Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
November 2008
Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
ARCHIE CARR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
Brevard and Indian River Counties, Florida
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
November 2008
Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN ....................................................................................... 1
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose and Need for the Plan .................................................................................................... 9
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 9
National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................................................................ 10
Legal and Policy Context ............................................................................................................ 12
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................... 13
Western Hemisphere Migratory Species Initiative ............................................................ 13
North American Bird Conservation Initiative ..................................................................... 13
North American Waterfowl Management Plan .................................................................. 13
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan ......................................................................... 14
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan .................................................................................... 14
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan ............................................................. 14
NOAA’s Marine Debris Removal Program ........................................................................ 14
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency ......................................................................................... 15
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 17
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 17
Refuge History and Purposes ..................................................................................................... 17
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 18
Candidate Marine Protected Area ..................................................................................... 18
Coastal Barrier Resources System ................................................................................... 18
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 19
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 21
Recovery Plans ................................................................................................................. 21
State Wildlife Action Plan .................................................................................................. 21
Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan ........................................................ 23
National Estuary Program ................................................................................................. 23
Save Our Coasts Program ................................................................................................ 23
Florida Natural Areas Inventory ........................................................................................ 23
Preservation 2000 ............................................................................................................. 24
Florida Forever Program ................................................................................................... 24
Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program ........................................ 24
Indian River County Environmental Lands Program ......................................................... 24
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 25
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 25
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 25
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 26
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 26
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 26
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 27
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 27
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 27
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 39
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 52
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 52
ii Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 55
Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................... 55
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 61
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance......................................................................... 68
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 69
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 69
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 71
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 71
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 71
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 72
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 72
Public Review and Comment ..................................................................................................... 72
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 73
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 73
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 73
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 74
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 74
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 88
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 97
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 106
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 109
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 109
Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 109
Wildlife and Habitat Management ................................................................................... 109
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 112
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 114
Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 115
Partnership Opportunities......................................................................................................... 118
Partnership Opportunities......................................................................................................... 119
Step-down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 119
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 119
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 119
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 121
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... 121
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ............................................................. 131
APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................. 141
APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 153
Summary of Public Scoping Comments ................................................................................... 153
Summary of Public Comments on the Draft CCP/EA and Service Responses ........................ 154
APPENDIX V. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 173
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX VI. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS .................................................................... 181
APPENDIX VII. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ................................ 199
APPENDIX VIII. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................ 215
APPENDIX IX. REFUGE BIOTA ...................................................................................................... 217
APPENDIX X. BUDGET REQUESTS .............................................................................................. 231
APPENDIX XI. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................ 233
APPENDIX XII. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .............................................................. 235
APPENDIX XIII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................................................. 241
iv Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Merritt Island NWR Complex. ........................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Archie Carr NWR location and acquisition boundary. ...................................................... 3
Figure 3-1. Larger Archie Carr partnership, Segment 1. .................................................................... 4
Figure 3-2. Larger Archie Carr partnership, Segment 2. .................................................................... 5
Figure 3-3. Larger Archie Carr partnership, Segment 3 North. ........................................................... 6
Figure 3-4. Larger Archie Carr partnership, Segment 3 South. .......................................................... 7
Figure 3-5. Larger Archie Carr partnership, Segment 4. .................................................................... 8
Figure 4. Peninsular Florida and South Florida Ecoregions. ......................................................... 20
Figure 5. Area conservation lands. ................................................................................................ 22
Figure 6-1. Land cover, Segment 1. ................................................................................................. 30
Figure 6-2. Land cover, Segment 2. ................................................................................................. 31
Figure 6-3. Land cover, Segment 3 North. ....................................................................................... 32
Figure 6-4. Land cover, Segment 3 South. ....................................................................................... 33
Figure 6-5. Land cover, Segment 4. ................................................................................................. 34
Figure 7-1. Land status for Archie Carr NWR, Segment 1. .............................................................. 56
Figure 7-2. Land status for Archie Carr NWR, Segment 2. .............................................................. 57
Figure 7-3. Land status for Archie Carr NWR, Segment 3 North. ..................................................... 58
Figure 7-4. Land status for Archie Carr NWR, Segment 3 South. .................................................... 59
Figure 7-5. Land status for Archie Carr NWR, Segment 4. .............................................................. 60
Figure 8. Public use map. .............................................................................................................. 62
Figure 9. Archie Carr NWR organizational chart. .......................................................................... 68
Figure 10. Proposed mangrove and scrub restoration areas. ......................................................... 78
Figure 11. Miller House Tract burn unit. .......................................................................................... 85
Figure 12-1. Refuge priority acquisitions, Segment 1. ........................................................................ 91
Figure 12-2. Refuge priority acquisitions, Segment 2. ........................................................................ 92
Figure 12-3. Refuge priority acquisitions, Segment 3 North. .............................................................. 93
Figure 12-4. Refuge priority acquisitions, Segment 3 South. ............................................................. 94
Figure 12-5. Refuge priority acquisitions, Segment 4. ........................................................................ 95
Figure 13. Proposed organizational chart for Archie Carr NWR. ................................................... 118
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Approximate sizes of major habitat types of the refuge’s acquisition boundary,
Service-owned and managed lands, and partner lands. .................................................... 28
Table 2. Listed wildlife potentially occurring on the refuge. .............................................................. 43
Table 3. Listed plants potentially occurring on refuge and partner lands. ........................................ 48
Table 4. Nonnative species ocurring on the refuge. ......................................................................... 49
Table 5. Population growth of resident counties between 2000-2006. ............................................. 52
Table 6. Population change between 2000-2006 of adjacent cities. ................................................ 53
Table 7. Projected population growth of area counties. .................................................................... 53
Table 8. Visitor use areas (predominantly on partner properties). .................................................... 64
Table 9. Summary of projects. ........................................................................................................ 116
Table 10. Step-down management plans to be developed during the 15-year life of the plan. ........ 119
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as
part of the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex and co-managed with Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge (Figure 1). Archie Carr NWR is located along Florida’s southeast coast
between Melbourne Beach and Wabasso Beach in Brevard and Indian River counties (Figure 2).
The refuge was authorized in 1989 and established in 1991 to conserve threatened and endangered
wildlife, especially sea turtles. The refuge was named after the famed sea turtle researcher, Dr.
Archie F. Carr. The over 258 acres (104 hectares [ha]) of the refuge support hundreds of wildlife and
plant species. In addition, the refuge provides protection for terrestrial listed species and native
wildlife and habitat diversity through a mix of habitats, including maritime hammock and coastal
scrub. The refuge consists of four segments, spanning 20.5 miles (33 kilometers [km]) (Figure 2) and
protects historical and archaeological sites. A growing human population, along with ongoing
development and other human activities, currently threaten the refuge.
The Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge and barrier island protection effort is a unique multiagency
partnership dedicated to integrating endangered species and ecosystem protection with sustainable
development and human recreation use. Colloquially referred to as the Archie Carr Refuge, the
conservation land ownership and management within the area of the refuge represent an integrated
partnership with federal, state, and local governments and private entities under multiple jurisdictions
with different management perspectives, philosophies, and directives (Figures 3-1 through 3-5).
Hence, the larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership extends beyond the Service’s management and
acquisition boundaries for the refuge to protect and manage wildlife and habitat and provide visitor
services throughout this barrier island ecosystem. In response to the substantial development
pressures experienced by this area, these governmental entities participated in a coordinated land
acquisition effort, which has resulted in the purchase of approximately 1,324.77 acres (536.12 ha) within
the refuge’s acquisition boundary and 2,668.56 acres (1,079.93 ha) within the larger Archie Carr Refuge
partnership (as of 2007). In 1994, a formal partnership called the Archie Carr Working Group was
formed to enhance coordination, cooperation, and communication among these diverse interest
groups involved in the refuge and the barrier island protection effort. Representing land acquisition
and management agencies, conservation groups, nonprofit organizations, educational and research
institutions, homeowner associations, and the local community, the Archie Carr Working Group
provides a forum to guide and coordinate current and future management needs of the larger Archie
Carr Refuge partnership. This unique multiagency public and private partnership that has emerged to
support the refuge demonstrates the national significance of this effort as a model for future
conservation collaboration.
While the Archie Carr Working Group includes over 27 partnerships, the Service, Brevard County
(Parks and Recreation Department and the Environmentally Endangered Lands Program), Indian
River County (Parks Division and the Conservation Lands Program), the State of Florida (Florida
Park Service and Division of State Lands), and Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute are the
individual entities that own and manage conservation lands within the larger Archie Carr NWR
partnership (Figures 3-1 through 3-5).
2 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Merritt Island NWR Complex.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
Figure 2. Archie Carr NWR location and acquisition boundary.
4 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3-1. Larger Archie Carr partnership, Segment 1.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
Figure 3-2. Larger Archie Carr partnership, Segment 2.
6 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3-3. Larger Archie Carr partnership, Segment 3 North.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Figure 3-4. Larger Archie Carr partnership, Segment 3 South.
8 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3-5. Larger Archie Carr partnership, Segment 4.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Lands acquired primarily for public access and recreation that currently provide visitor services within
the refuge include Brevard County (Parks and Recreation Department and the Environmentally
Endangered Lands Program), Indian River County Parks and Recreation Department, and the State
of Florida (Sebastian Inlet State Park). Other major outreach and education partners include the
Caribbean Conservation Corporation, Friends of the Carr Refuge, the Ocean Conservancy, and the
Sea Turtle Preservation Society.
Major wildlife research partners include the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute, the University of Central Florida and the University of Florida.
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge (ACNWR)
was prepared to guide management actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife
conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be
allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of
the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. The Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) described the Fish and Wildlife
Service’s proposed plan, as well as the other alternatives that were considered and their effects on
the environment. This Draft CCP/EA was made available to state and federal government agencies,
conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment in June 2008. Comments from
all entities were considered in the development of this Final CCP. Substantive comments and the
Service’s responses to them are provided in Appendix IV, Public Involvement.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge purpose;
attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife Refuge System
(Refuge System, NWRS) mission; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is
consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
􀁹􇤠 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of people through federal programs relating to wild
birds, endangered species, certain marine mammals, fisheries, aquatic resources, and wildlife
management activities.
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95
million acres (38 million ha). These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s
10 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
largest collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77
million acres (31 million ha), are in Alaska. The remaining acres/hectares are spread across the
other 49 states and several United States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages
thousands of small wetlands, 69 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 81
ecological services field stations. The Service enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the
Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant
fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps foreign governments with their
conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of
dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The first national wildlife refuge, Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, was established in Florida in
1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt for the protection of colonial nesting birds from plume hunters
and egg poachers. Following suit for much needed wildlife protection, western refuges were
established for American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn
sheep (1936) after over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once
abundant herds.
