2008 - Indian River County

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE
PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES ON THE ERODING
BEACHES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ANNUAL REPORT - 2008
Prepared in Support of Indian River County’s Incidental Take Permit (TE057875-0)
Prepared for:
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES OFFICE
ATTN: HCP PROGRAM
1339 20 TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960
Prepared by:
RICHARD M. HERREN, M.S.
HCP SEA TURTLE COORDINATOR
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1801 27 th Street
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Trish Adams
HCP Coordinator
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
South Florida Ecological Services Office
1339 20th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
December 4, 2009
Ms. Adams,
Enclosed is a copy of the 2008 Annual Report for Indian River County's Habitat
Conservation Plan for Sea Turtles. This report, prepared by the County's HCP
Coordinator, satisfies the requirement under Section J. of Indian River County's
Incidental Take Permit TE057875-0. As required by the ITP, the report contains the
status and results of the sea turtle nest monitoring, predator control, light management
and education programs. Let me know if you have any questions and thank you for
your patience in getting this report to you.
Richard M. Herren, M.S.
Environmental Specialist / HCP Sea Turtle Coordinator
Indian River County
1801 27 th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
(772) 226-1569
FAX (772) 778-9391
rherren@ircgov.com
"Under penalty of law, I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, after appropriate
inquiries of all relevant persons involved in the preparation of this report, the information
submitted is true, accurate, and complete."

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
A PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES
ON THE ERODING BEACHES OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
ANNUAL REPORT - 2008
Prepared in Support of Indian River County’s Incidental Take Permit
(TE057875-0) for the Take of Sea Turtles Causally Related to
Emergency Shoreline Protection Activities
Prepared for:
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES OFFICE
ATTN: HCP PROGRAM
1339 20 TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960
Prepared by:
RICHARD M. HERREN, M.S.
HCP SEA TURTLE COORDINATOR
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1801 27 th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
November 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................. 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 3
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 5
HCP ADMINISTRATION................................................................................................. 6
HCP TRAINING .............................................................................................................. 6
EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS............................................... 7
COORDINATION BETWEEN COUNTY AND STATE AGENCIES.............................. 7
COUNTY-AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS ... 7
SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM ........................................................... 7
BIOLOGICAL GOAL .................................................................................................... 7
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES................................................................. 8
SURVEY AREAS......................................................................................................... 8
SURVEY METHODOLOGY....................................................................................... 10
Personnel and Daily Monitoring Procedures .......................................................... 10
Nest Marking, Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................... 11
DATA MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 12
Organization........................................................................................................... 12
Analysis.................................................................................................................. 12
RESULTS – NEST TOTALS, TRENDS AND CRAWL CHARACTERISTICS............ 13
Nesting and Nesting Success ................................................................................ 13
Spatial Patterns...................................................................................................... 14
Temporal Patterns.................................................................................................. 15
Crawl Characteristics ............................................................................................. 16
Crawl Obstructions................................................................................................. 16
RESULTS – NEST FATE AND REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS .................................. 18
Overall Nest Fate ................................................................................................... 18
Loggerhead Reproductive Success ....................................................................... 19
Green Turtle Reproductive Success ...................................................................... 19
Leatherback Reproductive Success....................................................................... 20
2008 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NESTING .............................................................. 21
Disruptive Human Activities.................................................................................... 21
Human and Animal Tracks on Fresh Crawls.......................................................... 22
SENTINEL NESTS .................................................................................................... 23
MONITORING AT HCP EMERGENCY PROJECT SITES ........................................ 24
CONCLUSION – NEST MONITORING PROGRAM.................................................. 24
LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM............................................................................. 25
PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTERS ........................................................................ 25
NIGHT-TIME LIGHTING EVALUATIONS................................................................. 26
DISORIENTATIONS.................................................................................................. 27
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 1

CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS........................................................................... 28
LIGHTING EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ...................................... 28
EDUCATION PROGRAM ............................................................................................. 29
PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM............................................................................ 30
RACCOON PREDATION – PLAN INTENTION......................................................... 30
CANINE PREDATION ............................................................................................... 31
HUMAN PREDATION – NEST POACHING ............................................................. 32
MITIGATION ................................................................................................................. 32
STATUS OF CONSERVATION AREA AND RECREATION LAND PROPERTIES... 32
CUMULATIVE TAKE .................................................................................................... 33
SUPPORTING GRANTS AND PROJECTS ................................................................. 34
MOBILE GIS GRANT – TRIMBLE AND ESRI ........................................................... 34
NESTING HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS GRANT – NFWF......................................... 34
FLORIDA LICENSE PLATE GRANT – EDUCATION MATERIALS........................... 35
LOGGERHEAD AND GREEN TURTLE GENETICS STUDY – UNIVERSITY OF
GEORGIA.................................................................................................................. 35
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT..................................................................................... 36
SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM ASSESSMENT ............................. 36
LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT................................................. 37
EDUCATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT................................................................. 37
PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT ............................................... 38
SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT............................................................... 38
UNFORESEEN AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES ................................................. 38
LITERATURE CITED.................................................................................................... 39
ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS............................................................................................. 39
TABLES 1 – 16
FIGURES 1 – 14
APPENDIX A – MARINE TURTLE PERMIT # 166
APPENDIX B – MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH STATE
APPENDIX C – NEST MONITORING PROCEDURES
APPENDIX D – NESTING SURVEY DATA SHEET
APPENDIX E – MAPS OF SENTINEL AREAS
APPENDIX F – PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTER
APPENDIX G – LIGHTING WORKSHOP FLYER
APPENDIX H – DOG PREDATION FLYER
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 2

Indian River County Sea Turtle Habitat Conservation Plan
2008 Annual Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2004, Indian River County received an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. The ITP authorized the incidental “take” of five species of
threatened and endangered sea turtles causally related to shoreline protection
measures initiated under the County’s emergency authorization to protect coastal
properties. As a requirement for the ITP Application, the County developed a Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) for Sea Turtles. Among other things, the HCP describes
measures that will be undertaken to minimize impacts to sea turtles during emergency
shoreline protection activities and implements a series of conservation programs to
offset unavoidable take. This annual report describes the efforts that have been
undertaken to carry out the HCP in 2008.
The County authorized no emergency shoreline protection projects in 2008, therefore,
most of the effort focused on the nest monitoring, lighting, predator control and
education programs. This was the fourth year sea turtle nest monitoring covered the
County's entire coastline. Standard Operating Procedures were essentially the same as
those developed previously and monitoring personnel were provided with training to
improve data collection. Nesting activity was summarized within six survey zones and
methodology adhered closely to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC) Marine Turtle Guidelines.
A total of 7,738 sea turtle emergences were recorded during the 2008 nesting season.
Loggerheads (Caretta caretta) were the most abundant nesting sea turtle accounting for
86% of all emergences (3,720 nests). This represented a relatively small increase in
loggerhead nesting compared to the recent downward trend. Green turtles (Chelonia
mydas) and leatherbacks (Dermochelys coriacea) had less nesting this year, but it was
relatively high for a low season and consistent with a long-term trend of increased
nesting for both species. As in years past, there were far more nests deposited in the
northern half of the County. Nesting began on March 26 and ended on October 6,
2008. Nesting success was approximately 55% for both loggerhead and green turtles
and much higher for leatherbacks (87%). There were 964 nests marked for
reproductive success (22% of the total). Overall, the mean emerging success was 84%
for loggerhead and 67% for green turtle nests, however, when tidal wash outs and nest
predations were included it dropped to 59% and 42%, respectively. Leatherback
emerging success was relatively high for this species (61%).
Potentially disruptive human activities recorded this nesting season included beach
fires, unauthorized vehicles, illegal construction and tent camping. There were dozens
of cases where human tracks during the night were associated with abandoned nesting
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 3

attempts. There were also numerous cases of dog tracks on top of nests. This year
only two nests were excavated by a dog in the southern part of the county, but there
were 18 nests dug up in the ACNWR, possibly by a coyote. However, as in years past,
beachfront lighting was the largest problem. Lights caused thousands of hatchlings to
travel in the wrong direction. The highest number of disorientations were observed in
the southern half of the county, which was, not surprisingly, also where the largest
number of night-time lighting violations occurred. On the positive side, most of the
disruptive public lights were resolved in 2008 through a grant. In addition, the work of
the Code Enforcement Officers in the City of Vero Beach and the County's
Environmental Planning Department seemed to be more effective in solving the worst
private lighting issues.
The Predator Control Plan has evolved into a multidisciplinary approach. Raccoon
predation has remained at a fairly low level (0.6% countywide and 1.7% in the
ACNWR). However, canine predation, whether by domestic dog or coyote, has become
more of a concern. Increased education and wildlife enforcement efforts have played a
crucial role. Therefore, the PCP, informally, contains three main areas for controlling
predators: 1) education; 2) enforcement; and 3) trapping. Limited trapping has been
done by refuge staff on federally managed lands. Next year, the ACNWR plans to hire
professionals to trap predators on those lands in the refuge. The county has committed
to help with this plan.
Education has come primarily through brochures, newspaper articles, news radio and
beach signs. Direct discussions with beachgoers have been very successful. Many
hours were spent during the nesting season speaking with beachgoers who had
questions about sea turtles. Brochures describing the HCP, coastal processes and sea
turtle biology and conservation were set up in display cases in public buildings and
handed out to people on the beach. In addition, a county sponsored lighting workshop
had numerous presentations and displays to educate the public. Education is clearly
needed as there is a general lack of knowledge regarding sea turtle biology in this area.
As there were no temporary or permanent armoring structures authorized by the County
during 2008, there remains a balance of 2,676 linear feet of take remaining for the life of
the ITP. However, the ITP does not account for FDEP issued armoring structures.
Seawalls placed on the beach outside the nesting season have instead gone through
the state FDEP CCCL permitting process. These seawalls and county initiated
nourishment projects have temporarily eliminated some of the vulnerable and eligible
structures on the beach. At the same time, the HCP program's that benefit sea turtles
continue to be more effective each year.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 4

INTRODUCTION
Barrier islands in the southeastern United States are frequently battered and
rearranged. Geologists describe this process as “shoreface retreat”, but in the context
of coastal development, it is commonly called erosion. Approximately 71 percent of
Indian River County's coastline is classified by the State of Florida as “critically eroded”.
As structures close to the beach become increasingly vulnerable to physical damage,
coastal property owners in Indian River County are seeking ways to protect their homes.
Section 161, Florida Statutes (FS), and Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code
(FAC), set forth the rules and regulations governing the issuance of permits for
shoreline protection activities along Florida’s coastline. The Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, is the
State agency that oversees this activity. However, if erosion resulting from a major
storm threatens private structures or public infrastructure, and a permit for shoreline
protection has not already been issued by FDEP, a political subdivision of the State may
authorize its citizens to implement temporary protection measures. Indian River County
was the first county in Florida to implement local emergency permitting authority under
Section 161, FS. The County issued its first Emergency Permit in 1996.
Each year threatened and endangered sea turtles deposit thousands of nests on the
beaches of Indian River County. The nesting season, which officially starts on March 1 st
and ends on October 31 st , lasts eight months in this part of Florida. Local beaches
provide nesting habitat for at least three species of sea turtle and are extremely
important on a global scale. The construction of seawalls, revetments and other erosion
control devices during the nesting season will likely harm or harass these federally
protected animals. The result is a prohibited “take” as defined under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Federal authorization for incidental take can only be
granted through an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) issued by the governing agency, which
in this case is the U.S. Department of the Interior.
In an effort to settle a disputed "take" of sea turtles, Indian River County made formal
application to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2003 for an Incidental
Take Permit (ITP) pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. In its application, the
County requested the incidental “take” of five species of sea turtles causally related to
shoreline protection measures initiated under the County’s emergency authorization.
As a requirement of its ITP Application, the County developed a Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP) for the protection of sea turtles. The HCP (a) describes the geographical
boundaries of the Plan Area, (b) characterizes the social, economic and environmental
conditions along the County’s coastline, (c) identifies natural and human factors
potentially affecting sea turtle nesting on County Beaches, (d) describes measures that
will be undertaken to minimize impacts to sea turtles during emergency shoreline
protection activities, and (e) proposes conservation measures to offset unavoidable
take.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 5

After a review of the HCP and alternative actions to the proposed activities, the Service
issued the County an ITP on December 1, 2004. The Permit is effective for 30 years
and is conditioned upon implementation of minimization, mitigation, and other measures
described in the HCP and ITP. Condition 11.J of the ITP requires the County to submit
an annual report describing efforts undertaken to implement the HCP and identifying
any areas of material non-compliance with the Permit.
HCP ADMINISTRATION
Conditions 11.G.1 and 11.G.2 of the ITP require the County to establish and fund the
positions of an HCP Coordinator and Coastal Engineer to oversee implementation of
the HCP. The HCP coordinator position has been filled by Mr. Richard M. Herren since
September 23, 2005. The HCP coordinator (official title is Environmental Specialist) is
responsible for oversight of all of the activities identified within the HCP. Oversight of
coastal construction activities is performed by the County’s Coastal Engineer, a position
currently occupied by Mr. James Gray. Mr. Gray had been hired prior to issuance of the
ITP and primarily implements the County's Beach Management Plan and oversees
other County owned shoreline stabilization projects. Both of these individuals are
employees of Indian River County.
In the absence of any emergency shoreline protection projects, the administration of the
HCP principally involves management of the County's nest monitoring program,
beachfront lighting program, education program and predator control program. Section
11.2.7 of the HCP mandates that the County is responsible for obtaining permitted
personnel, if necessary, to fulfill the requirements of the nest monitoring program. Since
there were no previous nest monitoring projects on the South County Beaches, and the
City of Vero Beach and Town of Indian River Shores asked the County to manage their
respective nesting projects, the HCP Coordinator became directly involved in the field
work as well as the overall HCP management. In late 2005, the HCP Coordinator
applied for and received a Marine Turtle Permit (#166) through the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to conduct nesting surveys that cover roughly
half of the County's Beaches (Figure 1; Appendix A).
HCP TRAINING
During development of the HCP, the County held several meetings with Principal Permit
Holders, FWC and the USFWS to discuss the proposed countywide monitoring
program, including anticipated HCP monitoring requirements, logistical needs, and
standardization of data collection and reporting. It became clear that it would require
several years to fully convert to a standardized monitoring program. Thus, the focus
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 6

