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: 

y Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction; 

y Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service 

management actions on and around the refuge; 

y Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education 

programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and 

y 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: 

y Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

y Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

y Consider the needs of wildlife first; 

y Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of 

the refuge system; 

y Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge system; 

y 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 

y 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: 

y Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals; 

y Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; 

y Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants; 

y 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 

y 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: 

y Protect, conserve, and enhance migratory birds and their habitats in the North Florida 

Ecosystem; 

y Protect, conserve, recover, and restore fish, aquatic species, and their habitats in the North 

Florida Ecosystem; 

y Protect, conserve, and enhance wetlands in the North Florida Ecosystem; 

y Protect, conserve, enhance, and recover listed and candidate threatened and endangered 

species and their habitats; and 

y 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: 

y Protect and manage National Wildlife Refuge System units and other national interest lands; 

y Protect migratory birds and protect, restore, and manage their habitats; 

y Protect, restore, and manage candidate, threatened, and endangered species and their 

habitats; 

y Protect, restore, and manage wetlands and other freshwater habitats; 

y Protect, manage, and restore fish and other aquatic species, and their habitats; 

y Protect, restore, and enhance coastal and estuarine habitats; and 

y 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 tenyear, $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 

70o

s Fahrenheit (oF) or 20o Celsius (oC), ranging from an average of about 60oF (16oC) in midwinter 

to about 80o

F (27oC) in summer. January is typically the coldest month, with low temperatures 

averaging 50.7o

F (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 

72o

F (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 wideranging 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 duneforming 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 winddeposited 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, tidallyinfluenced 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 salttolerant 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, seaslugs, 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. The Atlantic Coast piping plover population breeds on coastal beaches from 

Newfoundland to North Carolina (and occasionally in South Carolina) and winters along the Atlantic 

Coast from North Carolina south, along the Gulf Coast, and in the Caribbean. Major contributors to 

the decline of this small shorebird are loss and degradation of habitat due to development and 

shoreline stabilization. In addition, disturbance by humans and pets often reduces the functional 

suitability of habitat and causes direct and indirect mortality of eggs and chicks. Predation also limits 

the reproductive success of piping plover at many Atlantic Coast sites, and human activities are 

exacerbating natural predation. Garbage dumps and other consequences of human development 

have allowed the populations of certain sea gull species that prey on piping plovers to increase 

dramatically. The species was designated as threatened in 1986 (USFWS 1996a). Piping plovers 

are currently not known to breed on the refuge, but utilize it as a migratory stop-over site. Piping 

plovers have been observed at Sebastian Inlet State Park (DePue, pers. comm.) and in the Brevard 

County portion of the refuge (Witherington, pers. comm.). 

Wood Stork. Since the 1930s, the U.S. breeding population of wood storks has declined from an 

estimated 20,000 pairs to approximately 10,000 pairs in 1960. Fewer than 5,000 breeding pairs have 

been documented since 1978, and the species was federally listed as endangered in 1984 (USFWS 

1996b). In Florida wood storks have also been designated as endangered by the FWC. The two 

dominant factors cited in the decline of wood storks are changes in suitable foraging habitat and loss of 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47 

preferred breeding sites (Ogden and Patty 1981). Wood storks are large wading birds that use a 

unique grope-feeding technique (tacto-location) which requires specific water levels and food densities. 

In addition, wood storks are colonial breeders that form colonies in large cypress or mangroves which 

limits nest depredation from terrestrial predators. Each of these specific life-history characteristics has 

been negatively affected by alterations in water regimes and habitat loss, especially in the Everglades 

where historic wood stork densities were the highest. Presently, wood stork population are believed to 

be stable or increasing (USFWS 2007b). Although wood storks are not known to breed on the refuge, 

they utilize the various shallow aquatic habitats available for feeding. 

Southeastern Beach Mouse. The threatened Southeastern beach mouse is a habitat specific subspecies of the more common old field mouse (Peromyscus polionotus). A study conducted on Merritt 

Island NWR indicated that Southeastern beach mice prefer open sand habitat with clumps of 

palmetto and sea grapes, or dense scrub habitat dominated by palmetto, sea grape, and wax myrtle; 

over seaward habitat with sea oats (Extine and Stout 1987). Research conducted on the ACNWR 

determined that this species utilized similar habitat as those found on Merritt Island NWR, but also 

colonized cleared orange groves in an early successional grass/herb stage (Weidlich 2002). 

Historically, this sub-species ranged from north Florida's Ponce Inlet in Volusia County to south 

Florida's Hollywood Beach in Broward County. Due to habitat loss and associated human 

development impacts (e.g., from feral and semiferal house cats). The Southeastern beach mouse 

has apparently been eliminated from the southern section of its habitat at Jupiter Island, Palm Beach, 

Lake Worth, Hillsboro Inlet, and Hollywood Beach. Humphrey (1987) sighted only a few small, 

fragmented populations between Sebastian Inlet and Hutchinson Island. The healthiest populations 

appear to occur on public lands: Canaveral National Seashore; Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge; and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The species is thought to be largely extirpated from 

the refuge north of Sebastian Inlet, but it is documented on the dunes at Sebastian Inlet State Park 

(south of the Inlet) and in old fields at Pelican Island NWR, albeit in small numbers. 

West Indian Manatee. West Indian manatee populations have significantly declined due to loss of habitat, 

poaching, entanglement with fishing gear, and increased boating activity (collisions with watercraft are the 

major source of mortality in Florida). They have been listed as endangered under the 1972 Marine 

Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act of 1973. Federal and state recovery efforts have 

improved conditions for manatees, and in April 2007 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that 

the West Indian manatee population of Florida had rebounded sufficiently to be reviewed for 

reclassification from federally endangered to threatened. These recommendations are currently under 

review. In June 2007, the FWC announced the potential state reclassification for the manatee as 

threatened. However, the manatee remains classified as endangered by the state until the Florida 

manatee management plans are approved. Manatees forage in seagrass beds of the lagoon bordering 

the western boundary of the refuge, and utilize Sebastian Inlet to move between the estuary and ocean. 

Listed Plants. Two federally listed plant species are potentially found on the refuge and/or partner lands 

and waters: Johnson’s sea grass (Halophila johnsonii) and fragrant prickly-apple (Harrisia fragrans). In 

addition, 11 state-listed species have been documented (see Table 3) on the refuge. Most of these 

historically occupy relatively small ranges due to their habitat specificity and have been negatively 

affected by coastal development and competition by exotic plants. Two bromeliads (Tillandsia spp.) found 

on the refuge are epiphytes found in a variety of habitats throughout the state. However, they are 

seriously threatened by an introduced, bromeliad-eating weevil (Metamasius callizona). 
48 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 3. Listed plants potentially occurring on refuge and partner lands. 

Scientific Names Common Names 

Agency Status 

FWS FDACS 

Glandularia maritima Coastal mock-vervain - E 

Lantana depressa var. floridana East coast lantana - E 

Myrcianthes fragrans Nakedwood - T 

Opuntia stricta Shell mound prickly-pear - T 

Tillandsia fasciculata Common pine - E 

Tillandsia utriculata Giant wild pine; giant air plant - E 

Harrisia fragrans (Cereus 

eriophorus var. fragrans) Fragrant prickly-apple E E 

Halophila johnsonii Johnson’s seagrass T - 

Crossopetalum ilicifolium Christmas berry E 

Asclepias curtissii Curtis’ (Sandhill) milkweed E 

Ophioglossum palmatum Hand fern - E 

Chamaesyce cumulicola Sand dune spurge (coastal 

dune sandmat) - E 

Sideroxylon tenax Tough bumelia - E 

Tephrosia angustissima curtissii Curtiss’ hoarypea (devil’s 

shoestring) - E 

Hexalectris spicata Crested coralroot - E 

Ernodea littoralis Beach creeper - T 

Acrostichum danaefolium Giant leather fern - CE 

Encyclia tampensis Butterfly orchid - CE 

Key: E=endangered, T= threatened, CE = commercially exploited, FDACS=Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49 

Nonnative Species 

Species that have established sustaining populations outside their natural range are called exotic or 

nonnative. Some nonnative species can cause ecological and/or economic damage. South Florida 

in particular, hosts a large number of nonnative species compared to many other areas of the United 

States (Simberloff et al. 1997). Nuisance species are native plants and wildlife that, under certain 

conditions, can negatively affect natural resources, beyond what is considered sustainable for that 

area. Table 4 lists the nonnative animals and plants documented on the refuge. Nonnative and 

nuisance plant and animal species have been identified by Service staff and intergovernmental 

partners as one of the priority management issues facing the refuge 

In Florida, almost one-third of the plants occurring in the wild are exotic, and even though a relatively 

small percentage becomes “weeds,” their impacts can be harmful and expensive, especially in natural 

areas (Langeland and Burks 1998). The Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council maintains a list of 

Category I invasive exotic plants that are altering native plant communities and Category II invasive 

exotic plants, those that have increased, but that have not yet altered native plant communities 

(Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council 2007). The refuge has several Category I and Category II plants 

(Table 4) that are of management concern. Nonnative plants can negatively affect native plants and 

animals through competition, altering habitat, and other biological interactions. Once invasive 

species become established, eradication becomes difficult and long-term management the norm, 

which is time-consuming and expensive. Infestations of Australian pine and Brazilian pepper on 

refuge and partner lands are of particular concern. 

Table 4. Nonnative species ocurring on the refuge. 

Scientific Name Common Name Category

Plants 

Abrus precatorius Rosary pea I 

Agave sisalana Sisal hemp II 

Andropogon longiberbis Hairy bluestem N/A 

Asparagus aethiopicus Asparagus fern N/A 

Carica papaya Papaya N/A 

Casuarina litorea Australian pine I 

Catharanthus roseus Madagascar periwinkle N/A 

Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood I 

Dioscorea bulbifera Air potato I 

Exotheca paniculata Butterbough N/A 
50 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Scientific Name Common Name Category

Imperata cylindric Cogon grass I 

Kalanchoe pinnata Life plant II 

Lantana camaera Lantana I 

Leucaena leucocephala Lead tree II 

Momordica charantia Balsam apple N/A 

Panicum maximum Guinea grass II 

Panicum repens Torpedo grass I 

Rhynchelytrum repens Natal grass I 

Salsola kali Russian thistle N/A 

Sansevieria hyacinthoides Bowstring hemp N/A 

Scaevola taccada Beach naupaka I 

Schefflera actinophylla Umbrella tree I 

Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper I 

Sphagneticola trilobata Wedelia II 

Thespesia populnea Seaside maho I 

Urochloa distachya Tropical signal grass N/A 

Vitex trifolia Simple-leaf chaste tree II 

Wedelia trilobata Creeping oxeye II 

Animals 

Anolis sagrei Brown anole N/A 

Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded armadillo N/A 

Felis silvestris catus Feral cat N/A 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51 

Scientific Name Common Name Category

Hemidactylus garnoti Indo-Pacific gecko N/A 

Hemidactylus turcicus Mediterranean gecko N/A 

Mus musculus House mouse N/A 

Rattus norvegicus Norway rat N/A 

Rattus rattus Black rat N/A 

Osteopilus septentrionalis Cuban tree frog N/A 

Eleutherodactylus planirostris Greenhouse frogs N/A 

Clarias batrachus Walking catfish N/A 

Sarotherodon melanotheron Blackchin tilapia N/A 

Solenopsis invicta Red imported fire ant N/A 

Metamasius callizona Bromeliad-eating weevil N/A 

Xyleborus glabratus Asian ambrosia beetle N/A 

Charybdis hellerii Indo-Pacific crab N/A 

Phyllorhiza punctata Australian spotted jellyfish N/A 

Mytella charruana Charru mussel N/A 

Perna viridis Asian green mussel N/A 

Balanus amphitrite Striped barnacle N/A 

Petrolisthes armatus Green porcelain crab N/A 

Scylla serrata Serrated swimming crabs N/A 

Key: I=shown to cause ecological damage; II=increasing, not yet shown to cause ecological damage 
52 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Nonnative animals can cause negative natural resource impacts through direct mortality to native 

wildlife and by competition with native wildlife for food resources. Feral house cats (Felis catus) are a 

serious problem on the refuge due to their predatory nature, especially on migratory songbirds and 

the listed scrub-jay and southeastern beach mouse. The bromeliad-eating weevil threatens two listed 

bromeliads, and Asian ambrosia beetles have recently infected red bay trees with a fatal fungus 

(Ophiostoma sp.), causing mass mortality (Perna, personal communication, 2007). 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Numerous archaeological and historical sites are within the vicinity of Archie Carr NWR. In the 

Brevard County portion of the refuge, 27 Ais Indian shell middens, four burial mounds, and six 

submerged sites are known to exist. The Old Oak Lodge site (8BR1856) is located on private 

property, but is within the acquisition boundary of the refuge. The Old Oak Lodge site contains an Ais 

Indian shell midden and burial mound, as well as the site for the historic Oak Lodge. In the Indian 

River County portion of the refuge, 12 shell middens, six submerged sites, one historic site, and a 

historic road exist. Sebastian Inlet State Park is the location for the 1715 Spanish Shipwreck 

Survivors and Salvors Camp (8IR26). The Historic Jungle Trail (8IR121) was the original beach road 

in Indian River County. Both are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Eleven other 

archaeological sites are associated with the adjacent Pelican Island NWR, with Pelican Island itself a 

National Historic Landmark. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The refuge is located in the Indian River Lagoon region, which was generally unaffected by human 

activities until the early 1800s. Early activities included growing citrus, harvesting palmetto berries, 

and growing pineapple. By the late 1800s, commercial fisheries opened up the lagoon’s resources. 

With repeated freezes devastating agricultural crops, cattle grazing increased in the region. Various 

military facilities were developed in the region during World War II. By the 1960s, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) space program instigated considerable growth in 

the area. The modern economy of the Indian River Lagoon is based on tourism and agriculture, as 

well as on fishing, manufacturing, real estate, services, and government. In the 1990s, citrus was a 

$2.1 billion industry in the lagoon region (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program 1996). 

By 2006, Florida’s population had soared to 18 million, with 77 percent living in Florida’s 35 coastal 

counties (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). One of the resident counties of the refuge, Brevard, is in the 

top 10 most populated Florida counties. In 2006, more than 664,000 people lived in the two resident 

counties of the refuge, and the average growth rate from 2000-2006 in the two counties of the refuge 

was 12 percent (see Table 5) (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). 

Table 5. Population growth of resident counties between 2000-2006. 

County 2006 Population Growth Rate from 2000-

2006

Brevard 534,359 10.9% 

Indian River 130,100 13.1% 

Total 664,459 12% 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53 

Populations of nearby cities changed at varying rates from -0.8% to 25.3% between 2000 and 2006 

(see Table 6, University of Florida 2006). 

Table 6. Population change between 2000-2006 of adjacent cities. 

Adjacent City 2006 

Population

Percent 

Population 

Change 

2000-2006 

Location in Relation to Refuge

Indialantic 2,961 0.6 Approximately 2 miles north of the 

refuge 

Melbourne 76,742 6.9 Within 15 miles of the refuge 

Melbourne Beach 3,308 -0.8 adjacent to the northern edge of the 

refuge 

Palm Bay 96,683 17.9 Within 15 miles of the refuge 

Sebastian 21,666 25.3 Within five miles of the refuge 

Total 201,360 9.9

Population projections through 2015 indicate that the populations in the refuge's home and 

neighboring counties are expected to grow substantially due to high growth rates (see Table 7) 

(Lenze 2002). The projected population of the State of Florida is expected to increase by 44 percent 

from 2000 to 2030 to over 28 million (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). Highest area population growth 

rates are expected in nearby Osceola County (at 26 percent), followed by Orange County (at 22 

percent). Indian River and Brevard counties are projected to grow by 14-15 percent respectively over 

the 2005 population to nearly 750,000. Orange County is expected to remain the most populated 

county in the vicinity of the refuge (Lenze 2002). 

Table 7. Projected population growth of area counties. 

County 2005 Population 2010 

Population

2015 

Population

Projected 

Growth (2005)

Brevard 519,100 562,300 599,400 15.5%

Indian River 126,400 136,300 144,000 13.9%

Orange 1,029,500 1,147,100 1,258,800 22.3%

Osceola 202,600 232,100 255,400 26.1%

St. Lucie 217,200 238,000 256,600 18.1%

State of Florida 17,616,400 19,075,600 20,388,600 15.7%
54 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Economic conditions are generally good for the two resident counties of the refuge. While the 

median household income for Florida in 2004 was $40,900, Brevard County’s was $44,248 and 

Indian River County’s was $41,522 (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). While these values are slightly 

below the national average, it is estimated that in 2004 approximately 9.2 percent of the population of 

Brevard and Indian River counties lived below the poverty line, which was less than the national 

poverty rate of 12.7 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). Further, in 2006, the unemployment rates 

for Brevard and Indian River counties were below the state and national rates at 3.3 percent and 4.2 

percent respectively (the State of Florida’s rate was 3.3 percent and the U.S.’s rate was 4.6 percent in 

2006) (Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation 2007). According to the 2004 Florida Price Level 

Index, the cost of living in Brevard County was 3.33 percent below the state average and in Indian 

River County it was 4.19 percent below the state average (University of Florida 2004). In both 

counties, food costs were above the state average, while healthcare, housing, other goods and 

services, and transportation costs were below the state average (University of Florida 2004). 

The State of Florida is anticipated to reach 20.4 million by 2015 (Lenze 2002) and over 28 million by 

2030 (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). The populations of Brevard and Indian River counties continue to 

be predominantly white (each at 87 percent) and older, with considerable increases in the Hispanic 

category (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). Brevard County’s median age rose to 41.4 years of age with 

20 percent aged 65 and older, while Indian River County’s median age is 47 with over 29 percent 

aged 65 and older (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). 

The challenges and opportunities represented by projected growth and changes in the population 

around the refuge include the a rapidly aging population and the subsequent impacts on the economy 

in terms of available workforce, a weakening per capita income and the impacts of a low labor force 

participation rate and a weak job mixture (e.g., Brevard County is overly reliant on low-paying retail 

sector jobs with few higher-paying jobs in other job sectors), the challenge of diversifying the local 

economy, and the opportunity to capitalize upon strong social and economical conditions (e.g., both 

counties have low crime rates, low poverty rates, strong job growth, well-educated populations, an 

attractive climate, and access to the Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean) (Market Street 

Services, Inc. 2001). 

The Indian River Lagoon is renowned for its recreational and ecotourism opportunities and for its 

world class fishing. The seagrass beds of the Indian River Lagoon act as nursery grounds that 

support an $800 million dollar industry to the local economy (Apogee 1996). Commercial and 

sport fishing, tourism, and real estate development are the mainstay in this area. In 1995 

residents and tourists valued the Indian River Lagoon at over $733 million, including spending on 

recreational activities (e.g., rental of fishing boats), commercial fish landings (e.g., seafood 

sales), and lagoon-front property (e.g., home purchases) (Apogee 1996). [Of this $733 million, 

access to the resources, valued at $200 million, is not reflected in market transactions (Apogee 

1996).] An estimated $54 million was spent on recreational fishing in the lagoon in 1990 with an 

anticipated escalation to $87 million by 2010 (Milon and Thunberg 1993). Fishing activity in the 

Indian River Lagoon comprises 50 percent of Florida’s east coast catch (Brevard Nature Alliance 

2001). Brevard County’s Office of Tourism estimated that more than 650,000 anglers fished in 

these waters in 2001 (Brevard Nature Alliance 2001). 

Wildlife viewing has emerged as an important economic value to the State of Florida, generating an 

estimated $477 million in retail sales in Florida alone from birdwatching (Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 2001). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission estimates that 

the economic impact of wildlife viewing in the State of Florida is nearly $1.8 billion (Harding 2004b) and 

that out-of-state visitors spend $192 per day on wildlife viewing activities (Harding 2004a). Brevard 

County pulls in an economic value of over $56 million from wildlife viewing activities (Florida Fish and 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55 

Wildlife Conservation Commission 2003). Statewide, birding and associated activities are attracting a 

substantial dollar amount for Florida. In an effort to further promote this growing trend, the FWC has 

developed birding calling cards that visitors can leave at area businesses that state they have come to 

that community specifically to birdwatch. The FWC also developed the Great Florida Birding Trail, a 

2000-mile trail that links bird watching sites in Florida. The Indian River Lagoon region has over 40 Great 

Florida Birding Trail sites. Two trails on the refuge are within the Great Florida Bird Trail system. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

The establishment of Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge was made possible by a multiagency land 

acquisition and conservation partnership. State and local governments participated by adding on to 

the protected areas of the refuge to include the last remaining high-quality natural areas of the barrier 

island ecosystem. Partners in the land acquisition effort include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Brevard County, Indian River County, the 

Richard King Mellon Foundation, The Conservation Fund, and The Nature Conservancy. 

Coordination efforts have been enhanced by the formation of the Archie Carr Working Group, which 

is composed of representatives from numerous agencies and organizations and the local community. 

The members of this Working Group have a diversity of interests and objectives, but share a common 

vision of protecting this globally important area (DeFreese 1998). 

The headquarters office for both the Archie Carr and Pelican Island national wildlife refuges is 

currently co-located with the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office in Vero Beach, Florida. 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

Public ownership in and around Archie Carr NWR reaches beyond the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

includes the State of Florida, Brevard County, and Indian River County. 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). Figures 7-1 through 7-5 outline the land status of the refuge. 

Of these lands, the Service owns 183.05 acres (77.08 ha) and leases 75.00 acres (30.35 ha) from the 

state (for a total of 258.05 acres/104.43 ha). To further the goals of this land acquisition effort, the 

Richard King Mellon Foundation also purchased lands within the area of Archie Carr NWR and then 

donated them to the Service, Brevard County, and Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute. To date, the 

Richard King Mellon Foundation has donated 231 acres (93 ha) to the various entities, including 127 

acres (51 ha) to the Service. 
56 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 7-1. Land status for Archie Carr NWR, Segment 1. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57 

Figure 7-2. Land status for Archie Carr NWR, Segment 2. 
58 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 7-3. Land status for Archie Carr NWR, Segment 3 North. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59 

Figure 7-4. Land status for Archie Carr NWR, Segment 3 South. 
60 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 7-5. Land status for Archie Carr NWR, Segment 4. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61 

The existing land and water management partners in the Archie Carr NWR area include: the State of 

Florida (e.g., Department of Environmental Protection [FDEP] – Florida Park Service, Division of 

State Lands, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, and Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed 

Areas; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) – Imperiled Species Management 

Section; and St. Johns River Water Management District); Brevard County (e.g., Environmentally 

Endangered Lands Program, Parks and Recreation Department, Natural Resources Management 

Office, and Brevard County Mosquito Control); and Indian River County (e.g., Parks Division, Coastal 

Engineering Section, Environmental Planning Section, and Indian River Mosquito Control). Research 

partners include FWC – Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, the University of Central Florida (UCF), 

the University of Florida (UF), Florida Institute of Technology (FIT), University of North Carolina 

(UNC) – Chapel Hill, and Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute. Education and outreach partners 

include the Friends of the Carr Refuge (FOCR), Sea Turtle Survival League (STSL), The Ocean 

Conservancy, and the Sea Turtle Preservation Society. Other partners include local residents and 

neighbors, businesses, and political representatives. The local partnerships have proven successful 

for land acquisition and public outreach. 

The Service owns eight lots in a beachside community called SeaView. Three of these lots are 

ocean-front and five are along A1A, adjacent to other Archie Carr and Pelican Island properties. The 

three lots are not contiguous. The properties protect an old maritime hammock and beach dune that 

has supported listed Southeastern beach mice and rare eastern woodrats. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Consistent with the provisions outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, the 

Service will continue working with partners to provide quality compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 

programs. At Archie Carr NWR, these include fishing, observing and photographing wildlife, and 

participating in environmental education and interpretation (see Figure 8). These priority public uses 

provide the public with an opportunity to learn about, enjoy, and appreciate natural resources, but not 

at the expense of the natural environment. Any allowed use of the refuge, including these priority 

public uses, must be determined to be compatible with the refuge’s purposes and with the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System (see Appendix VI for the compatibility determinations). 

Fundamental and supreme to the provisions of these uses is the provision of viable and diverse fish 

and wildlife populations and the habitats upon which they depend. Those uses that do not support 

the purposes of the refuge, that threaten or disturb fish and wildlife populations, or that are not 

compatible public uses will be phased out on the refuge. Currently, compatibility determinations have 

not been completed for all recreational uses occurring on Service lands of the refuge and the refuge 

is generally closed to the public. With the exception of a few minor foot paths, the only portion of 

Service properties along the Atlantic Ocean that are open to public use are those areas eastward of 

the seaward extent of the dune vegetation to mean high water. Visitors access the refuge through 

partner properties by walking along the beach and accessing Service properties above mean high 

water. One beach access trail is located on Service lands: the long-used Spanish House trail near 

Sebastian Inlet State Park. Fishing activities also occur on refuge properties above mean high water 

along the shorelines of the Indian River Lagoon. As with the Atlantic Ocean side, access to these 

lagoon shorelines is from partner properties. 
62 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 8. Public use map. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63 

The Archie Carr Refuge Partnership 

As a fragmented, linear refuge, Archie Carr NWR exists within a larger context of lands and waters 

managed by a variety of entities for conservation and visitor services, locally referred to as The 

Carr Refuge or the Archie Carr Refuge partnership. In 2006, an estimated 195,000 visitors 

accessed the lands and waters of the Archie Carr Refuge partnership to observe wildlife, hike, fish, 

sunbathe and swim, surf, and learn about sea turtles and the barrier island ecosystem. Within the 

acquisition boundary of the Archie Carr Refuge partnership, three beach accesses are within 

Sebastian Inlet State Park (the fifth most visited state park in Florida, which provides services to 

750,000 visitors annually) with one of those accesses crossing Service-owned property; additional 

sites include eight Brevard County beach parks and beach accesses; three Indian River County 

beach parks; and three foot trails through pristine barrier island ecosystems on Brevard County’s 

Environmentally Endangered Lands on the west side of State Road (SR) A1A., and the Barrier 

Island Sanctuary Management and Education Center (Barrier Island Center). 