National wildlife refuges in the first decades of the 20th century were true sanctuaries. Many were
guarded by citizen wardens who protected them from poachers and plume hunters, while visitors
were rare: an occasional scientist, photographer, or bird watcher. During the drought conditions of
the 1930’s “Dust Bowl”, breeding populations of ducks and geese plummeted and a waterfowl crisis
ensued. The Duck Stamp Act of 1934 provided a much needed stimulus to the System by using
hunting license proceeds to establish “Waterfowl Production Areas” to recover breeding populations
of waterfowl. As the System grew under the Duck Stamp Act, some refuges were opened to hunting
and fishing. Interest in using refuges for other recreation gained popularity with the post-WW II
generation of the 1950s. Americans loved to travel the nation’s back roads, and there, amidst the hot
prairies and plains and the salt marshes of the south, they discovered their National Wildlife Refuge
System. In 1951, the first year visitor use records were totaled, refuges hosted 3.4 million people. By
the end of that decade, 10 million people visited refuges. Some came to fish and hunt, but most
came to share with family and friends the sights and sounds of wildlife and the wonders of the living
world. Many came to recreate in other ways: sail, swim, camp, water ski, bicycle, ride horses, sun
bathe, and rock climb. Although these lands were dedicated to wildlife conservation, incomplete
policies and an uncertain mission resulted in uses that were not always in harmony with a refuge’s
wildlife conservation purpose. Refuge staff, so well-trained and equipped to manage habitat and
wildlife, faced new challenges with the task of managing an eager and active public. The Refuge
Recreation Act of 1962 and the Refuge Administration Act of 1966 helped bring refuges together, but
both laws were more concerned with how refuges would be used rather than how they should
function as a system. This all changed, in 1997, with President Clinton’s signing of the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The Act established, for the first time, a clear legislative
mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), as defined by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the refuge system serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
Actions were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to
complete comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with
full public involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural
resources and recreation/education programs. Consistent with this Act, approved plans will serve as
the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Act states that each refuge shall be
managed to:
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the refuge system;
􀁹􇤠 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge system;
􀁹􇤠 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
􀁹􇤠 Allow refuge managers authority to determine compatible public uses.
National wildlife refuges connect visitors to their natural resource heritage and provide them with an
understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology to help them understand their role in the
environment. Wildlife-dependent recreation on refuges also generates economic benefits to local
communities. According to the report, Banking on Nature 2004: The Economic Benefits to Local
Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, approximately 37 million people visited national
wildlife refuges in 2004, generating almost $1.4 billion in total economic activity and creating almost
24,000 private sector jobs producing about $454 million in employment income. Additionally,
recreational spending on refuges generated nearly $151 million in tax revenue at the local, county,
state, and federal level. As the number of visitors grows, significant economic benefits are realized
by local communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed
wildlife, generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36
percent in seven years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities
grew to 120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies.
The 15 refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard
(Illinois); Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas);
Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna
Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River
(Louisiana) the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief that
communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and transportation
grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each federal dollar spent
on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation expenditures and
$1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpublished data).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2005,
approximately 38,000 refuge volunteers donated more than 1.4 million hours. The value of their
service was more than $25 million.
12 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 stipulates that comprehensive
conservation plans be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners
and that Service develop and implement a process to ensure an opportunity for active public
involvement in the preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the CCPs.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge
unit purposes. Each CCP will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices,
and legal mandates including Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines,
and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties.
Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines
established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. Appendix III provides a complete listing of the relevant legal mandates.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in
making decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical
and cultural resources; research; and recreation on refuge lands, providing a framework for
cooperation between Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge and other partners, especially those
involved in the Archie Carr Working Group.
Selected legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the National Wildlife
Refuge System and management of the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge are provided in
Appendix III.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and
legally opened. No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A
compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not
materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the refuge system or the
purposes of the refuge. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Those mandates are to:
􀁹􇤠 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
􀁹􇤠 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
􀁹􇤠 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
􀁹􇤠 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. As priority public
uses of the refuge system they receive priority consideration over other public uses in planning
and management.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. A large amount of conservation and protection information
defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem levels. Conservation
initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected parties to address declining
trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The conservation guidance
described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, were reviewed and integrated, where
appropriate, into this CCP.
This CCP supports, among others, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, the North
American Bird Conservation Initiative, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
(NOAA’s) Marine Debris Removal Program.
WESTERN HEMISPHERE MIGRATORY SPECIES INITIATIVE
The Western Hemisphere Migratory Species Initiative (WHMSI) seeks to contribute significantly to the
conservation of the migratory species of the Western Hemisphere by strengthening communication
and cooperation among nations, international conventions, and civil society and by expanding
constituencies and political support. The initiative includes all migratory species, covering taxa as
diverse as birds, marine turtles, marine and terrestrial mammals, fishes, and invertebrates.
Objectives include, among others, to maintain a compilation of pertinent conservation resources;
promote the adoption of best management practices; mitigate primary threats; restore populations of
threatened species; facilitate the generation of key information; produce a catalog of areas of
importance for migratory species; articulate ongoing and planned conservation efforts; communicate
and raise awareness of the ecological, economic and cultural importance of migratory species; and
increase the constituency that supports the conservation of migratory species, including through the
promotion of local initiatives. The refuge will help contribute toward meeting the objectives outlined in
the WHMSI, especially with regard to the conservation of sea turtles.
NORTH AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
Started in 1999, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a coalition of government
agencies, private organizations, academic institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States,
Canada, and Mexico working to ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by
fostering an integrated approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four
international and national bird initiatives include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan,
Partners-in-Flight, Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
ACNWR plays a part in meeting the bird conservation objectives of the NABCI initiatives.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an international action plan to conserve migratory
birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by
conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction
to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan
is a partnership of federal, provincial, state, and municipal governments; nongovernmental organizations;
private companies; and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the
benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species, and people. The plan’s projects are
international in scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of
habitat and wildlife species across the North American landscape.
14 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT BIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
Managed as part of the Partners in Flight Plan, the South Florida physiographic area represents a
scientifically based land bird conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of
healthy populations of native land birds, primarily nongame land birds. Nongame land birds have
been vastly underrepresented in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines.
The Partners in Flight Plan is voluntary and nonregulatory, and focuses on relatively common species
in areas where conservation actions can be most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis
on rare and peripheral populations.
U.S. SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort throughout the United States to ensure
that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird species are restored and protected. The
Shorebird Plan was developed by a wide range of agencies, organizations, and shorebird experts for
separate regions of the country and it identifies conservation goals, critical habitat conservation
needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach programs to increase awareness
of shorebirds and the threats they face.
NORTHERN AMERICAN WATERBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan provides a framework for the conservation and
management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird populations include
destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive species, pollutants,
mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from abundant species.
Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas, marshes, forested
wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are federally listed,
including breeding populations of wood storks (Mycteria americana), Mississippi sandhill cranes
(Grus canadensis pulla), whooping cranes (Grus americana), interior least terns (Sterna antillarum
athalassos), and gulf coast populations of brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis). A key objective
of this plan is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation
measures.
NOAA’S MARINE DEBRIS REMOVAL PROGRAM
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Debris Program was launched in
2005 after the NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration received a budget line titled “Marine
Debris” for $5M. On December 22, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Marine Debris
Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, which legally establishes the NOAA Marine Debris
Program. To date, the program has (1) reviewed and inventoried existing debris projects in
NOAA; (2) conducted two workshops with internal and external partners focused on the activities
and needs of NOAA and the marine debris community; (3) developed a two-year implementation
plan; (4) established bi-weekly marine debris meetings with representatives from over ten offices
across five NOAA line offices; (5) identified regional coordinators to promote the program’s
objectives; (6) established an outreach program; and (7) created three competitive grant
programs for distributing funds. The refuge can contribute towards the outreach/education goals
of this program which aims to reduce injury and mortality to a wide range of marine species.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent
agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration
with other state fish and game agencies and tribal governments during the course of acquiring
and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas and national wildlife refuges provide the
foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the overall health and sustainability of
fish and wildlife species in the State of Florida.
For Archie Carr NWR, the state agency partners include the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC); Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP); Florida Division of
Forestry (FDOF); and St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). Management of the
state’s fish and wildlife is administered by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. These state agencies are charged with
enforcement responsibilities relating to migratory birds, trust species, and fisheries, as well as with
management of the state’s natural resources. Both FWC and FDEP manage state lands and waters.
FWC manages 4.3 million acres (1.7 million ha) of public lands and 220,000 acres (89,030 ha) of
private lands for recreation and conservation purposes. FDEP manages 150 state parks covering
nearly 600,000 acres (242,811 ha) and 57 coastal and aquatic managed areas, totaling over 5 million
acres (2 million ha) of submerged lands and coastal uplands. The SJRWMD is one of Florida’s five
water management agencies. It is responsible for managing ground and surface water supplies in all
or part of 18 counties in northeast and east-central Florida. The SJRWMD owns or manages nearly
700,000 acres (280,000 ha) of land, acquired for the purposes of water management, water supply,
and the conservation and protection of water resources. These lands largely consist of wetlands or
historically wet areas. Of less acreage, but not of less importance, are upland areas. These areas
preserve wetlands, waters, and wildlife and provide critical buffers between rapidly encroaching
development and important wetland areas.
Various agencies within the state government have participated in a mix of refuge projects, including
the planning process to develop a 15-year management plan for the refuge. The State of Florida’s
participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process provide
for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainability of fish and
wildlife in Florida. An integral part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is integrating
common mission objectives, where appropriate.
16 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
While sea turtles are threatened with extinction throughout the world, the Archie Carr NWR hosts the
largest nesting population of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles in
the U.S., with a quarter of all loggerhead sea turtle nests and a third of all green sea turtle nests.
Loggerheads at the refuge annually produce between 8,000 to 21,000 nests (averaging 400-1,000
nests per mile/1.6 km). Green sea turtles at the refuge annually produce between 100 to 4,000 nests
and leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) annually produce between 1 to 70 nests. Peak
nesting totals for green sea turtles have increased over 600% since 1990. Peak nesting totals for
leatherbacks have increased over 900% since 1990. Both greens and leatherbacks reached all-time
highs in 2007, with over 4,460 green turtle nests and 74 leatherback nests. After 1990, loggerhead
nesting totals increased until 1998, but have since decreased, reaching an all-time low in 2007 with
7,905 nests. Overall, loggerhead nesting totals have decreased by 50%. The Archie Carr NWR
rivals the beaches of Masirah Island at the Sultanate of Oman as the most important loggerhead
nesting beach in the world. About 90% of the world’s loggerhead population nests in Florida and
Oman. Further, the refuge provides connectivity to the Indian River Lagoon and Pelican Island NWR,
which provide very important foraging habitat for juvenile sea turtles.
Encroaching development, increasing pollution, degrading and disappearing habitat, an expanding
human population, and the prevalence of invasive exotic species threaten to undermine all refuges.