was placed on developing the minimum standards needed to support the HCP. This
minimum was established in 2005 during the first full year of implementation.
A presentation and workshop was held for all Principal Permit Holders and primary field
personnel on February 11, 2008. The presentation was attended by 10 people,
including all of the Principal Permit Holder’s (PPH’s) in the County, the HCP
Coordinator, Coastal Engineer, Coastal Resources Manager and representatives from
the USFWS. The workshop provided an overview of the 2007 nesting season, a review
of the basic nest monitoring protocol, a discussion of field personnel for the upcoming
season, an update on county beach restoration projects and status of the education,
predator control and lighting programs. An emphasis was placed on providing accurate
and timely data and encouraging permit holders to seek help from the HCP Coordinator,
if needed. Lastly, new research projects and technologies were discussed for future
nesting seasons.
EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS
COORDINATION BETWEEN COUNTY AND STATE AGENCIES
The ITP authorizes take of marine turtles incidental to the emergency shoreline
protection activities authorized by the Permit. The County’s permitting relationship with
the State was formalized by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), executed on February 9, 2005. The
MOA establishes a streamlined mechanism by which property owners who install
temporary emergency shoreline protection structures under County authorization can
request State approval to modify the structures to make them permanent or to construct
alternative shoreline protection. A fully executed copy of the MOA was transmitted to
USFWS on February 14, 2005. A copy of the executed MOA is provided in Appendix B.
COUNTY-AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS
Between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008, the County received no written
requests or applications from property owners seeking review of eligibility and
vulnerability of a threatened structure. As such, the County authorized no emergency
shoreline protection projects during the 2008 calendar year.
SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM
BIOLOGICAL GOAL
The biological goal of the HCP is to increase the productivity of the County’s beaches
for sea turtle nesting. This requires monitoring the County’s shoreline to record detailed
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 7

nesting data that can be analyzed and used in management decisions. Documenting
natural and anthropogenic factors affecting nesting and reproductive success is equally
important. Due to the large number of sea turtle emergences in the area, administration
of the nest monitoring program requires the most time and effort of any portion of the
HCP and, as such, it is the main focus of this report.
As required by Condition 11.G.10 of the ITP, the entire Atlantic coastline of Indian River
County was surveyed by research groups during the 2008 nesting season. The County
coordinated the activities of these groups and maintained a countywide nesting
database. Because of the high nesting densities, the database is divided up into permit
holder areas, each comprised of thousands of individual nesting crawls with their own
attributes. In order to obtain consistent and accurate data, the County developed
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) and offered training to Principal Marine Turtle
Permit Holders and their monitoring personnel. This section provides a description of
the nest monitoring program and presents the results of the 2008 nesting season.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
Soon after the initiation of the HCP, the County developed a set of Standard Operating
Procedures (SOP) pursuant to Condition 11.G.10.a of the ITP and in accordance with
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FWC) Marine Turtle
Conservation Guidelines. The SOP set forth the procedures for the implementation of a
standardized countywide nest monitoring program to document spatial and temporal
nesting patterns and identify factors affecting hatchling productivity. A copy of the SOP
was sent to the USFWS for review and approval on April 7, 2005.
The SOP has essentially remained unchanged through the 2008 nesting season. The
main focus was on getting accurate, complete and timely nesting data from each survey
area. A description of basic monitoring procedures was extracted from the SOP and
given to all Principal Permit Holders in 2008 (Appendix C). Permit Holders were
encouraged to use a standardized data collection sheet developed by the HCP
Coordinator (see Appendix D).
SURVEY AREAS
Sea turtle monitoring within Indian River County was divided into six primary survey
areas based on PPH jurisdictions and local municipalities (Figure 1). Most PPH's had
one discrete survey area with the following exceptions. The southern half of the
County, which is the HCP Coordinator's permit area, included Indian River Shores
(IRS), the City of Vero Beach (Vero) and South Indian River County (SIRC). Beginning
in 2007, the Indian River Shores survey area was split in half, allowing the Disney
Group to cover the northern half and the County to cover the southern half. The result
was Disney now had two survey areas: the core Disney area and the northern Indian
River Shores area. For the purposes of this report, the data from the Disney-surveyed
and the County-surveyed portion of Indian River Shores were combined. For a more
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 8

detailed discussion of the division of the Indian River Shores survey area, please see
the 2007 Annual Report.
Prior to the 2005 nesting season, county personnel placed 36 zone markers at one
kilometer intervals throughout the entire 22.5 mile coastline. These were primarily used
for sections of beach not previously surveyed or areas where old mile markers had not
been maintained (such as in Indian River Shores). Historical zone markers were still
used in the northern portion of the County to maintain consistency in data reporting to
the state.
A detailed description of each survey area from north to south follows:
Sebastian Inlet State Park (SISP) – Extending from Sebastian Inlet (FDEP
Reference Monument R-1) south to monument R-11, SISP occupies the
northernmost 3.2 kilometers (2 miles), or 8.9%, of the County’s coastline. SISP
consists entirely of State-managed public lands. This survey area was monitored
by biologists from Ecological Associates, Inc. (EAI), a private consulting firm
under contract to Indian River County.
Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge (ACNWR) – The ACNWR survey area
extends from the southern boundary of SISP (R-11) south approximately 8.0
kilometers (5 miles) to monument R-38. This area comprises about 22.3% of the
County’s coastline and includes federal lands, county parks, lands owned or
managed by the County, the Town of Orchid and numerous private properties in
unincorporated Indian River County. Monitoring of this area was performed by
refuge staff associated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Disney Vero Beach Resort (Disney) – This area is now referred to as the core
Disney area. It stretches from monument R-38 south to monument R-45, a
distance of approximately 2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles) and encompasses 5.8% of
the County’s coastline. The area includes single-family residences with
extensive seawalls, a county park, condominiums and a resort. Monitoring was
performed by Disney Animal Kingdom staff.
Indian River Shores (IRS) – The Indian River Shores survey area extends from
monument R-45 south to R-74 for a distance of approximately 8.9 kilometers (5.5
miles), or 24.6% of the County’s total coastline. It is comprised of the Town of
Indian River Shores, which is largely developed with a combination of single- and
multi-family residential units. The northern half of this area was surveyed by
Disney Animal Kingdom Staff (kilometer nesting zones 13.5, 14, 15, 16 and 17).
The southern half was surveyed by the HCP Coordinator and the volunteers on
his permit. The break in the two areas occurs at the kilometer 18 marker just
south of the John's Island Beach Club.
City of Vero Beach (Vero) – This survey area begins at monument R-74 and
continues to monument R-95 for a distance of approximately 6.3 kilometers (3.9
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 9

miles). The area comprises 17.4% of the County's total coastline. The City of
Vero Beach survey area is a mix of heavily developed single- and multi-family
residential units, hotels, resorts, restaurants and City Parks. Many of these
properties have seawalls. Surveys in this area were conducted by the County's
HCP Coordinator and his group of volunteers.
South Indian River County (SIRC) – South Indian River County extends from
monument R-95 to the St. Lucie County Line (south of monument R-119), a
distance of approximately 7.6 kilometers (4.7 miles), or 21.0% of the County’s
coastline. Included within this area are mostly neighborhoods with single-family
homes (some with seawalls), a few multi-family condominium complexes and a
County Park. A few open lands still remain in the very southern portion of this
area. Surveys in this area were conducted by the HCP Coordinator and his
group of volunteers.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Personnel and Daily Monitoring Procedures
All sea turtle monitoring in the County was performed by individuals listed on Marine
Turtle Permits issued by FWC’s Imperiled Species Management Section. The permits
are issued to Principal Permit Holders (PPH) who are responsible for training the
individual monitoring personnel listed on their permits and for ensuring adherence to
FWC guidelines. Each permit holder is responsible for a discrete survey area (see
Figure 1).
In 2008, there were four PPH's overseeing nesting surveys in the County. Erik Martin
(EAI) in Sebastian Inlet State Park, Paul Tritaik/Nick Wirwa (USFWS) in the Archie Carr
NWR, Anne Savage (Disney) in the core Disney area and northern Indian River Shores
and Rick Herren (IRC) in southern Indian River Shores, Vero Beach and South Indian
River County. Each permit holder had individuals listed on their permit that conducted
nesting surveys. Disney Animal Kingdom had the largest number of individuals
conducting surveys in 2008 (14 different people).
Nesting surveys were conducted daily on all beaches from March 1 to September 30,
2008. Monitoring continued periodically after September 30 at the discretion of each
PPH. During the surveys all nesting and non-nesting emergences (false crawls) visible
from the previous night were recorded on data sheets by species and survey zone.
GPS waypoints were collected at the location of every nest and at the apex of every
false crawl. Handheld units were used for obtaining waypoints and the precision ranged
from less than a meter to approximately 6 meters (depending on the equipment and
satellite geometry).
Crawls were defined as to whether they were above or below the most recent high tide
line. False crawls were classified as either continuous, abandoned body pits and/or
abandoned egg cavities. Nests or false crawls that came up against obstacles were
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 10

ecorded (e.g., scarps, seawalls, beach furniture) as well as any disturbances observed
by predators or people. The crawl data for all survey areas was sent to the County’s
HCP Coordinator at the end of the season for inclusion into a nesting database.
Nest Marking, Monitoring and Evaluation
Sentinel nests – Sentinel nests were marked in accordance with Condition 11.G.10.d (1)
of the ITP to note the location of nests high on the beach in critically eroded areas. This
provided a means of assessing the extent of nesting habitat should an emergency
shoreline protection project be initiated at that location. Prior to the 2008 nesting
season, the coastal engineer provided maps to permit holders showing the properties in
critically-eroded areas that would be eligible for a County emergency permit (Appendix
E). Sentinel nest areas included potential access points for large construction
equipment. Critically-eroded areas with permanent armoring structures already present
were excluded along with homes fronting a recently nourished beach. Each day the
nesting survey was performed, monitoring personnel were asked to mark any nest
deposited landward of the toe of the dune in these designated areas. Sentinel nests
were marked with three wooden stakes surrounding the nest a minimum distance of
three feet with orange flagging tape wrapped around the stakes.
Nests at emergency shoreline protection project sites - Survey personnel were required
to monitor emergency shoreline protection project sites and implement appropriate
measures to protect nests from construction impacts. Nests could either be relocated, if
authorized by FWC, or marked for avoidance. In addition, a representative sample of
nests outside of project sites were to be marked and monitored daily to allow for an
evaluation and comparison of nest fate and/or reproductive success. Since there were
no emergency shoreline protection projects initiated by the County during 2008, no
nests were marked for this purpose.
Nests marked for reproductive success - In all County survey areas, a representative
sample of nests was marked and monitored to allow for an evaluation of overall nest
fate and reproductive success. The sample marked for each species and within each
survey area was at the discretion of the PPH and varied among areas. Nests marking
techniques also varied among areas. The most common technique was a combination
of three stakes surrounding the nest with flagging tape and/or two or more stakes
planted up in the dune a measured distance from the nest. It was important that the
stakes would not be easily removed by tides or vandals, but could be recovered by
survey personnel.
All marked nests were monitored daily for signs of hatchling emergence, tidal overwash,
nest predation, vandalization, or other signs of disturbance. Nests were
presumed to be washed out if all the markers surrounding the nest were washed away
and field personnel found nothing when they excavated the area. Additionally, when
hatchlings emerged from a nest, the paths of the hatchlings were examined to
determine if they were oriented to the ocean. If observed, hatchling disorientations
were recorded at all marked and unmarked nests. Standard FWC disorientation forms
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 11

were filled out and mailed to FWC, while a copy was provided to the HCP Coordinator.
These forms were then digitally scanned and emailed to the appropriate local authority,
either in the County Environmental Planning Department, Town of Indian River Shores
or the City of Vero Beach Code Enforcement Office.
Nest evaluations adhered closely to FWC Marine Turtle Guidelines. Three days after
the first hatchling emergence, marked nests were excavated by hand to determine
reproductive success. Loggerhead and green turtle nests that exhibited no signs of
hatching emergence were excavated after a period of 70 days. Leatherback nests
showing no signs of emergence were excavated after 90 days. The numbers of
hatched eggs, unhatched eggs, and live and dead hatchlings were recorded.
Unhatched eggs consisted of live and dead pipped hatchlings, whole eggs and
damaged eggs. After an inventory, all nest contents were buried back in the egg cavity
and the marking stakes were removed from the beach.
DATA MANAGEMENT
Organization
Beginning in 2005, nesting data gathered by various permit holder groups in the County
was placed in a single Access database created specifically for sea turtle nest
monitoring programs. Over time, however, it became clear that receiving data from
other groups that was already in electronic format and re-entering it into the Access
database was time consuming and repetitive. In the last several years the "nesting
database" has become a series of Excel spreadsheets. Each permit holder was asked
to submit a spreadsheet with the same SOP required data fields, which were based on
the standard field collection form (see Appendix D). The Excel spreadsheets from each
group were edited and cleaned so they all had the same fields. A database Excel
function was used to retrieve the data.
Analysis
Nesting success, defined as the percentage of total emergences on the beach that
result in a nest, was used to assess the post-emergence suitability of an area. Nesting
success was calculated by dividing the total number of nests by the number of
emergences (nests and false crawls combined) and multiplying the outcome by 100.
The fate of each marked nest was assigned to one of the following categories:
Emerged – hatchling tracks observed and/or, upon excavation, turtles clearly
hatched and made it out of the nest.
Did Not Emerge – hatchling tracks were not observed and, upon excavation, no
turtles hatched or made it out of the nest.
Washed Out – clutch destroyed by wave or tidal action.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 12