No visitor center or visitor contact facilities exist on Service-owned lands within the Archie Carr 

NWR. Existing land management partners are currently providing and planning for adequate 

levels of visitor facilities on lands acquired primarily for public access and recreation. Brevard 

County's Barrier Island Center, which opened in May 2008, will serve as the focal visitor contact 

point for the refuge. This new Center and the existing public facilities and accesses are currently 

providing and planning for adequate levels of visitor services on lands acquired primarily for 

public access and recreation within the larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership. The refuge 

administrative office is co-located with the Service’s South Florida Ecological Services Field 

Office in Vero Beach, 25 miles south of the refuge. The refuge employs one Park Ranger 

dedicated to visitor services and this employee divides time between both the Archie Carr 

National Wildlife Refuge and Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

The majority of public access to the Archie Carr NWR is through partner lands via SR A1A, which 

is part of the Indian River Lagoon Scenic Highway under America’s Byways program. The main 

visitation to the Archie Carr NWR is through Sebastian Inlet State Park, county beach parks, and 

the Barrier Island Center. The Spanish House beach access point is located on Service lands, 

adjacent to Sebastian Inlet State Park. Some visitors are attracted to the Archie Carr Refuge for 

its world renowned designation as the most important nesting beach for loggerhead sea turtles in 

the Western Hemisphere. Table 8 provides a breakdown of visitor use areas within the refuge. 

Welcoming and Orienting Visitors 

Welcome signs to the Archie Carr NWR are posted at both the northernmost and southernmost 

boundaries on SR A1A to let the general public know they are driving within the boundary of the 

refuge. The main visitor contact point within the Archie Carr NWR is the newly opened (May 

2008) Barrier Island Sanctuary Management and Education Center on SR A1A, owned and 

operated by the Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program. Since no Service 

operated visitor center exists, this new sea turtle and barrier island habitat education facility will 

serve as the focal point for welcoming and orienting visitors entering the Archie Carr NWR. This 

facility is a state-of-the-art visitor center and provides visitors with important information on 

recreational opportunities within the entire Archie Carr partnership, features exhibits on sea 

turtles and other wildlife within the barrier island ecosystem, and offers ongoing orientation and 

educational movies. 
64 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Other major visitor contact points within the Archie Carr NWR include: 

y Sebastian Inlet State Park - north and south Ranger Station entrances, an administration 

office, one foot trail, and one public beach access; 

y Brevard County Parks and Recreation - eight public beach accesses; 

y Indian River County Parks and Recreation - three public beach accesses; 

y Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program - three foot trails. 

With exception to lifeguards at the Treasure Shores and Golden Sands beach accesses in Indian 

River County, all county beach accesses are unstaffed, but have entrance signs visible from SR A1A 

posted by their respective county or state managing entity. Once inside all beach accesses, visitors 

will find a sea turtle etiquette informational sign at the dune crossovers which identifies the beach as 

within the Archie Carr NWR. Two major beach accesses, one in Brevard County and one in Indian 

River County, and the foot trail at Sebastian Inlet State Park have a three-panel Service informational 

kiosk that provides a refuge map, as well as information on the refuge’s history, sea turtles, and Dr. 

Archie Carr. Each of the three foot trails managed by Brevard County host a trailhead kiosk to 

welcome and orient visitors, but do not specifically mention the Archie Carr NWR. 

Table 8. Visitor use areas (predominantly on partner properties). 

Public Access Ownership & 

Management Access Type 

Coconut Point Park Brevard County Parks 

& Recreation Improved beach access, 64 parking spaces 

Juan Ponce de Leon 

Landing 

Brevard County Parks 

& Recreation Improved beach access, 47 parking spaces 

Coconut Point 

Sanctuary 

Brevard County 

Environmentally 

Endangered Lands 

Program 

Unimproved foot trail access 

Atlantic Drive Beach 

Access 

Brevard County Parks 

& Recreation Unimproved beach access, 5 parking spaces 

River Drive Beach 

Access 

Brevard County Parks 

& Recreation Unimproved beach access 3 parking spaces 

Judith Resnick 

Memorial Park 

Brevard County Parks 

& Recreation Unimproved beach access, 7 parking spaces 

Maritime Hammock 

Sanctuary 

Brevard County 

Environmentally 

Endangered Lands 

Program 

Unimproved foot trail access 

Ballard Cove Beach 

Access 

Brevard County Parks 

& Recreation Unimproved beach access no parking spots 

Barrier Island Center 

Trail 

Brevard County 

Environmentally 

Endangered Lands 

Program 

Unimproved foot trail access 

Barrier Island 

Sanctuary 

Brevard County 

Environmentally Refuge partnership visitor center 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65 

Management & 

Education Center 

Endangered Lands 

Program 

Bonsteel Beach Park Brevard County Parks 

& Recreation Primitive beach access, 52 parking spaces 

River Oaks Road 

Beach Access 

Brevard County Parks 

& Recreation Unimproved beach access, 5 parking spaces 

Long Point Park Brevard County Parks 

& Recreation 

Ranger station, boat ramp, >50 parking 

spaces, bridge access to trail 

Sebastian Inlet State 

Park / ACNWR, 

Spanish House 

(Brevard County) 

Florida Department of 

Environmental 

Protection, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

Unimproved beach access and foot trail 

access, 40 parking spaces 

Sebastian Inlet State 

Park, North (Brevard 

County) 

Florida Department of 

Environmental 

Protection 

Ranger station, improved beach access, 243 

parking spaces 

Sebastian Inlet State 

Park, South (Indian 

River County) 

Florida Department of 

Environmental 

Protection 

Ranger station, improved beach access, 225 

parking spaces, Sebastian Fishing Museum, 

McLarty Treasure Museum (1715 Spanish 

Plate Fleet Survivor’s Camp) (27 spaces), boat 

ramp, boat-trailer parking 

Sebastian Inlet State 

Park, Day Use Area 

(Indian River County) 

Florida Department of 

Environmental 

Protection 

Improved beach access, 79 parking spaces 

Sebastian Inlet Marina Privately Owned 24 parking spaces 

Ambersands Beach 

Park 

Indian River County 

Parks & Recreation Unimproved beach access, 20 parking spaces 

Treasure Shores Park Indian River County 

Parks & Recreation Improved beach access, 78 parking spaces 

Golden Sands Park Indian River County 

Parks & Recreation Improved beach access, 139 parking spaces 

Source: T. Stoms, Brevard County Parks and Recreation, Pers. comm., August 2008

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Due to the lack of environmental education facilities and education staff, neither the Service nor the 

Barrier Island Sanctuary Management and Education Center will focus directly on environmental 

education and interpretive programming. Instead, the Barrier Island Center’s focus is on conducting 

teacher workshops for teacher-guided school visits with Brevard County students. The Center also 

conducts summer camps and environmental education and interpretive programs by special request 

for home school, scout, and other groups. The Barrier Island Center itself provides an excellent 

opportunity for passive environmental education through its youth-friendly exhibits and audiovisual 

facility. The major interpretive themes of the Center’s programs revolve around barrier island wildlife 

and habitats, while emphasizing sea turtle conservation. Several partners, including the Caribbean 

Conservation Corporation, Friends of the Carr Refuge, the Sea Turtle Preservation Society, 
66 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Sebastian Inlet State Park, Disney’s Vero Beach Resort, and the Environmental Learning Center are 

providing opportunistic offsite environmental education to schools and/or children in the area. The 

mainstay interpretive program within the Archie Carr NWR is the sea turtle watch programs 

conducted by the Service, the Caribbean Conservation Corporation, and Sebastian Inlet State Park in 

the months of June and July. 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

The Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program manages three foot trails on the 

west side of SR A1A within the Archie Carr NWR at Coconut Point Sanctuary, Maritime Hammock 

Sanctuary, and the Barrier Island Center. Combined, these trails provide visitors with four and a half 

miles of foot access through a variety of habitats, including coastal strand, oak scrub, coastal oak 

forest, maritime and hydric hammock, and mangrove swamp. Informational kiosks are located at 

each of the three trailheads and the trails provide the public with unique access and interpretation of 

the barrier island ecosystem. Within the Coconut Point Sanctuary, and adjoining Service-owned 

refuge property, is the only known family of the threatened Florida scrub-jay within the refuge, which 

is an excellent place to observe other rare wildlife and plants. All three trails were designated as 

Great Florida Birding Trail (GFBT) sites in January 2008, bringing the total number of GFBT sites in 

the refuge to five. Coconut Point Beach Park and Sebastian Inlet State Park were incorporated into 

the GFBT system in 2000. Currently, bird watching in the refuge is promoted mainly through the 

GFBT program, with the most common bird watching activities occurring on the beach. Interpretive 

guided walks and programs on EEL properties of the refuge are conducted by staff at the Barrier 

Island Sanctuary Management and Education Center by request. 

The most popular wildlife observation activities on the refuge are the guided sea turtle watch 

programs, where visitors have the opportunity to watch a sea turtle nesting up close on the beach. 

These formal interpretive programs are permitted statewide by the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission and are conducted in the Archie Carr NWR each June and July by refuge 

staff and volunteers and conservation partners, Sebastian Inlet State Park and the Caribbean 

Conservation Corporation (CCC). In addition to providing quality wildlife observation opportunities, 

this program provides valuable information on sea turtle conservation and is the keystone program 

for sea turtle education in the refuge and in the state. Since no Service-owned facilities are located 

in the Archie Carr NWR, CCC and refuge staff rely on both state and county facilities to conduct the 

sea turtle watch programs. For years, the indoor portion of the program was conducted at the 

Sebastian Inlet State Park Administrative Building. Starting in summer of 2008, both CCC and 

refuge staff began conducting the indoor portion of the program from the new Barrier Island Center. 

Approximately 800 people per year participate in a sea turtle watch program within the Archie Carr 

NWR, although this is still not meeting the public demand for these programs. With the new Barrier 

Island Center in place and a partnership with CCC to conduct up to four sea turtle watch programs 

per week, that figure has the potential to increase by 600 participants, which will help meet the 

increasing demand. In addition, various interpretive guided walks are planned as part of the 

activities to be conducted out of the new Barrier Island Center. 

Communicating Key Issues with Offsite Audiences 

With only one Park Ranger designated to support visitor services and with no Service-owned or 

managed visitor facilities, the refuge relies heavily on a variety of partners to accomplish interpretive 

and outreach activities associated with the Archie Carr NWR. The Friends of the Carr Refuge 

(FOCR), the refuge’s nonprofit support group, funds and assists in the distribution of a sea turtle 

brochure, which serves as the only refuge related brochure. Among other things, management and 

collaboration of interpretation and outreach efforts within the refuge are accomplished through the 

Archie Carr Working Group, a group of individuals representing the land management agencies 

within the refuge along with the nonprofit organizations, private companies, and local citizens with a 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67 

vested interest in supporting the Archie Carr NWR. These partners are fully engaged and supportive 

of the refuge and their interpretive and outreach efforts of refuge resources include offsite interpretive 

programs for schools, universities, civic organizations, clubs, and many other interested groups; TV, 

radio, and newspaper interviews; news releases on a variety of special events and/or key resource 

issues; exhibits, publications, brochures, and educational materials; Service and partner websites; 

refuge special events (i.e., Pelican Island Wildlife Festival); participation in conservation partner 

special events; and relationships with other partners, such as the Friends of the Carr Refuge, Sea 

Turtle Preservation Society, Ocean Conservancy, Caribbean Conservation Corporation, Pelican 

Island Preservation Society, Pelican Island Audubon Society, Space Coast Audubon Society, Florida 

Audubon Society, Indian River Land Trust, Marine Resources Council, Turtle Coast Sierra Club, and 

Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund. In addition, the NESTS (Neighbors Ensuring Sea Turtle 

Survival) Program was created by members of the Archie Carr Working Group, which sought to 

develop a sea turtle friendly certification program that would recognize neighbors’ efforts to ensure 

sea turtle survival. The NESTS Program is designed to increase community involvement in 

protecting sea turtle nesting beaches and habitat. 

Hunting and Fishing 

The Archie Carr NWR is not open to hunting. Surf fishing occurs through partner access points, but 

the Service is not actively engaged in administering a fishing program on Service lands. Surf fishing 

occurs on the beach through public accesses managed by the state or county partners; however, no 

visitor counting systems are in place to estimate the number of users participating in fishing activities. 

Sebastian Inlet State Park, also within the boundary of the Archie Carr NWR, manages a large fishing 

program through jetty access and fishing piers at the Inlet. Concern exists regarding with how to 

regulate unofficial dune access, or social trails, for fishing and surfing events that occur on both 

Service and partner lands within the refuge. 

Volunteer Program 

Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2005, nearly 

38,000 volunteers contributed more than 1.4 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at 

more than $25 million in work on behalf of wildlife and wildlife conservation. At Archie Carr National 

Wildlife Refuge in fiscal year 2006, 21 volunteers contributed 430 hours to help with the turtle watch 

programs, remove exotic and invasive plants, and conduct sea turtle surveys. The volunteer program 

is run by the refuge’s Park Ranger as a collateral duty with Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Volunteers are shared between the refuge, Brevard County Parks and Recreation and Sebastian Inlet 

State Park (SISP). An active recruitment and training effort provides materials and equipment for 

volunteers to safely do their jobs. The refuge has a partnership with SISP to provide an RV site, 

when available, for work camper volunteers. Archie Carr NWR volunteers are recognized at an 

annual dinner and field trip with Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge volunteers and are supported 

by the Friends of the Carr Refuge and the Pelican Island Preservation Society (the official support 

group of Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge).

Friends Group 

The Friends of the Carr Refuge is the official support group for Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. 

As a subsidiary organization formed under the 501(c)(3) of the Sea Turtle Preservation Society, 

FOCR’s main goals are to support the Archie Carr NWR through special programs, outreach 

programs, educational activities, volunteer coordination, and fund raising for refuge projects. No 

Memorandum of Agreement currently exists between FOCR and the Service. 
68 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

Archie Carr NWR has no staff; however, the staff assigned to Pelican Island NWR manages Archie 

Carr NWR as a collateral duty. The current staff (as of 2007) includes the Wildlife Refuge Manager, 

Wildlife Refuge Specialist (Assistant Refuge Manager), Park Ranger, and Administrative Assistant 

(see Figure 9). Both the Park Ranger position and the Administrative Assistant positions are being 

eliminated as part of the Service’s Southeast Region Workforce Management Plan in addition to the 

previously eliminated Wildlife Biologist and Biological Science Technician positions. Seasonally, as 

funds are available, a temporary Biological Science Technician is hired during the summer months to 

conduct sea turtle surveys. Biological work is performed under special use permits or cooperating 

agreements with the University of Central Florida and the University of Florida. 

Since the refuge lacks maintenance positions, most maintenance work is contracted out to other 

entities. In 2004 two refuge buildings were destroyed by hurricanes and another was damaged. As 

of 2007 the Archie Carr NWR has just one support building located on the refuge: the Jordan Beach 

House, which is currently utilized by the University of Central Florida for sea turtle research and 

survey efforts on the refuge. A contract is in place to build a bunk house at Archie Carr NWR to 

replace the two buildings destroyed in 2004. Construction is anticipated to be complete in 2008. 

The refuge currently uses three storage bays located at Sebastian Inlet State Park under a Grant 

Agreement. In addition several temporary storage buildings are located at Pelican Island NWR. Two 

small buildings are under contract to be built at Pelican Island NWR: a small pole shed for storing small 

equipment and lumber and a small concrete building to be used for chemical storage. All refuge roads 

are small, unimproved sand roads, except for the paved shell driveway at the Jordan House. 

Figure 9. Archie Carr NWR organizational chart. 

 

(All staff are assigned to and shared with Pelican Island NWR.) 

Wildlife Refuge 

Manager 

Wildlife Refuge 

Specialist (Assistant 

Refuge Manager) 

Administrative 

Assistant (targeted 

for elimination) 

Park Ranger 

(targeted for 

elimination) 

Wildlife Biologist 

(eliminated) 

Biological Science 

Technician 

(eliminated) 

Biological Science 

Technician 

Seasonal (vacant) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69 

III. Plan Development 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 

The comprehensive planning process officially began in December 1999 with preplanning 

activities such as gathering data and information, meeting with Archie Carr NWR staff and Merritt 

Island NWR Complex staff, meeting with the Archie Carr Working Group, meeting with 

intergovernmental partners, visioning, and preparing for the public scoping phase of the planning 

process. To include the governmental partners in the planning process, an Intergovernmental 

Coordination Planning Team was formed. Team meetings were conducted between January and 

May 2000. The Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team identified items such as existing 

and needed data, refuge resources, issues, concerns, affected members of the public, vision 

ideas, and public participation issues. As a group, this Intergovernmental Team prioritized its top 

issues to be addressed by the refuge over the 15-year life of the plan (see Appendix IV for a 

summarized list of these issues). 

A Service Core Planning Team was assembled and held a series of meetings in preparation for 

conducting the planning effort and in advance of public scoping. Public scoping commenced on 

April 24, 2000, including notices in the Federal Register (on April 24 and May 12, 2000) and in local 

newspapers (on April 28-30 and May 19-20, 2000). Additional information about the planning process 

and public scoping was provided through informational flyers, planning updates, several articles in the 

local newspapers, and postings on the Service’s Internet web sites (http://www.fws.gov/MerrittIsland, 

http://www.fws.gov/PelicanIsland, and http://www.fws.gov/ArchieCarr). Given the proximity of the two 

refuges, several shared issues, and many overlapping interested parties, joint public meetings were 

held for Pelican Island and Archie Carr NWRs. 

Using the refuge’s existing public mailing lists, as well as public mailing lists from various 

governmental partners, more than 1,200 informational flyers were initially mailed. This first flyer 

invited participation in the planning process through a variety of means, including public meetings, 

letters, faxes, telephone calls, e-mail messages, and personal visits. The flyer also announced the 

times and locations of the public meetings, provided other information, and described the purposes of 

the two refuges. Afterwards, three neighborhood meetings were conducted on May 3, May 25, and 

June 1, 2000. Outlining the planning process and highlighting the issues and concerns raised to 

date, a June 2, 2000, Planning Update was mailed out to over 2,800 interested parties. Following 

this Planning Update, two summary, countywide meetings were held on June 14 and June 15, 2000, 

in Sebastian (Indian River County) and Melbourne (Brevard County). 

The public meetings were attended by a total of 90 individuals representing a variety of interests and 

organizations. Approximately 117 individuals, organizations, and governmental entities submitted 

comments regarding the plans for Pelican Island and Archie Carr NWRs. Letters, faxes, email 

messages, and phone calls were received from across the country. Comments from the public were 

submitted by a variety of entities, ranging from a local middle school student to a coalition of six 

organizations representing more than 700,000 members. 

Members of the Service’s Core Planning Team met periodically to review public comments, data, 

and information collected to write the plan. In 2003, the Archie Carr NWR CCP was put on hold for 

a variety of reasons (e.g., to develop draft and final CCPs for Pelican Island NWR). The Service restarted the planning process in 2006 with professional reviews of the refuge to determine the 
70 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

status, trends, and conditions of refuge resources and facilities. A wilderness review was 

conducted in 2006. Experts from the Service, State of Florida (including Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, Department of Environmental Protection, and St. Johns River Water 

Management District), Indian River County (Parks Division, Coastal Engineering Division, and 

Environmental Planning Section), Brevard County (Natural Resources Management Office, Parks 

and Recreation Department, and Environmentally Endangered Lands Program), University of 

Central Florida, University of Florida, and Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute participated in a 

wildlife and habitat management review of the refuge in 2006. A visitor services review was also 

conducted in 2006 and included representatives and experts from Brevard County, Indian River 

County, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Florida Park Service), Friends of the Carr 

Refuge, Caribbean Conservation Corporation, Ocean Conservancy, and Florida Institute of 

Technology. The information garnered from these reviews helped the planning team analyze and 

develop recommendations for the Draft CCP/EA. 

During the preplanning and public scoping phases of plan development, a myriad of issues, 

concerns, and opportunities were raised by the public, the Service, and other public agencies. The 

identification of issues is a major factor in determining future management goals and objectives, as 

well as future projects. In addition to the general public scoping meetings, a series of other meetings 

were conducted with federal, state, and local government agencies. Coordination with government 

partners and the public is essential to ensure support for the plan and its identified projects. While 

some of the issues and concerns raised during scoping are important to the future of the refuge, 

many are not within the Service’s management jurisdiction or authority, and some are outside of its 

control. Several opportunities raised during scoping are addressed by the Service in this plan. A 

Service planning team evaluated the long list of issues raised, identified the priority issues to be 

addressed over the next 15 years, evaluated steps to rectify these issues and resource needs, and 

measured the impact of plan implementation. The Core Team developed a list of goals, objectives, 

and strategies to shape the management of the refuge for the 15-year life of the plan. The priority 

issues for the refuge to address during the 15-year life of the plan are: 

y Threats and impacts to threatened and endangered species. 

y Lack of law enforcement presence. 

y Fragmented, linear conservation lands under multiple jurisdictions. 

y Lack of needed staff and projects. 

y Ongoing development of the landscape. 

y Lack of public understanding, awareness, and appreciation of the human impacts to wildlife 

and habitats. 

y Spread and impacts of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species. 

y Lack of information on refuge resources. 

y Impacts of climate change. 

Several management priorities were identified in response to the challenges resulting from the 

fragmented, linear nature of the refuge, its location along a southeast Florida barrier island 

system, the ongoing human population growth of this area, and historic management. Climate 

change and its associated impacts, which are not well understood for the refuge, relate to and 

can exacerbate all of these impacts. Although some of the challenges span more than one 

category, these priority issues were divided into four management categories: wildlife and habitat 

management, resource protection, visitor services, and refuge administration. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

As the landscape continues to develop, several impacts are experienced by the refuge and its 

resources, including loss and fragmentation of habitats; spread and impacts of exotic, invasive, and 

nuisance species; water quality and quantity concerns; threats and impacts to threatened and 

endangered species; threats and impacts to native wildlife; and decreased habitat quality. The refuge 

lacks baseline survey and monitoring data for most species (except sea turtles) using the barrier 

island system and for refuge habitats, which further impact the refuge’s abilities to evaluate the status 

and trends of refuge resources. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

The ongoing development of the landscape has direct impacts on the resource protection efforts of 

the Service and the partners of the Archie Carr NWR. While real estate prices have stabilized or 

declined in some cases recently (in 2007), overall the development pressures experienced in this 

area have dramatically driven land prices upwards, making it more difficult for the Service and the 

partners to acquire interests in these properties (e.g., through fee title acquisition, easements, and 

agreements). Further, development has spread throughout the barrier island system. Many 

properties which were undeveloped at the establishment of the refuge, just over 15 years ago, have 

since been developed. This ongoing development of the landscape threatens not only wildlife and 

habitat resources of the barrier island system, but also the archaeological and historical resources 

that help define the cultural link to the past, present, and future. 

With no regular Service law enforcement presence at Archie Carr NWR or Pelican Island, resource 

protection is minimal. Law enforcement response comes from Merritt Island NWR, when necessary, 

about 1.5 hours away or from the Service’s Zone Officer who could be located anywhere in the zone 

at any particular time, making for variable and long response times. Local and state law enforcement 

officers respond to resource threats on partner lands. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

The priority visitor services management issues at the Archie Carr NWR are closely related to the 

growth of the human population in Brevard and Indian River counties and the increase in tourism to 

the area, the impacts associated with the growing population and tourism, and the associated 

increase in demand for recreational and educational activities. The refuge is spatially located in 

Brevard and Indian River counties with estimated 2006 county populations of 534,359 and 130,100 

respectively (U.S. Census 2007). The human population growth rate from 2005 to 2015 for the 

communities around the refuge is expected to average over 30%, with the State of Florida’s 

anticipated growth rate for the same time period being 27% (Lenze 2002). 

Due to the lack of refuge public use and law enforcement staff and lack of public facilities on Service 

lands, the Service is committed to working with state and county land management partners to 

provide appropriate, compatible, and quality public use opportunities on partner lands. This planning 

process identifies the importance of increasing public awareness and understanding of wildlife and 

habitats to address the increasing impacts to and disturbance of wildlife and habitat from human 

activities and use (e.g., vehicle collisions; wildlife disturbances and take; decreased water quality; 

erosion; development; increased pollution, runoff, and trash and debris; and illegal access). 

As the human population grows, the refuge is likely to be facing a variety of negative impacts, 

including greater disturbances to nesting sea turtles on the beach at night and increased dune habitat 

destruction created from user group conflicts. Greater disturbances to nesting sea turtles are likely to 
72 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

result from increased coastal development, increased lighting, and increased human activity on the 

beach at night. There is a natural human curiosity to watch sea turtles nesting at night. 

Unfortunately, the current level of the state-permitted sea turtle watch programs is not meeting the 

public demand and many people prefer and will continue to seek out turtles on their own, thereby 

causing greater disturbances to nesting females. In some areas current surf fishing access conflicts 

with management or with other beach users, while beach access in some areas causes habitat 

destruction by the unauthorized creation of dune foot paths by fishermen, surfers, and other beach 

goers looking to find less crowded beach areas. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

In looking at current and future management needs to serve the purposes, vision, and goals of 

the refuge, several administration concerns arise. The first involves the fragmented, linear 

conservation lands that exist on this developing barrier island system. Although colloquially 

referred to as the Archie Carr NWR, the conservation lands of this barrier island system are under 

multiple jurisdictions with different management perspectives, philosophies, and directives. 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 Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute all own and 

manage conservation lands within the Archie Carr NWR. Further, many of the management units 

of any one particular entity are too small to be effectively managed without integration and 

coordination between the land managers of the neighboring conservation properties (e.g., for fire 

management). Beyond the mix of jurisdictions and land managers, the refuge lacks the staff, 

volunteers, and projects needed to pursue the purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge. A 

distinct lack of law enforcement presence for these conservation lands is notable. 