Concurrently, the demand to use refuges in varying ways has increased dramatically, especially in
Florida (Lenze 2002) where over 18 million people reside (U.S. Census Bureau 2007) and over 77
million annually visit (Florida Department of Transportation 2006).
Archie Carr NWR is a fragmented, linear refuge located along a 20.5-mile (33-km) stretch of barrier
island in southeast Florida (see Figure 2). It includes beaches and dunes, maritime hammock,
coastal scrub, mangrove swamps, and borders the most diverse estuary in the U.S. as well as rare,
nearshore sabellariid reefs. The refuge partnership contains 45 archaeological sites (including 39 Ais
Indian shell middens, four burial mounds, and two historic sites). There are also 12 submerged
shipwreck sites in the nearshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to the refuge.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSES
In the early 1970s, Archie F. Carr, Ph.D, recognized the importance of the south Brevard beaches for
sea turtle nesting. In 1982, Llewellyn Ehrhart, Ph.D, began rigorous, systematic surveys and studies
on loggerhead and green turtle nesting and compiled a compelling database to show that the south
Brevard beaches were in fact the highest density nesting beach for loggerheads in the western
hemisphere and for green turtles in the U.S. In 1988, the State of Florida approved two acquisition
projects (one in Brevard County and one in Indian River County) under the Conservation and
Recreation Lands (CARL) program to protect important coastal habitat. In 1988, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, approved a Preliminary Project Proposal to establish the Sea
Turtle National Wildlife Refuge in Brevard and Indian River Counties. In 1989, the proposed refuge
was renamed the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge in honor of the significant contributions to sea
turtle research and conservation by Dr. Archie F. Carr (1909-1987), a world-renowned zoologist,
naturalist, and author. The proposed refuge garnered the support of U.S. senators and
congressmen, the Governor of the State of Florida, the Boards of County Commissioners from
18 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Brevard and Indian River Counties, and over 100,000 citizens from across the country. In recognition
of its global ecological importance and of the exceptional number of sea turtle nests and in response
to increasing concern regarding over-exploitation of sea turtles, incidental sea turtle mortality in
fishing gear, and loss of sea turtle nesting sites to coastal development, Archie Carr NWR was
authorized by Congress in 1989 and established in 1991 “to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants,
including those which are listed as endangered species or threatened species” [16 USC §1534
(Endangered Species Act)] and “to protect sea turtle populations and their nesting habitat along the
central Atlantic coastline of Florida” (from the Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed
Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, August 1990).
Secondary purposes have also been applied to the refuge, as listed:
“...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of
fish and wildlife resources...” 16 USC §742f(a)(4) “...for the benefit of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such
acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or
condition of servitude...” 16 USC §742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)
“..the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits
they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory
bird treaties and conventions...” 16 USC §3901(b), 100 STAT. 3583 (Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act of 1986)
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
The refuge is officially designated a Candidate Marine Protected Area and is located in the Coastal
Barrier Resources System.
CANDIDATE MARINE PROTECTED AREA
Internationally recognized for conserving natural, historical, and cultural marine resources, marine
protected areas (MPAs) are intended to protect marine species and habitats, while also providing for
sustainable recreation, sustainable commercial activities, enhanced research opportunities, and
expanded educational opportunities. On December 1, 2000, the refuge was listed as a Candidate
MPA, as defined under Executive Order 13158 (signed May 26, 2000). Under this Executive Order,
an MPA is defined as “any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state,
territorial, tribal or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural
and cultural resources therein”. Areas meeting this definition are intended to serve as the building
blocks for a national MPA system. Such a system will form a network for addressing marine issues
through pooled funding from the mix of MPA entities, shared research, increased available data, and
enhanced protection across a system or throughout a species’ range. The MPA system is expected
to benefit marine species that utilize the refuge, especially sea turtles.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), Public Law 97-348 (96 Stat. 1653; 16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
enacted October 18, 1982, designated various undeveloped coastal lands and barrier islands, depicted by
specific maps, for inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). The CBRS is a collection
of specific units of land and associated aquatic habitats that serve as barriers protecting the Atlantic, Gulf,
and Great Lakes coasts. Undeveloped coastal barriers were mapped by the Department of the Interior
using specific criteria, and were then enacted by Congress as units of the CBRS. The affected areas are
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
delineated on maps enacted by Congress and entitled, “John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources
System.” The CBRS currently includes 585 units, which comprise nearly 1.3 million acres (526,091 ha) of
land and associated aquatic habitat. An additional 271 otherwise protected areas are also designated
under a category of coastal barriers already held for conservation purposes that include an additional 1.8
million acres (728,434 ha) of land and associated aquatic habitat. Areas so designated are made
ineligible for direct or indirect federal financial assistance that might support development, including flood
insurance, except for emergency life-saving activities. The CBRA is the essence of free-market natural
resource conservation; it in no way regulates how land can be developed, but it instead transfers the full
cost from federal taxpayers to the individuals who choose to build.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
Archie Carr NWR spans two Service ecosystems: the Peninsular Florida Ecoregion and the South
Florida Ecoregion (Figure 4). The refuge’s northern portion (i.e., segments 1-3 in Brevard County) is
located within the Peninsular Florida Ecoregion. The vision of the North Florida Ecosystem
Management Plan is a working definition of ecosystem management:
Ecosystem management is an integrated, flexible approach to management of North
Florida’s biological and physical environments – conducted through the use of tools such
as planning, land acquisition, environmental education, regulation, and pollution prevention
– designed to maintain, protect, and improve the ecosystem’s natural, managed, and
human communities.
The goals of the North Florida Ecosystem Management Plan are to:
􀁹􇤠 Protect, conserve, and enhance migratory birds and their habitats in the North Florida
Ecosystem;
􀁹􇤠 Protect, conserve, recover, and restore fish, aquatic species, and their habitats in the North
Florida Ecosystem;
􀁹􇤠 Protect, conserve, and enhance wetlands in the North Florida Ecosystem;
􀁹􇤠 Protect, conserve, enhance, and recover listed and candidate threatened and endangered
species and their habitats; and
􀁹􇤠 Protect and manage units of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the National Fish
Hatchery System.
The southern portion of Archie Carr NWR (i.e., Segment 4 in Indian River County) is located within
the South Florida Ecoregion. The seven goals of the South Florida Ecosystem Plan are to:
􀁹􇤠 Protect and manage National Wildlife Refuge System units and other national interest lands;
􀁹􇤠 Protect migratory birds and protect, restore, and manage their habitats;
􀁹􇤠 Protect, restore, and manage candidate, threatened, and endangered species and their
habitats;
􀁹􇤠 Protect, restore, and manage wetlands and other freshwater habitats;
􀁹􇤠 Protect, manage, and restore fish and other aquatic species, and their habitats;
􀁹􇤠 Protect, restore, and enhance coastal and estuarine habitats; and
􀁹􇤠 Protect, restore, and manage for biodiversity.
Archie Carr NWR is a vital component of the Peninsular Florida and South Florida ecoregions,
especially with regard to the conservation of sea turtles.
20 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Peninsular Florida and South Florida Ecoregions.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
A variety of regional conservation plans and initiatives were reviewed in preparation of this CCP,
including recovery plans for federally listed species as well as state and local plans. Other applicable
plans, initiatives, and programs include the State Wildlife Action Plan, the St. Johns River Water
Management District’s Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan, National Estuary
Program, the Save Our Coasts Program, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Preservation 2000, Florida
Forever Program, Brevard County’s Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, and Indian River
County’s Environmental Lands Program. Several of these plans address management of
conservation lands. Figure 5 shows conservation lands in the vicinity of the refuge.
RECOVERY PLANS
Under the Endangered Species Act, the Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
develop a recovery plan for each federally listed species. Archie Carr NWR is included in the
recovery plans for three species: the loggerhead sea turtle, the green sea turtle, and the
Southeastern beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotis nivieventris). Each recovery plan delineates,
justifies, and schedules the research and management actions necessary to support recovery of a
species. If successfully undertaken, recovery actions are likely to permit reclassification or delisting
of the species. As strategy documents, recovery plans do not commit manpower or funds for
recovery actions, nor do they have the legal force of laws and regulations. Instead, they are used in
setting regional and national federal conservation priorities for funding and implementation. The
recovery plans provided a wealth of information that was used in developing the CCP. The area that
encompasses much of Archie Carr NWR was specifically identified in the Loggerhead and Atlantic
Green Turtle Recovery Plans (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1991) in terms of its important role in protecting of nesting habitat.
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN
As a requirement for participating in the federal government’s State Wildlife Grants Program, each
state and territory has created a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for conservation of a
broad array of fish and wildlife. Throughout the development process, the objectives were to identify
species of greatest conservation need and their habitats and to develop high-priority conservation
actions to abate problems for those species and habitats. These objectives have been developed in
a prudent effort to prevent declines before species become imperiled, thereby saving millions of tax
dollars. In addition, the matching requirement has encouraged partnerships and cooperation among
conservation partners. To meet the intent of the Service’s State Wildlife Grants Program, the FWC
created Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative (Initiative). The goal of the Initiative was to develop a
strategic vision for conserving all of Florida’s wildlife. Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy (FCWCS) was completed and approved in 2005. The FCWCS emphasizes the building of
partnerships with other agencies and the private sector, uses a habitat-based conservation approach,
incorporates a broad definition of wildlife (to include invertebrates, aquatic species, and other
species), and favors nonregulatory methods in its effort to reach conservation goals and objectives,
many of which provided useful guidance in developing CCP benchmarks. A variety of species and
habitats found on the refuge are listed in the FCWCS as needing special management protection.
22 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. Area conservation lands.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
SURFACE WATER IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
In the late 1980s, it was determined that Florida had to do more to protect and restore its surface
waters. While point sources (sewage and industrial wastes) were being controlled, nonpoint
sources (pollutants that enter water bodies in less direct ways) were still a major concern. In 1987,
the Florida Legislature created the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) program
to address nonpoint pollutant sources. The SWIM program is the only program that addresses a
waterbody’s needs as a system of connected resources, rather than isolated wetlands or water
bodies. To accomplish this, SWIM meshes across governmental responsibilities, forging important
partnerships in water resource management. While the state’s five water management districts and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection are directly responsible for the SWIM program,
they work in concert with federal, state, and local governments, as well as with the private sector.
The Indian River Lagoon (IRL), an estuary that borders the western boundary of the refuge, is on
the SWIM waterbody priority list. The St. Johns River Water Management District administers the
SWIM Program for the IRL. The undeveloped lands of the refuge contribute to the long-term water
quality of the Indian River Lagoon.
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
In 1991, the Indian River Lagoon became a part of the National Estuary Program (NEP), which is
administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The program manager for the IRL NEP
is also the St. Johns River Water Management District. Efforts under the IRL program focus on
improving water and sediment quality to restore or enhance seagrass and on rehabilitating impacted
wetlands to recover as many of their natural functions as possible.