Depredated – clutch partially or completely destroyed by predators.
Vandalized – stakes used to mark nest completely removed or otherwise
disturbed by people so precise clutch location could not be determined.
Nested On By Another – clutch mixed or disturbed by another nesting female.
Could Not Evaluate – nest contents could not be evaluated due to logistical
problems, advanced decomposition or other uncontrollable factors.
Did Not Find – cases where the clutch was never located at the time of
deposition or the stakes were not in the correct location.
Mean clutch size, hatching success, emerging success, and mean incubation period
were determined for excavated nests by the following formulae:
Clutch size (total number of eggs in a nest) = number of hatched eggs + number
of unhatched eggs.
Hatching success (turtles completely removed from their eggshells) = (number of
hatched eggs / clutch size) X 100.
Emerging success (turtles that successfully emerged from the egg chamber) =
{(number of hatched eggs minus the number of live and dead hatchlings in the
nest) / (clutch size)} X 100. This value is considered a more conservative
measure of reproductive success because it includes both hatched and emerged
turtles.
Incubation period = inclusive period (days) from the date of egg deposition until
the first sign of hatchling emergence.
RESULTS – NEST TOTALS, TRENDS AND CRAWL CHARACTERISTICS
Nesting and Nesting Success
A total of 7,738 sea turtle emergences were recorded during the 2008 nesting season
(Table 1). Of these, 4,346 resulted in a nest, yielding an overall nesting success of
56.2% for all species and all areas combined. Overall, loggerhead and green turtle
nesting success was 56.2% and 54.9%, respectively. Leatherback nesting success was
just under 90%. Of the sea turtle emergences recorded, the majority were loggerheads
(85.5%), while green turtle and leatherback emergences accounted for 14.1% and
0.4%, respectively.
Nest numbers and nesting success were higher this year compared to recent years
(2006 and 2007). There were 236 more nests this year than the countywide four year
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 13

average (Figure 2). Similarly, nesting success was 3.4% higher than the previous high
in 2007 and marked the second year in a row of better than 50% nesting success for all
species and all areas combined. The higher nesting this year was, in part, due to
increased nesting from loggerheads. Last year was the lowest loggerhead nest total in
the County since 2005 when HCP nesting surveys began and, statewide, the lowest in
20 years of monitoring on the state's most productive beaches. It remains to be seen
whether the uptick in 2008 is the start of an increasing trend or simply a seasonal
fluctuation. Nevertheless, loggerhead nesting has decreased significantly statewide
since 1998 so even the small increase this year was encouraging.
Nesting by green turtles was higher than expected in 2008 and this species, along with
leatherbacks, continue to show an increasing nesting trend over the long-term. Both
turtles also show a bi-annual pattern of nesting high one year and low the next. As an
example, leatherback nesting was at a record high in 2007 and this year leatherback
nesting was much lower (73 nests in 2007 compared to 27 in 2008). Green turtle
nesting seems to be showing a bi-annual fluctuation coupled with dramatic increases in
each phase. This year, which was expected to be low based on the trend, turned out to
be a fairly high-low year. These bi-annual fluctuations are thought to be associated with
the average remigration interval of 2 years for Florida green turtles (Witherington et al.
2006).
Spatial Patterns
Loggerheads nested throughout the County, but the highest densities occurred in the
ACNWR survey area and the lowest occurred in the City of Vero Beach (Table 2; Figure
3). Loggerhead nesting success was highest in Sebastian Inlet State Park and lowest
in the Disney area (Table 2). These results are similar to previous years, showing a
trend of decreasing loggerhead nesting from north to south and lower nesting success
in the Disney survey area, which includes a narrow beach, a county park and
numerous seawalls. A spatial analysis by kilometer zone showed that nest numbers
fluctuated between peaks in kilometer zones 4, 12 and 30 and dropped to low levels in
zones 11, 24 and 28 (Figure 3). The latter zones are strongly associated with nesting
disruptions such as seawalls, lights and people. Loggerhead nesting success was well
over 50% in 22 of the 36 kilometer zones or 61% of all zones (Figure 4). Much lower
success occurred in zone 11, which has the largest and most consequential seawall in
the county (Summerplace Seawall). To a lesser extent, lower nesting success also
occurred in zones 27, 28, 34 and 35. While these areas have some human activity at
night, the beaches themselves were also wide and flat. There is some evidence that
wide, flat beaches are unattractive to loggerheads (Herren, 1999).
Green turtles nested throughout the County, but were far more abundant in the northern
half (Table 3; Figure 5). The average crawl density decreased by more than 90% from
IRS to Vero Beach (Table 3). Three nesting zones in the City of Vero Beach had no
green turtle nests. In contrast, the northernmost zone in Indian River Shores (zone 13)
had 64 green turtle nests. SISP, ACNWR, Disney and Indian River Shores collectively
accounted for 94% of all green turtle emergences in the County. The green turtle
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 14

nesting that occurred in Vero and SIRC was largely in zones 25 through 31 (Figure 5).
It is unclear why there continues to be such low nesting to the south except that green
turtles are known to prefer sparsely populated beaches and those that have a more
moderate or steep slope (Witherington et al. 2006). These two factors are lacking in the
southern part of the county. Nesting success for this species was highest in Vero
Beach and 50% or higher in all survey areas except for SISP (Table 3). Even though
SISP was lower in nesting success, the 48.8% this year was far better than 29.7%
recorded in 2007. The state park beaches underwent a dune restoration project in
March and April of 2007 and a follow-up sand replacement project in early 2008. The
change in beach profile may explain the lower nesting success in this area.
Leatherback nesting was relatively low this year, but occurred in all the survey areas
(Table 4; Figure 6). The highest nesting was in the more southern areas, especially IRS
and SIRC. Of the eight zones that had 2 nests each, 63% were in the southern half of
the county (Figure 6). This was not too surprising since there has been a consistent
region-wide trend of more leatherback nesting to the south in St. Lucie and Martin
Counties, with a peak in Palm Beach County. As is typical of this species, nesting
success was very high with the only exception being the SISP area.
Temporal Patterns
The first recorded sea turtle emergence in the County was from a leatherback on March
26 th , 2008 (Table 1). That emergence, which was in SIRC, was a nest. Leatherbacks
nested in relatively low numbers until the last nest was recorded on July 25 th in SISP.
Most leatherback nests were deposited in either May or June.
The first loggerhead emergence in the County was recorded in SIRC on April 24 th and
that crawl was a nest. Loggerhead nesting increased rapidly in May and was fairly high
from late May through mid July, with a peak in early July. Nesting steadily declined
through August, and the last loggerhead nest was deposited on October 6 th in South
Indian River County.
The first green turtle emergences of 2008 were recorded in Indian River Shores and
ACNWR on June 5 th . There were several nests and false crawls that day. Nesting
picked up in late June and remained relatively steady through early September. Green
turtle nesting rapidly declined in mid September with the last nest on October 3 rd and
the last emergence on October 11 th . Both of these late crawls occurred in the ACNWR.
A graph of temporal nesting in the southern half of the county (HCP Coordinator
surveyed) was updated on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season and added to
the County's Coastal website, www.ircgov.com/coastal (Figure 7). The graph clearly
shows the fluctuation in nesting over time with various ups and downs in nesting
intensity, particularly for loggerheads. This kind of information was provided to the
public as part of a continuing sea turtle education program (see Education Program).
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 15

Crawl Characteristics
Turtles coming ashore at night go through distinct phases in the nesting process. At
any time before depositing eggs they may abandon their nesting attempt. As in years
past, most loggerhead abandoned nesting attempts (false crawls) were continuous or
uninterrupted (Table 5). The average for all study sites was 68.2% continuous crawls,
28.1% abandoned body pits and 7.1% abandoned egg chambers. The later two
categories were not mutually exclusive since some crawls had both abandoned body
pits and abandoned egg chambers. False crawls with abandoned body pits were
highest in SISP. The Park also had the highest proportion of crawls with abandoned
egg chambers. In contrast, the Disney area had the highest proportion of continuous
crawls and lowest proportion of abandoned body pits and egg chambers (Table 5).
Although it can be difficult to determine the reason for these abandoned attempts,
obstacles, such as the seawalls and scarps, and the presence of people on the beach,
are disturbances known to turn turtles around fairly quickly, leaving only a continuous u-
turn crawl. These were common in the Disney study area.
As with loggerheads, most green turtles that did not nest crawled uninterrupted up the
beach, turned and went back into the water (Table 6). The one exception was the Vero
Beach area, which had a higher proportion of green turtle abandoned body pits than any
other false crawl type. There were only seven false crawls in this area and, on closer
inspection, at least two of them were associated with human disturbance and a partially
missing flipper. Over all study sites, 61.3% of the green turtle false crawls were
continuous, 32.6% were abandoned body pits and 10.0% were abandoned egg
chambers. Green turtles abandoning their nesting attempts in the Disney area were
more likely to leave a continuous crawl most likely for the same reasons given above for
loggerheads. However, in most cases, abandoned body pits and egg chambers were
higher than for loggerheads. As mentioned in last years report, green turtles are known
to be more sensitive to human night-time activities or changes in beach characteristics
than loggerheads.
The spatial distribution of abandoned digging attempts by all species highlighted the
large amount of variation across kilometer zones (Figure 8). In some zones, over one
quarter of all emergences were abandoned digging attempts, whereas in others it was
closer to 10%. Peaks in abandoned digging attempts occurred in zones 8, 19, 31, 32
and 36. These zones were not areas with frequent human disturbance and suggests
that perhaps the sand or other insitu factors caused increased abandoned digging
attempts. In general, the Disney surveyed zones in the core Disney area and northern
Indian River Shores had the lowest proportion of crawls with abandoned digging
attempts and, therefore, the highest proportion of continuous false crawls. That pattern
probably had a lot to do with the high frequency of scarps and seawalls in those zones.
Crawl Obstructions
The percentage of loggerhead false crawls with obstructions varied by study area
(Table 5). Overall, 72.6 % of the false crawls had no obstructions recorded, 18.8%
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 16

were scarp obstructions, 6.3% were seawall obstructions, 1.9% were dune cross-over
obstructions and 2.1% were 'other' obstructions (usually fences, beach furniture, boats
and debris). Among individual study sites, the proportion of scarp obstructions was
highest in the ACNWR, Disney and IRS study areas and lowest in South Indian River
County. The Disney area had the highest proportion of seawall and dune cross-over
obstructions. SISP did not have any obstructions due to seawalls or dune cross-overs
because there were very few in this area. In general, the proportion false crawls with
obstructions reflected the relative abundance of these obstacles on the beach. Among
other things, this meant that females were consistently bumping into the obstacles and
nest monitoring personnel were keeping up with recording the interactions.
Green turtle obstructions were similar in abundance to loggerhead obstructions (Table
6). Overall, 72.6% of the green false crawls were associated with no obstructions,
18.3% were scarps, 5.4% were seawalls, 3.8% were dune cross-overs and 1.8% were
in the 'other' category. There were many more scarp obstructions in the ACNWR and
Disney areas than in the others. Seawall obstructions were highest in Disney and SIRC
and cross-over obstructions were common in all the study areas except for SISP and
Vero. In contrast to loggerheads, most green turtles attempted to nest closer to the
dune. Because of this difference in site selection, they were more likely to encounter
seawalls and dune cross-overs. This is probably why there were more scarp
interactions in ACNWR and Disney than anywhere else. The scarps on those beaches
are mostly at the dune interface, effectively acting as a barrier to further landward
movement. Some study areas (ACNWR) reported two types of scarps: the beach
scarp and the dune scarp. Since there is little nesting habitat landward of dune scarps,
they might be considered less of a hindrance to nesting. For the purposes of Table 6,
beach scarps and dune scarps were combined because most study areas did not make
this distinction.
A map of crawl obstructions by kilometer zone highlighted the problem areas for nesting
turtles (Figure 9). These results were very similar to those in the past and showed the
relative distribution of these obstacles along the coast. In ACNWR, beach scarps and
dune scarps are in separate categories, yet in other study areas no distinction was
made. In this graph,crawl obstructions were reported for both nests and false crawls.
Seawalls and scarps were more of a problem on the highly eroded beaches in the
northern kilometer zones. In three northern zones (9, 10, 11), obstructions were
associated with over 50% of all the crawls. Dune cross-overs were widespread across
most zones, though they affected a lower percentage of overall crawls. Recreation
equipment was an obstacle in the kilometer zones that contained the Disney Resort,
John's Island Beach Club and Vero Beach Hotels (mostly the Vero Beach Inn). Many of
these places have equipment on the beach year round, ranging from boats to beach
umbrellas. The "other" category included such things as fences and debris (e.g. large
pieces of dead wood). Some of these tended to be ephemeral and were eventually
removed by the tide or through mechanical means.
It is important to note that some turtles do nest after encountering obstructions. In these
cases, the obstacle forces the turtle to nest in a certain area, usually seaward of it.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 17

Because of this, nests may be located in more vulnerable areas of the beach. As
obstacles become more common, turtles will be forced to nest in less suitable habitat.
Of particular concern are the recent increases in seawalls in the County, which are not
taken into account by this Habitat Conservation Plan because they are permitted by the
State of Florida outside the nesting season.
RESULTS – NEST FATE AND REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS
Overall Nest Fate
As with last year, marked nests were divided up into two groups: nests where the clutch
was located the morning after deposition (initially found) and nests where the clutch was
found after emergence. Overall there were 964 loggerhead, green turtle and
leatherback nests marked for nest fate and reproductive success in 2008 (Table 7).
This was about 80 nests higher than last year and far higher than 2006. The increase
was due to the larger than expected number of green turtle nests and the continued
contribution of the Disney Animal Kingdom staff towards marking nests on the beaches
in northern Indian River Shores and the core Disney area. However, marking more
nests can present problems of it's own because it puts more of a burden on research
staff to track and excavate the nests and, sometimes, the quality of the data can suffer.
The number of marked nests represented 22% of all the nests recorded in the County.
This is worth mentioning because many beachgoers assume that every nest on the
beach is marked with stakes and flagging tape.
Of the 964 marked nests, 101 (10%) were marked, but the clutch was not found until
after an emergence was observed (Table 7b). As mentioned in previous reports and
explained below, these types of nests introduce a bias in the data.
Of the marked nests where the clutch was initially found, 565 (65.5%) were excavated
to determine reproductive success (Table 7a). The remaining nests that could not be
evaluated fell into these categories: 245 (28.4%) were washed out by the tide; 8 (0.9%)
were destroyed by predators; 4 (0.5%) had the stakes vandalized so the nest could not
be re-located; 2 (0.2%) were nested on by another turtle; 22 (2.5%) could not be
evaluated due to logistical problems; and, 16 (1.9%) could not be found.
The issue of not being able to evaluate marked nests is relevant statistically. Nests not
evaluated or not initially found could cause a misrepresentation of hatching success
because they bias the sampling regime (B. Witherington, pers. comm.). Washed out
and depredated nests were considered complete failures for purposes of reproductive
success and not much could be done about them. However, attempts should always be
made to reduce the proportion of marked nests not found or not excavated. Taking
these nests out of the sample could artificially inflate reproductive success (especially if
they had failed). Similarly, including nests found only when they emerge can artificially
raise reproductive success. Because of this bias, the results below included only nests
where the clutch was located the morning after deposition.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 18

Loggerhead Reproductive Success
There were 441 loggerhead nests excavated for reproductive success (Table 7a). Of
those excavated, five did not emerge at all (0% emerging success). Reproductive
success statistics for loggerheads varied little between study areas (Table 8). Across
areas, the mean clutch size ranged from 105.7 to 125.6 eggs and the mean incubation
period ranged from 54.0 to 56.0 days. Hatching success was highest in Disney (89.3%)
and lowest in South IRC (84.6%). Emerging success showed that no study area had a
5% or greater decrease from hatching to emerging success. When predations and
washed out nests were included in the sample (both presumed to have 0% success),
Vero Beach had the lowest emerging success at 44.0%. The reductions in emerging
success were mostly due to wash outs from tropical storms.
When all loggerhead reproductive data was combined, the overall mean clutch size was
111.5 eggs per nest, with a range of 39 to 199 eggs (Table 9a). The mean hatching
success for all inventoried loggerhead nests was 86.4% and the mean emerging
success was 84.3%. Emerging success dropped to 59.3% when predation and wash
outs were included. The mean incubation period was 55.1 days and ranged from 46 to
67 days. These reproductive success figures were different for nests where the clutch
was located after emergence (see Table 9b). This year the latter category showed
decreased hatching and emerging success when compared to nests found the morning
after deposition.
Green Turtle Reproductive Success
There were 116 green turtle nests whose clutch contents were analyzed and five that
were excavated, but showed no signs of hatching. As in previous years, the green turtle
reproductive data varied widely across study areas due to smaller sample sizes (Table
10). The southern half of the County had fewer green turtle nests than in the northern
half, which meant fewer nests were marked in Vero Beach and SIRC. The mean clutch
size across areas ranged from 113.4 to 139.0 eggs and the mean incubation period
ranged from 53.7 to 63.7 days. Inventoried hatching success was fairly high with the
exception of South IRC (63.0%). There were greater than 5% decreases from hatching
to emerging success in all study sites, except Vero Beach (4.9%). Disney (12.9%) and
South IRC (11.4%) saw the largest decreases. An examination of the raw data
revealed several reasons why the hatchlings could not escape the nest. One case in
South IRC was due entirely to roots that trapped the hatchlings in the nest. There was
another case in Vero Beach that was more likely due to cold weather since it emerged
over a week long period in the middle of December. Many of those hatchlings appeared
to be cold stunned in the nest cavity.
When predations and washed out nests were included, emerging success in Indian
River Shores dropped to 36.2%, while the other study areas saw similar, yet smaller
reductions. Like loggerheads, the reduction in green turtle success was largely due to
nests washed out by tropical storms in late August and early September.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 19