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. A wilderness review for the refuge was conducted in 2006. In summary, no areas 

of the refuge were found to be suitable for designation as wilderness at this time. The results of the 

wilderness review are provided in Appendix VIII. 

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

More than 1,900 postcards were mailed to those parties on the CCP mailing list to enable interested 

parties to request a compact disk (CD) or paper copy of the Draft CCP/EA for their review. The Draft 

CCP/EA was also made available to the public on the Internet. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73 

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all resources in decisionmaking. But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management. 

A requirement of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 is for the Service to 

maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. Public uses are allowed if they are 

appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. The Service has identified six 

priority wildlife-dependent public uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation) and they are addressed in this CCP. 

Described below is the proposed Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for managing Archie Carr 

National Wildlife Refuge over the next 15 years. This proposed management direction contains the 

goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to achieve the refuge vision. 

Four alternatives for managing the refuge were considered: Alternative A (Current Management [No 

Action]); Alternative B (Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species); Alternative C (Migratory Birds); 

and Alternative D (Wildlife and Habitat Diversity). The Service selected Alternative B (Rare, 

Threatened, and Endangered Species) as the proposed management direction. 

Implementing Alternative B, the proposed action, will provide increased protection to listed species 

(especially sea turtles) and is anticipated to result in increased populations. In addition, other wildlife 

species and habitats as well as biodiversity are expected to benefit under this alternative. Resource 

protection activities would be enhanced through a greater law enforcement presence and the 

management of inappropriate uses. Visitor services would improve and adapt to the expected rise in 

visitation. Finally, refuge administration activities would focus on contributing to the recovery of listed 

species, as well as improving wildlife and habitat diversity through streamlined efforts and 

strengthening local and regional partnerships. 

VISION 

Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge protects a globally important sea turtle nesting beach, honoring 

the efforts and achievements of the late Dr. Archie F. Carr. The Service has a responsibility to 

ensure the continued protection of the refuge’s barrier island beaches to provide for the protection 

and recovery of sea turtles and other federally and state-listed species, while also protecting wildlife 

and habitat diversity native to this system. Through a minimally developed landscape with limited 

artificial lighting on the barrier island, the area and the refuge will serve as a model for resource 

protection through partnerships amongst a variety of public and private interests. The refuge will 

serve as a world-class living laboratory to foster excellence in biological and ecological research and 

to enable integrated and adaptive land management. Based on best available science, the refuge 

and its partners will conserve wildlife and habitat on the larger landscape level and contribute to the 

recovery of threatened and endangered species. People will gain a better biological understanding 

and appreciation of the wildlife and habitats of the refuge and the surrounding barrier island 

ecosystem. An informed public should minimize human impacts to these resources. 
74 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies presented below are the Service’s responses to the issues, 

concerns, and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and partners, and the 

public and are presented in a hierarchical format. Chapter V, Plan Implementation, identifies the 

projects associated with the various goals, objectives, and strategies. To accomplish any of the 

outlined goals, the Service, together with the larger Archie Carr Partnership, the public, and other 

partners will need to work together. 

These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System; and the purposes and vision of Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. With staffing 

and funding as outlined in Chapter V, Plan Implementation, the Service intends to accomplish these 

goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years. 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

The proposed wildlife and habitat management activities are divided into: rare, threatened and 

endangered species; migratory birds; native wildlife and habitat; exotic, invasive, and nuisance 

species; and climate change. A Habitat Management Plan would need to be developed for the 

refuge in order to fulfill the goals, objectives and strategies outlined in this section. 

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT GOAL 1: Remove the threats to and promote the 

recovery of listed species occurring at Archie Carr National Wildlife. 

1.a. Sea Turtles 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.a(1): Continue to work with the 

partners to monitor and maintain the 21 miles (34 km) of beaches and nearshore habitats of the 

larger Archie Carr NWR partnership to support annual nesting targets of at least 10,000 

loggerhead nests and a biennial target of at least 3,000 green sea turtle nests and 50 leatherback 

nests to support sea turtle recovery efforts. 

Discussion: Beaches along Archie Carr NWR are important nesting areas for three species of sea 

turtles, all of them federally protected under the Endangered Species Act. In order to evaluate 

whether these targets are met, daily surveys of the nesting beach is necessary. The Refuge will 

continue to survey 5 miles (8 km) of beaches in northern Indian River County (Wabasso Beach), 

facilitate the University of Central Florida and/or Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute to survey the 

13 miles (21 km) of beaches in southern Brevard County (Carr Refuge Study Area) and coordinate 

with Sebastian Inlet State Park to survey the 3 miles (5 km) within state park boundaries. The 

refuge and its partners would continue to conduct daily early morning surveys of refuge beaches 

during the nesting season, to identify, enumerate, and evaluate nesting activities using 

standardized criteria. The refuge and its partners would continue to assess hatching success, 

emerging success, clutch frequency, and remigration interval to determine reproductive output and 

help assess the status of sea turtle populations. The refuge and its partners would continue to 

conduct daily sea turtle stranding surveys to record dead strandings and rescue live ones. Data 

from stranding surveys help identify and enumerate in-water threats to sea turtles. Threats on the 

nesting beach can also be identified during daily surveys. Short-term threats to nesting sea turtles 

(and their eggs and hatchlings) include poaching, predation, tidal inundation, beach erosion (washouts), beach accretion (entombments), artificial lighting, beach driving, and human disturbance. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75 

Long-term threats may increase with impacts resulting from climate change, including sea level 

rise, higher frequency storm events, and salt water intrusion (Fish et al. 2005). Shorelines are 

expected to retreat dramatically with the predicted sea level rise (Gilman et al. 2007, Nicholls et al. 

2007) caused by global warming (Hume 2005). Human induced changes to the nesting beach may 

exacerbate those impacts through beachfront development, beach armoring, and potentially 

unsound beach renourishment practices. Through collaborative efforts with partners, the refuge 

can work to reduce some of these harmful impacts and restore nesting habitat. Predator control is 

addressed in Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective 1.a(2). Disorientations associated with 

lighting and human disturbance is addressed in Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective 1.a(3). 

Nighttime beach access is addressed under Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective 1.a(3) and 

Visitor Services Objective 6.b. Increased law enforcement can continue to minimize poaching and 

reduce nest and hatchling destruction associated with unauthorized beach driving. Impacts 

associated with tidal inundation and beach erosion can be lessened if dunes are left intact and if 

sea walls, rock revetments, and geotextile tubes are avoided or removed. Unnatural beach 

accretion usually occurs through beach renourishment or dune rebuilding and can be beneficial if 

conducted with sound biological principles, but can also have impacts if designed improperly. 

Short-term impacts can include nest entombment from sand placement or nest destruction from 

heavy equipment of any nests missed by a nest survey and egg relocation program established to 

minimize project impacts to nests. Long-term impacts can result if the beach renourishment or 

dune rebuilding is designed improperly. Those impacts can include lower nesting success due to 

increased beach width, scarping, and/or compaction and lower reproductive success if the sand 

quality is poor. In addition, more information is needed to understand the importance of nearshore 

habitats to sea turtle biology so that these areas can be protected. Further, the refuge will work 

with research partners to implement appropriate monitoring to better understand the impacts of 

climate change on the sex ratios of sea turtle hatchings within the larger Archie Carr Refuge 

partnership. The sex of sea turtles is determined by the nest temperature surrounding the egg 

during development, with higher temperatures causing more females to be produced (Yntema and 

Mrosovsky 1980, Graeme et al. 2003, Hawkes 2007). Multiyear studies of the sex ratios of 

loggerheads at Cape Canaveral, near Archie Carr, (Mrosovsky and Provancha 1989 and1992) 

indicated that a strong female bias already exists (87%- 99% female). Slight changes in 

atmospheric temperatures due to climate change could further alter ratios eliminating production of 

males altogether in this region. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is mandated by the Endangered 

Species Act to protect threatened and endangered sea turtles populations and accomplish target 

population goals for each species. Thus, the refuge will coordinate with research groups at various 

east coast locations to monitor rates of change in relation to sex ratios in sea turtle hatchlings, 

increases in temperature, and other related factors. This will require coordination with nesting 

beaches in northerly locations along the U.S. eastern seaboard. The refuge would also benefit 

from partnerships to continue sea turtle research efforts. In addition, the refuge would work with 

the Service’s Endangered Species Program to develop sea turtle recovery targets. 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.a(2): Within one year of plan adoption, work 

with the partners to lower sea turtle nest predation rates from the current level of about 10 percent to less 

than five percent within the larger Archie Carr NWR partnership to support sea turtle recovery efforts. 

Discussion: Sea turtle egg and hatchling predation is another serious threat to sea turtles. 

Raccoons and other small predators can consume large numbers of eggs and hatchlings. While 

the raccoon population is controlled to some extent by bobcats, disease, and vehicle collisions, 

some areas in the Archie Carr NWR have historically experienced higher densities of raccoons than 

would normally exist. These areas have had either an availability of surplus human food waste in 

dumpsters and garbage cans or have had people actually feeding raccoons. Since 2003, the 

refuge has conducted a trapping program as outlined in the refuge’s Predator Control Plan. The 
76 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

objective of the program is to reduce the number of raccoons that target turtle nests by setting traps 

at locations where nests have been raided by raccoons. This approach is responsive to abnormally 

high incidences of raccoon depredation and targets only raccoons that are preying on turtle nests. 

This method may remove fewer raccoons than other trapping programs, but effectively reduces 

depredation rates on sea turtle nests to less than 10 percent. The refuge would work with 

volunteers, other agencies, private landowners, researchers, and other partners to broaden efforts 

at removing targeted raccoons from public and private lands and achieve at a maximum 

depredation rate on sea turtle nests of five percent or less. 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.a(3): Within two years of plan approval, 

work with the partners to minimize human disturbance and impacts to nesting sea turtles and 

hatchlings on the 20.5 miles (33 km) of beaches of the larger Archie Carr NWR partnership to support 

sea turtle recovery efforts. 

Discussion: Human disturbance can adversely affect nesting sea turtles, causing disorientation or even 

nest abandonment. The Archie Carr NWR is experiencing an increase in human activity on the beach 

at night during the nesting season. People are reportedly looking for nesting sea turtles to watch and 

inadvertently disturb sea turtles when they approach them, many times with bright flashlights. The 

refuge would focus law enforcement efforts in problem areas where repeated incidents of turtle 

harassment have been reported. Law enforcement officers would warn and educate those individuals 

that are simply ignorant in their pursuit of having a close encounter with a sea turtle and cite or arrest 

only those who blatantly disregard warnings or engage in intentional harassment or harm of sea turtles. 

The refuge would also work with the partners to conduct public education campaigns to minimize 

harassment of nesting females and hatchlings. The refuge would also work with the partners to 

increase the number of interpretive nighttime turtle walks to meet demand and minimize overall 

disturbance to nesting females and hatchlings. Working with partners to physically close and lock all 

public beach parks and accesses during the nesting season would also contribute to reducing the 

incidence of people conducting unauthorized turtle walks and disturbing nesting sea turtles. Beachfront 

lighting interferes with nesting behavior and can disorient hatchlings. With additional law enforcement, 

the refuge would work with the local jurisdictions to assist them in their lighting ordinance education and 

enforcement. Nighttime beach access is also addressed under Wildlife and Habitat Management 

Objective 1.a(1) and Visitor Services Objective 6.b. 

1.b. Southeastern Beach Mouse 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.b(1): Over the life of the plan, work 

with the partners to evaluate and manage those habitats that could serve Southeastern beach 

mice within the larger Archie Carr NWR partnership and continue to work with the partners to 

support translocation efforts from donor sites to the refuge to support recovery efforts for the 

Southeastern beach mouse. 

Discussion: The Southeastern beach mouse was first described in 1889 by Frank Chapman in 

Brevard County at what is now considered the Archie Carr NWR. The Southeastern beach mouse 

historically occurred along about 174 miles of Florida’s southeast coast, from Ponce Inlet in Volusia 

County southward to Hollywood in Broward County, and possibly as far south as Miami Beach in 

Dade County. Based on the most recent published literature, this subspecies is currently restricted to 

about 50 miles of beach occurring in Volusia County, Brevard County, and scattered locations in 

Indian River and St. Lucie counties. The Southeastern beach mouse is thought to be extirpated from 

most of the refuge, especially north of Sebastian Inlet. Remnant populations exist on the refuge in 

Indian River County at Sebastian Inlet State Park (south of the Inlet), Segment 4 of the refuge, and 

Pelican Island NWR, adjacent to Segment 4. Predation is the primary cause of mortality of adult 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77 

beach mice. Increased urbanization of the coastal environment has also resulted in a greater 

abundance of feral, semiferal, and free-roaming domestic cats. The refuge would work with partners 

to discourage the introduction and establishment of feral and semiferal domestic cats in beach mouse 

habitat and remove any feral cats found in beach mouse habitat. The refuge would work with 

partners to prevent the establishment of feral cat colonies, including Trap/Neuter/Release (TNR) 

colonies anywhere near the Archie Carr NWR or other conservation lands. Loss of habitat is another 

key factor. Habitat essential for the recovery of the Southeastern beach mouse includes the sea oats 

zone of primary coastal dunes and swales. This habitat has been lost in some areas due to 

accelerated beach erosion. The refuge would work with state and other partners to manage and 

restore the habitat at the refuge through the use of mechanical clearing, prescribed burning, and 

exotic plant removal. The refuge would continue to restore the dunes by planting sea oats and other 

suitable dune vegetation. Beach renourishment projects should avoid impacting the dunes by placing 

sand outside the primary dune system. The refuge would work with partners to reestablish beach 

mouse populations at the refuge and monitor new populations to determine the success of the 

reintroduction of beach mice. Additional surveys are needed to ascertain the status of the 

Southeastern beach mice throughout the Archie Carr NWR, including refugia habitat (e.g., old fields 

and abandoned citrus groves). 

Strategies: 

y Coordinate management between ACNWR, Pelican Island NWR, and Sebastian Inlet State 

Park 

y Restore habitat – plant and manage for sea oats and other forage plants, conduct regular 

prescribed burning, and use mechanical cutting of vegetation 

y Reestablish three populations/locales 

y Work with partners to discourage feral cat Trap-Neuter-Return programs near refuge lands 

(FWC 2003). 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.b(2): Within seven years of plan adoption, 

work with the Service’s North Florida and South Florida field offices to develop Southeastern beach 

mouse recovery targets for the refuge. 

1.c. Gopher Tortoise 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.c(1): During the life of the plan, work with 

the partners to enhance refuge habitat management activities to protect and maintain approximately 

300 acres (121.5 ha) to support gopher tortoises using the refuge (Figure 10). 

Discussion: Gopher tortoises require an abundance of herbaceous cover for grazing, conditions 

typically found in areas with an open canopy and sparse shrub cover which allows sunlight to reach 

the ground floor (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 1987). Without periodic fires 

that create suitable foraging areas for gopher tortoises, the ground cover is replaced by larger, 

unsuitable plant species. Through prescribed burning, mowing, planting forage, and other 

mechanical treatments and management techniques, favorable tortoise grazing areas can be 

maintained. The refuge would work with the partners to develop a management plan for gopher 

tortoise habitat within the entire partnership boundary. Another 200 acres (81 ha) could be restored 

for scrub-jays and also provide enhanced habitat for gopher tortoises. 
78 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 10. Proposed mangrove and scrub restoration areas. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.c(2): Within two years of the plan’s 

adoption, begin working with the partners to minimize impacts to gopher tortoises from vehicle 

collisions. 

Discussion: Vehicle collisions are a main cause of gopher tortoise injuries and mortality. This is 

especially important in areas where road rights-of-way are frequently mowed, creating favorable 

grazing areas. Gopher tortoises occupy contiguous habitat managed by both the refuge and Brevard 

County. A number of strategies to reduce this impact could be evaluated by the refuge and partners 

for implementation. A few of these strategies are listed. 

Strategies: 

y Coordinate with FDOT to build roadway underpasses (especially during roadway maintenance 

work for logistical reasons) 

y Coordinate with FDOT and Brevard County to install gopher tortoise crossing signs (e.g., give 

‘em a brake) 

y Coordinate with FDOT to reduce speed limits in high-risk areas and enforce existing speed 

limits, especially at Coconut Point Sanctuary/Juan Ponce de Leon Landing Park and Maritime 

Hammock Sanctuary/Judith Resnick Memorial Park. 

y Create barriers to movement (e.g., use fencing and provide for foraging needs within fenced 

areas) 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.c(3): Within 10 years of the plan’s 

approval, assess population status and trends of gopher tortoises using the refuge. 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.c(4): Within 10 years of the plan’s 

approval, determine carrying capacity for refuge lands. 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.c(5): Within 10 years of the plan’s 

approval, evaluate the need for relocation within the larger Archie Carr NWR partnership and the 

potential for receipt of translocated tortoises from offsite areas. 

Discussion: With the exception of occasional surveys performed by visiting researchers, little is 

known about the gopher tortoise population using the refuge and adjacent lands. An assessment of 

the population status and trends, including diseases, would help establish important baseline 

information on which management decisions would be based. The refuge would evaluate the 

location, abundance, and habitat use of gopher tortoises on all Archie Carr NWR lands. The area 

currently managed for scrub habitat (100 acres/40.5 ha) could conceivably support up to 40 male 

tortoises and 200 female tortoises. Working with the partners, the refuge would survey and map the 

locations of all gopher tortoise burrows on Archie Carr NWR and partner lands. These survey and 

monitoring efforts would expand on Dr. Ehrhart’s work, including the development of additional 

burrow assessment techniques (e.g., use burrow cams). As part of the recovery effort, the refuge 

would work with partners to develop carrying capacity data, assess the need for relocation, and 

identify sites for translocation from non-Service sites. The refuge would work with the partners to 

conduct genetic analysis of barrier island versus mainland populations to assess the feasibility of 

receiving translocated tortoises. 

1.d. Florida Scrub-jay 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.d: Within five years of the plan’s adoption, 

work with the North Florida Ecological Services Field Office to evaluate the Service’s ability to serve 
80 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

the needs of the Florida scrub-jay on Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge and partner lands. In 

accord with the findings of this evaluation, if the refuge is determined to have potential to serve scrubjays, restore and manage approximately 300 acres (121.5 ha) of potentially suitable habitat on refuge 

and partner lands. 

Discussion: Scrub-jays are habitat specialists and through habitat loss, fragmentation, and alteration, 

the populations of this species have steadily declined at the Archie Carr NWR until only one known 

family remains. The refuge would work with the North Florida Ecological Services Field Office and 

other partners to determine if the refuge can provide long-term suitable conditions for scrub-jays. 

Currently, the Archie Carr NWR (including a large proportion of partner lands) has about 300 acres 

(121.5 ha) of former scrub-jay habitat (scrub/coastal strand) that could be restored to support about 

10-12 families. The refuge area once supported 11 families (EEL 1995). If the Archie Carr NWR is 

determined to be a potentially viable location for scrub-jays, the refuge would work with the partners 

to aggressively restore and maintain habitat and conduct monitoring efforts to determine 

emigration/immigration patterns. Currently, Brevard County, the Service, and the Florida Division of 

Forestry (FDOF) manage about 100 acres (40.5 ha) (at the Coconut Point Sanctuary) with prescribed 

fire, supporting one family of scrub-jays. Scrub restoration and management on about 200 acres (81 

ha) would also involve the use of some mechanical removal of woody vegetation and, as for 

prescribed fire operations, would require outreach to the local community. In addition to increasing 

the potential for scrub-jay utilization, scrub restoration and maintenance efforts would benefit a host 

of other wildlife and plants, including gopher tortoises and indigo snakes. 

1.e. Wood Stork 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.e: Within eight years of plan approval, 

work with the partners to minimize human disturbance and impacts to the wood storks using the lands 

and waters of the larger Archie Carr NWR partnership to support wood stork recovery efforts. 

Discussion: Although wood storks are not known to breed on the refuge, they do breed on adjacent 

conservation lands at Pelican Island NWR and the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve and they do 

utilize various habitats in the Archie Carr NWR for foraging. Increasingly, wood storks have learned 

to associate fish cleaning stations with a readily available food supply. Wood storks often try to 

ingest fish carcasses that are too large, leading to injury and potentially, death. Increasing 

awareness and changing behaviors of humans (e.g., discourage feeding of wildlife and properly 

dispose of fish carcasses) would help reduce potential impacts to wood storks. Also, wood storks 

come in contact with fish hooks and monofilament, which can also be deadly. The refuge would work 

with Brevard and Indian River Counties to reduce monofilament in the environment by providing 

monofilament recycling containers at all public fishing accesses as part of FWC’s Monofilament 

Recovery and Recycling Program and continue to educate anglers to avoid discarding monofilament. 

The refuge would also work with Keep Brevard Beautiful and Keep Indian River Beautiful to pick up 

monofilament and other marine debris during cleanups. These efforts would also benefit other 

wildlife (e.g., herons and pelicans). In addition, the refuge would work with volunteers, veterinarians 

and licensed wildlife rehabilitators to increase the ability to rescue and rehabilitate injured wood 

storks. Currently inadequate facilities exist nearby to handle the number of sick and injured birds that 

are found in or near the Archie Carr NWR. 

1.f. Bald Eagle 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.f: When and where bald eagle nest sites 

are located on the refuge, work with the partners to protect these sites. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81 

Discussion: Bald eagles currently are not known to nest on the refuge, but they utilize lagoon areas 

for foraging. Though bald eagles were delisted (U.S. Department of the Interior 2007), the refuge 

would continue to collaborate with FWS Ecological Services, FWC, DEP, Brevard and Indian River 

Counties to implement recovery plan recommendations and appropriate protection measures. These 

would include the minimization of disturbance around future nest sites. 

1.g. Piping Plover 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.g: Within 10 years of the plan’s approval, 

conduct annual wintering surveys for piping plovers and when they are located on the refuge, adapt 

management as necessary and work with the partners to protect these sites. 

Discussion: Piping plovers are currently surveyed only once every five years. Annual surveys would 

provide more reliable information on the presence, location, and abundance of piping plovers in the 

Archie Carr NWR area, enabling more focused protection measures. 

1.h. Eastern Indigo Snake 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.h: Within 10 years of the plan’s approval, 

conduct additional surveys to determine the status of the Eastern indigo snake on the refuge and 

partner lands. 

Discussion: Eastern indigo snakes have been observed (Tritaik, pers. observ., Ehrhart, pers. comm.) 

and tracked (Bolt, pers. comm.) on or near the Archie Carr NWR. They have been observed in a 

diversity of habitats, such as scrub, maritime hammocks, and mangrove wetlands. However, indigo 

snakes have not been observed in the last five years (Ehrhart, pers. comm.). Gopher tortoise burrow 

cameras and other techniques (e.g., specially trained dogs) could be used to confirm the presence of 

indigos on the refuge. Indigo snakes require larger areas of habitat than gopher tortoises. Indigos 

have large home ranges that can expand or contract depending on the time of year, habitat quality, 

and other factors, and it is currently unknown how many individual snakes the refuge could optimally 

support. Because indigos are also more generalists in their habitat requirements, surveys should 

also be conducted in maritime hammock and mangrove habitat, to determine presence and relative 

abundance. The refuge would coordinate with Brevard County, Indian River County, Florida Park 

Service, and St. Johns River Water Management District to survey across management boundaries. 

1.i. West Indian Manatee 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.i: During the life of the plan, work with the 

partners to improve coordination with partners during strandings of West Indian manatee. 

Discussion: The refuge would work with FWC to respond to reports of injured or stranded manatees. 

Manatees sometimes strand themselves on the ocean beach when engaged in mating behavior. 

This sometimes occurs in the fall when female manatees are attempting to avoid male suitors. 

Migratory Birds 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT GOAL 2: Protect refuge coastal barrier island habitats to 

contribute to national and regional population objectives for migratory birds in the Peninsular Florida 

Physiographic Area. 
82 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: Limited information is available on migratory birds using the refuge and baseline data is 

needed for all groups. The refuge would work with the Service’s Migratory Birds Office to determine 

the refuge’s contribution to national and regional population objectives. By conducting regular 

surveys and adapting management as necessary, the refuge and partners would assist in meeting 

these objectives. 

2.a. Neotropical Migratory Birds 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 2.a: During the life of the plan, organize 

regular, annual Christmas Bird Counts (CBCs) for the refuge. 

2.b. Shorebirds 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 2.b(1): During the life of the plan, organize 

regular, annual Christmas Bird Counts for the refuge. 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 2.b(2): During the life of the plan, work with 

the partners to create closed areas as necessary to minimize impacts to nesting shorebirds. 

Discussion: Human disturbance, the presence of dogs and cats, and beach erosion are all factors 

that impact the use of beaches by birds. Shorebird nesting, foraging, and loafing sites would be 

closely monitored and evaluated for closure, if necessary. Greater law enforcement would reduce the 

incidence of disturbance from dogs on the beach. If shorebird nesting occurs on the ocean beach, 

then the turtle survey protocol may need to be adjusted to avoid disturbance to the shorebird colony 

and/or nesting sites (especially if it involves a listed species). The refuge would work with the Florida 

Park Service, Brevard and Indian River Counties, and FWC to protect colonies that span 

management boundaries. 

2.c. Wading, Water Birds, and Waterfowl 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 2.c: During the life of the plan, work with 

partners to conduct CBCs and minimize disturbance. 

Native Wildlife and Habitat Diversity 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT GOAL 3: Restore and enhance refuge coastal barrier 

island habitats to achieve high levels of natural wildlife and habitat diversity. 

3.a. Land Crabs 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 3.a: Within eight years of plan’s approval, 

work with FWC, Indian River and Brevard County Sheriff’s Office to increase law enforcement to 

protect land crabs from illegal take. 