SAVE OUR COASTS PROGRAM
In 1982, the State of Florida established the Save Our Coasts (SOC) program, appropriating $275
million over a decade to purchase beaches and barrier islands. The SOC program was implemented
as part of Florida’s Land Acquisition Trust Fund Program. Several large tracts were acquired under
the SOC program on the barrier islands in Brevard and Indian River counties. These state-owned
lands formed the core areas that provided a basis for future land acquisition in the refuge.
FLORIDA NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to gathering,
interpreting, and disseminating information critical to the conservation of Florida's biological
diversity. The FNAI was founded in 1981 as a member of The Nature Conservancy's international
network of natural heritage programs. The databases and expertise of FNAI facilitate
environmentally sound planning and natural resource management to protect the plants, animals,
and communities that represent Florida's natural heritage. The FNAI is the primary source of
information on Florida's conservation lands. The inventory’s databases include boundaries and
statistics for more than 1,600 federal, state, local, and privately managed areas, all provided
directly by the managing agencies. The FNAI’s databases and project evaluations provided the
basis for establishing priorities and boundaries for the Florida Conservation and Recreation Lands
(CARL) Program (Preservation 2000).
24 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
PRESERVATION 2000
In 1990, the State of Florida took measures designed to conserve significant natural resources that
might otherwise be subject to development. The state legislature enacted Preservation 2000, a ten-year,
$3 billion statewide program of public land acquisition for natural area conservation and
compatible public recreation purposes. Land acquisition and management activities are funded
primarily by the Conservation and Recreation Lands Trust Fund. The Archie Carr Sea Turtle Refuge
CARL project was designed principally to protect sea turtle nesting habitat. Lands acquired under
this project were leased to the refuge. The Maritime Hammock Initiative CARL project was designed
to protect several of the best maritime hammocks left, adding to existing conservation areas
whenever possible. This project was added to the Archie Carr Sea Turtle Refuge CARL project.
Archie Carr NWR complements these state acquisition projects and participates in the management
of many of the properties acquired by the state.
FLORIDA FOREVER PROGRAM
The Florida Forever Program, created by the state legislature in 1999, follows in the footsteps of
earlier successful land acquisitions programs in the State of Florida by continuing to focus land
acquisition efforts in several resource categories: Natural Communities; Forest Resources; Plants;
Fish and Wildlife; Fresh Water Supplies; Coastal Resources; Geologic Features; Historical
Resources; and Outdoor Recreational Resources.
BREVARD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTALLY ENDANGERED LANDS PROGRAM
The Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Program was established in 1990 to protect the
natural habitats of Brevard County by acquiring environmentally sensitive lands for conservation,
passive recreation, and environmental education. This was made possible by citizens who voted to
tax themselves up to $55 million dollars for the acquisition and maintenance of Brevard County’s
natural areas. Residents reaffirmed the EEL Program in 2004 under a second referendum to use
the same tax that is currently being collected for the Beach and Riverfront Program to protect the
natural habitats within Brevard County by the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands through
a willing seller program for the purposes of conservation, passive recreation, and environmental
education. The EEL sanctuaries are managed to preserve native habitats and the plants and
animals that utilize them. Each sanctuary or management area has a site-specific Comprehensive
Management Plan developed by EEL staff and the Selection and Management Committee. The
EEL Program strives to maintain a regional approach to managing the EEL Sanctuary Network
through the guidance provided in the Sanctuary Management Manual and through management
partnerships with local, state, regional, and federal conservation agencies and private-sector
conservation programs. The EEL Program adopts and implements an ecosystem approach to
environmental management. Ecosystem management is defined as an integrative, flexible
approach to the management of natural resources. Key themes of ecosystem management
include: adaptive management, partnerships, human influences, values, and holistic approach.
Several EEL properties border refuge lands, and EEL has compiled much-needed natural resource
data on ACNWR (EEL 1995).
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS PROGRAM
Indian River County adopted objectives and policies in its 1990 Comprehensive Plan that resulted in
the establishment of the Indian River County Environmental Lands Program, subsequently funded in
1992 by a $26 million ad valorem tax bond referendum supported by a majority of Indian River
County voters. Residents reaffirmed the Environmental Lands Program in 2004 under a second
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
referendum to authorize the spending of $50 million to protect the natural habitats within Indian River
County. The primary purpose and objective of the County Environmental Lands Program is to
protect, restore, and sustain endangered ecosystems and associated rare and endangered species in
Indian River County. Secondary objectives of the program include provision of public passive
recreation; preservation of open space; protection of groundwater quality; provision of flood
protection; protection of historic and cultural resources; and general preservation of quality of life.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
Archie Carr NWR faces numerous threats and various challenges. The major threats include
increasing land development, beach armoring, beach lighting, erosion, and the effects of climate
change. Climate change may exacerbate shoreline erosion due to rising seas (Doyle et al. 1998;
Natural Resources Defense Council 2001; Graeme et al. 2003; Zhang et al. 2004; Fish et al. 2005;
Bindoff et al. 2007; Holland and Webster 2007; Nicholls et al. 2007) and an increase in the intensity
and frequency of tropical cyclones (Emanuel 1987; Emanuel 2005; Webster et al. 2005; Mann and
Emanuel 2006). Issues relating to a growing population are likely to increase, as Brevard and Indian
River counties had growth rates of 12.2% and 15.2%, respectively in 2006 (U.S. Census 2007).
Many lands located within the refuge’s proposed acquisition boundary have already been developed,
predominantly for residential and commercial use. Scrub habitat in the area of the refuge has
declined such that only one family of Florida scrub-jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens) remains. Much
of the foredune, important Southeastern beach mouse habitat, has eroded. As a result of this and
other factors, the Southeastern beach mouse population is declining and is near extirpation from the
area. Human disturbances are intensifying and include a substantial increase in lighting along the
beach, nighttime public use of the beach, commercial and residential development, commercial
fishing and shellfishing, recreational boating (including jet skis), additional sea walls and other types
of armoring, and elevated nutrient loading and pollution in the waterways. These threaten the
protected natural resources located within and benefiting from the refuge, including threatened and
endangered species such as the loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle,
eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), Atlantic salt marsh snake (Nerodia clarkii
taeniata), Southeastern beach mouse, West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), Florida scrub-jay,
wood stork, and piping plover (Charadrius melodus).
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The climate of the refuge is subtropical and humid with average annual temperatures in the mid
70os Fahrenheit (oF) or 20o Celsius (oC), ranging from an average of about 60oF (16oC) in midwinter
to about 80oF (27oC) in summer. January is typically the coldest month, with low temperatures
averaging 50.7oF (10.4oC) and high temperatures averaging 72.5oF (22.5 oC). Occasionally, winter
low temperatures fall several degrees below freezing. Average summer temperatures range from
72oF (22oC) to 90oF (32oC), but may top 100oF (37.7oC). Rainfall averages about 54 inches (in) or
137 centimeters (cm), with 50 to 60 percent of it falling from June to September (Southeast
Regional Climate Center 2007). High rainfall may also occur during late summer and early fall in
association with tropical storms and hurricanes. Tropical storms and hurricanes have the potential
to significantly impact the refuge. High winds exceeding 100 miles per hour (mph) or 161
kilometers per hour (kph) can topple trees and damage infrastructure. Heavy rains can cause
flooding and drastically lower the lagoon’s salinity. More than 7 in (18 cm) fell in one day during
Hurricane Frances in 2004 (NOAA 2007), and following Tropical Storm Fay in August 2008,
salinities in the IRL near the refuge fell to 12 part per thousand, potentially damaging seagrass
26 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
beds (L. Hall, SJRWMD, pers. comm., 26 Aug 2008). The high waves and storm surge associated
with tropical cyclones can severely erode beaches. The official Atlantic hurricane season extends
from June 1 through November 30, but storms sometimes develop outside this timeframe.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
According to Bock et al. (1969), the geology of South Florida presents a picture of a slowly subsiding
plateau, warm tropical waters, and a great accumulation of carbonate sediments. The structure of the
area is comparatively simple, but very difficult to examine. Almost all that is known is based on cores
from oil or artesian well drillings.
The area’s geology creates minimal gradients, resulting in sufficient time for the percolation, soil
saturation, and slow runoff that occasionally creates the very-poorly defined first-order streams and
high-water sheetflow patterns typical of these counties. Where hardpan is present, water moves
slowly vertically relative to horizontal movement, through horizons above and below the hardpan
layer. Soils can become waterlogged and poorly aerated during the rainy season, which can result in
the saturated soils typical of unaltered, undrained mesic pine flatwoods. However, the elevated soils
of scrub environments typically remain well drained. During the dry season, high evapotranspiration
draws most of the water out of the upper soil horizons, drying them. Soil moisture becomes depleted
in the upper soil layers, above the hardpan, and a persistent drought condition frequently prevails
through the dry season. As a result, during the dry season, groundwater can be inaccessible for
plants that cannot penetrate hardpan (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 1989).
SOILS
The following series comprise most of the soil types found on the refuge: Canaveral-Captive-Palm
Beach and McKee-Quartzipamments-St. Augustine (Huckle et al. 1974; Wettstein et al. 1987). With
the exception of McKee soils, most of the soils are found in dune habitats and consist of sand and
shell fragments, with little organic material. McKee soils are found in tidal areas of the lagoon,
especially in the mangrove swamps.
HYDROLOGY
Water Quantity
With the exception of some ditches and mosquito-control impoundments, little surface freshwater
exists on the refuge and partner lands. At lower elevations, the water table is high, often at or close
to the surface and although many of the soils are sandy and porous, rainwater does not percolate
deep into the ground. In dune habitats, soil water can quickly be depleted in the upper layer during
very dry conditions.
Water Quality
The waters surrounding the refuge are salt or brackish. Nearshore marine waters are generally of
good quality, although toxic algae blooms that kill fish, birds, and other wildlife are believed to be
increasing in frequency due to nutrient loading (Anderson et al. 2002). In general, water quality of the
IRL has shown improvements during the last decade, with levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and
suspended solids being significantly reduced. However, certain sections of the IRL, including areas
near the refuge, are still being impacted by agricultural and urban runoff, as well as by sewage
treatment effluents. Reduced salinities and elevated nutrient levels can foster algal blooms, which
result in lower dissolved oxygen levels. In addition, elevated levels of suspended solids can smother
benthic organisms and create anoxic mucks (SJRWMD 2002).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
AIR QUALITY
The air pollutants of major concern in Florida are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone,
particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 1999a). The
primary sources of these pollutants are vehicle emissions, power plants, and industrial activities. In
2004, all areas of Florida were air quality attainment areas (Florida Department of Environmental
Protection 2004). The Indian River Lagoon area is considered to have good air quality. However,
occasional temperature inversions, lasting up to 48 hours, can temporarily degrade local air quality
below acceptable levels.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Major refuge habitats are described in the following section and shown in Figures 6-1 through 6-5.