An examination of the combined green turtle reproductive data revealed a mean clutch
size of 116.6 eggs, with a range of 56 to 212 eggs (Table 11a). The mean hatching
success was 73.5% and the mean emerging success was 66.9%. However, when
predations and wash outs were included in the data, emerging success dropped to
42.4%. The mean incubation period was 57.6 days. Green turtle reproductive success
was lower than loggerheads probably because greens were harder hit by late summer
tropical storms that overwashed nests. Unlike the loggerhead data, the mean
reproductive success values for green turtle nests located after emergence were higher
than those located at the time of deposition (see Table 11b).
In 2008, there was a case of a green turtle nest incubating throughout the winter. Nest
# CM 9-28-81 was deposited the night of September 27 th 2008 on the dune in South
IRC, nesting zone 30. The nest was monitored from once a week to several times a
month throughout October, November, December and January. No emergence was
seen. It was excavated to the topmost eggs on February 4 th , 2009. At that time, four
eggs were removed from the top of the nest and opened. Exterior examination of the
eggs revealed them to be white with small grey splotches. Inside three of the four eggs
were dead late embryos with the fourth egg containing a live late embryo. Hoping that
there were more live embryos in the remaining eggs and they would hatch, the nest was
reburied. A final excavation took place on April 21 st , 2009. All of the embryos had died
and none were found to have hatched. In all likelihood, their demise was due to sand
temperatures below their survival threshold, which also caused the protracted
incubation period.
Leatherback Reproductive Success
There were 20 marked leatherback nests county-wide in 2008 (Table 7). Out of those
excavated, eight had been initially found and eight were located only after they
emerged. A summary of leatherback reproductive success across study sites was
hampered by small sample sizes (Table 12). In some cases, like the Disney area, there
were no leatherback nests that were initially found. In the three areas with at least two
nests, hatching success was highest in South IRC and lowest in ACNWR. Emerging
success was unaffected by washouts or predations, since there were none. The lowest
mean emerging success was 45.3% in ACNWR.
An examination of combined leatherback reproductive data revealed a mean clutch size
of 86.6 eggs with a range of 60 to 108 eggs (Table 13a). The mean hatching success
was 62.1% and emerging success was 60.8%. Not suprisingly, the nests located only
after they emerged showed a higher hatching and emerging success (see Table 13b).
Since leatherback eggs were the most difficult to locate the morning after deposition,
the practice of evaluating nests found after emergence was common. Nevertheless,
this method still results in an unrepresentative sample because nests that do not hatch,
or where an emergence is not observed, are excluded.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 20

2008 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NESTING
Disruptive Human Activities
During the course of nesting surveys, permit holders and staff were encouraged to
report any potentially disruptive human activities that might impact nesting. These
included beach fires, beach driving, non-permitted construction work, and other
activities deleterious to sea turtles and/or in violation of local ordinances. All of the
above impacts were recorded in the county in 2008 (Figure 10). This was the first year
where reports of disruptive activities were received from northern Indian River County
and included in the data.
Beach fires were the most frequent disruptive activity (Figure 10). The majority of fires
continued to be on the beaches fronting the neighborhoods in south Indian River
County. Neighborhoods where beach fires were common included Castaway Cove,
Treasure Cove, Wyn Cove, Smugglers Cove, Seagrove, Porpoise Point Lane North,
Atlantis, Silver Sands Court, Sea Turtle Lane and Genesea Lane. Most fires were
within close proximity of neighborhood beach access points because the wood for these
fires was often hauled on to the beach. Washed up debris found on the beach was also
used as fuel. Oftentimes, shovels were used to dig large holes to set fuel in prior to
burning it. The few people who have been spoken to about fires believe there was no
harm in it. Unfortunately, there have been documented cases in Florida of fires burning
hatchling sea turtles alive, not to mention causing them to crawl in the wrong direction.
Even though some fires have been less than ten feet from nest locations, so far no
deaths have been recorded.
Vehicle tracks from unauthorized motorcycles, ATV's, trucks and construction
equipment were observed on the beach during the nesting season. The tracks usually
arrived and returned from specific properties. In most cases, the County's Sheriff's
Office or City Police Department was notified so they were aware of the infraction.
None of the beach driving incidences resulted in vehicles driving directly over marked
nests. However, because 78% of all nests were not marked with stakes and flagging
tape, there could have been nests unknowingly impacted by vehicles. Furthermore, the
larger vehicles created deep ruts in the sand, which can be barriers to hatchlings trying
to reach the water. In addition, vehicles often access the beach by driving directly over
sensitive dune plants.
In cases of unauthorized / non-permitted construction work, a brief summary of the
location, a photo and the type of activity was sent via email to FWC's Imperiled Species
Program, Environmental Specialist and subsequently to the regional Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP), Beaches and Coastal Systems, Field Agent.
Acknowledgement of the report and occasionally a resolution would come back to the
County regarding the outcome. Sometimes stopping at the construction site, taking
pictures and speaking to someone in charge was enough to cease the work. In all
cases, the construction activities were either completely unauthorized, only permitted
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 21

outside the nesting season or only permitted landward of the dune, in which case, they
were working outside their permitted area.
Other disruptive activities that were recorded included tent camping, loose dogs and
deep pits. Whereas the first two are illegal in the County, the last is not. Incidences of
tent camping on the beach were solved by talking to the people in question and asking
them to break camp. Dogs left completely unattended by owners were termed "loose"
and were reported to the City of Vero Beach Police Department, the Sheriff's Office or
the County Animal Control. These incidences will be discussed further under the
Predator Control Plan. Deep pits refer to holes in the beach above the high tide line
dug with a shovel. These were usually over four feet deep and six feet wide. The pits
appeared to be dug without any intentional harm. However, the pits were deep enough
to ensnare a sea turtle or injure a person. To prevent this, they were filled whenever
possible.
As in previous years, most of the disruptive activities occurred on south county
beaches. These areas were not regularly surveyed prior to 2005 and they have been
largely absent of law enforcement. Beachgoers and home owners in this area conduct
disruptive activities either out of ignorance or blatant disregard for local ordinances.
Even though it has been difficult to link disruptive human activities with direct impacts to
nests and turtles, the potential for harm exists. It is hoped that officers could patrol the
beaches in the future to enforce the county's laws, particularly in the southern part of the
county.
Speaking to many beachgoers has revealed that many of them are largely ignorant or
misunderstand sea turtle conservation. For example, many mistakenly believe that all
sea turtle nests on our beaches are clearly marked and protected. This is simply not
possible in this part of Florida. Marking all nests with stakes and flagging tape would
not only be logistically unfeasible, but it would create numerous barriers for beachgoers
and sea turtles. In addition, there would be no guarantee that nests would not be
indirectly affected by human activities (for instance, lights). Also, a proportion of nests
probably should remain unmarked so they cannot be easily located by predators or
poachers. The main purpose for marking nests has been to study reproductive success
insitu. Nesting impacts have to be addressed at the source of the problem while
allowing nature to take it's course. In other words, the best option to protect nests is to
leave them alone, report lighting violations and other illegal activities and become
educated about the threats to nesting. Preventing these problems is probably best
achieved though education, community-based initiatives and timely law enforcement.
Human and Animal Tracks on Fresh Crawls
People and dog tracks found on fresh crawls were indications of their presence and
abundance the previous night (Figure 11). Most of these occurrences peaked in the
neighborhoods in South Indian River County. Fresh prints on turtle crawls could be
interpreted as either predatory searching behavior or, more likely, the mere presence of
people and animals around the nest at the time it was deposited. In the case of people,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 22

many of them were probably actively searching for sea turtles. These activities did not
involve poaching or predation attempts and appeared to be investigative in nature.
Increasing numbers of people were venturing out at night in search of sea turtle
encounters. This occurred throughout the nesting season and some local hotels and
resorts encouraged it. In 2008, evidence of this behavior was observed during morning
surveys from the numerous human tracks surrounding and on top of fresh crawls.
Human footprints were on 5% of all the nests and false crawls in Vero Beach and South
Indian River County. This was up from last year when just over 2% of all crawls had
human footprints on them. It may mean that more people were interacting with sea
turtles or that survey observers were getting better at recording these interactions.
Evidence that these encounters were disruptive came from an examination of the turtles
behavior. Females that did not cover the nest adequately or became disoriented on
their return to the water were associated with the presence of people (personal
observation). There were 10 crawls in Indian River Shores, Vero Beach and South IRC
that exhibited evidence of extreme harassment from the amount of activity surrounding
the area and the confused nature of the crawl (7 nests and 3 false crawls). Two of
these crawls involved some digging by the people present, but no eggs were taken.
False crawls can be the result of people disturbing turtles prior to egg laying. In five
heavily impacted kilometer zones (27-31), 6.5% of the false crawls were associated with
people. Certainly some occurrences went unrecorded, while others were probably
cases where people were present after the turtles had crawled back into the water.
Nevertheless, there does seem to be evidence that people using the beach at night
were present in ever larger numbers. A worthwhile research project would be to
determine exactly how many times turtles are frightened off by people, especially in the
heavily used beaches in the southern part of the county. Typically, neighborhoods with
busy dune cross-overs or access points had the highest levels of interactions.
The presence of dog tracks on nests and false crawls occurred mostly on the South IRC
beaches (Figure 11). The vigilance of the Vero Beach Police Department and
beachgoers responding to dogs seemed to have curbed dog presence in the City. In
the County, the neighborhoods from Castaway Cove south to Ocean Oaks (six
kilometer zones) continue to be focal points for dog activity. These were also the same
areas where dog predation was highest during the 2006 nesting season. The increased
dog activity, whether lawful or not, probably contributed to a general sense of
acceptance of dogs on the beach. This becomes a problem when the owner decides to
let the animal roam on its own accord (See Predator Control Plan).
SENTINEL NESTS
Due to the recent beach nourishment projects and the large dune scarps in the central
and northern part of the County, which prevent turtles from nesting higher on the beach,
there were few sentinel nests marked this year. The largest sentinel nesting area
remained the properties along Surf, Pebble and Reef Lane in southern Indian River
Shores (Dorsey to Sposato – Appendix E). In 2008, only two sentinel nests were
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 23

flagged in this area and both were loggerheads. These sentinel nests were not used for
reproductive success sampling and when they emerged or at 70 days post-deposition,
the stakes surrounding them were removed.
MONITORING AT HCP EMERGENCY PROJECT SITES
Since there were no emergency shoreline protection projects initiated by the County
between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008, there were no specific sea turtle
monitoring programs or emergency project-related impacts to turtles.
CONCLUSION – NEST MONITORING PROGRAM
Overall, nesting in 2008 was higher than in the last several years. Loggerheads
deposited more nests than last year and green turtle nesting was higher than expected.
Leatherback nesting was much lower than last year, but, like green turtles,
leatherbacks also nests on a bi-annual pattern, which means that nesting next year is
predicted to bounce back. As in years past, nest numbers in Indian River County
continued to mirror state-wide trends. It was encouraging to see that loggerhead
nesting showed a small increase in 2008 because the long term analysis has not been
good. Loggerhead nesting has significantly decreased in the last decade based on the
trend from the statewide index nesting program (Witherington et al. 2009).
As in previous years, there were far more nests deposited in the northern portion of the
County than in the southern portion. It is hard to ignore the fact that the southern half of
the County, particularly Vero Beach, contains more people, buildings and lights. This
north to south difference in nesting density was especially sharp for green turtles,
whose nesting dropped off significantly just south of Indian River Shores (Figure 5).
One of the causes for this may be that nesting green turtles are more sensitive to
beachfront development and related human disturbances.
Nesting success was relatively high in 2008. The only area where nesting success was
below 50% was for loggerheads in the Disney area and green turtles in SISP. In
general, higher than 50% nesting success has been regarded as positive by regulatory
agencies, especially in the context of large disturbances such as beach nourishment
projects. In 2008, there were no large beach nourishment projects and rainfall amounts,
another factor in nesting success, were normal to above normal throughout the season.
Periods of low rainfall tend to dry the sand making nest excavation difficult, which
results in more false crawls (Herren, 1999).
For the second year in a row, a record number of nests were marked for reproductive
success in the county. This was largely due to the cooperation of the Disney Animal
Kingdom staff and volunteers working under the supervision of the HCP Coordinator.
Reproductive success varied among study areas and species, but, in general, it was
relatively good (over 80% for loggerheads and 60% for green turtles). The largest
impact to hatching success came from Tropical Storms Fay and Hanna, which hit the
coast in late August and early September effectively wiping out most of the nests on the
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 24

lower beach. Even though these are yearly tropical storm events, most nests,
especially loggerheads and leatherbacks, have emerged by that time in the season.
This year represented the fourth season of complete county-wide nesting surveys.
Though there were minor difficulties in data collection and interpretation, including the
timeliness of receiving it, the data was more detailed and accurate than in recent years.
In addition, more information was gathered on potential nest disruptions and
disturbances. However, there remains many human beach activities with potential to
harm nests and turtles. The majority of these beach activities are also illegal under
County and City ordinances. Law enforcement has been almost non-existent and many
beachgoers mistakenly believe that all nests are protected by our monitoring program.
Support to solve these issues has been hampered by financial shortfalls in addition to
the fact that these types of disruptions were not originally written into this HCP.
LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
During the sea turtle nesting season (March 1-October 31), beachfront lighting in
unincorporated areas of Indian River County is regulated by County ordinance (Section
932.09 of County Codes). Prior to development of the HCP and issuance of the ITP,
the Environmental Planning Department in the County reviewed plans for new coastal
construction to make sure it conformed to lighting standards found in the County's
ordinance. Additionally, the County mailed pre-season letters to beachfront property
owners in unincorporated areas notifying them of the applicable lighting regulations.
Through this HCP, the County committed to continue these activities over the life of the
ITP.
Initiation of a pro-active light management program is intended as compensatory
mitigation for the take of sea turtles associated with shoreline protection measures. The
County’s light management program is outlined in section 11.5 of the HCP and is
stipulated in Conditions 11.G.11.a-c of the ITP. This section describes the key items
associated with the light management program and the actions undertaken in 2008.
PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTERS
Prior to March 1 st of each year, the County is required to mail written notices to property
owners in unincorporated areas of Indian River County notifying them of the upcoming
sea turtle nesting season and their lighting obligations associated with the County
ordinance (ITP Condition 11.G.11.a). In 2008, the County’s Environmental Planning
and Code Enforcement Office mailed the lighting letters to all affected property owners
on January 15, 2008 (Appendix F). The letters were sent out with announcements for a
county sponsored lighting workshop. The letter describes the lighting parameters
associated with the County code, methods for assessing beachfront lighting for
compliance, methods for achieving compliance, and a general discussion of the
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 25