Discussion: Land crabs are utilized for human consumption, though high levels of harvesting are 

unsustainable. To help protect the species, the refuge would work with the partners to increase law 

enforcement patrols (especially during harvest times), increase bilingual regulatory and educational 

signage, incorporate land crab protection into other outreach efforts, and install interpretive signage 

to promote land crab protection. Because land crabs are migratory, utilizing the lagoon and ocean, 

they occupy both refuge and partner lands during various stages of their migration. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83 

3.b. Wildlife Impacts from Vehicle Collisions 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 3.b: Within six years of the plan’s approval, 

work with the partners to minimize impacts to wildlife from vehicle collisions within the larger Archie 

Carr NWR partnership. 

Discussion: State Road A1A, a coastal highway, runs through the Archie Carr NWR and nearby 

lands, and results in high vehicle-induced wildlife mortality. The refuge would work with the 

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and local partners to evaluate, develop, and install 

wildlife underpasses (e.g., for gopher tortoises and land crabs). Two private road underpasses 

have already been installed for pedestrians in the Archie Carr NWR area (at the Windsor and 

Disney properties). Underpasses could be located at existing public use areas that would enable 

safe passage for pedestrians accessing public use areas on both sides of SR A1A, as well as 

provide safe passage for wildlife (e.g., Coconut Point Sanctuary/Ponce Landing Park, Maritime 

Hammock Sanctuary/Judith Resnick Park, and Sebastian Inlet Hammock Trail/Spanish House 

Beach Access). Wildlife crossing signs (e.g., Give ‘em a brake), fencing, and measures to reduce 

speeds on SR A1A within the Archie Carr NWR would also be implemented in the short-term, 

while pursuing underpasses in the long-term. The refuge would also work to increase the 

awareness of wildlife impacts in the area from increased traffic. 

3.c. Wildlife Diversity 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 3.c: During the life of the plan, develop 

baseline data to determine the types of species using the refuge. 

Discussion: Limited information is available on the diversity of wildlife using the refuge and baseline 

data is needed for all groups. The refuge would conduct additional surveys to identify all mammal 

and herptetological species using the Archie Carr NWR, particularly those that have either been 

historically recorded on the refuge or whose range indicates that they would be expected to be in the 

refuge, including Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus), roundtail muskrat (Neofiber alleni), marsh rice 

rats (Oryzomys palustris), Atlantic salt marsh mink (Mustela vison lutensis), southern flying squirrel 

(Glaucomys volans), and several species of bats. Also, reports of rare sightings would be 

investigated, such as those of the jaguarondi (Felis yagouaroundi). Fish surveys would also be 

conducted, especially in nursery habitat within the impounded wetlands and along some mangrovefringed shorelines. The impoundments between Long Point and Pelican Island have been shown to 

be the best nursery habitat for juvenile tarpon in the U.S. (Shenker 2006). Refuge surveys would 

also be expanded to include invertebrates, especially horseshoe crabs, butterflies, and tiger beetles. 

Determining the abundance and distribution of these and other invertebrates can provide an index of 

wildlife diversity and ecological health. 

3.d. Scrub and Coastal Strand 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 3.d: Within five years of the plan’s approval, 

begin the process to triple the amount of scrub/coastal strand acreage managed within the Archie 

Carr NWR partnership. 

Discussion: Scrub habitat is important for a variety of wildlife and plants, especially several listed 

species. The refuge would consider existing and historic acreages of scrub to identify high priority 

areas that could be restored to scrub. It is estimated that about 200 acres (81 ha) have the potential 

for restoration in addition to the 100 acres (40.5 ha) currently managed for scrub habitat (Figure 10). 

Another area that could potentially be restored through a carefully managed prescribed burn (through 
84 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

proper coordination with adjacent landowners) is the Miller House Tract (see Figure 11). Restoration 

would begin in designated areas and current scrub would continue to be managed. Management 

actions include mechanical clearing and prescribed burning. Prescribed fire is used to mimic natural 

fire regimes (every five years) in order to reduce fuel loads, vegetation density, and canopy heights. 

Prescribed fire would be designed to burn roughly 25% of a scrub unit, thereby allowing adequate 

escape cover for wildlife. Mechanical clearing is necessary to establish open areas through roller 

chopping and other means in areas where prescribed fire is not practical (e.g., on small tracts and in 

places that have a high urban interface). The Archie Carr NWR would seek fire support from Merritt 

Island NWR. Prescribed fire, wildfire suppression, mechanical clearing, fire break construction, and 

exotic removal would all be coordinated between the refuge, Brevard EEL, Brevard Recreation and 

Parks, and Florida Division of Forestry under management agreements. Surveys and monitoring of 

important scrub-dependent species would be needed to determine the effectiveness of these efforts. 

3.e. Hammocks 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 3.e: During the life of the plan, continue to 

maintain approximately 500 acres (202.5 ha) of hammocks within the Archie Carr NWR partnership 

and restore, where feasible, maritime hammocks to support a variety of species, especially 

neotropical migratory birds, indigo snakes, and woodrats. 

Discussion: Coastal hammocks generally do not require active management, except for nonnative 

plant control, as necessary. Controlling Laurel Wilt Disease (caused by fungus which is vectored by a 

nonnative beetle) is needed to prevent the loss of red bay trees (Persea borbonia). Hammock 

restoration would be coordinated with Brevard EEL, Brevard Recreation and Parks, Indian River 

Lagoon Preserve State Park, Sebastian Inlet State Park, The Nature Conservancy, and other 

partners. Varying restoration techniques would be considered, including natural recruitment and 

succession and active planting of hammock species. 

3.f. Beach and Dune System 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 3.f: During the life of the plan, continue to 

maintain and manage approximately 300 acres (121.5 ha) of beach and dune within the Archie Carr 

NWR partnership to support a variety of species, especially sea turtles and Southeastern beach mice. 

Discussion: Beaches and dunes along the refuge are being seriously eroded, reducing available 

habitat for a variety of species. Undeveloped dunes will stabilize over time after an erosion event, 

but coastal residents are increasingly armoring their properties in response to erosion. The 

seawalls and other semi-permanent structures that are built to protect beach-front land become 

serious obstacles for nesting turtles and create additional erosion issues for nearby properties. By 

working with partners to renourish beaches and rebuild dunes where needed, the refuge can help 

maintain these valuable habitats. However, such renourishment projects need to be carefully 

designed to avoid impacts to the beach profile (e.g., avoid escarpments) and beach composition 

(e.g., sand quality) which are factors in sea turtle nesting success. Also, renourishment projects 

need to avoid impacts to the nearshore and surfzone Sabellariid worm rock reef habitat, which 

provides vital nursery habitat for many marine organisms, as well as important foraging habitat for 

juvenile green turtles. Additionally, dune-building projects need to be designed to avoid impacts to 

the beach profile (e.g., avoid escarpments) and beach composition (e.g., sand quality). The size 

and scope of such projects should also be restricted to minimize impacts to the beach/dune plant 

community, mole crabs, and tiger beetles. Pre and post surveys should be conducted to evaluate 

not only sea turtle nesting and reproductive success, but also wildlife and habitat diversity. 

Furthermore, through partnerships such as the NESTS (Neighbors Ensuring Sea Turtle Survival) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85 

Figure 11. Miller House Tract burn unit. 
86 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Program, the refuge can help educate coastal residents about the impacts of beach-armoring and 

promote alternative strategies that are compatible with conservation objectives. Dunes can also be 

protected and restored through planting dune vegetation. Friends of the Carr Refuge members and 

volunteers could provide much-needed support for such projects. 

3.g. Mangroves 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 3.g: Within five years of plan approval, work 

with the partners to restore 25 acres (10.1 ha) of mangroves and wetlands on the refuge (Figure 10). 

Discussion: Mangrove swamps are the dominant wetland habitat along the western shores of the 

Archie Carr NWR. Mangrove swamps are important nursery areas for many marine fish and 

invertebrates. In addition, they provide habitat for birds, reptiles, and mammals. These forests also 

buffer the shoreline from large waves. The refuge would work with Hubbs-SeaWorld Research 

Institute (HSWRI), Brevard EEL, Marine Resources Council (MRC), and other partners to restore 

mangrove habitat, especially in the Pepper Cove area. Hubbs-SeaWorld would assist exotic control 

efforts on Service tracts adjoining HSWRI tracts. Hubbs-SeaWorld would also conduct restoration 

activities as part of an experimental forest-type research project under a management agreement 

with the refuge. Brevard EEL would assist management on a Service tract sandwiched between two 

Brevard EEL tracts under a management agreement with the refuge. Replanting projects would be 

initiated in areas where mangroves have been lost and MRC volunteers and FOCR members could 

provide valuable assistance with these efforts. 

Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT GOAL 4: Eliminate current and future exotic, invasive, 

and nuisance species on the refuge to maintain and enhance the biological integrity of the refuge’s 

native barrier island habitats. 

4.a. Control of Exotic Plants 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 4.a: Within three years of the plan’s 

approval, work with the partners to identify and locate new infestations of Florida Exotic Pest Plant 

Council Category I and Category II invasive upland plants and control (eliminate where feasible) the 

spread of existing exotic, invasive, and nuisance plants with a focus on those habitats serving rare, 

threatened, and endangered species. 

Discussion: Nonnative invasive plants can negatively affect refuge habitats and wildlife, primarily by 

displacing native vegetation. Problematic species found on the refuge include Australian pine, 

Brazilian pepper, and Guinea grass (Panicum maximum). Effective long-term control is likely to be 

most successful if neighboring land owners are involved in the effort, thereby reducing the likelihood 

of repeat invasions. The Brevard EEL Program has assisted with invasive exotic control and removal 

efforts on refuge lands. The Brevard EEL Program has also successfully competed for state grants to 

remove invasive exotics on county and state lands, and federal grants to remove invasive exotics 

from private lands within the Archie Carr NWR area. The Marine Resources Council has provided 

volunteers for invasive exotic removal. The refuge would continue invasive exotic control 

partnerships through management agreements and compete for grants to continue work. Volunteers 

and FOCR members could provide valuable assistance with exotic plant removal projects. An exotic 

species management plan would need to be developed. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87 

4.b. Control of Feral and Free-roaming Animals 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 4.b: Within three years of the plan’s 

approval, coordinate with the partners to control feral and free-roaming animals to minimize adverse 

impacts to rare, threatened, and endangered species. 

Discussion: Feral and free-roaming animals (e.g., cats, dogs) can negatively impact refuge wildlife 

and habitats through predation. Feral cats, in particular, can cause serious negative impacts on 

native wildlife and are believed to kill millions of birds and small mammals in Florida every year 

(Hatley 2003). The refuge would work with adjacent landowners to increase awareness and 

understanding and evaluate methods for removal of these animals from the refuge (e.g., trapping and 

animal control). The refuge would work with Brevard and Indian River Counties to prevent the 

establishment of any Trap/Neuter/Release feral cat colonies on or near the Archie Carr NWR. 

Climate Change 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT GOAL 5: Understand the impacts of climate change on 

refuge resources to plan for and adapt management as necessary to protect the native wildlife, 

barrier island habitats, and cultural resources of the refuge. 

5.a. Sea Level Rise and Shoreline Changes 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 5.a: Within two years of plan approval, work 

with the partners to establish benchmarks in relation to sea level rise and shoreline changes and 

evaluate refuge management activities that could adapt to these changes and/or minimize their 

impacts. 

Discussion: The effects of climate change on South Florida barrier islands include sea level rise and 

an increase in tropical cyclones (Church and Gregory 2001; Emanuel 1987; Emanuel 2005; Webster 

et al. 2005; Mann and Emanuel 2006; Holland and Webster 2007; IPCC 2007), both of which are 

likely to further erode refuge beaches and dunes. Increased coordination with researchers would 

help the refuge to adapt management to coincide with these changes. Sea level rise and the 

associated salt water intrusion and beach/dune erosion are likely to reduce the amount of habitat 

available for Southeastern beach mice as well as sea turtle and shorebird nesting, especially in areas 

where shorelines are developed. Mangrove swamps are predicted to migrate inland with increasing 

sea levels (Doyle 1998), replacing habitats further inland. By obtaining sea-level rise and associated 

shoreline retreat estimates, the refuge and land management partners would be able to better plan 

future management efforts. 

5.b. Other Climate Change Impacts 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 5.b: Within 10 years of plan approval, work 

with the research partners (FWC’s Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Hubbs-SeaWorld Research 

Institute, University of Central Florida, and University of Florida) and to assess the changes to refuge 

resources associated with climate change and evaluate refuge management activities that could 

adapt to these changes and/or minimize their impacts. 

Discussion: Other effects of climate change include increased droughts and wildfires (Natural 

Resources Defense Council 2001; Westerling et al. 2004), which would alter habitats on the refuge. 

Also, higher temperature can change the sex ratio of sea turtles (Graeme et al. 2003) and is likely to 

alter the sea turtle nesting season (Weishampel et al. 2004). Warmer temperatures can also change 
88 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

migratory and nesting seasons for various species. Global warming will likely cause distributional 

shifts of species, with more tropical species moving into the area and with the local extirpation of 

species with temperate origins (McCarty 2001, Paremesan and Yohe 2003, Root et al. 2003, Hannah 

et al. 2005, Parmesan 2006). 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

The proposed resource protection activities are divided into: existing acquisition boundary, future 

conservation focus areas, and cultural resources. 

Existing Acquisition Boundary 

RESOURCE PROTECTION GOAL 1: Work with the partners to acquire or otherwise manage 

all remaining properties within the refuge’s acquisition boundary to protect these important 

barrier island resources. 

1.a. Refuge Acreage, Acquisition Boundary, and Land Status 

RESOURCE PROTECTION OBJECTIVE 1.a: Within one year of plan approval, work with the 

Service’s Southeast Region, Division of Realty, to determine the correct total acreage, acquisition 

boundary, and land status of the refuge. 

During the development of the CCP, the Service discovered discrepancies between the Division of 

Realty's boundary shapefile that represents the Archie Carr NWR parcel information and the one 

generated for the Archie Carr NWR CCP, working with the partners and utilizing parcel data from the 

property appraisers of Brevard and Indian River Counties. Further, the original acquisition boundary 

developed for the refuge included errors, which were then repeated in subsequent boundaries and 

acreage estimates developed for the refuge. Based on the Wildlife Refuge Manager's (Paul Tritaik) 

knowledge and best information available, the refuge’s and the partners’ parcels were mapped using 

the parcel data from the counties. The Brevard County parcel information is dated December, 2006, 

and the Indian River County data is from June, 2006. 

By overlaying the refuge’s parcels that were generated using the counties’ data with Realty's GIS layer 

for the refuge, numerous discrepancies became apparent. One of the differences appeared to be the 

result of Realty's clipping the parcel data to a shoreline layer. One result of clipping the parcel data with 

the shoreline layer is that the parcels on the Atlantic Ocean are extended to the shoreline. However, 

the shoreline below the Mean High Water (MHW) mark in Florida is owned by the state, making all 

parcels short of the actual shoreline and consequently that of Realty's layer. Another consequence of 

clipping the parcel data with the shoreline data is that the parcels that extend into the Indian River 

Lagoon are truncated. However, some of these parcels actually extend into the lagoon with title to the 

submerged lands. The other discrepancies discovered included an ownership parcel that was in the 

wrong location, leased parcels that were not represented, and errors in the acquisition boundary. A 

point layer was created to detail all of these discrepancies. In the point layer is an attribute field name 

“ISSUE” which details the suspected problem with the layer and how it might be corrected. 

For the interim, the refuge will work with the Division of Realty to recognize the GIS layer created for 

the Archie Carr NWR CCP as the most accurate representation of parcel information available for the 

refuge. Then, the refuge will work with the partners and with the Division of Realty to address the 

discrepancies in order to develop a more accurate representation of the refuge’s acquisition 

boundary, total acreage contained within the acquisition boundary, the refuge’s management 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89 

boundary, the total acreage represented by the management boundary, and the status of all lands 

and waters of the refuge’s acquisition boundary. 

1.b. Inholdings 

RESOURCE PROTECTION OBJECTIVE 1.b: Within one year of plan approval, prioritize Service 

acquisition efforts to those properties east of SR A1A and contiguous to existing conservation areas 

and resolve acreage and boundary discrepancies with the official Realty record. 

Discussion: The Final Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan for the Proposed Archie 

Carr National Wildlife Refuge (August, 1990) prioritized properties for acquisition into four groups. 

Undeveloped tracts east of SR A1A within the four core segments (Group 1) were the highest priority 

for acquisition (with an emphasis on fee title acquisition of these properties). Developed tracts east of 

SR A1A within the four core segments (Group 2) were the second highest priority for acquisition (with 

a focus on easements for these properties). Lands owned by the either the State of Florida or the 

counties (Group 3) were the third highest priority for acquisition (with a focus on cooperative 

agreements for these properties). Undeveloped lands west of SR A1A and within a core segment of 

the refuge or undeveloped lands east of SR A1A between core segments (Group 4) were the lowest 

priority for acquisition (an emphasis on fee title acquisition of these properties). However, the Land 

Protection Plan acknowledged that lands within lower priority groups may be acquired before lands in 

higher priority groups, depending on land values, appropriations, and willing sellers. 

Since the Land Protection Plan was approved in 1990, the refuge has acquired 137 parcels (258.05 

acres/104.43) either through fee title acquisition, donation from partners, leased by partners, or 

granted easements by property owners. These lands are currently managed as part of the refuge. 

Also during that same time, the partners have acquired 59 parcels from Groups 1, 2, and & 4 (totaling 

216 acres/87 ha). By adding these 59 parcels to the previously acquired Group 3 parcels, the 

partners have acquired results in a total of 137 parcels (totaling 981 acres/397 ha). These lands are 

being managed by the partners. The partner properties would still eligible for inclusion under refuge 

management through some type of agreement (e.g., through a cooperative agreement where sharing 

management responsibilities would benefit the resource objectives of the respective agencies). 

Due to the variation in availability by willing sellers, many parcels were purchased by private interests 

and developed. Since 1990, 423 parcels from Groups 1 and 4 (totaling 281 acres/114 ha) have been 

developed. The total of those to the previously developed properties in Group 2 is parcels results in a 

total of 479 parcels (totaling 317 acres/128 ha). The developed properties would still be eligible for 

inclusion under refuge management (e.g., through conservation easements) acquisition by easement. 

They could also be acquired by fee title if they are in a priority location and the value of the buildings 

becomes valued at or less than 5% of the total value of the property. 

The remaining properties acreage within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary (totaling 190 

acres/77 ha) is eligible for fee title acquisition on a willing seller basis, but with varying degrees of 

priority based on location and proximity to already protected lands. The parcels identified for priority 

acquisition are represented in Figures 12-1 through 12-5 and are grouped into the listed priorities. 
90 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Acquisition Priority Description 

Very High 

(undeveloped) 

Group 1 lands bordered on two sides by refuge or partner lands east 

of SR A1A (7 parcels = 6 acres/2.4 ha) 

Very High 

(minor developed) 

Group 1 or 2 lands that have houses valued at or less than 5% of the 

total value of the property and is bordered on two sides by refuge or 

partner lands east of SR A1A (2 parcels = 3 acres/1.2 ha) 

High 

(undeveloped) 

Group 1 lands bordered on one side by refuge or partner lands east 

of SR A1A (29 parcels = 50 acres/20 ha) 

High 

(minor developed) 

Group 1 or 2 lands that have houses valued at or less than 5% of the 

total value of the property and bordered on one side by refuge or 

partner lands east of SR A1A (1 parcel = 3 acres/1.2 ha) 

Medium Group 4 lands bordered on one or more sides by refuge or partner 

lands and Group 1 lands bordered by refuge or partner lands west of 

SR A1A (11 parcels = 68 acres/27.5 ha) 

Low Group 1 lands bordered on two sides by developed lands east of SR 

A1A (23 parcels = 44 acres/17.8) 

Very Low Group 4 lands bordered on two sides by developed lands east of SR 

A1A (30 parcels = 16 acres/6.5 ha) 

Exceptions to the above criteria will be made to consider outstanding natural resource or cultural 

value (e.g., Old Oak Lodge Hammock Site). 

The refuge will work with the partners to identify willing sellers and continue to submit Archie Carr 

NWR for ranking in the Service’s Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS). The refuge would also 

work with the state’s Florida Forever Program (and its possible successor) to elevate the Archie Carr 

NWR project to the A list of the State of Florida’s land acquisition priorities, to trigger active 

negotiation and acquisition. The refuge would consider land swaps when outright acquisition is not 

possible. Such land swaps would need to produce a net benefit to conservation at Archie Carr NWR 

by consolidating adjacent parcels and increasing management capabilities. For example, the Service 

owns eight lots in a beachside community called SeaView. Three of those lots are ocean-front lots 

and five are along A1A adjacent to other Archie Carr and Pelican Island properties. The three lots 

are not contiguous. Those properties protect an old maritime hammock and beach dune that has 

supported listed southeastern beach mice and rare eastern woodrats. Every effort should be made to 

either acquire the lots between the Service-owned lots or swap lots to make the three ocean-front lots 

contiguous with the northern boundary of the community. Current SeaView by-laws prohibit the 

Service from acquiring more lots. The refuge should also attempt to eliminate or reduce the 

association fees charged to the refuge (and other lot owners) for maintenance services. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91 

Figure 12-1. Refuge priority acquisitions, Segment 1. 
92 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 12-2. Refuge priority acquisitions, Segment 2. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93 

Figure 12-3. Refuge priority acquisitions, Segment 3 North. 
94 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 12-4. Refuge priority acquisitions, Segment 3 South. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95 

Figure 12-5. Refuge priority acquisitions, Segment 4. 
96 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Future Conservation Focus Areas 

RESOURCE PROTECTION GOAL 2: Work with the partners to identify, protect, restore, and 

manage ecologically valuable barrier island habitats utilized by listed species. 

2. Important Habitats and Connections 

RESOURCE PROTECTION OBJECTIVE 2: During the 15-year life of the plan, document important 

habitats and wildlife corridors connecting the refuge to nearby conservation areas and work with the 

partners to protect these areas. 

Discussion: Providing connectivity (wildlife corridors) and enlarging conservation lands are two 

important tools that can be used to better protect and manage refuge resources. The refuge is highly 

fragmented, consisting of four distinct segments that are each surrounded by private and public 

lands. These developed areas, in turn, vary in the intensity and type of human development. The 

consolidation of refuge and partner lands into larger, contiguous tracts would greatly benefit the 

habitats and associated species found there. Any important properties needed for connectivity and 

protection that are outside of the current acquisition boundary would either be targeted by partners or 

proposed for addition under a Minor Expansion Proposal of less than 10 percent of the approved 

acquisition boundary minus the 65 acres (26 ha) added under the last MEP (2004). Developing a land 

acquisition plan would help the refuge and partners plan and prioritize the process. The refuge would 

work with partners to consider sharing resources with public lands outside the Archie Carr NWR 

boundary, but within other management districts, such as Spessard Holland Park in Brevard County 

and Captain Forster’s Hammock Preserve in Indian River County. 

Cultural Resources 

RESOURCE PROTECTION GOAL 3: Maintain and preserve in perpetuity the archaeological and 

historical resources of the refuge exemplifying the natural and cultural history of the barrier island 

system of the central Indian River Lagoon area. 

3.a. Oak Lodge Site 

RESOURCE PROTECTION OBJECTIVE 3.a: Within five years of plan approval, actively work with 

the partners to acquire or otherwise protect the historically important Oak Lodge site. 

Discussion: The Old Oak Lodge site (8BR1856) is on private property (Aquarina Country Club), but 

is within the acquisition boundary of the refuge. The Old Oak Lodge site contains an Ais Indian shell 

midden and burial mound, as well as the site for the historic Oak Lodge. Oak Lodge was a 10-

bedroom boardinghouse run by Charles and Frances “Ma” Latham, who catered to such renowned 

scientists, naturalists, artists, photographers, and writers as John Jenks, William Hornaday, William 

Beebe, Arthur Cleveland Bent, Herbert Job, Louis Agassiz Fuertes, and Frank Chapman. The 

Lathams introduced Frank Chapman to Paul Kroegel, and from that moment a campaign was born to 

save the pelicans of Pelican Island. This campaign, of course, led to the establishment of our first 

national wildlife refuge, and ultimately, the National Wildlife Refuge System. Oak Lodge was built in 

1880 and rebuilt in 1889 after it burned in a fire. The lodge continued to house famous visitors until 

one night in May of 1910. As Halley’s Comet streaked across the sky, the Oak Lodge burned down 

for the second and last time. The site would make an outstanding addition to historic interpretation, 

but is under development pressure from the property owners who have expressed plans to build 

condos on the site. Local Aquarina residents have worked with the refuge, Florida Institute of 

Technology, Florida Historical Society, Indian River Lagoon Anthropological Society, Brevard EEL 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97 

Program, and Friends of the Carr Refuge to gather support to protect the Old Oak Lodge site. In 

August, 2003, the Acquisition and Restoration Council (ARC) approved the addition of the 15-acre 

(6.1-ha) Old Oak Lodge Preserve site to the Indian River Lagoon Blueway Project. If acquired, the 

Old Oak Lodge Preserve site would be protected, and additional cultural, archaeological, and 

biological surveys would be conducted. Once protected, surveyed, and secured, the Oak Lodge site 

would be opened to limited public use. Construction of a kiosk and a pavilion would enable the 

interpretation and education of the Oak Lodge’s historical and biological significance to a limited 

group of visitors. Public access is already permitted for canoes and kayaks. 

3.b. Archaeological and Historical Resources 

RESOURCE PROTECTION OBJECTIVE 3.b: Within 15 years of plan approval, coordinate with the 

Service’s Regional Archaeologist and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to develop a 

comprehensive survey of all cultural resources of the refuge. 