Natural habitat types are covered in the order that they are generally found on refuge and partner
lands, beginning at the edge of the Atlantic Ocean and moving inland across the barrier island
towards the Indian River Lagoon. Nonnative and anthropogenic habitats are covered last. Table 1
lists the approximate size of each major habitat type on refuge and partner lands. Much of the habitat
information presented here is based on descriptions in the Characterization Report for the Archie Carr
National Wildlife Refuge (EEL 1995), the 2005 Florida Wildlife Legacy Initiative Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and GIS data provided by the St. Johns Water Management District
(FLUCCS 2000 Photointerpretation Key).
Beach and Dunes
Included are the surf zone and beach and dune system.
Surf Zone. This area comprises the narrow strip of sand and shell between tides. Daily flooding by
salt water and moderate to high energy waves prohibit plant growth, except for some inconspicuous
algae. Mole crabs (Emerita talpoida); coquina clams (Donax spp.); and other specialized, burrowing
invertebrates inhabit these areas and are preyed upon by fish and shorebirds. The surf zone is also
an important nursery and feeding habitat for many species of fish, including permit (Trachinotus
falcatus) and Florida pompano (T. carolinus). Additionally, it provides habitat to juvenile sea turtles
(particularly greens) that utilize the nearshore Sabellariid worm rock reefs. This habitat is adjacent to
refuge properties, but are state-owned and outside the jurisdiction of the Service because refuge
boundaries do not extend below the mean high water mark. The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) consults with the state on projects affecting this habitat. The Service coordinates with the
NFMS when sea turtle impacts are anticipated.
Beach and Dune. Closest to the coast, the upper beach is regularly disturbed by waves of high tides
or storms and regularly recolonized by driftline annuals and trailing perennials, such as railroad vine.
Above the reach of annual wave action is the foredune, built by coarse, rhizomatous grasses
(primarily sea oats), that thrive under constant burial from sand blown off the beach. Florida beaches
are vital nesting sites for five federally listed species of sea turtles: green turtle, hawksbill
(Eretmochelys imbricate), leatherback, loggerhead, and Kemp’s Ridley (Lepidochelys kempi).
Beaches are also important nesting sites for several species of shorebirds and wintering grounds for
others, including the federally listed piping plover. Beaches also support numerous other mammals
and invertebrates that depend upon or utilize the beach dune community, such as the federally listed
Southeastern beach mouse.
28 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Table 1. Approximate sizes of major habitat types of the refuge’s acquisition boundary,
Service-owned and managed lands, and partner lands.
Habitat Acquisition Area
(acres / hectares)
FWS Owned or
Managed Lands
(acres / hectares)
Partner Lands
(acres / hectares)
Australian Pine 14.25 / 5.76 - 109.12 / 44.16
Beach and Dunes 100.05 / 40.49 19.20 / 7.77 42.22 / 17.09
Cabbage Palm Hammock 21.79 / 8.82 - 158.54 / 64.16
Citrus Groves - - 207.65 / 84.03
Coastal Strand 376.16 / 152.23 122.75 / 49.68 320.65 / 129.76
Developed 212.91 / 86.16 4.99 / 2.02 16.43 / 6.65
Estuaries 169.11 / 68.44 24.52 / 9.92 269.92 / 109.23
Golf Courses 64.78 / 26.21 - -
Mangrove Swamps 374.51 / 151.56 26.52 / 10.73 632.43 / 255.94
Maritime Hammock 330.35 / 133.69 55.93 / 22.63 398.14 / 161.12
Ocean 9.48 / 3.84 2.17 / 0.88 4.64 / 1.88
Open Field 11.56 / 4.68 0.12 / 0.05 10.64 / 4.31
Park Improvements 76.98 / 31.15 0.02 / 0.01 106.83 / 43.23
Reservoirs/Retention
Ponds 7.84 / 3.17 - 6.31 / 2.55
Ruderal 10.21 / 4.13 1.61 / 0.65 34.36 / 13.90
Salt Marsh Ponds 34.86 / 14.11 - 52.98 / 21.44
Salt Water Marshes 9.92 / 4.01 - 14.54 / 5.88
Shrub Wetland - - 22.23 / 9.00
Streams and Waterways 2.41 / 0.98 0.22 / 0.09 2.90 / 1.17
Totals 1,827.16 / 739.42 258.04 / 104.43 2,410.52 / 975.50
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Beach dunes are mounds of windblown sand that are periodically inundated by seawater during
extreme high tides and storms. Vegetation on beach dunes is restricted to a few highly specialized
terrestrial plants. The beach dune community is a predominantly herbaceous community of wide-ranging
coastal specialists. It occurs on the upper beach and foredune, or first dune above the
beach, which is built by perennial rhizomatous grasses growing upward from year to year as they are
buried by sand blown inland off the beach. Sea oats (Uniola paniculata) are the most commonly
encountered dune-builder, a tall coarse grass capable of rapid lateral spread, forming a relatively
sparse stand of tillers with internodes up to one foot apart (Wagner 1964). Two less common dune-forming
grasses are beach cordgrass (Spartina patens) and bitter panicum (Panicum amarum var.
amarulum). Beach sunflower (Helianthus debilis), beach tea (Croton punctatus), inkberry (Scaevola
plumieri), and beach elder (Iva imbricata) can often be found growing between the widely spaced
leaves in a patch of sea oats, along with two less frequent coastal shrubs, sea lavender (Argusia
gnaphalodes) and bay cedar (Suriana maritime).
The upper beach in front of the sea oat foredune is a less stable habitat, being disturbed by seasonal
or storm high tides annually or at least every few years. It is colonized by: railroad vines (Ipomoea
pes-caprae) and beach morning glory (I. imperati); low, spreading, halophytic grasses, such as
Virginia dropseed (Sporobolus virginicus); and driftline annuals, such as sea rocket (Cakile
lanceolata), saltwort (Salsola kali), and sand atriplex (Atriplex pentandra) (Johnson and Muller 1993).
Coastal Strand/Scrub
Included with these habitats are shrub and brushland plant communities dominated primarily by wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) and occasionally scrub oak (Quercus spp.).
Dwarf trees and shrubs occur beyond the zone of constant sand burial, kept at a low stature by salt
spray which limits growth by inhibiting root and stem development. This coastal strand community is a
commonly encountered community occurring landward of the herbaceous dune in long, narrow bands
along high-energy shorelines, parallel to the open waters of the ocean. This habitat encompasses
dunes as well as areas that may be described as upper beach and coastal rock formations.
Shrub and Brushland. This cover class consists of upland nonagricultural, nonforested uplands with
no evidence of cattle grazing. Cover is greater than 67 percent shrub cover and less than 33 percent
herbaceous. Native brush and shrubland is considered rangeland, and includes saw palmetto,
gallberry, wax myrtle, and coastal scrub plants. Generally, saw palmetto is the most prevalent plant
cover intermixed with a wide variety of other woody scrub plant and various types of short herbs and
grasses. Coastal scrub vegetation includes pioneer herbs and shrubs composed of sea purslaine
(Sesuvium portulacastrum), sea grape (Coccoloba uvifera), and sea oat with no dominant preference.
Natural forest regeneration of hardwoods or conifers after clear-cutting or fire occurs in this cover
class with tree heights exhibiting growth no greater than 20 feet [6 meters (m)]. Shrub and brushland
occur throughout southern Florida rangelands in low, flat transitional landscapes, or in patches
throughout urban areas.
30 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 6-1. Land cover, Segment 1.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Figure 6-2. Land cover, Segment 2.
32 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 6-3. Land cover, Segment 3 North.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Figure 6-4. Land cover, Segment 3 South.
34 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 6-5. Land cover, Segment 4.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Coastal Strand. This habitat occurs on deep, well-drained, sandy soils that are largely wind-deposited
and washed or sorted by wave action to some extent. Vegetation in this habitat is strongly
affected by wind, wave action, and salt spray and consists of low-growing vines, grasses, and other
herbaceous plants and salt-tolerant shrub species that form dense thickets in some cases. Pioneer
or early successional herbaceous vegetation characterizes foredune and upper beach areas with a
gradual change to woody shrub species on the more protected and stabilized settings farther
landward. Typical plant species of coastal strand include beach morning glory, railroad vine, sea
oats, saw palmetto, Spanish bayonet (Yucca aloifolia), yaupon holly (Ilex vomitoria), wax myrtle, sea
grape, cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco), and nickerbean (Caesalpinia bonduc), while other more
tropical species are present on southern portions of the refuge. Federally listed animal species that
are known to utilize the coastal strand community in South Florida include Southeastern beach
mouse, eastern indigo snake, and Florida scrub-jay. The state-listed gopher tortoise (Gopherus
polyphemus) is also found in this community.
Scrub. This habitat typically occurs on areas of deep, well-drained and infertile sandy soils that are
typically white or near white. This habitat is fire-dependent, typically maintained by intense, hot fires,
optimally occurring at 5 year intervals according to unpublished data from Cape Canaveral Air Force
Station and Kennedy Space Center (T. Foster, Dynamac, pers. comm., 8 Jan 2008). Generally,
scrub is dominated by evergreen, or nearly evergreen, oaks and/or Florida rosemary (Ceratiola
ericoides), with or without a pine overstory. A relatively large suite of plants are endemic to scrub and
some species of wildlife are endemic or largely restricted to scrub habitat (e.g., Florida scrub-jay).
Several types of scrub are recognized: oak scrub; sand pine scrub; rosemary scrub; and scrubby
flatwoods. At the refuge, oak scrub exists in small patches distributed on the western side of the
barrier island. Oak scrub is a hardwood community typically consisting of clumped patches of low
growing oaks interspersed with patches of bare, white sand. Native pines are uncommon or absent.
Oak scrub is dominated by myrtle oak (Q. myrtifolia), Chapman's oak (Q. chapmanii), sand-live oak
(Q. geminate), inopina oak (Q. inopina), scrub holly (Ilex cumulicola), scrub plum (Prunus geniculata),
scrub hickory (Carya fioridana), rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis), scrub palmetto (Sabal etonia), and
saw palmetto. Additionally, temporary wetlands are found in the scrub landscape and are an integral
part of scrub habitat, providing breeding and foraging opportunities for wildlife. (Florida’s Wildlife
Legacy Initiative Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 2005).
Maritime Hammock
This habitat includes upland hardwood forest, upland mixed coniferous/hardwood forest, and
xeric oak forests. This cover class is represented by 25-66 percent dominant canopy cover of
either hardwoods or conifers or a combination, greater than 20 feet (6 m) tall (FLUCCS 2000
Photointerpretation Key, FDOT 1999).