problems caused by artificial light sources with regard to nesting and hatchling sea
turtles.
NIGHT-TIME LIGHTING EVALUATIONS
Condition 11.G.11.b of the ITP stipulates that the County shall conduct inspections of
beachfront lighting within unincorporated areas each year between March 1 and May 31
to document compliance with the County’s lighting ordinance. According to the County
code, exterior lights visible from the beach between 9:00 pm and sunrise during the sea
turtle nesting season are deemed non-compliant. Interior lights on single and multistory
structures are also non-compliant if they illuminate the beach during the nesting
season.
One lighting evaluation was performed by the County on the evening of May 13 th and
May 15 th 2008. Non-compliant and other potentially disruptive lights were identified
during the inspection, and each non-compliant exterior light was given a rating with
respect to its potential effect on sea turtles (problem codes ranged from 1 to 5, from
most disruptive to least disruptive based on the light intensity and the area illuminated).
For each non-compliant light source, recommendations were made for corrective
measures to bring problematic lights into compliance. Property addresses were
identified in real-time using a Trimble Mobile GPS/GIS unit equipped with ArcPad 7.0.
The unit contained recent aerial maps and property shapefiles so that addresses could
be identified while on the beach.
During the 2008 night-time survey, we noted that many properties with exterior fixtures
had their lights turned off during the survey. Since these properties were only observed
once throughout the entire season, some lights may have been turned on at other
times. As in years past, the most problematic lights were streetlights, pole-mounted
lights, wall-mounted lights and floodlights. Though some streetlights remained a
problem, many of the streetlights in the south part of the county along Reef Road were
dramatically improved through a NFWF grant (see Supporting Grants and Projects).
As in years past, private single-family residences accounted for the highest number of
non-compliant and/or potentially disruptive light sources (Table 14). This was followed
in order of decreasing frequency by street lights, condominiums, "other" types (mostly
clubhouses and resorts), dune cross-overs and commercial properties. Although there
were more private homes with lighting problems, condominiums and "other" types had
the highest average problem codes. In general, there were many more lights per
violation on condominiums than in any other property type. In particular, bright wallmounted
and pole-mounted lights were noted on the condominiums in the southern part
of the County in the Moorings. There were more problematic lights illuminating the
beach in the southern part of the County than in the northern part (Figure 12).
There were more exterior lighting violations (65%) than interior lighting violations (35%;
Table 14). In general, interior lighting tended to be less of a problem than exterior lights
based on the area illuminated and the intensity of the light. Also, interior lighting
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 26

violations probably vary more than exterior lighting on any given night. In the night-time
surveys since 2006, the total number of properties with interior violations was 39, 73,
43, and 39, in 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively. In contrast, the number of properties
with exterior lighting violations was 49, 58, 65 and 72 over the same time period.
Looking at these numbers suggests that exterior lighting violations have been
increasing in the last three years. Part of this may have to do with more properties
having been rebuilt and reoccupied since the 2004-2005 hurricanes. Many of the
properties cited in night-time surveys are the same year after year. There has been a
"core group" of repeat offenders that have not been dissuaded by county warning letters
and, each year, a handful of new violators, which are naïve with regards to sea turtle
lighting regulations.
The county unincorporated lighting violations were mapped along with nest
disorientations (Figure 12). This year lighting surveys were not conducted in the City of
Vero Beach so that area was not in the spatial distribution. The peak in the number of
violations per kilometer was in zone 30. As a result of the 2007 nourishment project,
this area has a higher profile. The sand was largely still on the beach and, as a result,
some lights may be visible that were not previously. Zone 30 contains the
neighborhoods of Shorelands, Seagrove, Sand Pointe and Ocean Ridge.
DISORIENTATIONS
During the 2008 nesting season, 61 disorientations were recorded by monitoring
personnel. Most of these were from loggerhead nests, but a few were from green turtle
and leatherback nests (Table 15). A total of 3,528 sea turtle hatchlings were disoriented
during these events. The majority of disoriented nests were in South Indian River
County. The City of Vero Beach and South Indian River County combined for 80% of all
the disoriented nests and 86% of the disoriented hatchlings recorded in the County.
Each year these areas comprise an increasing proportion of all the disorientations.
There was not a one-to-one relationship between lighting violations and disorientations
partly because one bad light can lead to many disorientations (Figure 12). In addition,
there was no lighting survey data for the central part of the county. Nevertheless, there
were a significant number of lighting violations in the southern part of the county and
that was also where most of the disorientations occurred. There were many other
reasons for the variability in disorientations. First, there continued to be disorientations
reported up in Sebastian Inlet State Park where there were few discernible beachfront
lighting problems. One hypothesis was the bright lights from the City of Sebastian on
the west side of the Indian River Lagoon may be the cause (urban glow was not
reported during night-time lighting evaluations). Second, there were lighting problems
recorded near Wabasso Beach, Disney and Sea Oaks (zone 11 and 12), but no
disorientations. One reason may be the seawalls in these areas unintentionally provide
a light barrier to the nests deposited near their base. Third, as mentioned in last years
report, disorientations are often under-reported and lighting surveys are snapshots at
one point in time. Despite all the variation, it was not too surprising that the southern
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 27

portion of the County had the most disorientations and also the majority of the lighting
violations.
All original sea turtle disorientation reports were provided to the FWC Tequesta Field
Laboratory, Imperiled Species Program and copies were sent to Code Enforcement
offices in the County and municipalities as required by Condition 11.J.2.i of the ITP.
CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Under the provisions of the light management program, the County is required to
enforce the lighting ordinance within unincorporated areas through code enforcement
action, if necessary. All lighting violations identified in the night-time lighting surveys
and in disorientation reports were sent to code enforcement for processing. To make
matters simpler, violations from the night-time lighting survey report were culled and a
group of the most problematic cases, exterior lights with codes 1 through 4, was sent to
code enforcement. The purpose was to focus code enforcement's limited resources on
the most disruptive lighting problems.
City and county code enforcement staff sent warning letters to property owners with
these problematic exterior lighting violations and notified them to voluntarily address the
problems. The focus was on the worst lighting offenders and, at least in some cases, it
seemed to have an effect. Oftentimes, the property owner would just turn off existing
flood or pole lights. Unfortunately, many of these changes were short-term fixes and
not designed to last. The HCP Coordinators office was not aware of any property that
was subject to formal code enforcement action or brought to the attention of the code
board. In the meantime, some properties were persuaded by the warning letters to
make temporary modifications.
In 2008, the HCP Coordinator collaborated with code enforcement officials in Vero
Beach and Indian River Shores. Lighting violations and/or disorientation reports were
sent to these officials for processing. In the case of Vero Beach, FWC has had
numerous past meetings and conducted several night-time lighting surveys with their
code enforcement staff to address lighting problems. In July 2007, the Vero Beach City
Council voted to strengthen it's lighting ordinance under the direction of FWC to make it
more clear and enforceable. The language in the new code was heavily borrowed from
the State's Model Lighting Ordinance. These changes went into effect immediately and
will make it easier to pursue lighting violations in the future.
LIGHTING EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
In conjunction with a NFWF grant to plant sea grapes on private property, the county
held a sea turtle lighting workshop on February 2 nd 2008 from 1:00 to 4:00 PM.
Advertisement for the event was done through the newspaper, online community boards
and news radio. Additionally, letters describing the event were sent to all beachfront
property owners in the county in conjunction with county lighting letters. A graphic artist
was hired to create flyers, which were included in the letters mailed to property owners
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 28

(see Appendix G). The workshop had five PowerPoint presentations, lighting vendors,
code enforcement staff, drinks, food and children's games. Approximately 90 – 100
people attended. While attendance was lower than expected, the workshop was
successful in educating members of the public on sea turtle lighting issues. State
biologists presented many of the attendees with a certificate for completing a brief sea
turtle lighting course. In addition, over a dozen private property owners signed up to
receive free plants as part of a grant funded sea grape give-a-way program.
In all correspondence sent out to property owners regarding lighting issues, the phone
numbers of the HCP Coordinator and County Environmental Planner are listed to help
with lighting questions. In addition, some lighting cases are referred to the State of
Florida, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for additional help. The HCP Coordinator works closely with code enforcement
staff in the City of Vero Beach, Indian River Shores and Orchid. The HCP Coordinator
attended meetings in 2008 with managers at Disney Vero Beach Resort and
condominium associations providing expert advise on how to solve lighting issues. In
some cases, night-time visits were made to properties to evaluate lighting changes. All
property owners were reminded that the county biologist (HCP Coordinator) could only
act as an expert in advising and recommending solutions to lighting issues and not as a
certifying entity. The latter task falls on code enforcement and the state and federal
regulatory agencies.
EDUCATION PROGRAM
Under Condition 11.G.11.d of the ITP, the County developed written literature intended
to enhance public awareness of coastal erosion and the HCP. In a collaborative effort,
the brochure was created in 2006 by the Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC)
and Ecological Associates, Inc. Specifically, the brochure provided information related
to coastal processes, erosion, the County’s HCP, emergency shoreline protection
permitting process, and alternatives to coastal armoring. Additionally, the brochure
provided basic information on sea turtle protection and contains a listing of local, State,
and federal contacts pertinent to sea turtles and beach erosion. The brochure, which
was approved by the USFWS in January 2006, was disbursed to various entities in
2008. This type of information was especially pertinent to new beachfront residents.
Out of the original 6,400 brochures, approximately 1,800 remained at the end of 2008.
In addition to the HCP erosion awareness brochure, other sea turtle brochures were
obtained from the Ocean Conservancy, Disney, Caribbean Conservation Corporation,
UF / St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension Office and Florida Power and Light.
These brochures were placed in a large acrylic poster display case and two small table
top display cases that were on loan from the UF / St. Lucie County Cooperative
Extension Office. The displays were placed in the new County Administration Building,
the main county library and the Indian River Mall. In addition, a watertight Pelican case
was filled with brochures so they could be taken on the beach and handed out to during
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 29

nesting surveys. In 2008, the county biologist spent between 30 and 45 minutes on
each nesting survey speaking to beachgoers about sea turtle nesting and conservation.
There were four articles in 2008 in the local paper regarding sea turtles with
contributions from the HCP Coordinator. The first was published in the Vero Beach
Press Journal on January 28, 2008 and contained information about the sea turtle
lighting workshop. Subsequent articles appeared on March 3, August 22 and
September 28 regarding a dune restoration project, nests washed over by Tropical
Storm Fay and sea turtle lighting problems, respectively. In addition to this written
press, the HCP Coordinator was on public news radio (1490 AM) six times in 2008
answering questions regarding sea turtle nesting, lights and nest predators. Durable
beach signs provided further educational opportunities through the help of a 2007 Sea
Turtle License Plate Grant (See Supporting Grants and Projects).
PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM
RACCOON PREDATION – PLAN INTENTION
The Predator Control Plan (PCP) outlined in Section 11.4 of the County’s HCP
constitutes the principal form of mitigation for the take of sea turtles causally related to
shoreline protection initiated under emergency authorization. The overall goal of the
PCP is to increase hatchling productivity by reducing mammalian predation rates by
40% over a period of five years within the non-Federal lands of the ACNWR. The
assumed baseline level of raccoon (Procyon lotor) predation in this area was 15% of all
nests. That number was based on anecdotal information supplied by the refuge during
HCP development.
Condition 11.G.11.e of the ITP, required the County to develop and submit a draft PCP
to the Service for review and approval within six months of the effective date of the ITP.
The Draft Predator Control Plan, which was submitted to the Service on June 1, 2005,
specified nest predator monitoring prior to and during the nesting season, marking and
monitoring of a representative sample of sea turtle nests within the refuge for
determination of predation rates and selective removal of nest predators within ACNWR
and/or other areas where nest predation is identified as a problem. The Draft PCP was
never formally approved by the Service and since it's inception there have been
questions as to whether this plan would be adequate mitigation.
The cause for the delay in implementing the PCP, as written, was due to the low level of
raccoon predation within the ACNWR or, for that matter, anywhere else in the County.
It is not known whether independent predator control efforts conducted by refuge staff in
recent years have been responsible for the low level of predation or other factors are at
work. It is also possible that the assumed baseline level of predation in the refuge may
have been incorrect.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 30

The overall number of nests depredated by raccoons in 2008 was 25 (Figure 13). As in
years past, most raccoon predation occurred in the ACNWR study area. However, the
total represented only 0.6% of all the nests deposited in the County or 1.7% of the nests
deposited in the ACNWR. The number of raccoon depredated nests this year was
roughly half of the total in 2007. Like previous years, most of the predations occurred
within ACNWR zone 4, which includes the Seaview Development and mostly
government owned properties (Figure 14). Accordingly, refuge personnel conducted
limited trapping in this area in 2008. There was no information provided as to how
many traps were set and how many animals were actually caught and removed.
CANINE PREDATION
Nest predation by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) became a problem in 2006 and was
still a concern going into the 2008 nesting season. After 38 nests and roughly 4,370
eggs were impacted by canines in 2006, the HCP Coordinator convened a series of
meetings, put together educational flyers and coordinated with law enforcement patrols.
In 2008, the HCP Coordinator continued to encourage the County Animal Control and
City of Vero Beach Police Department (VBPD) to patrol the beaches. In previous
predation meetings, it was agreed upon that education be the primary tool to deter the
problem. An education flyer was created by the HCP Coordinator and distributed to the
local Humane Society, Animal Control and beachgoers (Appendix H). In addition, all
dogs observed on city beaches were reported to VBPD and all unattended dogs in the
county were reported to Animal Control or the County Sheriff's Office. In the event that
canine predation became a problem again, contact charts were created for future
predation events and potential trapping events.
As a result of the activities above, canine predation has slowed considerably in the
southern half of the county since 2006. There were only two canine predation events
recorded in SIRC in 2008 and, significantly, no predation events recorded for the past
two years in the City of Vero Beach. However, these successes were offset by an
increase in canine predation in ACNWR this year (Figures 13 and 14). In contrast to
years past when no canine predation was reported, there were 18 canine nest
predations in ACNWR in 2008. Over the last several years, combined raccoon and
canine predation events in the ACNWR were concentrated near Treasure Shores Park
(Figure 14). This area is comprised of largely undeveloped government owned lands
east and west of Highway A1A. In other words, there is ample habitat in this part of the
island. In the winter of 2008 – 2009, refuge staff reported seeing a coyote (Canis
latrans) on the public lands west of A1A and, since then, there has been considerable
discussion on whether a coyote was the animal depredating nests in the northern part of
the county in 2008. The ACNWR has a planned a predator control program for 2009
that includes professional trappers from USDA Animal Control Services. This plan will
concentrate on raccoons, but may be able to divert resources towards preventing the
recent canine predations. The county has agreed to collaborate with refuge staff on
their 2009 predator control plan.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 31