Discussion: Although numerous cultural resources are located in the area, no comprehensive 

cultural resources survey exists for the refuge. This information would help adapt management to 

protect these resources and protect them from vandalism and theft. The refuge would work with the 

Regional Archaeologist and SHPO to compile a complete set of Archaeological Site Forms from the 

Florida Master Site File. The refuge would work with the partners to include surveys on partner lands 

where feasible. All archaeological sites would be mapped only for management purposes. A cultural 

resources management plan would be developed. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

The Service is committed to working with state and county land management partners to provide 

appropriate, compatible, and quality public use opportunities on partner lands. Special emphasis is 

placed on working with the Barrier Island Center and other partners to communicate Service 

messages focused on rare, threatened, and endangered species and on the minimization of human 

impacts. Resource protection and enforcement would be central to support improvements to 

recreational programs. Increasing volunteer participation through FOCR would be needed to support 

many of the visitor services’ goals and objectives. 

The Archie Carr NWR partnership provides recreational opportunities on lands owned and managed by 

the refuge, Brevard EEL Program, Brevard Recreation and Parks, Indian River County Parks, and 

Sebastian Inlet State Park. The proposed visitor services activities are divided into the several goals: 

welcome and orient visitors; provide quality fishing opportunities; provide quality wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities; provide quality environmental education programs; interpret key resources; 

manage for appropriate recreational opportunities; communicate key issues with offsite audiences; build 

volunteer programs; build support of friends group; and remove litter and ocean debris. 

Welcome and Orient Visitors 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL 1: Visitor will feel welcome and find accurate, timely, and appropriate 

orientation material and information on visitor facilities, programs, and management activities 

available in the area of the refuge. 
98 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

1.a. Visitor Contact Sites, Kiosks, and Trailheads 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 1.a(1): During the life of the plan, work with the partners to 

develop, install, and maintain Archie Carr NWR kiosks at all improved beach access points and 

Archie Carr NWR informational signage at the remaining designated beach access points. 

Discussion: Currently three beach accesses (Ponce Landing Park in Brevard County, Sebastian Inlet 

State Park at Spanish House, and Golden Sands Park in Indian River County) have interpretive 

kiosks on the refuge. At this time, no Archie Carr NWR interpretive kiosks are located at Coconut 

Point Park and Bonsteel Park in Brevard County, three accesses at Sebastian Inlet State Park, and 

Treasure Shores Park in Indian River County. All existing and proposed kiosks would provide users 

with information regarding the larger Archie Carr partnership and sea turtles. 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 1.a(2): Within one year of plan approval, work with the partners to 

develop a visitor counting process to estimate the numbers of visitors to the larger Archie Carr NWR 

partnership. 

Discussion: Currently, no reliable way is utilized to estimate numbers of visitors to beach parks and 

accesses and to trailheads, which are managed by our partners. Some solutions include car 

counters at the entrance to the parking lots and trail counters at the heads of trails. While these 

methods are not 100% reliable, they do provide a reasonable estimate of visitation, which is not 

currently available for any of the areas other than Sebastian Inlet State Park. 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 1.a(3): During the life of the plan, develop a Service movie for 

Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 1.a(4): Within one year of plan approval, provide the Archie Carr 

NWR brochure at the Barrier Island Sanctuary Management and Education Center, Sebastian Inlet 

State Park, and kiosks within Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 1.a(5): During the life of the plan, work with Sebastian Inlet State 

Park, Brevard and Indian River Counties to update and replace existing Service-owned interpretive 

panels to comply with Service standards. 

Discussion: The current interpretive panels need to be updated, to reflect changes in sea turtle 

production numbers and refuge boundaries. The current format of the three panels (dedicated to sea 

turtles, the refuge, and Dr. Archie Carr) should be supplemented with a panel dedicated to the park 

where the kiosk is located. Additional emphasis should be given to the partnership of agencies and 

organizations that have made the Archie Carr NWR a success. The map associated with the refuge 

panel needs to be updated.

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 1.a(6): Over the life of the plan, work with the Brevard EEL 

Program to include Archie Carr NWR information on all trailhead kiosks and at the welcome and 

orientation kiosk at the Barrier Island Sanctuary Management and Education Center. 

1.b. Brochures 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 1.b(1): During the life of the plan, develop a general wildlife 

observation brochure and provide this brochure at all kiosks and trailheads within the Archie Carr 

NWR partnership. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 99 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 1.b(2): During the life of the plan, work with the partners to 

develop a joint Pelican Island/Archie Carr bird checklist and provide at all kiosks and trailheads within 

the Archie Carr NWR partnership. 

1.c. Signs 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 1.c(1): During the life of the plan, work with the partners to 

simplify regulatory signage to minimize confusion to the users. 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 1.c(2): During the life of the plan, work with the partners to 

incorporate the refuge’s name into existing roadway signs to increase awareness of the refuge to users. 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 1.c(3): Within one year of plan approval, work with the partners to 

develop common nomenclature to reflect the larger Archie Carr NWR partnership. 

Discussion: The conservation lands of the Service and the partners in this area are colloquially 

referred to as The Carr Refuge or the Archie Carr Refuge partnership. The larger partnership 

includes Brevard and Indian River county beach parks, EEL trailheads, state parks and properties, 

the Service’s properties, and the new Barrier Island Center. Working through the Archie Carr 

Working Group, these partners coordinate acquisition and management activities. This partnership 

has been in existence for nearly 20 years and began by focusing on land acquisition in and around 

the federal acquisition boundary for Archie Carr NWR. Over time, the partners have expanded their 

management activities (e.g., fire management, kiosks and educational signs and the new Barrier 

Island Center). The Working Group could discuss the development of common nomenclature to 

consistently refer to this partnership by a common overall name, stepping down to specific names for 

specific sites (e.g., Sebastian Inlet State Park). 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 1. c(4): Within one year of plan approval, install double-sided 

entrance/exit signs on SR A1A at the northern and southern boundaries of the Archie Carr NWR 

partnership. 

Discussion: The existing entrance/exit signs generally mark the boundaries of the Service’s and the 

partners’ properties of the larger Archie Carr NWR partnership, providing a special sense of place to 

this area, despite whether the user is visiting an EEL trailhead, a county beach park, Sebastian Inlet 

State Park, or a neighborhood. 

1.d. Maps 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 1.d: Within one year of plan approval, work with the partners to 

develop a tear sheet map of the visitor facilities available within the larger Archie Carr NWR. 

1.e. Internet 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 1.e: Within one year of plan approval, work with the partners to 

actively maintain and update the refuge website to include information on visitor opportunities within 

the Archie Carr NWR partnership, including cross links between the partners’ sites. 

Provide Quality Fishing Opportunities 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL 2: Members of the fishing public will enjoy their fishing experiences, 

display ethical behavior, and support refuge management. 
100 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

2.a. Fishing Opportunities 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 2.a(1): During the life of the plan, work with Sebastian Inlet State 

Park, Brevard and Indian River Counties to provide fishing information to the public to increase 

awareness and minimize disturbance and impacts. 

Discussion: Fishing information would be provided by developing a fishing brochure and/or 

interpretive panels at beach access points. Educational programs could also help minimize the 

impacts of fishing activities to wildlife (e.g., waterbirds, including wood storks and pelicans). Through 

educational programs, a fishing brochure and improved signage, the fishing public can reduce the 

amount of improperly discarded monofilament line that can injure or kill wildlife. The number of 

monofilament line recycling bins would be increased through coordination with the partners. In 

addition, the surf-fishing at night with lights would be discouraged during sea turtle nesting season to 

avoid disturbance to sea turtles. 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 2.a(2): During the life of the plan, work with partners to direct 

fishing activities to designated access points and close all undesignated access points through refuge 

properties managed for conservation. 

Discussion: Surfcasting is a popular activity along the 20.5 miles of beach within the Archie Carr 

NWR. Some fishermen, like some other beachgoers, do not utilize designated beach access 

points, preferring instead to use existing secluded foot paths through the dunes or create new ones. 

This often results in dune blow-outs that increase the likelihood of storm surge flooding and dune 

erosion. Dunes provide the critical function of storm protection for the barrier island and all its 

inhabitants, but where there are gaps in the dunes, waves wash through and flood areas behind the 

dunes. Another impact of the public using undesignated paths to the beach is the increased 

likelihood of litter left behind. Surfcasters and surfers are especially motivated to seek secluded 

paths to the beach, because their access to improved, lifeguarded beach parks is typically 

restricted to areas outside the lifeguarded areas, so as not to conflict with the swimming public. 

Currently only a few beach parks and accesses are suitable for surfcasters. Those sites that are 

attractive to surfcasters are Judith Resnick Park, River Oaks Drive Beach Access, and Bonsteel 

Park in Brevard County and Ambersands Beach Access in Indian River County. Some of the 

improved beach parks have secluded footpaths on the same property as the paved accesses, 

including Ponce Landing Park in Brevard County and Treasure Shores Park in Indian River County. 

The refuge would work with the partners to provide attractive beach access points for fishermen 

that would not conflict with other beachgoers and that would help protect the dunes. Further, the 

refuge would work with the partners to close secluded paths that pose a threat to dune integrity. 

Public scoping and outreach would be conducted to get input from fishermen and other members of 

the public. Close coordination with the users and the partners is necessary to adequately address 

this issue. For example, some secluded paths may have a benefit for the land manager by 

providing access for research and management. Other paths may have a primary public value on 

properties that were acquired for beach access (e.g., those properties acquired under the Save Our 

Coasts program). Paths which have a public benefit that outweigh the negative impacts would be 

left open, but would require dune restoration and the construction of ecologically sound dune 

crossovers. Paths that have a research or management benefit would be left open, but would be 

gated and would also require dune restoration and the construction of ecologically sound dune 

crossovers. Paths that do not have primary public or management benefit would be closed and 

restored, preferably using native vegetation, such as saw palmetto and sea grape. The closure of 

unapproved access points is also addressed under Visitor Services Objective 6.a. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101 

Provide Quality Wildlife Observation and Photography Opportunities 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL 3: Wildlife observers and photographers of all abilities will enjoy and 

value the diversity of refuge wildlife, will display ethical behavior, and will support efforts to maintain 

quality wildlife habitat on the barrier island. 

3. Wildlife Viewing and Photography Opportunities 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 3: During the life of the plan, continue to work with the partners to 

provide quality opportunities for wildlife observation and photography on partner properties within the 

larger Archie Carr NWR partnership. 

Discussion: Sea turtle watch programs and birding are the major wildlife observation activities on the 

refuge. The most popular wildlife observation program conducted on the Archie Carr NWR, by far, is 

the sea turtle watch program. This program is so popular that hundreds of people are turned away 

each year due to the limitations on availability. The sea turtle watch program combines educational 

and interpretive components with a guided walk on an active sea turtle nesting beach. Sea turtle 

watch programs are operated under a State of Florida permit and require adherence to strict program 

guidelines. Continue to work with the partners to conduct sea turtle watch programs on the refuge 

and expand opportunities where feasible. For example, the Caribbean Conservation Corporation 

assists the refuge in conducting sea turtle watch programs out of Bonsteel Park in Brevard County 

three nights a week (Monday-Wednesday). Sebastian Inlet State Park conducts sea turtle watch 

programs out of McLarty Museum in Indian River County five nights a week (Tuesday-Saturday). The 

refuge would work with CCC to provide additional sea turtle watch programs on Friday and Saturday 

nights to maximize the allowable number programs authorized under the state permit. The refuge 

would work with the partners to explore an additional access point that would not interfere with 

conservation and research, but would help alleviate demand for turtle walks. 

Birding is another popular wildlife observation and photography activity at the Archie Carr NWR. 

Sebastian Inlet State Park is part of the Great Florida Birding Trail, with shorebirds and waterbirds the 

focus of attraction. Three foot trails totaling 4.5 miles (7.2 km) on Environmentally Endangered 

Lands’ properties have been nominated for addition to the Great Florida Birding Trail because they 

provide opportunities to observe birds in three different habitats: mangrove swamp, maritime 

hammock, and coastal strand/scrub. The refuge would provide a volunteer, intern, or Park Ranger to 

conduct additional interpretive programs, leading from the Barrier Island Center. 

Strategies: 

y Develop a joint Archie Carr/Pelican Island bird checklist and post this on the Service’s website 

for the refuge [see Visitor Services objectives 1.b(2) and 1.e]. 

y Develop a general wildlife viewing brochure/tear sheet, which would be a list of species that 

visitors are likely to see during different parts of the year. Make this information a part of the 

Service’s website and consider adding pictures and sound to the web version. Also provide 

this brochure for the kiosks and trailheads on the public lands (see Visitor Services 

Objective 1.d.). 

y Coordinate with FWC to add additional beach access sites to the Great Florida Birding Trail, 

if eligible. 

y Conduct outreach to birders by getting articles in publications and on websites. 
102 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Provide Quality Environmental Education Programs 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL 4: Provide quality, appropriate, and compatible wildlife-dependent 

environmental education and interpretation opportunities to promote understanding and awareness of 

the value of the refuge, its natural resources, and the human influences on the barrier island. 

4.a. Environmental Education Opportunities 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 4.a: Within 15 years of plan approval, work with the partners to 

develop on- and offsite curriculum-based environmental education programs with messages focused 

on sea turtles and other rare, threatened, and endangered species. 

Discussion: No facilities are available on refuge land to support the environment education program. 

The EEL Program and CCC will conduct environmental education out of the Barrier Island Sanctuary 

Management and Education Center. The CCC has hired an education specialist to conduct 

educational programs at the Archie Carr NWR. The refuge would assist the partners in seeking 

grants and training staff and volunteers to conduct environmental education programs in classrooms 

and during field visits. The refuge would also assist the partners in training teachers to conduct these 

programs in the classroom or during self guided field trips. 

Strategies: 

y Coordinate with the Brevard EEL Program and CCC to develop an environmental education 

turtle walk web cast. 

y Continue working with the partners to incorporate Service and Archie Carr NWR messages 

and information into their presentations and programs. 

y Train staff, volunteers, and teachers to conduct education and interpretive programs, and 

conduct indoor and outdoor classroom activities on partner properties. 

y Work with the Brevard EEL Program, CCC, and other education partners to develop education 

materials to be included in a self-guided teacher activity packet. These materials should meet 

state standards. 

y Work with the Brevard EEL Program, CCC, and other education partners to develop a sea 

turtle activity kit for teachers to use in their classrooms. Develop a volunteer environmental 

education group to provide presentations in classrooms. 

y Work with partners (e.g., CCC and EEL) to develop an outreach program to promote 

awareness of the refuge and its conservation issues among local residents. 

Interpret Key Resources 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL 5: Visitors of all abilities will enjoy their visits and increase their 

knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of sea turtle conservation, the barrier island ecosystem, 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System, resulting in minimizing the impacts to wildlife and habitats. 

5.a. Interpretive Programs 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 5.a(1): Within 15 years of plan approval, work with the Sebastian 

Inlet State Park, Brevard and Indian River Counties, Friends of the Carr Refuge, and Caribbean 

Conservation Corporation to develop on- and offsite interpretive programs with messages focused on 

rare, threatened, and endangered species and on the minimization of human impacts. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103 

Discussion: The refuge would work with the partners to train volunteers to provide opportunistic 

presentations at improved beach access points. 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 5.a(2): Within three years of plan approval, complete coordination 

with the State of Florida, the Service’s Sea Turtle Recovery Coordinator, and other partners to 

evaluate and refine key messages to be conveyed to all sea turtle walk participants. 

Discussion: The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission provides a list of 17 current 

issues that is required to be presented at all public turtle watch programs. This list is currently the 

only educational framework that is provided to organizations developing and conducting sea turtle 

watch programs throughout the state. As a result, there exists a lack of consistency in messages 

being delivered and there has been no evaluation, until recently, to determine whether or which of the 

17 guidelines are having a positive effect on participant outcomes. Given the value of the sea turtle 

watch programs on sea turtle conservation, a thorough program evaluation needs to be conducted on 

sea turtle watch programs taking place within the refuge. Participant outcomes need to be measured, 

goals and objectives need to be developed and key messages need to be refined. Evaluation work 

conducted on refuge turtle watch programs will serve as a model to improve program delivery and 

participant outcomes throughout the state. Initial Sea Turtle Watch Program evaluations were 

conducted on refuge programs in the summer of 2006. A new partnership needs to be established to 

complete the evaluation work, which may take one to two years. 

VISITOR SERVICE OBJECTIVE 5.a(3): Within 15 years of plan approval, hire a Park Ranger to 

develop and provide training to commercial tour operators and to rangers and volunteers at 

Sebastian Inlet State Park to increase awareness and understanding of the Service and the refuge. 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 5.a(4): Within 15 years of plan approval, work with the partners to 

incorporate Service messages focused on rare, threatened, and endangered species delivered 

through brochures, kiosks, interpretive panels, and programs at the Barrier Island Center. 

Manage for Appropriate Recreational Opportunities 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL 6: All public use activities will be appropriate and compatible and visitors 

will support priority public use activities that minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

6.a. Control of Undesignated Trails to the Beach 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 6.a: During the life of the plan, work with the partners to close all 

unapproved foot trails providing public access through refuge properties to minimize impacts to 

wildlife and habitat. 

Discussion: Some beachgoers do not utilize designated beach access points, preferring instead to 

use existing secluded paths through the dunes or create new ones. This often results in dune blowouts that increase the likelihood of storm surge flooding and dune erosion. Dunes provide the critical 

function of storm protection for the barrier island and all its inhabitants, but where there are gaps in 

the dunes, waves wash through and flood areas behind the dunes. Another impact of the public 

using undesignated paths to the beach is the increased likelihood of litter left behind. Surfcasters and 

surfers are especially motivated to seek secluded paths to the beach, because their access to 

improved, lifeguarded beach parks is typically restricted to areas outside the lifeguarded areas, so as 

not to conflict with the swimming public. Currently only a few beach parks and accesses are suitable 

for surfcasters and surfers because they have features that are unattractive to the swimming public 

(e.g., unpaved parking and unguarded beaches). Those sites that are attractive to surfcasters are 
104 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Judith Resnick Park, River Oaks Drive Beach Access, and Bonsteel Park in Brevard County and 

Ambersands Beach Access in Indian River County. Some of the improved beach parks have 

secluded footpaths on the same property as the paved accesses, but 100 yards/100 m or more away 

from the improved sites. Those sites include Ponce Landing Park in Brevard County and Treasure 

Shores Park in Indian River County. The refuge would work with the partners to provide attractive 

beach access points for fishermen that would not conflict with other beachgoers and would help 

protect the dunes. Further, the refuge would work with the partners to close secluded paths that pose 

a threat to dune integrity. Public scoping and outreach would be conducted to get input from 

beachgoers. Close coordination with the users and partners is necessary to adequately address this 

issue. For example, some undesignated paths may have a benefit for the land manager by providing 

access for research and management. Other paths may have a primary public value on properties 

that were acquired for beach access (e.g., Save Our Coast sites and Beach and Riverfront sites). 

Paths which have a public benefit that outweigh the negative impacts would be left open, but would 

require dune restoration and the construction of ecologically-sound dune crossovers. Paths that have 

a research or management benefit would be left open, but would be gated and would also require 

dune restoration and the construction of ecologically-sound dune crossovers. Paths that don’t have 

primary public or management benefit would be closed and restored, preferably using native 

vegetation, such as saw palmetto and sea grape. The closure of unapproved access points is also 

addressed under Visitor Services Objective 2.a(2). 

6.b. Nighttime Beach Access during Sea Turtle Nesting Season 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 6.b: Within three years of plan approval, work with the Sebastian 

Inlet State Park, Brevard and Indian River Counties to reduce nighttime access to the beach during 

the sea turtle nesting season to minimize impacts to nesting and hatching sea turtles. 

Discussion: Due to the increased risks to nesting turtles, nighttime access would be limited during 

sea turtle nesting season to approved sea turtle walks through nighttime closure of public accesses 

and increased law enforcement Most beach parks are closed at night, but some do not have gates or 

the gates are not locked. Beach accesses typically do not have gates. Gates would need to be 

installed and locked in key areas to further increase the effectiveness of these efforts. The refuge 

would work with local governments to secure and enforce nighttime closures. Nighttime beach 

access is also addressed under Wildlife and Habitat Management objectives 1.a(1) and 1.a(3). 

6.c. Compatibility Determinations 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 6.a: Within one year of plan approval, complete compatibility 

determinations for all public uses on Service lands. 

Discussion: The refuge currently does not have compatibility determinations completed for uses 

occurring on Service lands at Archie Carr NWR. 

Communicate Key Issues with Offsite Audiences 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL 7: Local residents will recognize the refuge and support its purposes. 

7. Local Residents and Area Visitors 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 7.a: During the life of the plan, develop key refuge messages and 

incorporate these into all communications to increase awareness and support of the refuge and its 

purposes so that at least 50 percent of regularly sampled local residents will be able to recognize the 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 105 

location of the refuge and will understand the importance of the refuge to rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. 

Discussion: Melbourne Beach, Sebastian, Vero Beach, and residents within a 20-mile (32 km) radius 

of the refuge are likely to have the greatest potential impact on the refuge through their activities and 

land uses. Currently few of these residents are aware of the refuge or know what activities are 

permitted on the refuge. The refuge and the resources would benefit if more local area residents 

become aware of the refuge and its purposes and understand its conservation goals and objectives. 

Outreach efforts would focus on rare, threatened, and endangered species, especially sea turtles. 

Increase refuge, volunteer, and FOCR outreach efforts. Key messages would be provided to the 

Archie Carr Working Group, rangers and volunteers at Sebastian Inlet State Park, staff and 

volunteers at the Barrier Island Center, commercial tour operators, and lifeguards to increase 

awareness and understanding of the Service and the refuge. 

Strategies: 

y Expand outreach programs via the media, website, and conservation groups. 

y Create sampling protocols and data sheets for surveys. 

y Work with FOCR and volunteers to assist in sampling efforts. 

y Work with local homeowners’ associations to increase awareness and support of the refuge.

7.b. Dr. Archie Carr Wildlife Refuge, Costa Rica 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 7.b: During the life of the plan, work with the Caribbean 

Conservation Corporation to develop a sister refuge coalition with the Dr. Archie Carr Wildlife Refuge 

in Costa Rica to expand the global connection and awareness of these refuges and their purposes. 

Build Volunteer Programs 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL 8: A sufficient number of skilled and trained volunteers will support the 

refuge in meeting its purposes, vision, and goals. 

8. Volunteers 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 8: During the life of the plan, work with the partners to increase 

the number of active volunteers from 25 to 50 and focus projects on those that benefit listed species. 

Discussion: Focus projects on those that benefit rare, threatened, and endangered species and 

habitat improvement. Hire a full-time Park Ranger to serve as the Volunteer Coordinator to 

coordinate and supervise volunteers that are shared amongst the partners. 

Build Support of Friends Group 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL 9: The Friends of the Carr Refuge will be an advocate for the refuge, 

supporting all refuge goals and objectives and providing financial and in-kind support of refuge 

management activities. 

9. Friends of the Carr Refuge 
106 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 9: Within one year of plan approval, invigorate the Friends of the 

Carr Refuge, with an active board of directors, to increase membership, levels of activities, and 

support for refuge management activities. 

Discussion: The refuge would assist the friends group with becoming an independent 501(c)(3) 

nonprofit organization and the friends group would enter into a Cooperating Agreement with the refuge. 

The friends group currently operates under the 501(c)(3) of the Sea Turtle Preservation Society. The 

refuge would help recruit new board members with the current board serving as an advisory group and 

would develop a cooperative agreement to establish the organization as the official friends group for the 

refuge. The refuge would provide assistance to the friends group in developing a charter and by-laws 

to govern its operations. The refuge would help the friends group to obtain 501(c)(3) nonprofit status. 

The friends group would be encouraged to establish agreements with refuge partners to be able to fund 

projects throughout the Archie Carr NWR, including on partner lands. The friends group is an integral 

part of the refuge’s efforts to accomplish many of the goals and objectives of the CCP. 

Litter and Ocean Debris 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL 10: The refuge’s barrier island beaches and other habitats will be 

maintained litter and ocean debris free. 

10. Litter and Ocean Debris 

VISITOR SERVICES OBJECTIVE 10: During the life of the plan, work with the Friends of the Carr 

Refuge, Keep Brevard Beautiful, and Keep Indian River Beautiful to control and eliminate litter and 

ocean debris from the refuge. 

Discussion: Litter can negatively impact refuge wildlife and ocean debris (trash from ships and boats) 

in particular has been shown to be very detrimental to sea turtles and many sea birds. The refuge 

would work with the partners and volunteers to develop a regular cleanup program for the expanse of 

refuge and partner beaches. Scheduling major cleanup efforts prior to, during, and after the sea 

turtle nesting season would further benefit these species. Periodic assessments would determine the 

need to conduct additional cleanups (e.g., after hurricanes and winter storms). The refuge would 

coordinate with the partners to establish outreach efforts aimed at area boaters and users of the Port 

of Canaveral (e.g., cruise ships) to minimize litter and ocean debris from these vessels. In addition, 

the refuge would coordinate with the partners to increase awareness and understanding of area 

dump stations for boats [e.g., provide global positioning system (GPS) locations of existing stations 

and work to develop additional dump stations]. The refuge, with the assistance of FOCR members 

and volunteers, could also organize clean-up events (e.g., with area schools and community groups). 

The refuge can contribute to the goals and objectives of NOAA's Marine Debris Removal Program, 

helping to positively impact not only the refuge, but also regional coastal and marine environments. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION GOAL 1: Work with the Archie Carr Working Group partners to 

increase staff, volunteers, facilities, and equipment to implement a comprehensive refuge 

management program to protect and manage the natural and cultural values of the refuge’s barrier 

island system and the nation’s most important sea turtle nesting beach. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 107 

1.a. Staff 

Discussion: Currently, all refuge staff members are shared with Pelican Island NWR. Additional 

maintenance, fire management, law enforcement, and education/outreach full-time staff would be 

necessary to implement the goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in the CCP. Future increases in 

visitors and additional impacts from an increasingly developed landscape surrounding the refuge 

necessitate an adequately staffed refuge (see the proposed organizational chart, Figure 13. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION OBJECTIVE 1.a(1): Within one year of the plan’s approval, hire a 

seasonal Biological Science Technician (trapper). 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION OBJECTIVE 1.a(2): Within two years of the plan’s approval, hire a fulltime biological science technician. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION OBJECTIVE 1.a(3): Within three years of the plan’s approval, hire a 

full-time Maintenance Worker. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION OBJECTIVE 1.a(4): Within four years of the plan’s approval, hire a fulltime Park Ranger to serve as the volunteer coordinator and to serve the outreach, environmental 

education, and interpretive programs. 