Maritime hammock habitat includes major upland hardwood and xeric oak associations occurring on
fairly rich sandy soils. Variations in species composition and local or spatial distributions of hammock
communities are due in part to differences in soil moisture regimes, soil type, and geographic
location. Mesic and xeric variations are included in this habitat type. Mesic hammock community
represents hammock habitat typically represented in coastal areas. It is considered a climax habitat
type in many areas of northern and central Florida. Trees in the xeric oak class are low in height and
coverage density with various xeric shrubs and herbs present including wire grasses , bluestem
grasses (Poacea spp.), saw palmetto, rusty lyonia (Lyonia lucida), and prickly pear cactus (Opuntia
spp.). Xeric oak cover is similar to pine dominated cover classes but for the lack of pine regeneration
after historic timber harvests, leaving the xeric oak mid story as the dominant cover class. Xeric oak
communities exist on excessively drained infertile soils of former dunes and ridges and commonly
occur where old geologic sand dunes occur.
36 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Hammocks at the refuge are low forests [39 to 47 feet (ft)/12 to14 m] of evergreen broadleaved trees
found inland from coastal strand communities. The canopy may be composed of live oak, cabbage
palm, and red bay (Persea borbonia), gumbo limbo, (Bursera simaruba), strangler fig (Ficus aurea),
and seagrape. In south Florida, the understory of maritime hammock is composed primarily of
subtropical shrubs and small trees regardless of affinity designation – temperate or subtropical. The
structurally diverse understory of woody species includes small trees and tall and short shrubs which
do not form clear layers. Commonly encountered species include marlberry (Ardisia escallonioides),
myrsine (Rapanea punctata), Simpson's stopper (Myrcianthes fragrans), wild lime (Zanthoxylum
fagara), Hercules' Club (Z. clava-herculis), white stopper (Eugenia axillaris), Spanish stopper (E.
foetida), wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa), and saw palmetto (Johnson et al. 1992). Although they
share some widespread coastal trees, forests on nearby tropical coasts of the Bahamas, Cuba, and
the Yucatan Peninsula do not appear to have the same structure and composition as tropical
hammocks in south Florida (Correll and Correll 1982; Sauer 1967; Moreno-Casasola and Espejel
1986), which makes this refuge habitat unique.
Cabbage Palm Hammock/Mixed Wetland Hardwood
Cabbage palm (Sable palmetto) hammocks are elevated sites above deeper wetlands and forested
depression and are lower than surrounding uplands. Canopy cover is 25-50 percent closure where
cabbage palms are the most dominant tree species. These habitat types are dominated by a mixture
of broadleaved evergreen and deciduous trees with cabbage palm as the dominant variant. The
hammocks are seldom inundated but have saturated soils during much of the year. Soil composition
includes sand and organic matter with shallow or outcropping limestone present. Understory
vegetation consists of hydrophytic shrubs, grasses, and herbaceous cover including saw palmetto
and gallberry (Ilex glabra). In the absence of fire or as a result of selective forest management
practices, understory or associated species may eventually dominate these sites.
Mixed Wetland Hardwood. This classification includes bottomlands and floodplain communities
dominated by hardwoods, willow swamps, and mixed hardwoods where cabbage palms are not a
dominant. This cover class may have species mixtures ranging from relatively homogeneous stands
dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) or willow (Salix spp.) to a wide diversity of different species
including black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), water oak (Q. nigra) sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and
cabbage palm. Wetland hardwood forests can occur on a range of different landforms and hydrologic
regimes, including floodplains, bottomlands, basins and depressions, lake and coastal fringes, and
disturbed wetland areas (FLUCCS 2000 Photointerpretation Key, FDOT 1999).
Mangroves
Mangroves form dense, brackish-water swamps along low-energy shorelines and in protected, tidally-influenced
bays of southern Florida. This community type is composed of freeze-sensitive tree
species, including red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), and
white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa). Depending on slopes and amounts of disturbance,
mangrove swamps may progress in zones of single species from seaward (red mangrove) to
landward (white mangrove) areas. Green buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus) usually occurs in areas
above high tide. The availability of fresh water and nutrients influences the location, size, structure,
and productivity of mangrove communities on the refuge. Fluctuations in sea-level rise along the
Florida peninsula can limit the distribution of mangroves, particularly if the rate of sea-level rise
exceeds the rate of mangrove forest growth and substrate accretion, and if the landward slopes
provide no suitable habitat for forest retreat as sea-level rises (Wanless 1998). Areas with seawalls
behind mangrove habitat prevent such shoreline adjustment.
Mangrove forests of South Florida are a vital component of the estuarine and marine environment,
providing a major detrital base to organic food chains; important habitat for arboreal, intertidal, and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
subtidal organisms, nesting sites, and provide crucial cover and foraging grounds for birds, reptiles,
and mammals. The value and central role of mangroves in the ecology of South Florida has been
well established by numerous scientific investigations directed at primary productivity, food web
interactions, listed species, and support of sport and commercial fisheries (Odum et al. 1982;
Nagelkerken et al. 2001). The relationship between mangroves and their associated marine life
cannot be overemphasized. The mangrove forests on the refuge provide protected nursery areas for
fishes, crustaceans, and shellfish that are important to both commercial and sport fisheries.
Mangroves are important in recycling nutrients and the nutrient mass balance of the estuarine
ecosystem. They are one of the highest primary and associated secondary biologically productive
ecosystems in the world. Mangroves provide one of the basic food chain resources for arboreal life
and nearshore marine life through their leaves, wood, roots, and detrital materials. Mangroves also
provide important habitat for endangered and threatened species and species of special concern.
For several of these species, the habitat is vital to their continued survival. In addition, mangroves
serve as storm buffers by functioning as wind breaks and through prop root baffling of wave action.
Mangrove roots stabilize shorelines and fine substrates, reducing turbidity and enhancing water
clarity. They improve water quality and clarity by filtering upland runoff and trapping waterborne
sediments and debris. Unaltered mangroves contribute to the overall natural setting and visual
aesthetics of Florida’s estuarine waterbodies. Through a combination of the above functions,
mangroves contribute significantly to the economy of the coastal counties of South Florida and the
State of Florida (Odum et al. 1982; Nagelkerken et al. 2001).
Shrub Wetland
This cover class includes mixed scrub-shrub wetlands dominated by woody vegetation that grows
less than 20 feet (6 m) in height, and are commonly found in transitional or disturbed communities on
drier sites. Persistent examples of shrub wetlands include shrub bogs and willow swamps.
The cover class is dominated by trees less than 20 feet (6 m) tall. Willows and buttonbush, or
shrubby vegetation pioneering historic bayhead communities as a result of fire or human induced
disturbance, or dominated by transitional shrubby vegetation such as wax myrtle and saltbush
(Baccharis halimifolia) at upland margins of wetter community types are typical indicators. The
habitat also develops on wet prairie sites which have been protected from fire. Brazilian pepper
(Schinus terebinthifolius) also occurs in this class when found on wetland sites. Hydrology is similar
to that of cypress, hardwood swamp, bayhead, and transitional upland margins (FLUCCS 2000
Photointerpretation Key, FDOT 1999).
Saltwater Marshes
Also called salt marsh, this cover class is represented by wetland communities with a suite of salt-tolerant
plants including smooth cordgrass (Spartina alternaflora) and black needlerush (Juncus
roemerianus). Periods or inundation are dictated by tidal fluctuations with landscape positions
ranging from estuarine tidal flats to near upland boundaries.
The salt marsh habitat is among the most productive communities in the world. Primary production is
greatly affected by soil salinity and tidal frequency. Salt marshes vary in extent and species
composition throughout Florida and support diverse local faunas (Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2005; FLUCCS 2000 Photointerpretation Key, FDOT
1999). Saltwater marsh (salt marsh) is vegetated almost completely by herbaceous plants, primarily
grasses, sedges, and rushes. This community type occurs within the intertidal zone of coastal areas
and may be infrequently (high marsh) too frequently (low marsh) inundated by salt or brackish water.
Salt marsh develops where wave energies are low and where mangroves are absent. The refuge lies
in a zone that represents the southern extent of the salt marsh range, which is one reason why this
habitat type is rare. Mangroves may extirpate shade-intolerant marsh species. The size of a salt
38 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
marsh depends on the extent of the intertidal zone in which it occurs. Salt marshes of larger sizes
are usually dissected by numerous tidal creeks. Areas that have low topographic relief and relatively
high tidal ranges are likely to have larger salt marsh extents. Within salt marsh habitats, plant
species are often distributed unevenly, especially in transitional areas. Species distributions are
affected by biotic and abiotic variables such as elevation, substrate type, slope, wave energy,
competing species, and salinity.
Smooth cordgrass typically occupies the lower elevations and is usually adjacent to tidal creeks and
pools. Needlerush dominates the slightly less frequently inundated zone. Vegetation at the higher
elevations forms transitional areas to uplands and may contain species such as glassworts
(Salicornia virginica), saltwort (Batis maritima), sea ox-eye daises (Borrichia spp.), and saltbush
(Baccaris halimifolia) as well as many poacea (grass) species.
Estuaries (Indian River Lagoon)
This cover class includes bays and estuaries which are non-isolated inlets or arms of the sea that
extend into the land, ranging up to 10 nautical miles in width (1.85 to 18.5 kilometers). Bays and
estuaries have hydrologic connection to coastal waters (FLUCCS 2000 Photointerpretation Key,
FDOT 1999).
Australian Pine
This class is used for upland or wetland Australian pine (Cassurina equisitifolia) communities
exhibiting greater than 25 percent canopy closure with at least 66 percent dominance by Australian
pine. Trees in this cover class average at least 20 feet (6 m) tall. Contrary to its name, this species is
actually a hardwood that is also evergreen. Its name is derived from its needle-like leaves and its
characteristic cone-shaped crown structure. Australian pine is considered a noxious exotic plant that
invades native habitats, outcompeting native plants and provides little to no habitat value for native
wildlife. Every effort to eradicate this invasive species should be exercised (FLUCCS 2000
Photointerpretation Key, FDOT 1999).
Citrus Groves
This class is represented by active or abandoned citrus groves, such as oranges, grapefruits,
and tangerines. The cover class includes all facilities that are related to the citrus operation or
located within the operational boundary of the enterprise (FLUCCS 2000 Photointerpretation
Key, FDOT 1999).
Developed Areas
These areas include residential, commercial, community recreational facilities, sewage treatment
facilities, institutional uses, electrical power facilities, marinas and fish camps, and water supply
plants (FLUCCS 2000 Photointerpretation Key, FDOT 1999).
Golf Courses
The cover class includes all facilities that are involved with the operation of a golf course and
associated recreation, including club houses, storage buildings and parking lots. This class does not
include adjacent land uses not directly related to recreation including water features and wetlands in
and around the courses (FLUCCS 2000 Photointerpretation Key, FDOT 1999).