Even though domestic dogs appeared to be playing a smaller role in predations,
especially in the south part of the county, there continued to be a large number of dog
prints on fresh nests throughout the summer. It is the intent of the HCP Coordinator to
continue efforts to curtail dog predation as a part of the PCP. However, unlike
raccoons, curtailing domestic dogs from digging on the beaches during the nesting
season is a complex task. The efforts of the City of Vero Beach Police Department and
Indian River County Animal Control have helped considerably. Yet, just like our nesting
survey personnel, these groups cannot be on the beach at all times. Ultimately, help
will be needed from the public to report loose dogs, spread the word about the problem
and be responsible for their own animals.
HUMAN PREDATION – NEST POACHING
Despite the fact that sea turtles have been protected by state and federal laws since the
early 1970's, there remains a low amount of egg poaching throughout the state. In
2008, one nest was poached in the Vero Beach area. The nest was freshly deposited
and the poachers took all the eggs and left an empty egg chamber. An attempt was
made by the perpetrators to cover the nest up. This was in the same general location
as similar poaching events the previous two years (Figure 13). The poached nest was
reported to FWC's Division of Law Enforcement at the time it was encountered.
However, no arrests were made.
MITIGATION
STATUS OF CONSERVATION AREA AND RECREATION LAND PROPERTIES
Between 1996 and 1998 Indian River County cost-shared in the purchase of several
beachfront properties, collectively referred to as the Jungle Trail Conservation Area
(JTCA), comprising 110 acres of barrier island coastal habitat. The properties were
purchased and managed for conservation and passive recreation. The preservation of
these properties as sea turtle habitat was offered as partial mitigation for unavoidable
impacts to sea turtles resulting from shoreline protection measures initiated under the
County’s emergency authorization.
Condition 11.G.11.f of the ITP requires the County to manage and maintain these
parcels in their current state and describes the allowable modifications or improvements
to the parcels. In 2008, all activities at the JTCA were conducted in accordance with the
ITP.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32

CUMULATIVE TAKE
The cumulative take authorized by the ITP is expressed as the total linear footage of
shoreline that has been permanently armored as a result of shoreline protection
measures initiated under the County’s emergency permitting program. Pursuant to
Condition 11.E of the ITP, the County is authorized to take the covered sea turtle
species incidental to authorizing construction and maintenance of permanent armoring
structures encompassing no more than 3,196 linear feet of coastline in the Plan Area
over the 30-year life of the ITP. This cumulative total represents the estimated amount
of frontage of eligible and vulnerable properties along critically eroded beaches that may
be in need of shoreline protection prior to construction of a beach nourishment project at
their respective locations.
There were no temporary or permanent armoring structures authorized by the County in
2008 In accordance with an Interim Agreement between the FDEP, Indian River
County, the Caribbean Conservation Corporation, and two private petitioners (Appendix
A of the HCP), FDEP allowed two (2) temporary structures previously installed under
the County’s emergency authorization to remain in place pending the outcome of the
County’s ITP application. These two private properties referred to as the Gerstner and
Summerplace properties had temporary seawalls encompassing approximately 520 feet
of shoreline (Table 16). Condition 11.G.9 of the ITP authorized placement of permanent
seawalls at these properties in accordance with the Interim Agreement and terms and
conditions of the HCP and ITP. The shoreline encompassed by armoring structures at
these two properties counts against the cumulative take authorized by the ITP. Indian
River County notified FDEP via email of ITP issuance on December 7, 2004. FDEP
subsequently authorized the Gerstner seawall at its as-built location. According to
FDEP, final authorization of the Summerplace seawall has also been granted.
Shoreline protection projects authorized by the FDEP through the standard permitting
process (i.e., non-emergency related) are not included as cumulative take under the
ITP. Nonetheless, construction and placement of seawalls, revetments, and other
protective structures continues through this process, which could potentially harm sea
turtles or their nesting habitat. The County does not currently have an accurate estimate
of the linear footage of shoreline protection structures on the coastline authorized by the
FDEP since the issuance of the ITP. In order to obtain a better understanding of the
effects of shoreline protection structures, the County Coastal Engineer will be making
an effort to accurately record all shoreline protection projects authorized by the FDEP
and incorporate them into a GIS database.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 33

SUPPORTING GRANTS AND PROJECTS
A number of opportunities presented themselves during 2008 that were not directly
related to the HCP, however, their implementation supported the biological goals. All of
these were initiated by the HCP Coordinator as grants and research projects.
MOBILE GIS GRANT – TRIMBLE AND ESRI
The HCP Coordinator obtained funding for this geographic information systems (GIS)
project through a joint Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) and Trimble
Corporation Mobile Government Grant Program – Coastal Communities Edition. ESRI
provided the software and Trimble provided the hardware, which totaled $9,700. Indian
River County became one of only ten governments in the U.S. awarded this grant in
August 2006. The Trimble GPS system board had problems and was repaired in 2007.
It was used extensively during the 2008 nesting season to collect data in the field.
The HCP Coordinator has been committed to developing new GIS applications and
maps. The Trimble Explorer GPS unit has been an invaluable tool for collecting nesting
data and obtaining real-time positions for beach projects and night-time lighting surveys.
This unit contains updated aerial photography for use in the field. In addition, all the
previous sea turtle crawl data that contained reliable waypoint information has been
converted to shapefiles for use in GIS maps. With reliable location information, the use
of this data for identifying crawl densities at future beach construction projects has been
invaluable. By the end of 2008, the HCP Coordinator had successfully completed eight
ArcGIS and ArcPad training courses offered through ESRI, the County and outside
contractors. Financial support for these courses has come through the County's GIS
Manager.
NESTING HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS GRANT – NFWF
This grant through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) was obtained in
2007 by the HCP Coordinator to re-plant dune vegetation and fix public beachfront
lighting problems to improve nesting habitat in the County. The specific objectives of
the grant were to: (1) Provide and install sea grapes (Coccoloba uvifera) on the dune at
single-family owned, beachfront properties, (2) provide literature on beachfront lighting
and how to care for sea grapes, (3) conduct follow up surveys to determine the success
and the effectiveness of the plants, (4) identify publicly owned lights that are causing the
most disruption to nesting, (5) modify those lights by working with the local government
and utility authority, and (6) conduct follow-up night time surveys to determine the
success of the light modifications. The grant began in Fall 2007 and was recently
completed in the summer of 2009.
The first portion of the grant involved planting sea grapes on the dunes at private
properties along Indian River County's coastline. At a well-advertised lighting education
workshop, 19 property owners signed up for a limited quantity of 3-gallon sea grape
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 34

plants. In the end, 982 plants were delivered and installed on 15 private properties. A
remaining 218 sea grapes were placed at county beachside parks bringing the total to
1200 plants. These plants grew slowly over the year, averaging only 13 cm of growth,
mostly due to under watering and the accumulation of wind blown sand from two
tropical storms in 2008. On the properties, however, 72% of the dune crest was
covered with sea grape plants. This will provide an excellent light screen in the future
provided the owners do not excessively trim the plants. Interest in the planting program
was lower than expected and the most common reason given was the desire for an
unobstructed view of the ocean.
The goal of the second part of the grant was to alter public lights near the beach so they
were no longer visible to sea turtles. All the public lights near the nesting beaches in
Indian River County were precisely mapped using differential GPS. The lights that were
visible from the beach and, therefore, potentially detrimental to sea turtles were
identified and mapped. In meetings with the municipal utility authority and the city parks
department, officials were educated concerning light management techniques and told
financial help was available to pay for the light modifications. Eighty-four percent of the
potentially detrimental public lights were modified and there was an 87.5% reduction in
overall light trespass onto the beach (based on Problem Lighting Scores). Light
management techniques that were developed during this project have been
disseminated to other Florida sea turtle nesting beaches, an important leatherback
nesting beach in Trinidad, and an important olive ridley arribada beach in India (copies
of the final report are available from the HCP Coordinator or www.nfwf.org).
FLORIDA LICENSE PLATE GRANT – EDUCATION MATERIALS
The HCP Coordinator applied for and received a mini-grant in the amount of $1,000 for
the 2007 nesting season. The grant was through the Florida Sea Turtle Grants
Program in support of Marine Turtle Permit Activities (Permit #166). Because the sea
turtle nesting program in Indian River County was in need of public education
opportunities, the money was spent creating an education device that could be left on
the beach. Working with a local company, durable PVC signs were created. These
signs were weather-resistant, contained education material and were designed to be
specific to each turtle species.
The signs were used in 2007 and 2008. They provided an education device at the
location of marked nests. Copies of the signs have also been disseminated to several
other marine turtle permit holders in the state for use as templates to create their own
signs. The signs were recovered and used again for the 2009 nesting season.
LOGGERHEAD AND GREEN TURTLE GENETICS STUDY – UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Brian Shamblin, a Ph.D. student at the University of Georgia, continued to collaborate
with the HCP Coordinator in 2008 regarding the collection of genetic samples from
loggerhead and green turtle nests. This research is important for defining management
units for nesting beach protection and providing baseline data for mixed stock analyses
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 35

of stranding and foraging aggregation datasets. Previous studies have described four
genetic management units within the Florida loggerhead nesting aggregation: 1)
Panhandle, 2) Dry Tortugas, 3) South Florida, which includes the beaches from
southwest Florida to Cape Canaveral, and 4) Northeast Florida, which includes the
beaches from North Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina.
Data analyzed by Shamblin from the 2006 and 2007 nesting seasons suggested that
the South Florida subpopulation may consist of additional management units or
subpopulations. In 2008, genetic samples (either flippers or hatched egg shells) were
collected by the HCP Coordinator from 84 loggerhead nests and 3 green turtle nests.
The tissues were placed in vials containing 95% ethanol solution and picked up by Mr.
Shamblin for transport back to the University of Georgia at the end of the season.
Currently, there are plans to collaborate with Mr. Shamblin in 2009 and collect genetic
samples from green turtle nests. All materials and permits for this project were provided
by the University of Georgia and Mr. Shamblin.
For more information about this population genetics project contact:
Brian Shamblin, Ph.D. student Phone: (706) 542-3932
School of Forestry and Natural Resources FAX: (706) 542-8356
University of Georgia
Email: brianshm@uga.edu
Athens, GA 30602
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT
Indian River County is required to provide evidence of compliance with the terms and
conditions of its ITP and HCP. Specifically, Condition 11.J.1 of the ITP requires the
County to identify any material non-compliance and all measures employed to
remediate such non-compliance. The County made substantial gains in 2008 with the
nest monitoring program, predator control and education program, yet continued to fall
short in key areas due to the lack of support staff. What follows is an assessment of
each program.
SEA TURTLE NEST MONITORING PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
The nest monitoring program has been the cornerstone of this HCP and continues to
require the most time and effort. This is largely due to the significant numbers of sea
turtles that nest in Indian River County. Gains in this program have been made in terms
of the collection of quality data from individual permit holder groups. The areas where
there were improvements included GPS locations, crawl obstructions, human
disturbances and predation incidents. More importantly, the data received from permit
holders is coming closer to matching the spreadsheet format used by the HCP
coordinator. This has meant less post-processing after the data has been received.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 36

Despite gains, there were some parts of the program that needed refinement. The
sentinel nest protocol, which is part of condition 11.G.10.d (1) of the ITP, has been
marginally effective at monitoring nests in critically eroded sites. Part of the problem
has been getting permit holders in the northern part of the County to stake sentinel
nests. The sentinel nest protocol has also diminished due to the reduction in sentinel
areas. Most of the original sentinel sites have either been seawalled, nourished or have
such high dune scarps that turtles could not nest on top of them. The end result has
been a shrinking number of potential sites.
The main problem with much of the HCP data has been getting it in a timely manner.
Coordination with the ACNWR has been difficult primarily due to lack of staff and staff
turn-over. In 2008, the wildlife refuge hired a new assistant manager, biologist and, in
2009, a new manager. Data collected by refuge personnel has been getting better, but
has lagged behind the other permit holders in the County. To address these problems,
the HCP Coordinator met several times with refuge staff in early 2009. The main
objectives were to help forge a better relationship with the refuge and provide ideas to
obtain more timely, error free, data. The HCP coordinator has repeatedly offered advise
and help to all permit holders in the county to make collection and organization easier.
Nevertheless, collecting such an enormous amount of detailed data has remained a
daunting task each nesting season.
LIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
The County's Light Management Program has struggled mostly due to lack of staffing.
While lighting violations and disorientations remain fairly commonplace, code
enforcement action has been largely ineffective or under-utilized. On the other hand,
this was the first year in which lighting letters were mailed out before March 1 st
(Condition 11.G.11.a). Unfortunately, the number of environmental planning staff that
can deal with lighting problems is now down to one employee due to the recent
economic down-turn. Existing staff have been stretched thin and there continues to be
a need for a specialist in sea turtle lighting issues.
On the positive side, there have been gains in education and accountability. The 2008
lighting workshop hosted by the county was a successful event. In addition, a
significant number of public beachfront lighting problems have been solved through the
NFWF Grant. Also, new rules in state building permits for beachside construction now
have a provision for correcting lighting problems after project completion. This was
sometimes a problem in the past when lighting plans changed for the worse and there
was no mechanism to hold the applicant accountable. County staff continues to do the
best it can even with significant shortfalls in the County's budget.
EDUCATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
In recent years, the education program has been getting significant help from partners
in other agencies and non-profits. Dozens of brochures describing sea turtle
conservation have been donated from The Ocean Conservancy, Florida Power and
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 37