1.b. Administrative Facilities, Utilities, Equipment, and Signs 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION OBJECTIVE 1.b: Within the 15-year life of the plan, ensure office, 

support facilities, and other infrastructure sufficient to support outlined staff and volunteers. 

Strategies: 

y Once quarters are built to house researchers, use the existing beach house for additional 

interns and as an office facility. The beach house may continue to function as a base of 

operations and beach access for marine turtle research until garage facilities are available at 

the new research quarters. 

y Share office and maintenance facilities with Pelican Island NWR, off Jungle Trail. 

y Develop additional office space specific to the refuge. 

y Consider adding RV pads (onsite or offsite). 

y Demolish the derelict beach structure. 

y Consider sharing facilities with other entities (e.g., Sebastian Inlet State Park, EEL, and 

HSWRI) and/or develop new or convert existing facilities to meet the needs of the refuge. 
108 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 109 

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

As required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Service will 

manage all refuges in accordance with an approved comprehensive conservation plan, which, when 

implemented, will achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, 

where appropriate, restore the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge; 

help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meet other mandates. 

This chapter summarizes the implementation strategy for the purposes, vision, goals, and objectives 

outlined in the CCP, addressing refuge projects, funding and personnel needs, volunteers, 

partnership opportunities, step-down management plans, a monitoring and adaptive management 

plan, and plan review and revision. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

The proposed projects reflect the basic needs identified by Service staff, the public, and the planning 

team members for the management of fish and wildlife populations, habitats, cultural resources, land 

protection, public use, outreach, and environmental education to address the identified priority issues 

and to serve the vision and goals developed for the refuge. Among these projects is a list of stepdown management plans to be developed. Step-down plans are individual and specific and are the 

blueprint under which refuges operate. The step-down plans would provide more detail and specific 

tasks, stepping down from the CCP. Some existing plans would need revision, while others would 

need to be developed. The Service prepares step-down plans in conjunction with the provisions set 

forth in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

Annual funding for staff, facilities, operations, and maintenance is an integral part of project 

implementation. The general cost estimates provided will be updated and adjusted annually. 

Essential needs are addressed, such as eliminating biological threats and problems, meeting 

National Wildlife Refuge System mission requirements, and fulfilling the purposes for which the 

refuge was established. There are no assurances that these projects will be either partially or fully 

funded. However, with the help and cooperation of conservation partners, the Service will use this 

Plan to focus attention on funding the operations and maintenance needs of the refuge. 

For the purpose of achieving the goals and objectives developed for the refuge, the plan has grouped 

management strategies into specific projects. The plan describes 18 projects for development and 

management. Additional staff would be needed to implement these projects. All projects would 

require the close coordination with partner agencies and organizations. Partnership agreements that 

would facilitate project implementation are also discussed. 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Project 1. Work with the partners to standardize survey and monitoring. 

In partnership with FWC, UCF, UF, HSWRI, EEL, FDEP, and others, the refuge would standardize 

surveys and monitoring of sea turtles, Eastern indigo snakes, gopher tortoises, Florida scrub-jays, 
110 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

and beach mice. Systematic surveys based on standardized protocols would be conducted to 

determine presence and distribution of priority wildlife species and to provide baseline data to assist 

managers in habitat management practices. A full-time Biological Science Technician would be 

employed to assist in implementing the monitoring program. Information to be collected is the 

foundation for implementing the comprehensive conservation plan, formulating habitat management, 

and developing adaptive management strategies for species of conservation concern.

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: 1.a(1), 1.b(1), 1.c(3), 1.c(4), 1.c(5), 1.d, 1.f, 1.h, 2.a, 

2.b(1), 2.c, 3.c, 4.a, 5.a, 5.b 

Resource Protection Objectives: 1.a, 1.b, 2, 3.a, 3b

Refuge Administration Objectives: 1.a(2), 1.a(4)

Project 2. Build and maintain databases containing biological resource data and spatial relationships 

for the refuge and surrounding environments. 

A fully implemented geographic information system is not in use at ACNWR. In partnership with all land 

management partners, this project would develop an up-to-date data management, storage, and retrieval 

system; obtain spatial information from appropriate sources; develop geographic layers for refuge 

management programs; and facilitate spatial analysis and creation of maps by the refuge’s biological 

staff. The full-time Biological Science Technician described in Project 1 would assist in this effort. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: 1.a(1), 1.b(1), 1.b(2), 1.c(1), 1.c(2), 1.c(5), 1.d, 1.f, 

2.b(2), 3.b, 3.d, 3.e, 3.f, 3.g, 4.a, 5.a, 5.a 

Resource Protection Objectives: 1.a, 1.b, 2, 3.a, 3.b 

Visitor Service Objectives: 1.d, 6.a 

Refuge Administration Objective: 1.a(2) 

Project 3. Continue to identify, locate, control and eliminate where possible nonnative plants. 

The refuge contains a diversity of habitats, and with encroaching development, invasive plant species 

such as Australian pine and Brazilian pepper are expanding onto refuge lands. Current known 

locations are primarily along refuge roads and other disturbed sites. Spot-treatment is ongoing, but 

without a comprehensive control plan these exotic plant species would spread into the interiors of the 

refuge, degrading habitat for several listed species, migratory birds, and a variety of herpetofauna. 

This project would identify invasive upland plant species within the larger Archie Carr Refuge 

partnership, determine their distribution, and treat affected areas using appropriate control measures. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: 1.c, 1.d, 3.c, 3.d, 3.e, 3.f, 3.g, 4.a, 5.b 

Visitor Services Objectives: 4.a, 5.a(1), 7.a, 8, 9 

Refuge Administration Objectives: 1.a(2), 1.a(4) 

Project 4. Use prescribed fire and other forestry techniques to maintain and restore scrub plant 

communities. 

In partnership with Merritt Island NWR, EEL, Brevard Recreation and Parks, and Florida Division of 

Forestry (FDOF), an expanded prescribed burning program is essential to restore and maintain scrub 

and to reduce fuel loads that could lead to devastating wildfires. Given the fragmented, linear nature 

of the refuge, the Service’s properties are bordered by urban interface, making fire management 

highly necessary to also protect adjacent developed properties. In order to properly manage a wide 

array of species, including protected species such as the scrub-jay and gopher tortoise, it is critical 

that refuge lands be burned on a regular schedule and under controlled conditions. The refuge hosts 

dozens of scrub-dependent species throughout the year. Restoring these habitats, through the use 

of controlled burns and other techniques, reduces the potential of wildfire, while enhancing habitat for 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 111 

these priority species. Prescribed burning is also an effective tool to minimize the spread of invasive 

exotic plant species. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: 1.c, 1.c(4), 1.c(5), 1.d, 3.d, 4.a, 5.b 

Resource Protection Objectives: 1.a, 1.b, 2 

Visitor Services Objectives: 1.a(5), 1.d, 4.a, 5.a 

Refuge Administration Objectives: 1.a(2), 1.a(4) 

Project 5. Use replanting to restore the mangrove swamps. 

Most of Archie Carr NWR's shoreline along the IRL consists of mangrove tidal forests, a declining 

habitat in Florida. In partnership with Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute, EEL, SJRWMD, and 

others, mangrove restoration would include removing exotic plants, replanting mangroves, and 

restoring tidal connections where feasible. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: 3.g, 5.a 

Visitor Services Objectives: 8, 9 

Refuge Administration Objectives: 1.a(2) 

Project 6. Restore and monitor the coastal dune system and control foredune erosion. 

In partnership with FDEP’s Bureau of Invasive Plant Management and others, the refuge would 

restore and monitor the coastal strand community. The project would require the complete removal 

of all invasive exotic plants, including Australian pine and Brazilian pepper, followed by successive retreatments. While some natural recruitment of native plant species is expected, this effort would be 

facilitated by replanting native species. The schedule for replanting would be coordinated with beach 

nourishment projects to provide the greatest benefit for dune accretion. 

Beach and dune erosion threaten sea turtle nesting areas and habitat important to a host of other 

species. Barrier islands naturally experience some form of erosion, as well as some accretion, but 

with the level of development on the barrier island, the human factor influences shoreline dynamics 

as much as natural processes. Ocean inlets kept open with jetties and maintenance dredging 

interrupt longshore sand transport and can contribute to shoreline erosion downdrift of the inlets 

(Kraus 2005). The construction of multi-million dollar homes and condos along the shoreline also 

influences shoreline dynamics by providing economic incentive to protect valuable structures from 

shoreline erosion. This is manifested in beach nourishments and beach armoring (e.g., seawalls). 

With so much value placed on stabilizing the shoreline, the refuge’s interest in allowing natural 

processes to occur is at odds with the interests of many of the adjacent private landowners, 

especially since the refuge is intertwined with private development. With such a high degree of urban 

interface, erosion can best be slowed by sound dune stabilization management in concert with beach 

nourishment and sand transfer projects. In recent history, efforts have been made to protect 

beachfront properties by constructing rock revetments and sea walls and by using geotextile tubes. 

These shoreline hardening projects have long-term detrimental impacts, especially for nesting sea 

turtles. If nourishment or other sand placement projects are to be implemented in the Archie Carr 

NWR area, then extra steps should be taken to ensure that the sand placement is designed to mimic 

the natural beach profile as close as possible and that the area of alteration be minimized as much as 

possible to allow beach organisms (e.g., mole crabs, ghost crabs, and sand tiger beetles) enough 

nearby natural beach to withstand major impacts to the micro-environment in the project area. 

Smaller nourishment and sand placement projects would also result in greater sea turtle nesting 

success than large projects that would impact more of their nesting environment. Associated with 

beach nourishment is the need to replant native species on the foredune and backdune areas. Plant 

species such as sea oats, dune panic grass, beach star, and railroad vine help stabilize and build 
112 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

dunes. Aside from the benefits of dune stabilization, replanting is labor intensive and requires a large 

amount of nursery-raised plants. To address this situation, partnerships could be developed with 

local nurseries and volunteers. 

This project would protect sea turtle nesting habitat, as well as habitat for Southeastern beach mice, 

shorebirds, and many other organisms dependent on healthy beach and dune habitat. A dune and 

coastal strand restoration plan would be developed for this project. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: 1.a(1), 1.b(1), 1.g, 2.b(2), 3.f, 5.a 

Resource Protection Objectives: 1.a, 1.b, 2 

Visitor Services Objectives: 2.a(2), 6a, 10 

Refuge Administration Objective: 1.a(2) 

Project 7. Control sea turtle predators. 

The refuge and nearby beaches provide important nesting habitat for sea turtles. For the short time 

span when the female comes ashore to dig the nest and lay her eggs, the refuge would provide 

protection from human disturbance activities. For the subsequent two to three months that the eggs 

need to incubate and hatch, the refuge would provide protection not only from inappropriate/illegal 

use of the refuge’s beaches, but also from wildlife, such as raccoons which eat sea turtle eggs. While 

refuge officers would provide the necessary protection from incompatible night-time beach use (e.g., 

disturbing nesting sea turtles), a seasonal biological technician would implement current mammalian 

predator control techniques to achieve a sea turtle nest depredation rate not exceeding five percent. 

The refuge would focus on reducing and maintaining the natural predation rate (as incurred from 

native predators) to five percent or less and would focus on preventing nest depredation by any 

exotic species (e.g., armadillos and red fire ants). 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: 1.a(2), 4.b 

Visitor Services Objectives: 4.a, 5.a(1) 

Refuge Administration Objective: 1.a(2) 

Project 8. Minimize vehicle-wildlife collisions on refuge and partner lands. 

Wildlife mortality caused by vehicle collisions has been identified as one of several major issues 

facing the refuge. Although it affects many species on the refuge, it is disproportionately adverse to 

listed species, given their low numbers. Among these, gopher tortoises, scrub-jays, and indigo 

snakes are especially at risk. Through collaborative efforts with the partners, the refuge would install 

additional wildlife crossing signs and barrier fences and would work with FDOT to slow traffic in high 

risk areas through posting lower speed limits, marking “No Passing” lanes, installing rumble strips, 

and/or installing flashing lights. Wildlife underpasses would be pursued when feasible (e.g., during 

major road work) or included with the justification for pedestrian underpasses. In addition, the refuge 

would work with local and state law enforcement agencies to enforce existing speed limits. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective: 3.b 

Visitor Services Objectives: 4.a, 5.a(1) 

Refuge Administration Objectives: 1.a(2), 1.a(3), 1.a(4) 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Project 9. Protect refuge resources and visitors. 

The larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership hosts more than 100,000 visitors annually, not counting 

the visitation to Sebastian Inlet State Park. In recent years, disturbance to sea turtles, illegal harvest 

of plants and animals, vandalism, encroachment activities, littering, and other inappropriate or illegal 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 113 

activities have increased due to the ease of accessibility to refuge properties, the remoteness of 

certain areas of the refuge, and the lack of regular law enforcement patrols. The presence of a fulltime Law Enforcement Officer would result in improved visitor safety and services. The Refuge 

Officer would share duties with neighboring Pelican Island NWR. Regular law enforcement patrols 

would deter wildlife take, vandalism, trespass, loitering, and other illegal activities and respond to 

violations, complaints, and incidences when they occur. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: 1.a(3), 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, 2.b(2), 2.c, 3.a, 3.b 

Resource Protection Objective: 3.b 

Visitor Services Objectives: 2.a, 2.a(2), 6.a, 6.b, 10 

Project 10. Protect archaeological resources through surveys and planning. 

The Archie Carr NWR has 58 archaeological sites that are known to exist on refuge and partner lands 

combined, but law enforcement protection is not adequate. This project would provide for the 

completion of an archaeological survey list and locate and describe all sites within the Archie Carr 

NWR and to determine which sites are on refuge property and covered under the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act. This project would also initiate the development of a protection plan for 

cultural and historical resources identified by the survey. 

Resource Protection Objectives: 3.a, 3.b 

Refuge Administration Objective: 1.a(4)

Project 11. Develop management agreements for adjacent public conservation lands and private 

lands that support listed species and document conservation focus areas and wildlife corridors. 

The refuge is highly fragmented, with Service-acquired land parcels located in a mosaic of other 

public conservation lands and county-owned management areas, as well as private lands that have 

been developed at various levels of intensity (e.g., from low-density residences to commercial 

businesses to high-rise condominiums). In order for conservation efforts to be successful, the refuge 

needs to work with multiple partners to seek common objectives and develop management strategies 

that can be employed across the barrier island landscape. Close cooperation and coordination 

between the refuge and partners at state and local levels are paramount in achieving many of the 

objectives outlined in this Plan. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: 3.d, 3.e, 3.g, 4.a, 5.a, 5.b 

Resource Protection Objectives: 1.a, 1.b, 2 

Project 12. Evaluate inholdings for potential acquisition from willing sellers. 

The refuge exists in a mosaic of public and private lands. In order to minimize fragmentation, the 

purpose of this project would be to determine which inholdings would contribute the most to the 

overall management objectives of the refuge. The refuge would work with the State of Florida ARC to 

elevate the Archie Carr Sea Turtle Refuge project to the A list for active acquisition by the state. 

Several properties are currently for sale on the open market that are high priorities due to their 

locations next to public lands or due to them being surrounded by public lands. Properties that are 

within the current acquisition boundary and have willing sellers would be considered for acquisition by 

the Service. Any important properties needed for connectivity and protection that are outside of the 

current acquisition boundary would either be targeted by partners or proposed for addition under a 

Minor Expansion Proposal of less than 10% of the approved acquisition boundary minus the 65 acres 

(26 ha) added under the last MEP (2004). 

Resource Protection Objective: 1.b
114 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Project 13. Work with the partners to close unauthorized beach access points, improve existing 

access facilities, and limit night time beach access during the sea turtle nesting season. 

Unauthorized beach access is an issue for the refuge because it destroys vegetation, increases dune 

erosion, increases exposure to coastal flooding, and leads to littering. Nighttime beachgoers can 

disturb sea turtles, causing them to return to sea before laying eggs. This project would work close 

unauthorized access points that have no compelling public interest and improve existing dunecrossovers to minimize impacts to dunes. Access points that have a compelling public interest (e.g., 

Save Our Coast sites) would be improved with dune cross-overs to minimize impacts to dunes. 

Access points that have a research or management value would also be improved to minimize 

impacts to dunes, but would be closed to the public. The refuge would work with partners to evaluate 

the need for additional beach access points and facilities at strategic locations, where feasible. In 

addition, through awareness programs and increased law enforcement, nighttime beach access 

during the sea turtle nesting season would be minimized. Obtaining (in coordination with refuge 

partners) baseline visitor data would useful in determining high-use areas. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: 1.a(3), 3.f

Visitor Services Objectives: 6.a, 6.b 

Refuge Administration Objectives: 1.a(3), 1.a(4) 

Project 14. Minimize the impacts of fishing. 

 The larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership hosts more than 10,000 fishermen annually. Surfcasting 

(saltwater fishing) is an important recreational activity on refuge beaches, as is estuarine fishing in the 

waters surrounding the refuge. This project would work with partners to use signs, fliers, and other 

methods to inform anglers of the potential impacts that this activity could have on wildlife and habitat. 

Anglers would be made aware of the need to recycle monofilament line, dispose of other trash 

(including fish waste) appropriately, prevent seagrass scarring, minimize risks of collisions with 

manatees, use authorized beach access points, and engage in ethical fishing behavior. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective: 1.e

Visitor Services Objectives: 2.a(1), 2.a(2), 6.a, 6.b, 10 

Refuge Administration Objectives: 1.a(3), 1.a(4)

Project 15. Increase outreach and opportunities for environmental education and interpretation. 

The larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership hosts more than 10,000 visitors annually seeking 

educational or interpretive experiences. This project would enable the refuge to employ an outreach 

and visitor services specialist to work with partners to educate residents, tourists, and school children 

about the refuge's role in the barrier island ecosystem, as well as threats to the refuge’s wildlife and 

habitat. This position would improve partnership opportunities and expand educational and 

interpretive programs by working with partners (e.g., EEL, CCC, and FOCR), volunteers, and other 

organizations. Refuge resources would be appropriately interpreted and communication with outside 

audiences via news releases, web media, and special events would be coordinated with partners. 

Visitor Services Objectives: 4.a, 5.a(1), 5.a(2), 5.a(3), 5.a(4), 7.a, 7.b, 10 

Refuge Administration Objectives: 1.a(2), 1.a(4) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 115 

Project 16. Increase wildlife observation and photography visitor services. 

The larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership hosts more than 3,000 wildlife watchers and 

photographers annually. This project would enable the refuge to work with partners to expand wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities, as well as investigate the potential to use certain areas of 

ACNWR to provide connectivity with partner conservation lands. 

Visitor Services Objective: 3 

Refuge Administration Objectives: 1.a(3), 1.a(4) 

Project 17. Minimize litter and ocean debris. 

Litter and ocean debris (trash blown/thrown) off boats and ships can harm wildlife and injure visitors. 

This project would work with the partners to use signs, brochures, and other tools to educate the 

public about the harmful effects of litter. It would evaluate the need for more trash and recycling bins 

and organize beach and lagoon clean-up efforts. As part of this program, boaters would also be 

educated to make them aware of the harmful effects of litter. Furthermore, similar outreach efforts 

would also be directed at the cruise ships and other shipping entities that utilize Port Canaveral in an 

effort to reduce ocean debris. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: 1.a(3), 3.f 

Visitor Services Objectives: 2.a(1), 4.a, 5.a(1), 5.a(2), 7, 10 

Refuge Administration Objectives: 1.a(2), 1.a(4) 

Project 18. Improve maintenance operations and facilities management.

This project would provide one Maintenance Worker to improve refuge operations and facilities 

maintenance, including trails, kiosks, signs, and boardwalks. The worker would also conduct 

maintenance of refuge buildings and quarters. 

Visitor Services Objectives: 1.a(1), 1.a(5), 1.c(4) 

Refuge Administration Objectives: 1.a(3), 1.b

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Implementation of this plan would require increased funding and personnel support from a variety of 

internal and external sources. New projects are identified in the Refuge Operating and Needs 

System (RONS), while maintenance needs for existing facilities and projects are identified through 

Service Asset and Maintenance Management System (SAMMS). This plan outlines proposed 

projects that are substantially above current budget allocations. The plan does not constitute a 

commitment (from Congress) for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or 

funding for future land acquisition, but provides direction for future management and represents 

wildlife resource needs based on sound biological science and input from the public. 

To achieve the goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in Chapter IV of the proposed plan, 

additional personnel, operations, maintenance, facilities, and funds are needed. Three and a half 

additional, non-shared positions would be needed (see Figure 13) in addition to the currently shared 

(between ACNWR and Pelican Island NWR) positions (Figure 9). The refuge staff would need to 

increase from a total of 4.5 shared with Pelican Island NWR in Fiscal Year 2008, to a total of 14 (3.5 

for Archie Carr, 3.5 for Pelican Island and 7 shared) by year 2023 (Table 9 and Figure 13). This 

increase in staff would also necessitate an increase in base funding above standard yearly increases 

that allow only for inflation. 
116 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 9. Summary of projects. 

(Staff may be shared among projects; for proposed staffing levels see organization chart, Figure 13.) 

PROJECT 

NUMBER PROJECT TITLE 

FIRST 

YEAR 

COST 

($1,000) 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL 

COST 

($1,000) 

STAFF 

1 SURVEYS AND 

MONITORING 50 35 

BIOLOGICAL 

SCIENCE 

TECHNICIAN 

2 GIS DATABASE 50 35 

WILDLIFE 

BIOLOGIST 

(SHARED) 

3 EXOTIC PLANT CONTROL 120 80 

BIOLOGICAL 

SCIENCE 

TECHNICIAN 

4 SCRUB MANAGEMENT 60 40 

BIOLOGICAL 

SCIENCE 

TECHNICIAN 

5 MANGROVE 

MANAGEMENT 60 40 

BIOLOGICAL 

SCIENCE 

TECHNICIAN 

(SHARED) 

6 

RESTORE & MAINTAIN 

COASTAL DUNE SYSTEM 

& CONTROL 

BEACH/DUNE EROSION 

50 35 

BIOLOGICAL 

SCIENCE 

TECHNICIAN 

(SHARED) 

7 TURTLE PREDATOR 

CONTROL 30 20 

BIOLOGICAL 

SCIENCE 

TECHNICIAN, 

SEASONAL 

(TRAPPER) 

8 VEHICLE-WILDLIFE 

COLLISIONS 60 40 

WILDLIFE REFUGE 

SPECIALIST 

(ASSISTANT 

MANAGER) 

(SHARED) 

9 LAW ENFORCEMENT 50 40 REFUGE OFFICER 

(SHARED) 

10 

SURVEY & PROTECT 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES 

50 40 REFUGE OFFICER 

 (SHARED) 

11 

DEVELOP MANAGEMENT 

AGREEMENTS FOR 

PARTNER LANDS 

60 40 

WILDLIFE REFUGE 

SPECIALIST 

(ASSISTANT 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 117 

PROJECT 

NUMBER PROJECT TITLE 

FIRST 

YEAR 

COST 

($1,000) 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL 

COST 

($1,000) 

STAFF 

MANAGER) 

(SHARED) 

12 EVALUATE INHOLDINGS 

FOR PURCHASE 60 40 

WILDLIFE REFUGE 

SPECIALIST 

(ASSISTANT 

MANAGER) 

(SHARED) 

13 

ADDRESS 

UNAUTHORIZED DUNE 

TRAILS AND NIGHTTIME 

BEACH ACCESS 

75 50 PARK RANGER 

14 MINIMIZE IMPACTS OF 

FISHING 75 50 PARK RANGER (SHARED) 

15 

OUTREACH AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

EDUCATION AND 

INTERPRETATION 

120 80 PARK RANGER 

(SHARED) 

16 

IMPROVE WILDIFE 

OBSERVATION & 

PHOTOGRAPHY 

OPPORTUNITIES 

60 40 PARK RANGER 

(SHARED) 

17 LITTER & OCEAN DEBRIS 60 40 PARK RANGER 

18 

MAINTENANCE, 

OPERATIONS, AND 

FACILITIES 

MANAGEMENT 

150 100 MAINTENANCE 

WORKER 

The Refuge System currently faces a backlog of project, operational, maintenance, and 

equipment needs. The current RONS database provides a list of proposed projects for the 

refuge, over and above the current base operating budget of the refuge, which was $697,000 in 

fiscal year 2007. The refuge’s RONS and SAMMS needs would continue under this plan. Once 

the CCP is approved, the RONS and SAMMS databases will be updated to reflect the needs and 

proposed actions outlined in the plan. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 118 

Figure 13. Proposed organizational chart for Archie Carr NWR. 
119 

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge functions as a partnership refuge where a variety of partners 

help further the purposes, vision, goals, and objectives of the refuge through wildlife and habitat 

management activities, outreach, environmental education, other visitor services, and cultural 

resource protection. The Service will continue to work with existing and new partners where refuge 

partnerships will predominantly operate through the Archie Carr Working Group. Bringing together 

public, nonprofit, research-oriented, and private interests, the Archie Carr Working Group provides a 

forum for interested partners and area land managers to exchange ideas and coordinate and 

integrate management activities. 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

The Service will prepare several step-down management plans to provide more detail, including 

strategies and implementation schedules for meeting the goals and objectives identified in this 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The refuge’s step-down plans are: 

 

y Fire Management Plan (completed 2001) 

y Predator Control Plan (completed 2003) 

Table 10 lists the needed step-down management plans and their anticipated completion dates.