Open Field
This classification represents herbaceous and mixed, forested and nonforested uplands where shrub
cover is less than or equal to 66 percent and herbaceous cover reaches 100 percent. The cover class
describes nonforested urban open areas, natural areas where hardwoods and/or conifers are
regenerating after fire or clear-cutting, but are less than 20 feet (6 m) tall, or where farming practices
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
have been abandoned. The habitat is typically found in the margins between marsh and upland
forested areas and no dominant overstory species exists (FLUCCS 2000 Photointerpretation Key,
FDOT 1999).
Park Improvements
This class covers the operational facilities that make up the active service areas of various outdoor
and recreational land uses. The class includes improvements on public parks, such as driveways,
parking lots, sidewalks, restrooms, picnic pavilions, kiosks, life guard stations, administration
buildings, ranger stations, quarters, guard shacks, campgrounds, trailer pads, play facilities, athletic
fields, exhibit areas, swimming pools, monuments and fountains, gardens and other facilities. This
class does not include the surrounding open and natural areas, even though they may be
associated and/or on the same properties, unless they are an active, accessible part of the
operations (FLUCCS 2000 Photointerpretation Key, FDOT 1999).
Reservoirs and Retention Ponds
Reservoirs are artificial impoundments of water, or water bodies that have been significantly modified
from the natural state. They are used for irrigation, flood control, municipal and rural water supplies,
stormwater treatment, recreation and hydro-electric power generation. They often contain a man-made
structure on at least one side of water body. Others may be created wetlands for wildlife. Generally, all
or part of the shorelines are straight or regular shapes, and do not appear to follow the surrounding
topography. Linear shapes are uncommon (FLUCCS 2000 Photointerpretation Key, FDOT 1999).
Ruderal Areas
These are areas that have been cleared for development, agriculture, demolition, or habitat
restoration. Some have no positive indicators of the intended land use. The grounds appear scraped
and worked, usually with angular or geometric boundaries. Little to no vegetation exists in these
settings or the vegetation is in a state of transition without a stable community structure. Land
classes can include reclaimed land, abandoned agricultural lands, open lands, and spoil areas
(FLUCCS 2000 Photointerpretation Key, FDOT 1999).
Salt Marsh Ponds
This cover class was created by the St. Johns River Water Management District and is not a Florida
Land Use Cover Class category. It is for natural or artificially enclosed areas of open water within
saltwater marshes with a minimum mapping unit of 2.0 acres (0.8 ha), an exception to the 0.5-acre
(0.2-ha) water standard (FLUCCS 2000 Photointerpretation Key, FDOT 1999).
Streams and Waterways
This category includes rivers, creeks, canals and other linear water bodies that are 30 ft (10 m) or
greater in width and includes both natural and modified waterways as well as human made canals
and channels (FLUCCS 2000 Photointerpretation Key, FDOT 1999).
WILDLIFE
Habitats on the refuge are utilized by a variety of invertebrate, fish, amphibian, reptile, bird and
mammal species as described below. The Brevard County Endangered Lands Program has been a
valuable source of information used to generate the species accounts and lists (EEL 1995). A variety
of research activities have taken place on the refuge, especially with regard to sea turtles, including
reproductive, morphometric, and orientation studies (Ehrhart et al. 1999; Ehrhart et al. 2006;
Witherington and Koeppel 2000). The effects of beach armoring, renourishment, and lighting on sea
turtles has also been investigated. With regards to mammals, population demographics and
monitoring studies have been performed (Weidlich 2002). Several bird studies have been conducted
40 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
on the refuge and/or partner lands and have been summarized (Diaz 1994). Occasionally, bird
carcasses are sent to various laboratories for histopathology studies; usually in response to die-offs
of pelagic birds that wash up on area beaches (P. Tritaik, USFWS, pers. comm., Oct 2007).
Invertebrates
Marine and estuarine invertebrate species that inhabit tidal areas and deeper waters surrounding the
refuge number in the thousands. Prominent groups include squid, crabs, shrimp, clams, oysters, sea-slugs,
gastropods, worms, and jellyfish. Several invertebrate species have been identified as
Species of Greatest Conservation Need for these habitats in Florida’s State Wildlife Action Plan
(FCWCS). Mangrove swamps and saltwater marshes support several priority crustaceans, such as
great land crabs (Cardisoma guanhumi), mangrove crabs (Aratus pisonii and Goniopsis cruentata),
mud fiddler crabs (Uca pugnax), red-jointed fiddler crabs (U. minax), and sand fiddler crabs (U.
pugilator). Species in beach/surf habitats are ghost crabs (Ocypode quadrata) and mole crabs
(Emerita benedicti). These crustaceans are food sources for other wildlife and some provide other
ecologically important functions through their burrowing activities. In addition, several of these
species are utilized for human consumption or as bait. One unique invertebrate, the horseshoe crab
(Limulus polyphemus), is found in the IRL along the western shore of the refuge. This species lays its
eggs at the water’s edge and provides an important food source for migrating shorebirds. The
juveniles and adults are eaten by some sea turtle species, particularly loggerheads. Horseshoe
crabs have undergone a dramatic decline due to harvesting for bait and biomedical uses, habitat loss,
and pollution (Berkson and Schuster 1999). Several nonnative species are known to have become
established in the IRL, including Asian green mussels (Perna viridis), striped barnacles (Balanus
amphitrite), green porcelain crabs (Petrolisthes armatus), Australian spotted jellyfish (Phyllorhiza
punctata), Charru mussels (Mytella charruana), and serrated swimming crabs (Scylla serrata).
Terrestrial invertebrates include many species of insects and arachnids, several of which have been
identified on the refuge and are listed in Appendix IX, Refuge Biota. Invertebrates are important
sources of food for humans and wildlife, and many insect species are essential plant pollinators,
including native bees and butterflies. European honey bees (Apis mellifera) were used historically in
citrus groves and other agricultural areas. Their numbers have been reduced due to removal of citrus
groves and the impact of mites. Native sweat, carpenter, and bumble bees (Bombus spp.) are also
valuable pollinators and are still common. The most common butterflies found at the refuge include
great Southern white (Ascia monuste), zebra longwing (Heliconius charitonius), mangrove skipper
(Phocides pigmalion), giant swallowtails (Papilio cresphontes), and common buckeyes (Junonia
coenia). Some native insects are important predators, such as the sand tiger beetle (Cicindela
dorsalis media), which face threats from lighting and beach renourishment (Witherington, pers.
comm.). Nonnative insects include red fire ants (Solenopsis invicta), which can negatively impact
native wildlife, including sea turtle hatchlings. Africanized honey (killer) bees (Apis mellifera
scutellata) have also been documented near the refuge. Red bay ambrosia beetles (Xyleborus
glabratus) have recently affected red bay trees and have the potential to cause wide-spread mortality
of these and other related trees.
Fishes
A variety of fish species are found in waters in or near the refuge, and over 350 species utilize the
Indian River Lagoon during all or part of their life history (Gilmore 1995). Over 200 fish species are
known to occur on or adjacent to the refuge and partner lands, including a federally endangered fish
species. A smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) was observed in partner waters. In addition, the
waters in and around the refuge may support a federal candidate species, Atlantic sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), and four NOAA species of concern, including opossum pipefish
(Microphis brachyurus lineatus), amphibious mangrove killifish (Kryptolebias marmoratus), striped
croaker (Bairdiella sanctaeluciae), and sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus). The waters in and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
around the refuge may also support six other fish species listed by the State of Florida, Florida
Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals, or FNAI, including river goby (Awaous
tajasica), bigmouth sleeper (Gobiomorus dormitor), slashcheek goby (Ctenogobius pseudofasciatus),
spottail goby (Ctenogobius stigmaturus), mountain mullet (Agonostomus monticola), and common
snook (Centropomus undecimalis). Fat snook (Centropomus parallelus) and tarpon snook (C.
pectinatus) are included in Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative as part of Florida’s species of greatest
conservation needs. Other fish using the waters adjacent to the refuge include Atlantic tarpon
(Megalops atlanticus), spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), flounder (Paralichthys spp.), black
mullet (Mugil cephalus), red and black drum (Sciaenops ocellatus and Pogonias cromis), ladyfish
(Elops saurus), Atlantic Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculates), and bluefish (Pomatomus
saltatrix). American eel (Anguilla rostrata) occur in the IRL, and this species has been considered for
ESA listing by FWS. These fish species are important not only to commercial and recreational
interests, but also to the ecology of the area. Although the refuge boundary includes only a small
amount of lagoon, it contains mangrove swamps which are important fish nursery areas that must be
protected to help ensure healthy, sustainable fish populations. A common nonnative fish species
found in the IRL is the blackchin tilapia (Sarotherodon melanotheron), while walking catfish (Clarias
batrachus) and several other nonnative fishes are found in freshwater habitats.
Amphibians
At least nine amphibians have been identified on the refuge and/or partner lands. Frog species
include Eastern narrow-mouthed frogs (Gastrophryne carolinensis), green treefrogs (Hyla cinerea),
pig frogs (Rana grylio), Southern leopard frogs (R. utricularia), and squirrel treefrogs (H. squirella).
Southern toads (Bufo terrestris) and spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrooki) have been documented
on the refuge. Two nonnative amphibians, Cuban treefrogs (Osteopilus septentrionalis) and
greenhouse frogs (Eleutherodactylus planirostris), are established on the refuge.
Reptiles
Reptile diversity is high on and near the refuge, with at least 35 species of snakes, lizards, turtles and
two crocodilians. American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) are infrequently observed in refuge
and partner waters, and there is a documented occurrence of an American crocodile (Crocodylus
acutus) on a beach just north of the refuge. Snakes include corn snakes (Drymarchon corais),
Eastern coachwhips (Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides), Florida water snakes (Nerodia clarkii),
Southern black racers (Cemophora coccinea), and yellow rat snakes (Elaphe guttata). Three
venomous snake species are known to occur on the refuge: Eastern coral snakes (Masticophis
flagellum), Eastern rattlesnakes (Crotalus adamanteus), and pygmy rattlesnakes (Sistrurus miliarius).
A listed snake species, the Eastern indigo, has also been documented on the refuge. Nonnative
snake species found on the refuge include the red-tailed boa (Boa constrictor constrictor).
Several lizard species have been reported on the refuge and include Eastern glass lizards
(Ophisaurus ventralis), green anoles (Anolis carolinensis), ground skinks (Scincella lateralis), and
six-lined racerunners (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus). One-third of the lizards are nonnative:
Cuban anoles (A. sagrei), Indo-Pacific geckos (Hemidactylus garnoti), and Mediterranean geckos
(H. turcicus).
Most of the turtles on the refuge are aquatic, including four listed marine species: green sea turtles,
hawksbills, leatherbacks, and loggerheads. Freshwater turtles include common snapping turtles
(Chelydra serpentina), Florida soft shell turtles (Apalone ferox), Florida red-bellied slider (Pseudemys
nelsoni), and striped mud turtles (Kinosternon baurii). One estuarine species of turtle, the Florida
east coast diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin Tequesta), is becoming increasingly rare.