Light and the UF/St Lucie County Agricultural Extension Office. The HCP Coordinator
has been spending an increasing amount of time with individuals on the phone and on
the beach discussing sea turtle biology and conservation. In addition, signs created for
use on marked nests have provided beachgoers a way to passively learn about sea
turtles at nest sites. The future goals of the Education Program involve discussing sea
turtle conservation goals at homeowner association meetings.
PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
The County has not met the original intent of the PCP due to the unexpected low level
of raccoon predation. In the areas where raccoon predation has slightly increased,
minimal trapping has been conducted by personnel from the ACNWR. The refuge is
planning a predator control project next year with professional trappers and the county
is committed to supporting this effort. Canine predation which became a problem in
2006 is still an issue. Complicating the recent low amount of dog predation is the
possibility of coyote predation up in the refuge. Whether coyote or domestic dog, the
issue of canine predation has been much harder to solve. This is because trapping
these animals is controversial and logistically difficult. The county is committed to
working with partners in animal control and wildlife offices as well as local communities
in solving the complexity of these issues. As such, the PCP has evolved into a much
more diverse attempt to control predation on sea turtle nests.
SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT
Condition 11.J of the ITP requires the County to submit an annual report describing
efforts undertaken to implement the HCP by March 31 st of the following year. The
completion of the last three reports have been delayed by six to nine months. The
county has worked closely with the USFWS, Vero Beach Field Office, and kept them up
to date on significant events during the 2008 nesting season. Results from the season
have been sent to the Service in a timely manner, while completion of the final report
has lagged much farther behind. The report has been late, in large part, because of
lack of resources and staff dedicated to working on the many HCP programs. The HCP
Coordinator recommends a minimum of two additional staff to help with nesting surveys
and implementing the light management plan, predator control plan and education
program.
UNFORESEEN AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
As defined in Section 11.K of the ITP, unforeseen circumstances are changes in
circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the HCP that could
not reasonably be anticipated by the County or the USFWS at the time of HCP
development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the
covered species. There were no unforeseen circumstances in 2008.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 38

LITERATURE CITED
Herren, R.M. 1999. The effect of beach nourishment on loggerhead (Caretta caretta)
nesting and reproductive success at Sebastian Inlet, Florida. M.S. Thesis.
University of Central Florida. 150 pp.
Witherington, B., Bresette, M. and Herren, R. 2006. Chelonia mydas – green turtle. In:
Meylan, P.A. (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Florida Turtles. Chelonian
Research Monographs No.3., pp. 90-104.
Witherington, B., Kublis, P., Brost, B. and Meylan, A. 2009. Decreasing nest counts in
a globally important loggerhead sea turtle population. Ecological Applications
19:30-54.
ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS
The HCP Coordinator would like to acknowledge the cooperation of the FWC Marine
Turtle Permit Holders and their survey crew who worked in the northern portion of the
County and provided data for this report, especially Paul Tritaik, Nick Wirwa, Jennifer
Lorenzo, Dr. Anne Savage, Carol Rizkalla, Erik Martin, Niki Desjardin and Terry
O'Toole. Assistance on beachfront lighting issues and code enforcement came from
Meghan Koperski, Erik Martin, Jean Higgins, Paula Bernston, David Checchi, Susan
Clifton, Ken Oristaglio and Andy Sobczak. Educational brochures were generously
provided by Stacy Foster, Ken Gioeli and Jessica Koelsch. Thanks to the Police
Department in the City of Vero Beach for helping with beach law enforcement issues.
Most importantly, Indian River County is indebted to the volunteers who donated their
time conducting nesting surveys for the county in 2008: Charles McConnel, Beverly
Harrison and Chris Vann.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 39

TABLES

Table 1. Total nesting activity for Indian River County in 2008. This includes only
crawls above the most recent high tide line.
Nesting Activity Loggerhead Green Leatherback All
Date of First Emergence 4/24/2008 6/5/2008 3/26/2008 3/26/2008
Date of First Nest 4/24/2008 6/5/2008 3/26/2008 3/26/2008
Date of Last Emergence 10/6/2008 10/11/2008 7/25/2008 10/11/2008
Date of Last Nest 10/6/2008 10/3/2008 7/25/2008 10/6/2008
Total Nests 3,720 599 27 4,346
Total False Crawls 2,895 493 4 3,392
Total Emergences 6,615 1092 31 7,738
Nesting Success 56.2% 54.9% 87.1% 56.2%

Table 2. Loggerhead nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey area
in 2008. This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. SISP =
Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge.
Survey Area Nests False Crawls
Total
Emergences
Nesting
Success (%)
Avg. Crawl
Density 1
SISP 437 282 719 60.8% 224.7
ACNWR 2 1,253 980 2,233 56.1% 279.1
Disney 227 256 483 47.0% 230.0
IR Shores 833 615 1,448 57.5% 162.7
Vero Beach 379 299 678 55.9% 107.6
South IRC Beaches 591 463 1,054 56.1% 138.7
Total 3,720 2,895 6,615 56.2% 183.2
1
Expressed as the number of emergences (nests and false crawls) per kilometer of beach.
2
The number of loggerhead crawls provided differs slightly from those reported to the state.

Table 3. Green turtle nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey area
in 2008. This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. SISP =
Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge.
Survey Area Nests False Crawls
Total
Emergences
Nesting
Success (%)
Avg. Crawl
Density 1
SISP 42 44 86 48.8% 26.9
ACNWR 2 223 214 437 51.0% 54.6
Disney 59 47 106 55.7% 50.5
IR Shores 238 163 401 59.4% 45.1
Vero Beach 19 7 26 73.1% 4.1
South IRC Beaches 18 18 36 50.0% 4.7
Total 599 493 1,092 54.9% 30.2
1
Expressed as the number of emergences (nests and false crawls) per kilometer of beach.
2
The number of green turtle crawls provided differs slightly from those reported to the state.

Table 4. Leatherback nesting activity, nesting success and crawl density by survey
area in 2008. This includes only crawls above the most recent high tide line. SISP =
Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge.
Survey Area Nests False Crawls
Total
Emergences
Nesting
Success (%)
Avg. Crawl
Density 1
SISP 2 2 4 50.0% 1.3
ACNWR 4 0 4 100.0% 0.5
Disney 1 0 1 100.0% 0.5
IR Shores 8 0 8 100.0% 0.9
Vero Beach 4 1 5 80.0% 0.8
South IRC Beaches 8 1 9 88.9% 1.2
Total 27 4 31 87.1% 0.9
1
Expressed as the number of emergences (nests and false crawls) per kilometer of beach.

Table 5. Summary of loggerhead false crawl characteristics and obstructions by survey
area for Indian River County in 2008. This includes only crawls above the most recent
high tide line. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National
Wildlife Refuge, IRS = Indian River Shores, SIRC = South Indian River County.
Characteristics SISP ACNWR 1 Disney IRS Vero SIRC
Total Number of False Crawls 282 980 256 615 299 463
Continuous Crawls (%) 56.4 63.4 87.9 76.7 62.2 62.6
Abandoned Body Pits (%) 39.0 31.4 10.9 20.0 33.1 34.3
Abandoned Egg Chambers (%) 8.2 7.7 5.9 6.2 7.7 7.1
Obstructions
No Obstructions Recorded (%) 83.3 70.9 39.5 67.0 82.3 92.7
Scarps (%) 10.3 20.9 30.1 29.4 7.7 4.1
Seawalls (%) 0.0 4.9 24.6 0.0 6.0 2.4
Dune Cross-Overs (%) 0.0 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.0 0.6
Other Obstructions (%) 6.4 1.2 2.0 1.6 1.0 0.2
1
The number of loggerhead crawls provided differs slightly from those reported to the state.

Table 6. Summary of green turtle false crawl characteristics and obstructions by survey
area for Indian River County in 2008. SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR =
Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, IRS = Indian River Shores, SIRC = South Indian
River County.
Characteristics SISP ACNWR 1 Disney IRS Vero SIRC
Total Number of False Crawls 44 214 47 163 7 18
Continuous Crawls (%) 52.3 51.9 85.1 72.4 28.6 77.8
Abandoned Body Pits (%) 36.4 39.7 14.9 25.2 57.1 22.2
Abandoned Egg Chambers (%) 13.6 9.8 6.4 10.4 14.3 5.6
Obstructions
No Obstructions Recorded (%) 84.1 64.0 38.3 65.6 100.0 83.3
Scarps (%) 13.6 23.4 42.6 30.1 0.0 0.0
Seawalls (%) 0.0 8.4 12.8 0.0 0.0 11.1
Dune Cross-Overs (%) 0.0 3.7 6.4 2.5 0.0 5.6
Other Obstructions (%) 2.3 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0
1
The number of green turtle crawls provided differs slightly from those reported to the state.

Table 7. Summary of all marked nests by species where the clutch was either found the
morning after or found after emergence in Indian River County in 2008.
(a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found).
Fate Loggerhead Green Turtle Leatherback Total
Excavated
Emerged 436 111 8 555
Did not emerge 5 5 0 10
Total Excavated 441 116 8 565
Not Excavated
Washed out 179 66 0 245
Depredated 7 1 0 8
Vandalized 3 1 0 4
Nested on by another 2 0 0 2
Could Not Evaluate 15 6 1 22
Did Not Find 8 8 0 16
Total Not Excavated 214 82 1 297
Total Marked 655 199 9 863
(b) Clutch found after emergence.
Fate Loggerhead Green Turtle Leatherback Total
Excavated
Emerged 8 10 8 26
Did not emerge 0 0 0 0
Total Excavated 8 10 8 26
Not Excavated
Washed out 14 31 0 45
Depredated 0 0 0 0
Vandalized 0 0 0 0
Nested on by another 0 2 1 0
Could Not Evaluate 0 0 0 5
Did Not Find 6 19 2 27
Total Not Excavated 20 52 3 75
Total Marked 28 62 11 101

Table 8. Summary of reproductive success for loggerhead nests by study area in Indian
River County, 2008. Only includes nests where the clutch was initially found. SISP =
Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge.
SISP ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC
Nests Excavated 60 149 77 92 18 45
Mean Clutch Size 112.4 111.1 105.7 113.6 125.6 111.8
Inventoried Hatching
Success (%)
88.9 84.7 89.3 85.6 88.2 84.6
Inventoried Emerging
Success (%)
88.1 82.8 84.5 83.5 87.9 83.9
Emerging Success,
including Predation and
Wash Outs (%)
67.0 66.0 59.7 52.2 44.0 54.7
Mean Incubation Period
(days)
55.4 54.0 55.9 56.0 55.9 54.4

Table 9. Descriptive statistics for all inventoried loggerhead nests in Indian River
County in 2008 (Total = 449). Data is separated for nests located initially and those
located after emergence.
(a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found).
n Min Max Mean Stand Dev.
Clutch Size 441 39 199 111.5 24.7
Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 441 0 100 86.4 19.8
Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 441 0 100 84.3 21.6
Emerging Success, including Predation
and Wash Outs (%)
627 0 100 59.3 42.6
Incubation Period (days) 374 46 67 55.1 2.7
(b) Clutch found after emergence.
n Min Max Mean Stand Dev.
Clutch Size 8 86 170 127.6 32.1
Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 8 3.4 100 80.5 33.8
Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 8 3.4 100 79.6 34.2
Emerging Success, including Predation
and Wash Outs (%)
22 0 100 31.8 45.1
Incubation Period (days) 7 53 62 56.4 3.3

Table 10. Summary of reproductive success for green turtle nests by study area in
Indian River County, 2008. Only includes nests where the clutch was initially found.
SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge.
SISP 1 ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC
Nests Excavated * 60 13 34 5 4
Mean Clutch Size * 113.4 114.4 119.3 139.0 120.8
Inventoried Hatching
Success (%)
* 67.4 93.3 76.9 81.0 63.0
Inventoried Emerging
Success (%)
* 62.3 80.4 70.3 76.1 51.6
Emerging Success,
including Predation and
Wash Outs (%)
* 44.0 52.3 36.2 47.6 51.6
Mean Incubation Period
(days)
* 58.2 57.3 56.9 63.7 53.7
1 SISP does not mark green turtle nests for reproductive success.

Table 11. Descriptive statistics for all inventoried green turtle nests in Indian River
County in 2008 (Total = 126). Data is separated for nests located initially and those
located after emergence.
(a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found).
n Min Max Mean Stand Dev.
Clutch Size 116 56 212 116.6 25.0
Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 116 0 100 73.5 31.0
Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 116 0 100 66.9 34.1
Emerging Success, including Predation
and Wash Outs (%)
183 0 100 42.4 42.2
Incubation Period (days) 70 49 77 57.6 3.8
(b) Clutch found after emergence.
n Min Max Mean Stand Dev.
Clutch Size 10 78 135 107.1 17.4
Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 10 57.4 100 88.0 11.2
Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 10 48.1 100 82.2 15.7
Emerging Success, including Predation
and Wash Outs (%)
41 0 100 20.1 36.5
Incubation Period (days) 14 51 63 57.6 3.5

Table 12. Summary of reproductive success for leatherback nests by study area in
Indian River County, 2008. Only includes nests where the clutch was initially found.
SISP = Sebastian Inlet State Park, ACNWR = Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge.
SISP 1 ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach 2 South IRC
Nests Excavated * 3 0 2 1 2
Mean Clutch Size * 85.0 0 98.5 85 78.0
Inventoried Hatching
Success (%)
* 48.1 0 67.0 61 78.6
Inventoried Emerging
Success (%)
* 45.3 0 67.0 61 77.4
Emerging Success,
including Predation and
Wash Outs (%)
* 45.3 0 67.0 61 77.4
Mean Incubation Period
(days)
* 63.0 0 65.5 72 67.5
1
SISP does not mark leatherback nests for reproductive success.
2
Represents only one nest, not an average.

Table 13. Descriptive statistics for all inventoried leatherback nests in Indian River
County in 2008 (Total = 16). Data is separated for nests located initially and those
located after emergence.
(a) Clutch found the morning after deposition (initially found).
n Min Max Mean Stand Dev.
Clutch Size 8 60 108 86.6 16.0
Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 8 6.7 100 62.1 26.8
Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 8 6.7 100 60.8 26.9
Emerging Success, including Predation
and Wash Outs (%)
8 6.7 100 60.8 26.9
Incubation Period (days) 7 62 72 66.3 3.3
(b) Clutch located after emergence.
n Min Max Mean Stand Dev.
Clutch Size 8 55 99 81.6 16.3
Inventoried Hatching Success (%) 8 22.0 100 77.7 23.9
Inventoried Emerging Success (%) 8 22.0 100 76.3 23.6
Emerging Success, including Predation
and Wash Outs (%)
8 22.0 100 76.3 23.6
Incubation Period (days) 8 61 80 67.5 6.1

Table 14. Results of night-time lighting inspections conducted on 13–15 May 2008 in
unincorporated areas of Indian River County. These results summarize the number of
properties with exterior and interior lighting violations in seven property types. The
"Other" category includes clubhouses and bridges. Exterior lights were given a problem
code based on the intensity and the scope of the light.
May 2008 Survey
Property Type
Exterior
Lights
Interior
Lights
Total Lights
Average Exterior
Problem Code 1
House 41 36 77 3.1
Condominium 9 2 11 3.0
Hotels 1 1 2 *
Street light 16 0 16 3.1
Dune Crossover 1 0 1 *
Public Park 0 0 0 *
Other Types 4 0 4 2.8
TOTAL OR
AVERAGE
72 39 111 3.0
1
Problem codes range from 1 to 5, from most disruptive to least disruptive, respectively.
* cannot average due to small sample size.

