lot 3, Section 25, Township 3l South,

Range 39 east (measured on the East line or State Road A1A) that lies East of AlA

highway.

EXCEPTION 2

The North 400 feet of the South 1,250 feet lying East of State Road AlA, measured along

the easterly right of way of State Road AlA, of Government. Lot 3, Section 25, Township

31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida. Also described as a parcel of land

situate in Section 25, Township 31 South, Range 39 East; Indian River County, Florida

more particularly described as follows:

Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 25, Township 31 South, Range 39 East,

run Northerly along the West line of Section 25 a distance of 1,608.76 feet to the North

line of Government Lot 3; thence S 89°42' 47" E along the North line of Government Lot

3, a distance of 792.13 feet to the Easterly Right of Way line of State Road AlA (100'

wide); thence S 24°43' 18" E along the Easterly Right of Way line of State Road AlA a

distance of 497.76 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence N 89°05’23" E a distance of

598.81 feet to a Point on the Mean High Water Line of the Atlantic Ocean; thence along

said Mean High Water Line S 23°00'32" E a distance of 53.10 feet; thence S 24°18’34” E

a distance of 75.53 feet; thence S 19°57’20” E a distance of 68.46 feet; thence S

21°33’35” E a distance of 68.79 feet; thence S 23°33’41” E a distance of 72.10 feet;

thence S 22°02’04” E a distance of 55.55 feet to the South line of the Parcel of land

described herein; thence along said South line of S 89°05’23” W a distance of 581.67 feet

to the Point on the Easterly Right of Way line of State Road A1A; thence N 24°43’18” W

along the Easterly Right of Way line of State Road A1A a distance of 400.00 feet to

the Point of Beginning.

EXCEPTION 3

Beginning at the point of Intersection of the West Right of Way of State Road AlA and

the South line of Government Lot 3, Section 25, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, said

point being approximately 1402.56 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Section 25;

thence run Northwesterly along said West Right of Way a distance of 250.00 feet; thence

run Southwesterly a distance of 368.46 feet to a point on said South line of Government

Lot 3, said point being 391.11 feet West of the aforesaid Point of Beginning; thence run

East along said South line of Government Lot 3 a distance of 391.11 feet to the Point or

Beginning.

This conveyance shall include all riparian and littoral rights and all right, title and interest

of grantor in and to any submerged lands adjacent to the lands specifical1y described

above, and all interest in any strips and gores of land immediately adjacent thereto.

EXCEPTION 4

The North 13.71 feet of the South 776.10 feet of Government Lot 3, Section 25,

Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, lying east of State

Road AlA.

TOGETHER WITH

The South 1/2 of Government Lots 10 and 11, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39

East, less and except Jungle Trail as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 40A, Public Records

of Indian River County, Florida, also EXCEPTING therefrom the following six parcels:

EXCEPTION 1:

Beginning at a point 220 yards South of the North boundary of Government Lot 10,

Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39 East and on the bank of the Indian River, run

due East to the Easterly boundary of said Government Lot 10: thence run due South

along said Easterly boundary 165 feet, thence run due West to the banks of the Indian

River; thence in a Northerly direction along said Indian River to the place of beginning.

EXCEPTION 2:

The South 508.3 feet of Government Lot 10, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39

East.

EXCEPTION 3:

Beginning at a point on the Indian River 1110 feet South of the North Boundary of

Government Lot 10, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, run due East to the

East Boundary line of said Government Lot 10 for Point of Beginning; thence run East

296 feet in government Lot 11, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39 East; thence

run South 210 feet, thence run due West 196 feet to the boundary line between Lots 10

and 11; thence run North along said line 210 feet to the Point of Beginning.

EXCEPTION 4:

The South 430 feet of Government Lot 11, Section 26, Township 31South, Range 39

East.

EXCEPTION 5:

A strip of land in Government Lot 10, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, in

Indian River County, Florida, described according to the plat of survey made by Carter &

Damerow, Inc., consulting engineers for H.J. Zaph (sic) in August, 1930, as follows:

Beginning at a point on the dividing line between Lots 10 and 11in said Section 26, 284.2

feet North of the South line of said section, thence run the said dividing line North 16.2

feet, thence run West 279.8 feet, thence run South 16.2 feet, thence run East 279.8' feet to

the Point of Beginning as described in deed dated September 14, 1942, recorded in Deed

Book 36, Page 111, Indian River County, Florida, records, described as follows:

A parcel of land in government Lot 10, in section 26, township 31South, range 39 east, in

Indian River County, Florida, described according to the plat of survey made by Carter

and Damerow, Inc., consulting engineers for H.J. Zapf in August, 1930, as follows:

Beginning at a point on the dividing line between lots 10 and 11, in said Section 26.

284.2 feet north of the south line of said section, thence run the said dividing line north

16.2 feet, thence run West 279.8 feet, thence run south 16.2 feet, thence run east 279.8

feet to the point of beginning.

EXCEPTION 6:

All that certain piece, parcel or tract of land situate lying and being in Section 26,

Township 31 South. Range 39 East, Tallahassee base meridian Indian River County,

Florida, described as follows:

Commencing for reference at the Southeast corner of said Section 26, Township 31

South, Range 39 East;

Thence, bearing North Zero Degrees Twenty-eight Minutes Forty-six Seconds West (N

0°28’46" W) along the East line of said Section 26 a distance of Four Hundred Thirty and

Zero One Hundredths feet (430.01') to a 7/8" iron rod with aluminum alloy cap stamped

GWW RLS 5075;

Thence, leaving said East line of Section 26 bearing South Eighty-nine Degrees Fifty-

four Minutes Sixteen Seconds West (S 89°54'16" W) along a line 430' North of and

parallel with the South line of said Section 26 a distance of One Thousand One Hundred

Ten and Sixteen Hundredths feet (1,110.16') to the point and place of beginning of the

herein described parcel;

Thence, continuing along said North line bearing South Eighty-nine Degrees Fifty-four

Minutes Sixteen Seconds West (S 89°54’16” W) a distance of Three and Fifty-six

Hundredths feet (3.56’) to a set 7/8” iron rod with aluminum alloy cap stamped GWW

RLS 5075;

Thence, leaving said North line bearing North Zero Degrees Sixteen Minutes Forty-four

Seconds East (N 0°16’44” E) a distance of Sixty-two and Ninety-three Hundredths feet

(62.93’) to a set 7/8” iron rod with aluminum alloy cap stamped GWW RLS 5075;

Thence, bearing South Eighty-nine Degrees Forty-three Minutes Sixteen Seconds East (S

89°43’16” E) a distance of Three and Fifty-six Hundredths feet (3.56’) to a set 7/8 iron

rod with aluminum alloy cap stamped GWW RLS 5075;

Thence, bearing South Zero Degrees Sixteen Minutes Forty-four Seconds West (S 0°16'

44” W) a distance of Sixty-two and Ninety Hundredths feet (62.90') to the point and

place of beginning.

[IRWIN TRACT]

EXHIBIT “A”

That portion of the South 500 feet of Government Lot 3, Section 25, Township 31 South,

Range 39 East (measured on the East line of State Road A1A) that lies East of A1A

Highway.

TOGETHER WITH:

The North 145.02 feet of Government Lot 1, lying East of State Road A1A right of way,

Section 36, Township 31 South, Range 39 East; Indian River County, Florida.