Table 10. Step-down management plans to be developed during the 15-year life of the plan. 

Step-down Management Plan Anticipated Completion Date 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan 2009 

Visitor Services Plan 2010 

Cultural Resources Management Plan 2013 

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Monitoring the Service’s performance, while implementing this comprehensive conservation plan, is 

critical to the plan’s successful implementation. Monitoring and evaluation allow the Service, other 

government agencies, the public, and the partners to measure and evaluate progress. Following 

approval of the comprehensive conservation plan and public notification of the decision, the Service 

will begin implementing the proposed actions identified in the plan. The Service will monitor, 

evaluate, and determine whether or not progress is being made towards achieving the refuge’s 

purposes, vision, and goals. Monitoring will address habitat or population objectives and the effects 

of management activities. Through adaptive management and evaluation of monitoring and 

research, results may indicate the need to modify refuge objectives and/or strategies. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

The Service will review this plan annually to decide if it requires any revisions. The plan will be 

modified along with associated management activities whenever this review or other monitoring and 

evaluation determine that changes are needed to achieve refuge purposes, vision, and goals. The 
120 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Service will revise this plan when significant new information becomes available, ecological 

conditions change, major refuge expansion occurs, or when the Service identifies the need to do so 

during plan review. At a minimum, plan revision will occur every 15 years. All plan revisions will 

follow the procedures outlined in current policy and will require compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The Service will conduct ongoing public involvement and continue 

informing and involving the public regarding management of this refuge. 
Appendices 121 

APPENDICES 

Appendix I. Glossary 

Accidentals: Bird species that are observed on single or very few occasions very far 

from their normal range. 

Adaptive Management: Refers to a process in which policy decisions are implemented within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions inherent in management plan. Analysis of results help 

managers determine whether current management should continue as 

is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Alternative: 1. A reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy the stated 

need (40 CFR 1500.2). 2. Alternatives are different sets of objectives 

and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and goals, 

helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.6B). 

Biological Diversity: The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur (USFWS Manual 052 FW 1. 12B). 

The System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, and 

ecological processes. Also referred to as Biodiversity. 

Carrying Capacity: The maximum population of a species able to be supported by a habitat 

or area. 

Categorical Exclusion 

(CE,CX, CATEX, 

CATX): 

A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to 

have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4). 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. 

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other 

use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional 

judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of the 

national wildlife refuge (50 CFR 25.12 (a)). A compatibility 

determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies 

stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 
122 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

(CCP):

A document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or 

planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission 

of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps 

achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and 

meets other mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 E). 

Cover Type: The present vegetation of an area. 

Cultural Resource 

Inventory: 

A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic 

area. Inventories may involve various levels, including background 

literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all 

exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for the 

National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service 

Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resource 

Overview: 

A comprehensive document prepared for a field office that discusses, 

among other things, its prehistory and cultural history, the nature and 

extent of known cultural resources, previous research, management 

objectives, resource management conflicts or issues, and a general 

statement on how program objectives should be met and conflicts 

resolved. An overview should reference or incorporate information from a 

field offices background or literature search described in Section VIII of the 

Cultural Resource Management Handbook (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resources: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past. 

Designated Wilderness 

Area:

An area designated by the United States Congress to be managed as 

part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (Draft Service 

Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Dessication: The state of extreme dryness, or the process of extreme drying. 

Disturbance: Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be natural 

(e.g., fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities 

and their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem 

Management: 

Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at 

viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely. 
Appendices 123 

Endangered Species 

(Federal): 

A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range. 

Endangered Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in 

the state within the near future if factors contributing to its decline 

continue. Populations of these species are at critically low levels or 

their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. 

Environmental 

Assessment (EA): 

A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose 

and need for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides 

sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to 

prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no 

significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS): 

A detailed written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts 

of a proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be 

avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of the 

environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

Estuary: The wide lower course of a river into which the tides flow. The area 

where the tide meets a river current. 

Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

(FONSI): 

A document prepared in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly 

presents why a federal action will have no significant effect on the 

human environment and for which an environmental impact statement, 

therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future 

conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units 

(Service Manual 620 FW 1.6J). 

Habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for 

survival and reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives. 

Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired 

conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Habitat Type: See Vegetation Type. 

Improvement Act: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 
124 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the 

resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or other presence 

of an undesirable resource condition (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6K). 

Management 

Alternative: 

See Alternative 

Management Concern: See Issue 

Management 

Opportunity: 

See Issue 

Migration: The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Mission Statement: Succinct statement of the unit’s purpose and reason for being. 

Monitoring: The process of collecting information to track changes of selected 

parameters over time. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA):

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the environmental 

impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and use 

public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. 

Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, 

and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better 

environmental decision making (40 CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-

57): 

Under the Refuge Improvement Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

is required to develop 15-year Comprehensive Conservation Plans for 

all National Wildlife Refuges outside Alaska. The Act also describes the 

six public uses given priority status within the NWRS (i.e., hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Mission:

The mission 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. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species 

threatened with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with 

extinction; wildlife ranges; games ranges; wildlife management areas; 

or waterfowl production areas. 
Appendices 125 

National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the System. 

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Notice of Availability 

(NOA): 

A notice that an environmental document is available. Published in the 

Federal Register. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): A notice that an environmental document will be prepared and 

considered (40 CFR 1508.22). Published in the Federal Register. 

Noxious Weed: A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally 

possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive or 

difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insect or 

disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the United States, 

according to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious 

weed is one that causes disease or had adverse effects on man or his 

environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the Untied States and to the public health. 

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to 

achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible 

for the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the basis for 

determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and 

evaluating the success of strategies. Making objectives attainable, 

time-specific, and measurable (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6N). 

Passerines: A category of birds that includes medium to small, perching landbirds. 

Most are territorial singers and migratory. Also called songbirds. 

Plant Association: A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in 

dominants of all layers of vascular species in a climax community. 

Plant Community: An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or 

integration of the environmental influences on the site such as soils, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; 

denotes a general kind of climax plant community. 

Preferred Alternative: This is the alternative determined [by the decision maker] to best 

achieve the Refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the 

Refuge System mission, addresses the significant issues; and is 

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Prescribed Fire: The application of fire to wildland fuels to achieve identified land use 

objectives (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). May be from natural ignition 

or intentional ignition. 
126 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Priority Species: Fish and wildlife species that the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife believe require protective measures and/or management 

guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. Priority species include the 

following: (1) state-listed and candidate species; (2) species or groups 

of animals susceptible to significant population declines within a 

specific area or statewide by virtue of their inclination to aggregate 

(e.g., seabird colonies); and (3) species of recreation, commercial, 

and/or tribal importance. 

Public Involvement: A process that offers impacted and interested individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to become informed about, and to express 

their opinions on Service actions and policies. In the process, these 

views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public 

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge management. 

Public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of federal, state, and 

local government agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It includes those who 

may or may not have indicated an interest in Service issues and those 

who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

Purposes of the 

Refuge: 

“The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a 

refuge, refuge unit, or refuge sub-unit.” For refuges that encompass 

Congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness 

Act are additional purposes of the refuge (Service Manual 602 FW 106 S). 

Recommended 

Wilderness: 

Areas studied and found suitable for wilderness designation by both the 

Director and Secretary, and recommended for designation by the 

President to Congress. These areas await only legislative action by 

congress in order to become part of the Wilderness System. Such 

areas are also referred to as “pending in Congress” (Draft Service 

Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Record of Decision 

(ROD): 

A concise public record of decision prepared by the federal agency, 

pursuant to NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision, 

identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the 

environmentally preferable alternative, a statement as to whether all 

practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were not), 

and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable for any 

mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 

Refuge Goal: See Goal. 

Refuge Purposes: See Purposes of the Refuge 
Appendices 127 

Step-down 

Management Plan: 

A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects (e.g., 

habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It 

describes strategies and implementation schedules for meeting CCP 

goals and objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

Strategy: A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and 

techniques used to meet unit objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

Study Area: The area reviewed in detail for wildlife, habitat, and public use potential. 

For purposes of this CCP/EIS the study area includes the lands within 

the currently approved Refuge boundary and potential Refuge 

expansion areas. 

Threatened Species 

(Federal): 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. 

Threatened Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in the state 

within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or 

habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Tiering: The coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact 

statements with subsequent narrower statements of environmental 

analysis, incorporating by reference, the general discussions and 

concentrating on specific issues (40 CFR 1508.28). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Mission: 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others 

to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people. 

Unit Objective: See Objective 

Vagrants: Bird species found close to, but outside of their normal range and can 

be expected to be observed on rare occasions. 

Vegetation Type, 

Habitat Type, Forest 

Cover Type: 

A land classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant 

associations. 

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we 

hope to do, based primarily upon the Refuge System Mission and 

specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. We will tie the vision 

statement for the refuge to the mission of the Refuge System; the 

purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other 

mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 Z). 
128 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Wilderness Study 

Areas: 

Lands and waters identified through inventory as meeting the definition 

of wilderness and undergoing evaluation for recommendation for 

inclusion in the Wilderness System. A study area must meet the 

following criteria: 

 Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable 

 Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation 

 Has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is sufficient in size 

as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition (Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5) 

Wilderness: See Designated Wilderness 

Wildfire: A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire other than 

prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). 

Wildland Fire: Every wildland fire is either a wildfire or a prescribed fire (Service 

Manual 621 FW 1.3 
Appendices 129 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACNWR Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

AICP American Institute of Certified Planners 

ARC Acquisition and Restoration Council 

ATV All Terrain Vehicle o

C Degrees Celsius 

CARL Conservation and Recreation Lands 

CBC Christmas Bird Count 

CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

CBRS Coastal Barrier Resources System 

CCAFS Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

CCC Caribbean Conservation Corporation 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CE Commercially Exploited 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cm Centimeters 

E Endangered 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EEL Environmentally Endangered Lands 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement o

F Degrees Fahrenheit 

FCWCS Florida Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

FDOF Florida Division of Forestry 

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

FIT Florida Institute of Technology 

FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

FOCR Friends of the Carr Refuge 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

Ft Feet 

FTE Full-time Equivalent 

FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Global Information System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

ha Hectares 

HSWRI Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute 

in Inches 

IRL Indian River Lagoon 

LAPS Land Acquisition Priority System 

M Meters 

MEP Minor Expansion Proposal 

MPA Marine Protected Area 

MRC Marine Resources Council 

NABCI North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NEP National Estuary Program 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 
130 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

NESTS Neighbors Ensuring Sea Turtle Survival 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

NVCS National Vegetation Classification System 

OPA Otherwise Protected Area 

PINWR Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ROD Record of Decision 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

SAMMS Service Asset and Maintenance Management System 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

SFWMD South Florida Water Management District 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SISP Sebastian Inlet State Park 

SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District 

SMM Sanctuary Management Manual 

SOC Save Our Coasts 

SR State Road 

SSC Species of Special Concern 

STSL Sea Turtle Survival League 

SWIM Surface Water Improvement and Management 

T Threatened 

TNR Trap/Neuter/Release 

UCF University of Central Florida 

UF University of Florida 

UNC University of North Carolina 

USC United States Code 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

WHMSI Western Hemisphere Migratory Species Initiative 

YCC Youth Conservation Corps 
Appendices 131 

Appendix II. References and Literature Cited 

Anderson, D.M., P.M. Gilbert and J.M. Burkholder. 2002. Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: 

nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries 25: 704-726. 

Apogee Research, Inc. 1996. Economic Assessment and Analysis of the Indian River Lagoon.

Apogee Research, Inc. Bethesda, Maryland. 

Berkson, J. M. and C.N. Schuster, Jr. 1999. The horseshoe crab: the battle over a true multiple-use 

resource. Fisheries 24(11):6-10. 

Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le Quéré, 

S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley and A. Unnikrishnan. 2007. Observations: 

oceanic climate change and sea level. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. 

Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.), Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, New York, USA. 

Bock, Wayne D., D.R. Moore, A.C. Neumann and P.R. Supko. 1969. Late Pleistocene geology in an 

urban area. Miami Geological Society Publications MGS-Bock. Available from: 

http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/reports/mgs_bock1969/mgs_bock1969.pdf. 

Breininger, D.R., V.L. Larson, B.W. Duncan and R.B. Smith. 1998. Linking habitat suitability to 

demographic success in Florida scrub-jays. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:118-128. 

Brevard Nature Alliance. 2001. Natural Resources and Conservation Report. Titusville, Florida. 

Brock, K.A., J.S. Reece and L.M. Ehrhart. 2008. The effects of artificial beach nourishment on 

marine turtles: differences between loggerhead and green turtles. Restoration Ecology, 

published article online: 3-Jan-2008. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal foraging of 

sanderlings (Calidris alba). The Condor 93(2):259-265. 

Burger, J. 1995. Beach recreation and nesting birds. Pages 281-295 in T.L. Knight and K. J. 

Gutzwiller, eds., Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and 

Research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372 pp. 

Burger, J., C. Jeitner, K. Clark and L. Niles. 2004. The effect of human activities on migrant 

shorebirds: successful adaptive management. Environmental Conservation 31:283-288. 

Butler, J. A., R. A. Seigel, and B. K. Mealey. 2006. Malaclemys terrapin - Diamondback terrapin. In 

P. Meylan (ed.), Biology and conservation of Florida turtles. Chelonian Research Monographs

3:279-295. 

Church, J.A. and J.M. Gregory (coordinating lead authors). 2001. Climate Change 2001: The 

Scientific Basis. Chapter 11, Changes in Sea Level. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/408.htm 
132 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Coleman, F.C., W.F. Figueira, J.S. Ueland and L.B. Crowder. 2004. The impact of U.S. recreational 

fisheries on marine fish populations. Science 305:1958-1960. 

Correll, D.S. and H.B. Correll. 1982. Flora of the Bahama archipelago. J. Cramer; Vaduz, Germany. 

Defenders of Wildlife. 2002. Out of Control: The Impacts of Off-road Vehicles and Roads on Wildlife 

and Habitat in Florida's National Forests. August 2002. 

DeFreese, D. 1998. "Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge." Endangered Species Bulletin. 

Diaz, M. 1994. An Investigation of Ornithological Research in the Region of Archie Carr National 

Refuge. Prepared for Dr. L.M. Ehrhart, Department of Biological Sciences, 

University of Central Florida. 

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: the debate behind the lens. Audubon, Jan.-Feb. 1998. 

Doyle, T.W. 1998. Modeling global change effects on coastal forests. In G.R. Guntenspergen and 

B.A. Vairin (eds.), Vulnerability of Coastal Wetlands in the Southeastern United States: 

Climate Change Research Results, 1992-97. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources 

Division, Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-1998-0002, pp.105. 

Ehrhart, L.M., and D.A. Bagley. 1999. Marine turtle nesting at the Archie Carr NWR: long-term rising 

trend culminates in record high nest production in 1998. Florida Scientist 62 

(Supplement 1):34–35 (abstract). 

Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, S.A. Kubis and W.E. Redfoot. 2006. Marine turtle nesting at the Archie 

Carr National Wildlife Refuge, Florida, USA in 2002: green turtle nesting activity continues to 

increase exponentially. Page 142 (abstract) in N.J. Pilcher (compiler), Proceedings of the 

23rd Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-536. 

Environmentally Endangered Lands Program. 1995. Characterization Report for the Archie Carr 

National Wildlife Refuge. Final Report. Brevard County, Florida. 

Emanuel, K.A. 1987. The dependence of hurricane intensity on climate. Nature 326:483-485. 

Emanuel, K.A. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. 

Nature 436:686-688. 

Extine, D.D. and L.J. Stout. 1987. Dispersion and habitat occupancy of the beach mouse 

(Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris). Mammals 68:297-304. 

Fish, M.R., I.M. Cote, J.A. Gill, A.P. Jones, S. Renshoff and A.R. Watkinson. 2005. Predicting the 

impact of sea-level rise on Caribbean Sea turtle nesting habitat. 

Conservation Biology 19(2):482–491. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Air Monitoring Reports. 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Air/publications/techrpt/amr.htm 

Florida Department of Transportation. 2006. Agency Overview. Tallahassee, Florida. 
Appendices 133 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 1987. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of 

Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Populations found on Lands Slated for Large-scale 

Developments in Florida. Nongame Wildlife Program, Technical Report No. 4. 

Tallahassee, FL. 75 pp. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2000. Birding Economics. 

<http://floridabirdingtrail.com/fwc/viewing/gfbt/economics.htm>. Tallahassee, Florida. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2003. Issue Assessment: Impacts of Feral and 

Free-ranging Domestic Cats on Wildlife in Florida. 33 pp. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2004. 2003 Boating Accident Statistical Report. 

Tallahassee, Florida. 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory [FNAI]. 1989. Natural communities. In Guide to the Natural 

Communities of Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Tallahassee, Florida. 

Francis, Mark. 2002. How cities use parks for community engagement. City Parks Forum Briefing 

Papers. American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois. 4 pp. 

Franz, R. 1986. The Florida gopher frog and the Florida pine snake as burrow associates of the 

gopher tortoise in northern Florida. Pages 16-20 in D.R. Jackson and R.J. Bryant (eds.), The 

Gopher Tortoise and its Community. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Gopher 

Tortoise Council, Gainesville, Florida. 

Fernald, R.T. 1989. Coastal Xeric Scrub Communities of the Treasure Coast Region of Florida: A 

Summary of their Distribution and Ecology, with Guidelines for their Preservation and 

Management. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program, 

Technical Report 6, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. 

Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation. 2007. Labor Market Statistics Center, Local Area 

Unemployment Statistics Program, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Labor, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), State Survey and Mapping Geographic Mapping 

Section. 1999. Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS).

Handbook, Third Addition. January 1999. Reprinted by the East Central Florida 

Regional Planning Council (May 4, 1989). 93 pp. 

Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. 2007. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council occurrence database. 

Data available via website: http://www.fleppc.org/. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2003. The Economics of Hunting, 

Fishing, and Wildlife Viewing by Florida County. Tallahassee, Florida. 

Franz, R. and C. Puckett. 2007. Gopher Tortoise: A Species in Decline. University of Florida, 

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/UW048 

(accessed 2 Aug. 2007). 
134 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Gabrielson, Ira N. 1943. Wildlife Conservation. The Macmillan Company, New York, 

New York. 250 pp. 

Gilman, E., J. Ellison and R. Coleman. 2007. Assessment of mangrove response to projected 

relative sea-level rise and recent historical reconstruction of shoreline position. 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 124:105-130. 

Gilmore, R.G. 1995. Environmental and biogeographic factors. influencing ichthyofaunal diversity in 

the Indian River Lagoon. Bulletin of Marine Science 57: 153-170. 

Graeme, C., A. Hays, F. Broderick, G. Brendan and J. Godley. 2003. Climate change and sea 

turtles: a 150-year reconstruction of incubation temperatures at a major marine turtle rookery. 

Global Change Biology 9 (4), 642–646. 

Hannah, L., T.E. Lovejoy and S.H. Schneider. 2005. Biodiversity and climate change in context. 

Pages 3-14 in T.E. Lovejoy and L. Hannah (eds.), Climate Change and Biodiversity. 

Yale University Press: New Haven, Connecticut. 

Harding, David B. 2004a. Economic Value/Consumer Surplus. Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. 

Harding, David B. 2004b. Fish and Wildlife Recreation Creates Huge Economic Boon for Florida: 

Economic Impacts 2003. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 

Tallahassee, Florida. 

Hatley, P.J. 2003. Feral Cat Colonies in Florida: the Fur and Feathers are Flying. A report to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. University of Florida Conservation Clinic, 37 pp. 

Holland, G.J. and P.J. Webster. 2007. Heightened tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic: 

natural variability or climate trend? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 

- A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences (online). doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2083. 

Huckle, H.F., H.D. Dollar and R.F. Pendleton. 1974. Soil Survey of Brevard County, Florida.

USDA/NRCS in cooperation with University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural 

Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Stations, Soil and Water Science Department and the 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 123 pp. 

Hume, M. 2005. Recent climate trends. Pages 31-40 in T.E. Lovejoy and L. Hannah (eds.), 

Climate Change and Biodiversity. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 

Humphrey, S.R. 1987. Status Survey of Seven Florida Mammals. Florida Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Research Unit, Technical Report. No. 25. Gainesville, Florida. 39 pp. 

Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. 1996. The Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive 

Conservation and Management Plan. St. Johns River Water Management District, 

Palatka, Florida. 357 pp. 

International Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: 

The Physical Science Basis (summary for policy makers), IPCC. 
Appendices 135 

Jackson, D.R. and E.G. Milstrey. 1989. The fauna of gopher tortoise burrows. 

Pages 86-98 in J.E. Diemer et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Gopher Tortoise Relocation 

Symposium. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program, 

Technical Report No. 5. 

Jackson, J. B.C., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R.H. Bradbury, 

R.G. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J.A. Estes, T.P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B. Lange, H.S. Lenihan, 

J.M. Pandolfi, C.H. Peterson, R.S. Steneck, M.J. Tegner and R. Warner. 2001. Historical 

overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293(5530): 629-637. 

Johnson, A.F., J.W. Muller and K.A. Bettinger. 1992. An assessment of Florida’s remaining coastal 

upland natural communities: southeast Florida. Unpublished report. 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. 

Johnson, A.F. and J.W. Muller. 1993. An assessment of Florida’s remaining coastal upland natural 

communities: final summary report. Florida Department of Community Affairs, 

Tallahassee, Florida. 

Klein, M. L. 1993. Waterbird behavior responses to human disturbances. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:31-39. 

Langeland, K.A. and K.C. Burks (eds.). 1998. Identification and Biology of Nonnative Plants in 

Florida's Natural Areas. University of Florida. 165 pp. 

Laskowski, H., T. Leger, J. Gallegos and F. James. 1993. Behavior response of greater yellowlegs, 

snowy egrets and mallards to human disturbance at Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. 

Unpublished Report #51510-01-92. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 25pp. 

Legare, M.L., D.R. Breininger and M.R. Bolt. 1998-2002. Indigo snake radiotracking data collected 

from Brevard County, Florida. Dynamac Corporation. 

Lenze, David G. 2002. Florida: Long-term Economic Forecast 2002, Volume 2 - State and Counties. 

Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. 

Gainesville, Florida. 503 pp. 

Lewis, Megan. 2002. How Cities Use Parks for Economic Development. 

City Parks Forum Briefing Papers, American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois. 4 pp. 

Mann, M.E. and K.A. Emanuel. 2006. Atlantic hurricane trends linked to climate change. 

Eos Trans. AGU 87(24): 233, 238, 241. 

Market Street Services, Inc. 2001. Economic and Demographic Profile. 

Prepared for Brevard Tomorrow. Atlanta, Georgia. 44 pp. 

McCarty, J.P. 2001. Ecological consequences of recent climate change. 

Conservation Biology 15:320-331. 

Mendonca, M.T. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1982. Activity, population size and structure of immature 

Chelonia mydas and Caretta caretta in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida. Copeia 1:161-167. 
136 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Milon J.W. and E. Thunberg. 1993. A Regional Analysis of Current and Future Florida Resident 

Participation in Marine Recreational Fishing. Florida Sea Grant College Program, Sea Grant 

Report #112. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 

Moreno-Casasola, P. and I. Espejel. 1986. Classification and ordination of coastal sand dune 

vegetation along the Gulf and Caribbean Sea of Mexico. Vegetation 66:147-182. 

Morton J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59-F86 

in W.R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe and L. Roberts (eds)., 

Waterfowl Habitat Restoration, Enhancement and Management in the Atlantic Flyway. Third 

Edition. Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council Technical Section, 

and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dover, Delaware. 1,114 pp. 

Mrosovsky, N. and J.A. Provancha. 1989. Sex ratio of loggerhead sea turtles hatching on a Florida 

beach. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:2533-2539. 

Mrosovsky, N. and J. Provancha. 1992. Sex ratio of loggerhead sea turtles: data and estimates from 

a 5-year study. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70: 530-538. 

Murphy, T.M. 1985. Telemetric monitoring of nesting loggerhead sea turtles subjected to 

disturbance on the beach. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle 

Biology and Conservation, March 13-16, 1985, Waverly, Georgia. 

Nagelkerken, I., S. Kleijnen, T. Klop, R.A.C.J. van den Brand, E. Cocheret de la Morinière and G. van 

der Velde. 2001. Dependence of Caribbean reef fishes on mangroves and seagrass beds as 

nursery habitats: a comparison of fish faunas between bays with and without 

mangroves/seagrass beds. Marine Ecology Progress Series 214: 225-235. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery Plan for U.S. 

Population of Loggerhead Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 71 pp. 

Natural Resources Defense Council. 2001. Feeling the Heat in Florida: 

Global Warming on the Local Level. 27 pp. 

Nelson, D. A. and D. D. Dickerson. 1989. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles. Pages 125-

127 in S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson (compilers), Proceedings of the 9th 

Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232. 

Nicholls, R.J., P.P. Wong, V.R. Burkett, J.O. Codignotto, J.E. Hay, R.F. McLean, S. Ragoonaden and 

C.D. Woodroffe. 2007. Coastal systems and low-lying areas. Pages 315-356 in M.L. Parry, 

O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds.), Climate Change 

2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

NOAA. 2007. National Weather Service Climate Report. 

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/climat/vrbann04.txt. Accessed 12 July 2007. 
Appendices 137 

Odum, W.E., C.C. McIvor and T.J. Smith. 1982. The Ecology of the Mangroves of South Florida: A 

Community Profile. FWS/OBS-81/24. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Office of Biological Services. 

Ogden, J.C. and B.W. Patty. 1981. The recent status of the wood stork in Florida and Georgia. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, 

Technical Bulletin WL 5:97-101. 

Parmesan, C. and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across 

natural systems. Nature 421:37-42. 

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. 

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics (37):637-669. 

Pease, M. L., R.K. Rose and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbances on the behavior of 

wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1):103-112. 