Table 15. Summary of sea turtle disorientation events by study area, 2008.
SISP ACNWR Disney IR Shores Vero Beach South IRC Total
Leatherback Green Turtle Loggerhead
# Events 4 3 0 3 17 31 58
# Hatchlings 185 100 0 126 1,222 1,767 3,400
# Events 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
# Hatchlings 0 50 0 0 0 0 50
# Events 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
# Hatchlings 40 0 0 0 38 0 78
TOTAL EVENTS 5 4 0 3 18 31 61
TOTAL HATCHLINGS 225 150 0 126 1,260 1,767 3,528

Table 16. Cumulative take since date of issuance of the Indian River County ITP
(December 1, 2004). No armoring under the HCP occurred in 2008.
Applicant Name Survey Area Jurisdiction
FDEP Permit
No.
Type of
Armoring
Take (Linear
Ft)
Summerplace 1 Disney Unincorporated IR-512 ATF Seawall 420
Gerstner, Larry &
Cheryl
South County Unincorporated IR-511 M1 ATF Seawall 100
Dec 1, 2004 – Dec 31, 2005
2008
Cumulative Take
Take Authorized Under ITP
Balance
520
0
520
3,196
2,676
1 Parvus, Dirk & Brenda; Strand, Anne E.; Trimarche, Peter J.; King, Bruce, E.; Simpson, Patricia N.; and
McCoy, Richard & Louise.

FIGURES

Map of Permit Holder Areas and Jurisdictions along Indian River County's Beaches
Fellsmere
95
Sebastian
! 510
I n d i a n
R i v e r
C o u n t y
S e b a s t i a n I n l e t
Kilometers
³
SISP
Park Biologist
3
4
5
6
7 ACNWR
8 Wirwa
9
10
11
F 1
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
2
Orchid
! 60 ! A1A
t1
Indian
River
Shores
Vero Beach
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Disney
Savage
26
27
28
North IRS
Savage
29
30
31
South IRS
Herren
32
33
34
35
Vero Beach
Herren
36
0 2 4 6 8
South IRC
Herren
Figure 1. Map of Indian River County showing study areas along the coast and the marine turtle principal
permit holders that are responsible for collecting nesting data within each area. The County's beaches have
been divided up into 36 km zones starting at Sebastian Inlet south to the St. Lucie County line.

Spatial Distribution of Loggerhead Nests in Indian River County in 2008
S e b a s t i a n
I n l e t
³
0
2
4
6
8
Sebastian
Orchid
10
I n d i a n
R i v e r
C o u n t y
! 510 Indian
River
t1 Shores
Vero Beach
! 60 ! A1A
Kilometer Zone
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
0 1 2 3 4 5
Kilometers
0 50 100 150 200
Figure 3. The number of loggerhead nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2008. Data for these type
of distributions was compiled on the basis of GPS locations, which have a small degree of error. Zone 36 is
not a full kilometer.

Spatial Distribution of Loggerhead Nesting Success (%) in Indian River County in 2008
S e b a s t i a n
I n l e t
³
0
2
4
6
8
Sebastian
Orchid
10
I n d i a n
R i v e r
C o u n t y
! 510 Indian
River
t1 Shores
Vero Beach
! 60 ! A1A
0 1 2 3 4 5
Kilometers
Kilometer Zone
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 4. Loggerhead nesting success (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2008. The red line represents
50% nesting success, which is often used as a baseline in this species.

Spatial Distribution of Green Turtle Nests in Indian River County in 2008
S e b a s t i a n
I n l e t
³
0
2
4
6
8
Sebastian
Orchid
10
I n d i a n
R i v e r
C o u n t y
! 510 Indian
River
t1 Shores
Vero Beach
! 60 ! A1A
Kilometer Zone
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
0 1 2 3 4 5
Kilometers
0 20 40 60 80
Figure 5. The number of green turtle nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2008. Zone 36 is not a full
kilometer.

Spatial Distribution of Leatherback Nests in Indian River County in 2008
S e b a s t i a n
I n l e t
³
0
2
4
6
8
Sebastian
Orchid
10
I n d i a n
R i v e r
C o u n t y
! 510 Indian
River
t1 Shores
Vero Beach
! 60 ! A1A
Kilometer Zone
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
0 1 2 3 4 5
Kilometers
0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 6. The number of leatherback nests (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2008. Zone 36 is not a full
kilometer.

Temporal Distribution of Nesting by All Species in the Southern Half (County-
Surveyed Portion) of Indian River County in 2008
March 16-22
March 23-29
Mch 30-April 5
April 6-12
April 13-19
April 20-26
April 27-May 3
May 4-10
May 11-17
May 18-24
May 25-31
June 1-7
June 8-14
June 15-21
June 22-28
June 29-July 5
July 6-12
July 13-19
July 20-26
July 27-Aug 2
Aug 3-9
Aug 10-16
Aug 17-23
Aug 24-30
Aug 31-Sep 6
Sep 7-13
Sep 14-20
Sep 21-27
Sep 28-Oct 4
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
NEST TOTALS Loggerhead = 1,312 Green Turtle = 86 Leatherback = 17
Figure 7. The temporal pattern of nesting by all species in the southern half of Indian River County, 2008.
This graph is updated weekly throughout the season and is available at www.ircgov.com/coastal
March 2-8
March 9-15
Number of Nests

Spatial Distribution of Abandoned Body Pits and Egg Chambers in 2008
S e b a s t i a n
I n l e t
³
0
2
4
6
8
Sebastian
Orchid
10
12
I n d i a n
R i v e r
C o u n t y
! 510 t 1
Vero Beach
Indian
River
Shores
Kilometer Zone
14
16
18
20
22
24
! 60 ! A1A
26
28
30
32
34
36
Abandoned
Body Pit
Abandoned
Egg Chamber
0 1 2 3 4 5
Kilometers
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 8. The percentage of loggerhead, green turtle and leatherback crawls with abandoned body pits and
abandoned egg chambers (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2008.

Spatial Distribution of Crawl Obstructions (%) in Indian River County in 2008
S e b a s t i a n
I n l e t
³
0
2
4
6
8
Sebastian
Orchid
10
I n d i a n
R i v e r
C o u n t y
! 510 t 1
Vero Beach
Indian
River
Shores
Kilometer Zone
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
! 60 ! A1A
26
28
30
32
34
36
Seawall
Scarp
DuneScarp
X-over
RecEquip
Other
0 1 2 3 4 5
Kilometers
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 9. The proportion of loggerhead, green turtle and leatherback nests and false crawls associated with
obstructions (x-axis) mapped by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2008. X-over = dune walkways. Rec Equip =
boats, chairs, umbrellas, etc. See text for description of "Other" category and definitions of types of scarps.

Disruptive Beach Activities in Indian River County in 2008
S e b a s t i a n
I n l e t
³
0
2
4
6
FIRE
LG VEHICLE
SM VEHICLE
LOOSE DOG
8
CONSTRUCTION
Sebastian
Orchid
10
OTHER
I n d i a n
R i v e r
C o u n t y
! 510 t1
Vero Beach
12
Indian
River
Shores
! 60 ! A1A
Kilometer Zone
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
0 1 2 3 4 5
Kilometers
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 10. The number of disruptive beach activities potentially harmful to sea turtles recorded during
nesting surveys (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in Indian River County in 2008. LG VEHICLE = Truck or
Construction Vehicle. SM VEHICLE = ATV or Motorcycle. LOOSE DOG = unattended dog.
CONSTRUCTION = unauthorized dune or beach work. See text for description of other category.

Presence of People, Dog and Raccoon Tracks on Fresh Crawls in 2008
S e b a s t i a n
I n l e t
³
0
2
4
6
8
PEOPLE
DOG
PEOPLE & DOG
RACCOON
Sebastian
Orchid
10
I n d i a n
R i v e r
C o u n t y
! 510 Indian
River
t1 Shores
Vero Beach
! 60 ! A1A
Kilometer Zone
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
0 1 2 3 4 5
Kilometers
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 11. The number of nests and false crawls with people, dog and raccoon tracks on them the night
they were deposited (x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in Indian River County in 2008. The lack of activity in
the northern kilometers may be due to lack of reporting.

Distribution of Disorientations and Lighting Violations in Indian River County in 2008
S e b a s t i a n
I n l e t
³
0
2
4
6
Disorientations
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sebastian
Orchid
8
10
I n d i a n
R i v e r
C o u n t y
! 510 Indian
River
t1 Shores
Vero Beach
! 60 ! A1A
Kilometer Zone
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
0 1 2 3 4 5
Kilometers
30
25
20 15 10
Exterior and Interior Violations
5
0
Figure 12. The number of disorientated nests (top x-axis) vs. the number of properties with exterior
and interior lighting violations (bottom x-axis) by kilometer zone (y-axis) in 2008. In 2008, night-time
lighting surveys were not conducted in the Town of Indian River Shores, Orchid or the City of Vero Beach.

Distribution of Nest Predations in Indian River County in 2008
S e b a s t i a n
I n l e t
³
0
2
4
6
8
Sebastian
Orchid
10
12
I n d i a n
R i v e r
C o u n t y
! 510 Indian
River
t1 Shores
Vero Beach
! 60 ! A1A
Kilometer Zone
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
RACCOON
CANINE
30
BOBCAT
32
HUMAN
34
UNKNOWN
36
0 1 2 3 4 5
Kilometers
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 13. The number of nest predations by raccoons, canines, bobcats and people (x-axis) by kilometer
zone (y-axis) in 2008.

Nest Predation and Attempted Predation by Raccoons and Canines in the ACNWR
– Indian River County from 2006 – 2008.
Ambersand
Park
1
/
2
/
³
1
2
3
/
3
Treasure Shores
Park
4
/
5
/
6
/
ACNWR Zone
4
5
6
Goldensands Park
O r c h i d
7
/
8
/
7
8
COON ATMPT
COON PRED
CANINE ATMPT
CANINE PRED
/ /
/
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 1 2 3
/ //
Kilometers
Figure 14. The number of nest predations and attempted predations by raccoons and canines (x-axis) by
nesting zone (y-axis) in the Indian River County portion of the ACNWR from 2006 to 2008. Green markers
on the map are the northern boundaries of the ACNWR nesting zones. Gray areas of the map denote
ACNWR lands managed jointly by the USFWS, State and County.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – MARINE TURTLE PERMIT #166

APPENDIX B – MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

APPENDIX C – NEST MONITORING PROCEDURES

HCP MONITORING PROCEDURES - REQUIRED FOR EACH SURVEY AREA
1. Daily uninterrupted surveys conducted at sunrise from March 1 to September 30.
2. Determination of species.
3. Determination whether crawl is a nest or false crawl.
4. Zone recorded for all crawls.
5. GPS coordinates recorded for all crawls.
6. Determination whether crawl is below or above most recent high tide line.
7. Number of abandoned body pits or abandoned egg chambers for all crawls.
8. Record obstructions or barriers to nesting (e.g. scarps, beach furniture, etc.)
9. Documentation of any impacts to nesting turtles, nests, and hatchlings.
10. Mark any nests deposited at or landward of the toe of dune on developed
property in critically eroded areas (Sentinel Nests).
HCP MONITORING PROCEDURES –REQUIRED IN COUNTY SURVEYED AREAS,
ENCOURAGED FOR OTHER PPH'S.
1. Find clutch and mark a representative sample of nests outside project areas.
2. Monitor nests daily for determination of nest fate.
3. Excavate nests and determine hatching success.
HCP MONITORING PROCEDURES - REQUIRED IN CONSTRUCTION AREAS OR IN
EMERGENCY SHORELINE PROTECTION AREAS
1. Mark any nests in construction zones. Find clutch and relocate nests in danger
areas that will interfere with construction activities.
2. All nests deposited following construction of emergency shoreline protection
project will be located, marked and monitored in situ.

APPENDIX D – NESTING SURVEY DATA SHEET

SEA TURTLE NESTING SURVEY DATA
NAME ________________________ DATE ___________________ PAGE NO.________ OF _________
START TIME ______________
END TIME ______________
GPS UNIT NO. _________
ZONE
GENERAL INFORMATION
HIGH TIDE LINE
GPS
SPECIES NEST / ABOVE BELOW
WAYPT.
FC
SPECIFIC FEATURES
ABANDONED DIGS OBSTRUCTIONS
# ABAND # ABAND
DUNE SEA
SCARP
BODYPIT CAVITY X-OVER WALL
COMMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
CC = LOGGERHEAD; CM = GREEN; DC = LEATHERBACK. FOR HELP, CALL INDIAN RIVER COUNTY'S SEA TURTLE COORDINATOR AT 772-226-1276

APPENDIX E – MAPS OF SENTINEL AREAS

SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

SENTINEL NEST AREAS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

APPENDIX F – PRE-SEASON LIGHTING LETTER

APPENDIX G – LIGHTING WORKSHOP FLYER

Sea turtles live in the ocean.
They need your help to get there.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PRESENTS
Sea Turtle Lighting Workshop
FEBRUARY 2, 2008 • 1:00 PM – 4:00 PM
VERO BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER • 2266 14TH AVE.
Every summer thousands of newly hatched sea turtles are led astray by lights. Learn how
you can keep your beachfront lights from harming these threatened and endangered animals.
Presentations by local, state and federal wildlife biologists
Vendors showcasing sea turtle friendly lighting solutions
Code enforcement to explain local lighting ordinances
Wildlife artists • Snacks and drinks • Games for children
Call 772-226-3484 for more information.

APPENDIX H – DOG PREDATION FLYER

FROM MARCH THOUGH OCTOBER, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY BEACHES ARE NESTING GROUNDS FOR
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SEA TURTLES. THEIR
SURVIVAL DEPENDS UPON SUCCESSFUL INCUBATION OF
THEIR NESTS. THE NESTS ARE USUALLY 18 TO 30
INCHES UNDER THE SURFACE OF THE SAND AND ARE
SAFE FROM FOOT TRAFFIC. HOWEVER, IF ALLOWED,
DOGS CAN DIG UP AND DESTROY SEA TURTLE NESTS. IN
2006, 38 NESTS, WHICH INCLUDED 4,370 EGGS, WERE
DESTROYED BY DOGS IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY!
BE AWARE! THERE ARE LOCAL ORDINANCES
PROHIBITING DOGS ON THE BEACHES IN THE CITY OF
VERO BEACH AND THE COUNTY. IF YOU DECIDE TO
TAKE YOUR DOG ON THE BEACH, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT
TO FINES.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT DOG ORDINANCES CALL THE CITY OF VERO
BEACH AT 772-978-4621 OR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AT 772-226-3486. FOR MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT SEA TURTLES LOCALLY CALL 772-226-3484 OR VISIT
MYFWC.COM/SEATURTLE. IF YOU OBSERVE A STRANDED, INJURED OR DEAD
SEA TURTLE, PLEASE REPORT IT TO THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION AT 1-888-404-FWCC.