Terrestrial species include the gopher tortoise, a state-listed species; the Eastern box turtle
(Terrepene carolina); and the Florida box turtle (T. carolina bauri).
42 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Mammals
Mammal on the refuge include over 15 terrestrial and marine species. Predators include bobcats
(Lynx rufus), gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoons (Procyon lotor), spotted skunks
(Spilogale putorius), river otters (Lutra canadensis), and opossums (Didelphis virginiana). Eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), marsh rabbits (S. palustris), and gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis)
are medium-sized herbivores. In addition, several small bat and rodent species occupy a variety of
habitats throughout the refuge, including the eastern yellow bat (Lasiurus intermedius), eastern mole
(Scalopus aquaticus), short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), cotton
rats (Sigmodon hispidus), cotton mice (Peromyscus gossypinus), eastern woodrat (Neotoma
floridana), and the threatened southeastern beach mouse. Two prominent marine mammals that
utilize coastal and estuarine areas along the refuge include bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)
and West Indian manatees. Right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) can occasionally be observed during
their wintering period along the Florida coast. Other whales that frequent the waters offshore and
occasionally strand on the beaches at the refuge include the humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae), short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhyncha), goose-beaked whale (Ziphius
cavirostris), false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), and
pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps), while the Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis) are also
present. Other unusual marine mammal strandings include hooded seals. Nonnative mammal
species found on the refuge include nine-banded armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus) and black
(Rattus rattus) and Norway rats (R. norvegicus). Raccoons are the primary nuisance native wildlife
species on the refuge. They prey on sea turtle eggs and hatchlings, and the refuge operates a
program to control nuisance raccoons on the refuge’s nesting beaches to reduce the level of
depredation on sea turtle nests.
Birds
More than 140 species of birds have been documented on the refuge, almost half of which are
priority bird species of Bird Conservation Region 31 (Peninsular Florida) as derived through the
Partners In Flight scoring method and the Strategic Wildlife Conservation Strategy (see
Appendix IX). The refuge is a stopover point for migratory birds, including neotropical
passerines. The many aquatic habitats support a variety of water birds, wading birds,
shorebirds, and waterfowl. In addition, several raptors are found on the refuge or use it during
their annual migrations. A few nonnative birds breed on the refuge.
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
Rare, threatened, and endangered wildlife species potentially occurring on the refuge are listed in Table 2.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
Table 2. Listed wildlife potentially occurring on the refuge.
Scientific Names Common Names
Agency Status
FWC FWS/NMFS
Mammals
Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris Southeastern Beach Mouse T T
Trichechus manatus West Indian Manatee E E
Eubalaena glacialis Right Whale E E
Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale E E
Physeter macrocephalus Sperm Whale E E
Birds
Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida Scrub-jay T T
Charadrius melodus Piping Plover T T
Mycteria americana Wood Stork E E
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle T -
Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon E -
Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American Kestrel T -
Sterna antillarum Least Tern T -
Pelecanus occidentalis carolinensis Eastern Brown Pelican SSC -
Haematopus palliatus American Oystercatcher SSC -
Egretta rufescens Reddish Egret SSC -
Egretta caerulea Little blue Heron SSC -
Egretta thula Snowy Egret SSC -
Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron SSC -
Ajaia ajaja Roseate Spoonbill SSC -
Eudocimus albus White Ibis SSC -
Rynchops niger Black Skimmer SSC -
44 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Scientific Names Common Names
Agency Status
FWC FWS/NMFS
Reptiles
Alligator Mississippiensis American Alligator SSC T(S/A)
Crocodylus acutus American Crocodile E T
Caretta caretta Loggerhead E T
Chelonia mydas Green Turtle E E
Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback E E
Lepidochelys kempi Kemp's Ridley E E
Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill E E
Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise T -
Nerodia clarkii taeniata Atlantic Salt Marsh Snake T T
Drymarchon couperi Eastern Indigo Snake T T
Key: E=endangered, T=threatened, T(S/A)= listed due to similarity in appearance of a threatened species (American
crocodile), SSC=species of special concern
Scientific Names Common Names
Agency Status
FWC FWS/NMFS
Fishes
Pristis pectinata Smalltooth Sawfish - E
Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Atlantic Sturgeon SSC C
Kryptolebias marmoratus Amphibious Mangrove Killifish SSC SC
Microphis brachyurus lineatus Opossum Pipefish - SC
Bairdiella sanctaeluciae Striped Croaker - SC
Carcharias taurus Sand tiger Shark - SC
Centropomus undecimalis Common Snook SSC -
Key: E=endangered, T=threatened, T(S/A)= listed due to similarity in appearance of a threatened species (American
crocodile), C=candidate, SC=species of concern (NOAA), SSC=species of special concern (FWC)
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
American Alligator. Historically, alligators were depleted from many parts of their range as a result of
market hunting and habitat loss, and 40 years ago the species was nearing extinction in the wild.
Subsequently, the alligator was listed as an endangered species in 1967. A combined effort by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies in the southeast allowed the species to
recover. In 1987, the Service pronounced the American alligator fully recovered. However, in Florida it
remains federally listed due to its similarity to the endangered American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus)
and is additionally protected by state laws. On the refuge, alligators are rarely in the lagoon, and
usually inhabit canals and impoundments where salinities are lower. No records exist of them nesting
on the refuge.
Eastern Indigo Snake. Eastern indigo snakes were federally protected as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act in 1978. Nonvenomous and the largest snake in the U.S., indigos were
once common throughout much of the southeastern United States, but their current geographic range
is largely restricted to southern Georgia and peninsular Florida. Major factors contributing to their
decline include habitat loss, overcollecting, and road kills (Whitecar 1973; USFWS 1982). Gopher
tortoise burrows are particularly important to indigo snakes, since they can provide winter shelter and
protection from dessication (Jackson and Milstrey 1989). Eastern indigo snakes have large home
ranges [48.2 – 114.2 acres/19.5 - 46.2 ha] and use a variety of habitat types (Legare et al. 1998-
2002), making it difficult to determine presence at a site or monitor population status.
Gopher Tortoise. Once abundant, gopher tortoises have dwindled to less that 30 percent of their
historical population in Florida. Major causes of their decline include loss of habitat, human
consumption, road mortality, and disease (Franz and Puckett 2007). Gopher tortoises prefer xeric
habitats with an abundance of herbaceous ground cover, an open canopy, and sparse shrub cover
(Franz 1986, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 1987, Fernald 1989). These tortoises
dig burrows into well-drained sandy soil to prevent desiccation and to regulate body temperatures. The
gopher tortoise functions as a keystone species in the scrub habitat of the refuge, so without their
presence, many other species would be rare or nonexistent. Burrows are known to provide habitat for
up to 81 species of vertebrates and invertebrates, some of which are found on the refuge. Thirty-two
commensal vertebrate species use the burrows, including the listed eastern indigo snake, which is
previously described. In addition, tortoise dung provides the major food source for many invertebrates,
which are subsequent food sources for birds and reptiles (Jackson and Milstrey 1989; Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission 1987; Fernald 1989). The species’ state protection was upgraded
from species of special concern to threatened in June 2006. However, it is not federally listed in
Florida. Gopher tortoises are most abundant in the scrub and coastal strand habitat in the northern part
of the refuge (segment 1), but are also found in smaller numbers throughout the refuge (segments 2-4).
The primary threat to gopher tortoises on refuge and partner lands is road related mortality.
Sea Turtles. Five sea turtle species are found in Florida's marine and estuarine waters: green,
hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead. Sea turtles have declined world-wide due to
factors such as human consumption, entrapment in fishing gear, and loss of nesting habitat. In
addition, beach front lights can discourage females from nesting and can disorient hatchlings. These
aquatic reptiles rarely come on shore, usually only to lay their eggs on the beach, well above the high
tide mark. Three species are known to regularly nest on the refuge: green, leatherback, and
loggerhead. Hawksbills have been documented on the refuge, but very rarely. Kemp's ridley turtles,
the rarest species, have not been documented nesting on the refuge, but are know to have nested in
Florida on rare occasions. The refuge is one of the most important nesting areas for the loggerhead
sea turtle in the Western Hemisphere, with nesting densities of up to 1,000 nests per mile (1.6 km)
having been recorded in some areas. The refuge is also the most important area for green turtle
nesting in North America. Approximately 25 percent of all loggerhead and 35 percent of all green turtle
nests in the United States occur within the refuge's 20.5-mi (33 km) boundary. Even the leatherback
46 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
sea turtle, the largest and one of the rarest of the sea turtles, nests on the refuge in small, but growing,
numbers. The refuge's long stretches of quiet, undisturbed sandy beaches, with little or no artificial
lighting, are essential to the reproductive success and survival of the 10,000 to 20,000 sea turtles
nesting here annually (USFWS 2007a).
The adjacent Indian River Lagoon and Pelican Island NWR provide developmental habitat for juvenile
sea turtles, primarily loggerhead and green sea turtles (Mendonca and Ehrhart 1982, Witherington
and Ehrhart 1989). The animals using the lagoon tend to reside there for at least several years prior
to departure, based on capture sizes and recapture information from the Mosquito Lagoon, located
further north on Merritt Island NWR (Provancha et al. 2005). The lagoon provides vast seagrass
beds for green turtles to forage and shellfish resources are available for loggerheads.
Bald Eagle. Pre-colonial era population estimates of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are in the
hundreds of thousands. Due to hunting, organopesticide use, and habitat destruction the numbers of
these large raptors fell to threatened levels in the continental United States of less than 10,000 nesting
pairs by the 1950s, and to endangered levels of less than 500 pairs by the early 1960s. Bald eagles were
protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and designated as a threatened species in the lower
48 states. Due to a successful recovery effort, the species was delisted in August 2007 (50 CFR Part 17).
The bald eagle will continue to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection and Migratory Bird
Treaty acts. In addition, Florida populations remain designated by the state as threatened under FWC
rules. Bald eagles forage on the refuge, but are currently not known to nest there.
Florida Scrub-jay. The Florida scrub-jay is endemic to the scrub habitat of Florida and is genetically and
behaviorally different from other scrub-jay species found in the western United States. This species has
extremely specific habitat requirements within the scrub, including an open canopy and open understory
(Breininger et al. 1998). In order for scrub-jays to persist and flourish, the characteristics of the habitat
must fall within a narrow range that is ideally maintained by fire. Florida scrub-jays live year-round in fairly
stable territories and mate for life, while the young stay in their natal territory with the family for several
years. Its range has been considerably reduced by development and fire-suppression, which has
resulted in fragmented distribution of scrub habitat and unsuitable scrub. This species is federally and
state-listed as threatened. Only one known scrub-jay family remains on the refuge.
Piping Plover