Peterson, C.H., M.J. Bishop, G.A. Johnson, L.M. D'Anna and L.M. Manning. 2006. Exploiting beach 

filling as an unaffordable experiment: benthic intertidal impacts propagating upwards to 

shorebirds. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 338(2):205-221. 

Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington and M. Levine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at 

a migration staging area. Biological Conservation 60(2):115-126. 

Provancha, J.A., M.J. Mota, K.G. Holloway-Adkins, E.A. Reyier, R.H. Lowers and D.M. Scheidt. 

2005. Mosquito Lagoon sea turtle cold stun event of January 2003, Merritt Island Wildlife 

Refuge/Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Florida Scientist 68(2):114-121. 

Riffell, S. K., J. Gutzwiller and S.H. Anderson. 1996. Does repeated human intrusion cause 

cumulative declines in avian richness and abundance? Ecological Applications 6(2): 492-505. 

Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. Rosenzweig and J.A. Pounds. 2003. 

Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421:57-60. 

Sauer, J.D. 1967. Geographic Reconnaissance of Seashore Vegetation along the Mexican Gulf 

Coast. Louisiana State University Coastal Studies Series No. 21. 

Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

Shenker, J.M, R.E. Crabtree, H.M. Patterson, C. Stevens and K. Yakubik. 2006. Spawning date and 

age at recruitment of larval tarpon (Megalops atlanticus) into the Indian River Lagoon. 

Contributions to Marine Science.

Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz and T.C. Brown. 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management 

of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Island Press. 467 pp. 

South Florida Water Management District and St. Johns River Water Management District. 2002. 

Indian River Lagoon SWIM Plan – 2002 Update. 260 pp. 

Southeast Regional Climate Center. 2007. Web Based Climate Interactive Rapid Retrieval Users 

System. Web Based Climate Interactive Rapid Retrieval Users System. 

Accessed 12 July 2007. 
138 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

University of Florida. 2004. Florida County Retail Price and Wage Indices. 

Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 

University of Florida. 2006. City, County, and State Population Estimates. 

Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. County Population Estimates. 

<http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/popest.html>. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. U.S. Census 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171). 

<http://www.census.gov> and <http://factfinder.census.gov>. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, 

Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, State and 

County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic 

Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits, Consolidated Federal Funds Report. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon Sequestration Research and Development. 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 2007. Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan: 

Ensuring the Future of Fossil Energy Systems through the Successful Deployment of Carbon 

Capture and Storage Technologies. Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology 

Laboratory. 48 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007. Office of the Secretary News Release: 

Bald Eagle Soars Off Endangered Species List. 3 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Eastern Indigo Snake Recovery Plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia. 23 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996a. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Atlantic Coast 

Population, Revised Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 258 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996b. Revised Recovery Plan for the U.S. Breeding Population of 

the Wood Stork. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Regional Office, 

Atlanta, Georgia. 41 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Archie Carr NWR Draft Wildlife and Habitat Management 

Review. Unpublished report. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) 5-Year Review: Summary 

and Evaluation. Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological Services Field Office, 

Jacksonville, Florida. 

Wagner, R.H. 1964. The ecology of Uniola paniculata in the dune-strand habitat of North Carolina. 

Ecological Monographs 34:79-95. 

Wanless, H.R. 1998. Mangroves, Hurricanes, and Sea-level Rise. South Florida Study Group, 

The Nature Conservancy. Naples, Florida. 
Appendices 139 

Webb, R. H. and H. G. Wilshire. 1983. Environmental Effects of Off-road Vehicles: Impacts and 

Management in Arid Regions. Springer-Verlag, NewYork. 

Webster, P.J., G.J. Holland, J.A. Curry and H.R. Chang. 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number, 

duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309(5742): 1844-1846. 

Weidlich, J.S. 2002. A Survey of Mammals of Archie Carr and Pelican Island National Wildlife 

Refuges. Master’s Thesis, University of Central Florida. 

Weishampel, J.F., D.A. Bagley and L.M. Ehrhart. 2004. Earlier nesting by loggerhead sea turtles 

following sea surface warming. Global Change Biology 10(8): 1424-1427. 

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring 

increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940-943. 

Wettstein, C.A., C.V. Noble and J.D. Slabaugh. 1987. Soil Survey of Indian River County, Florida.

USDA/NRCS in cooperation with University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural 

Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Stations, Soil and Water Science Department and the 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 217 pp. 

Whitecar, T. L. 1973. Florida's first protected snake: the indigo. Florida Naturalist 46(2):23-25. 

Witherington, B.E. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1989. Hypothermic stunning and mortality of marine turtles in 

the Indian River Lagoon System, Florida. Copeia 1989: 696-703. 

Witherington, B.E. and C.M. Koeppel. 2000. Sea turtle nesting in Florida, USA, during the decade 

1989–1998: an analysis of trends. Pages 94-96 in H.J. Kalb and T. Wibbels (compilers), 

Proceedings of the 19th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443. 

Yntema, C.L. and N. Mrosovsky. 1982. Critical periods and pivotal temperatures for sexual 

differentiation in loggerhead sea turtles. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60:1012-1016. 

Zhang, K., B. Douglas and S. Leatherman. 2004. Global warming and coastal erosion. Climatic 

Change 64: 41-58. 
140 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 141 

Appendix III. Relevant Legal Mandates and 

Executive Orders 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Administrative Procedures 

Act (1946) 

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by federal 

agencies with respect to identification of information to be made 

public; publication of material in the Federal Register; maintenance 

of records; attendance and notification requirements for specific 

meetings and hearings; issuance of licenses; and review of agency 

actions. 

American Antiquities Act of 

1906 

Provides penalties for unauthorized collection, excavation, or 

destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects of 

antiquity on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The 

Act authorizes the President to designate as national monuments 

objects or areas of historic or scientific interest on lands owned or 

controlled by the Unites States. 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978 

Protects the inherent right of Native Americans to believe, express, 

and exercise their traditional religions, including access to 

important sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the 

freedom to worship through ceremonial and traditional rites. 

Americans With Disabilities 

Act of 1990 

Intended to prevent discrimination of and make American Society 

more accessible to people with disabilities. The Act requires 

reasonable accommodations to be made in employment, public 

services, public accommodations, and telecommunications for 

persons with disabilities. 

Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979, as 

amended. 

This act strengthens and expands the protective provisions of the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 regarding archaeological resources. It also 

revised the permitting process for archaeological research. 

Architectural Barriers Act of 

1968 

Requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, or 

altered with federal funds, or leased by a federal agency, must 

comply with standards for physical accessibility. 

Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act of 1940, as 

amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale or transport of any bald or golden 

eagle, alive or dead, or part, nest, or egg except as permitted by 

the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition purposes, or 

for the religious purposes of Indians. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. 

This Act and its amendments charge federal land managers with 

direct responsibility to protect the “sir quality and related values” of 

land under their control. These values include fish, wildlife, and 

their habitats. 
142 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Clean Water Act of 1974, as 

amended 

This Act and its amendments have as its objective the restoration 

and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 

of the Nation’s waters. Section 401 of the Act requires that 

federally permitted activities comply with the Clean Water Act 

standards, state water quality laws, and any other appropriate state 

laws. Section 404 charges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with 

regulating discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the 

United States, including wetlands. 

Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act of 1982 (CBRA) 

Identifies undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf 

coasts and included them in the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS). The objectives of the act are to minimize 

loss of human life, reduce wasteful federal expenditures, and 

minimize the damage to natural resources by restricting most federal 

expenditures that encourage development within the CBRS. 

Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act of 1990 

Reauthorized the CBRA, expanded the CBRS to include 

undeveloped coastal barriers along the Great Lakes and in the 

Caribbean, and established “Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs)”. 

The Service is responsible for maintaining official maps, consulting 

with federal agencies that propose spending federal funds within 

the CBRS and OPAs, and making recommendations to Congress 

about proposed boundary revisions. 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection, and Restoration 

(1990) 

Authorizes the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

participate in the development of a Louisiana coastal wetlands 

restoration program, participate in the development and oversight 

of a coastal wetlands conservation program, and lead in the 

implementation and administration of a National coastal wetlands 

grant program. 

Coastal Zone Management 

Act of 1972, as amended 

Established a voluntary national program within the Department of 

Commerce to encourage coastal states to develop and implement 

coastal zone management plans and requires that “any Federal 

activity within or outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or 

water use or natural resource of the coastal zone” shall be 

“consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable 

policies” of a state’s Coastal Zone Management Plan. The law 

includes an Enhancement Grants Program for protecting, restoring 

or enhancing existing coastal wetlands or creating new coastal 

wetlands. It also established the National Estuarine Reserve 

Research System, guidelines for estuarine research, and financial 

assistance for land acquisition. 
Appendices 143 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 

This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such 

acquisitions. The Act requires the Secretary to establish a National 

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, required the states to include 

wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and 

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amounts equal 

to import duties on arms and ammunition. It also established 

entrance fees at National Wildlife Refuges. 

Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended 

Provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species of fish, wildlife, and plants by federal action and by 

encouraging the establishment of state programs. It provides for 

the determination and listing of endangered and threatened 

species and the designation of critical habitats. Section 7 requires 

refuge managers to perform internal consultation before initiating 

projects that affect or may affect endangered species. 

Environmental Education 

Act of 1990 

This act established the Office of Environmental Education within 

the Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a 

federal environmental education program in consultation with other 

federal natural resource management agencies, including the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Estuary Protection Act of 

1968 

Authorized the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with other 

federal agencies and the states, to study and inventory estuaries of 

the United States, including land and water of the Great Lakes, and 

to determine whether such areas should be acquired for protection. 

The Secretary is also required to encourage state and local 

governments to consider the importance of estuaries in their 

planning activities relates to federal natural resource grants. In 

approving any state grants for acquisition of estuaries, the 

Secretary was required to establish conditions to ensure the 

permanent protection of estuaries. 

Estuaries and Clean Waters 

Act of 2000 

This law creates a federal interagency council that includes the 

Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary of the Army 

for Civil Works, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency and the Administrator for the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Council is 

charged with developing a national estuary habitat restoration 

strategy and providing grants to entities to restore and protect 

estuary habitat to promote the strategy. 

Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (1972), as 

amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that 

provide advice to the federal government. Advisory committees may 

be established only if they will serve a necessary, nonduplicative 

function. Committees must be strictly advisory unless otherwise 

specified and meetings must be open to the public. 
144 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Federal-Aid Highways Act 

of 1968 

Established requirements for approval of federal highways through 

wildlife refuges and other designated areas to preserve the natural 

beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation is directed 

to consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other federal 

agencies before approving any program or project requiring the 

use of land under their jurisdiction. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act 

of 1990, as amended 

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate 

plants as noxious weeds and to cooperate with other federal, state, 

and local agencies; farmers associations; and private individuals in 

measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of 

such weeds. The Act requires each federal land-managing agency 

including the Fish and Wildlife Service to designate an office or 

person to coordinate a program to control such plants on the 

agency’s land and implement cooperative agreements with the 

states including integrated management systems to control 

undesirable plants. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife 

resources policy with emphasis on the commercial fishing industry 

but also includes the inherent right of every citizen and resident to 

fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment and to maintain and 

increase public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife 

resources. Among other things, it authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to take such steps as may be required for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation and protection of fish 

and wildlife resources including, but not limited to, research, 

development of existing facilities, and acquisition by purchase or 

exchange of land and water or interests therein. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act of 1980, 

as amended 

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify 

species of management concern, and implement conservation 

measures to preclude the need for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act of 1958 

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife 

conservation with other water resource development programs by 

requiring consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

state fish and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or 

other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or 

licensed to be impounded, diverted...or otherwise controlled or 

modified” by any agency under federal permit or license. 
Appendices 145 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Improvement Act of 1978 This act was passed to improve the administration of fish and 

wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws, including the 

Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge Administration 

Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the 

Secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal 

property on behalf of the United States. It also authorizes the use 

of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

volunteer programs. 

Fish and Wildlife Programs 

Improvement and National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

Centennial Act of 2000 

Recognizes the vital importance of the Refuge System and the fact 

that the System will celebrate its centennial anniversary in the year 

2003. Established the National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial 

Commission to prepare a plan to commemorate the 100

th 

anniversary of the System, coordinate activities to celebrate that 

event, and host a conference on the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The commission is also responsible for developing a longterm plan to meet the priority operations; maintenance and 

construction needs for the System, and improve public use 

programs and facilities. 

Fishery (Magnuson) 

Conservation and 

Management Act of 1976 

Established Regional Fishery Management Councils comprised of 

federal and state officials including the Fish and Wildlife Service. It 

provides for regulation of foreign fishing and vessel fishing permits. 

Freedom of Information Act, 

1966 

Requires all federal agencies to make available to the public for 

inspection and copying administrative staff manuals and staff 

instructions, official, published and unpublished policy statements, 

final orders deciding case adjudication, and other documents. 

Special exemptions have been reserved for nine categories of 

privileged material. The Act requires the party seeking the 

information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs. 

Lacey Act of 1900, as 

amended 

Originally designed to help states protect their native game animals 

and to safeguard U.S. crop production from harmful foreign 

species. This Act prohibits interstate and international transport 

and commerce of fish, wildlife or plant taken in violation of 

domestic or foreign laws. It regulates the introduction to America of 

foreign species into new locations. 

Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 

1948 

This act provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus 

federal land, appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer 

continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition under 

several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used for 

matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and for 

land acquisition by various federal agencies including the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 
146 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972, as amended 

The 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act established a federal 

responsibility to conserve marine mammals with management 

vested in the Department of Interior for sea otter, walrus, polar 

bear, dugong, and manatee. The Department of Commerce is 

responsible for cetaceans and pinnipeds, other than the walrus. 

With certain specified exceptions, the Act establishes a moratorium 

on the taking and importation of marine mammals as well as 

products taken from them. 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of 1929 

Established a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve 

areas recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for acquisition 

with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. The role of the 

Commission was expanded by the North American Wetland 

Conservation Act to include approving wetlands acquisition, 

restoration, and enhancement proposals recommended by the 

North American Wetlands Conservation Council. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act of 

1934 

Also commonly referred to as the Duck Stamp Act”, requires 

waterfowl hunters 16 years of age or older to possess a valid 

federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are 

deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the 

acquisition of migratory bird refuges. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918, as amended 

This Act implements various treaties and conventions between the 

U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for 

the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by special 

regulations, this Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, 

possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter, export or import any migratory 

bird, part, nest, egg or product. 

National and Community 

Service Act of 1990 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the U.S. in fulland/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, 

provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill 

environmental needs. Among other things, this law establishes the 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young 

adults in approved human and natural resource projects, which will 

benefit the public or are carried out on federal or Indian lands. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for 

environmental impacts of federal actions. It stipulates the factors to 

be considered in environmental impact statements, and requires 

that federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in 

related decision-making and develop means to ensure that 

unqualified environmental values are given appropriate 

consideration, along with economic and technical considerations. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended 

It establishes a National Register of Historic Places and a program 

of matching grants for preservation of significant historical features. 

Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of 

their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register. 
Appendices 147 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

National Trails System Act 

(1968), as amended 

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, 

scenic and historic values of some important trails. National 

Recreation Trails may be established by the Secretaries of Interior 

or Agriculture on land wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with 

the consent of the involved state(s), and other land managing 

agencies, if any. National Scenic and National Historic Trails may 

only be designated by an Act of Congress. Several National Trails 

cross units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act 

of 1966 

Prior to 1966, there was no single federal law that governed the 

administration of the various wildlife refuges that had been 

established. This Act defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any use of an 

area provided such use is compatible with the major purposes(s) 

for which the area was established. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 

1997 

This Act amends the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966. This Act defines the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, establishes the legitimacy and 

appropriateness of six priority “wildlife-dependent” public uses, 

establishes a formal process for determining ‘compatible uses’ of 

System lands, identifies the Secretary of the Interior as responsible 

for managing and protecting the System, and requires the 

development of a comprehensive conservation plan for all refuges 

outside of Alaska. 

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990 

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine 

ownership of, and repatriate certain cultural items and human 

remains under their control or possession. The Act also addresses 

the repatriation of cultural items inadvertently discovered by 

construction activities on lands managed by the agency. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 2000 

Establishes a matching grants program to fund projects that 

promote the conservation of Neotropical migratory birds in the 

United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. 

North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act of 1989 

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite 

Agreement on wetlands between Canada, U.S. and Mexico. North 

American Wetlands Conservation Council is created to recommend 

projects to be funded under the Act to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission. Available funds may be expended for 

up to 50 percent of the United States share cost of wetlands 

conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 

100 percent of the cost of projects on federal lands). 
148 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Refuge Recreation Act of 

1962, as amended 

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer 

refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational 

use, when such uses do not interfere with the area’s primary 

purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of 

recreational facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish 

and wildlife-oriented recreational development or protection of 

natural resources. It also authorizes the charging fees for public 

uses. 

Partnerships for Wildlife Act 

of 1992 

Establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund, to 

receive appropriated funds and donations from the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the 

state fish and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities 

for conservation of nongame species. The funding formula is no 

more that 1/3 federal funds, at least 1/3 Foundation funds, and at 

least 1/3 state funds. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act of 1935, as amended 

Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes from areas 

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Counties are 

required to pass payments along to other units of local government 

within the county, which suffer losses in tax revenues due to the 

establishment of Service areas. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Requires nondiscrimination in the employment practices of federal 

agencies of the executive branch and contractors. It also requires 

all federally assisted programs, services, and activities to be 

available to people with disabilities. 

Rivers and Harbors 

Appropriations Act of 1899, 

as amended 

Requires the authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior 

to any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water of the United 

States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides authority for 

the Service to review and comment on the effects on fish and wildlife 

activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted by the Corps of 

Engineers. Service concerns include contaminated sediments 

associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable waters. 

Sikes Act (1960), as 

amended 

Provides for the cooperation by the Department of the Interior and 

Defense with state agencies in planning, development, and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreation 

facilities on military reservations throughout the U.S. It requires the 

Secretary of each military department to use trained professionals 

to manage the wildlife and fishery resource under his jurisdiction, 

and requires federal and state fish and wildlife agencies be given 

priority in management of fish and wildlife activities on military 

reservations. 
Appendices 149 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Transfer of Certain Real 

Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act 

of 1948 

This Act provides that upon determination by the Administrator of 

the General Services Administration, real property no longer 

needed by a federal agency can be transferred, without 

reimbursement, to the Secretary of the Interior if the land has 

particular value for migratory birds, or to a state agency for other 

wildlife conservation purposes. 

Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21

st 

Century (1998) 

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation 

planning that includes public involvement, and provides funding for 

approved public use roads and trails and associated parking lots, 

comfort stations and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. 

Uniform Relocation and 

Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition 

Policies Act (1970), as 

amended 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their 

homes, businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act requires that any 

purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of the property. 

Water Resources Planning 

Act of 1965 

Established Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet 

representatives including the Secretary of the Interior. The Council 

reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, urban, energy, 

industrial, recreational and fish and wildlife needs. The act also 

established a grant program to assist states in participating in the 

development of related comprehensive water and land use plans. 

Wilderness Act of 1964, as 

amended 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

review every roadless area of 5,000 acres (2,023 ha) or more and 

every roadless island regardless of size within the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and to recommend suitability of each such area. 

The Act permits certain activities within designated Wilderness 

Areas that do not alter natural processes. Wilderness values are 

preserved through a “minimum tool” management approach, which 

requires refuge managers to use the least intrusive methods, 

equipment and facilities necessary for administering the areas. 

Youth Conservation Corps 

Act of 1970 

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) 

programs within the Department of Interior and Agriculture. Within 

the Service, YCC participants perform many tasks on refuges, fish 

hatcheries, and research stations. 
150 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement 

of the Cultural Environment (1971) 

States that if the Service proposes any development 

activities that may affect the archaeological or historic 

sites, the Service will consult with federal and state 

Historic Preservation Officers to comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended. 

EO 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on 

Public Land (1972) 

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the 

use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be 

controlled and directed so as to protect the resources 

of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of 

those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the 

various uses of those lands. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977) 

The purpose of this Executive Order is to prevent 

federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse 

impacts associated with occupancy and modification 

of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of 

floodplain development.” In the course of fulfilling their 

respective authorities, federal agencies “shall take 

action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the 

impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, 

and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial 

values served by floodplains. 

EO 11989 (1977), Amends Section 2 of 

EO 11644 

Directs agencies to close areas negatively impacted 

by off-road vehicles. 

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands 

(1977) 

Federal agencies are directed to provide leadership 

and take action to minimize the destruction, loss of 

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance 

the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. 

EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of 

Federal Programs (1982) 

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by 

requiring federal agencies to use the state process to 

determine and address concerns of state and local 

elected officials with proposed federal assistance and 

development programs. 

EO 12898, Environmental Justice (1994) Requires federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and lowincome populations. 
Appendices 151 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 12906, Coordinating Geographical 

Data Acquisition and Access (1994), 

Amended by EO 13286 (2003). 

Amendment of EO’s & other actions in 

connection w/ transfer of certain 

functions to Secretary of DHS. 

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in 

cooperation with state, local, and tribal governments, 

and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure to support public and private sector 

applications of geospatial data. Of particular 

importance to CCP planning is the National Vegetation 

Classification System (NVCS), which is adopted, 

standard for vegetation mapping. Using NVCT 

facilitates the compilation of regional and national 

summaries, which in turn, can provide an ecosystem 

context for individual refuges. 

EO 12962, Recreational Fisheries (1995) Federal agencies are directed to improve the quantity, 

function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of 

U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational 

fishing opportunities in cooperation with states and 

Tribes. 

EO 13007, Native American Religious 

Practices (1996) 

Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian 

sacred sites on federal lands used by Indian religious 

practitioners and direction to avoid adversely affecting 

the physical integrity of such sites. 

EO 13061, Federal Support of 

Community Efforts Along American 

Heritage Rivers (1997) 

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for 

the purpose of natural resource and environmental 

protection, economic revitalization, and historic and 

cultural preservation. The Act directs federal agencies 

to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and their 

associated resources important to our history, culture, 

and natural heritage. 

EO 13084, Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments (2000) 

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and 

meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal 

officials in the development of federal policies that 

have tribal implications. 

EO 13112, Invasive Species (1999) Federal agencies are directed to prevent the 

introduction of invasive species, detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a 

cost effective and environmentally sound manner, 

accurately monitor invasive species, provide for 

restoration of native species and habitat conditions, 

conduct research to prevent introductions and to 

control invasive species, and promote public 

education on invasive species and the means to 

address them. This EO replaces and rescinds EO 

11987, Exotic Organisms (1977). 
152 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

(2001) 

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds 

by several means, including the incorporation of 

strategies and recommendations found in Partners in 

Flight Bird Conservation plans, the North American 

Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan, and the United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, into agency management plans 

and guidance documents. 
Appendices 153 

Appendix IV. Public Involvement 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS 

The issues, ideas, concerns, and comments raised by the general public during the public scoping 

meetings were varied. Comments were submitted addressing: 

y fish, wildlife, and plants (including controlling sea turtle nest predators, controlling feral and 

free-roaming animals; controlling exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; protecting land 

crabs; protecting sea turtles; managing for scrub-jays; and protecting feeding, loafing, and 

nesting birds); 

y habitat management (including addressing the impacts of beach renourishment and armoring 

activities; controlling exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; managing scrub habitat;); 

y land protection and conservation (including aggressively acquiring additional lands and waters 

and increasing law enforcement activities); 

y education and visitor services [including addressing threats, impacts, and disturbance of 

public use activities on wildlife and habitats; addressing lighting impacts; expanding 

environmental education efforts and partnerships; conducting much more outreach to the 

community and visitors; developing visitor facilities and a visitor center (e.g. in concert with 

Pelican Island NWR); increasing signage, especially along A1A to warn of wildlife crossings; 

expanding the number of sea turtle interpretative walks; developing only small parking lots 

along the beach (by any of the public landowners); charging user fees; and increasing the 

volunteer base]; 

y administration (including increasing funding and staffing and increasing coordination with the 

governmental and nongovernmental partners); and 

y archaeological and cultural resources. 

The Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team identified a variety of issues and developed a list 

of recommended priority issues to be addressed by the CCP, as follows: 

y Increase land acquisition efforts. 

y Coordinate land management activities with other public landowners (develop one plan to 

address all the lands and waters within the 20.5 miles of the refuge, including properties 

owned by the governmental partners). 

y Increase funding and staffing. 

y Protect native diversity and species listed by federal and state governments, as well as those 

listed by other entities (e.g., Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Florida Committee on Rare and 

Endangered Plants and Animals, and Audubon). 

y Address beach Issues (e.g., armoring, lighting, and renourishment). 

y Provide environmental education. 

y Increase and encourage needed research. 

y Address impacts of human use of the refuge. 

y Address impacts of encroachment and adjacent development. 

y Expand public relations and outreach. 
154 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT CCP/EA AND SERVICE RESPONSES 

All comments that were received on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge are summarized in this section. 

Public comments on this draft document were accepted from June 26 to July 28, 2008, while 

comments from the State of Florida were submitted through the State Clearinghouse on August 7, 

2008. A total of 12 individuals, organizations, businesses, and governmental agencies submitted 

comments on the Draft CCP/EA, including two organizations, three individuals, and five state and 

local governmental agencies (including the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, 

Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and Brevard County). 

Under the State Clearinghouse review, the proposed activities were found to be consistent with the 

Florida Coastal Management Program; the Strategic Regional Policy Plan’s Goals, Objectives, and 

Policies of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council; and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan 

of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, including Regional Goal 6.8 and Policy 6.8.1.3. 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Service must respond to substantive 

comments. For purposes of this CCP, a substantive comment is one that was submitted during the 

public review and comment period which is within the scope of the proposed action (and the other 

alternatives outlined in the EA); is specific to the proposed action; has a direct relationship to the 

proposed action; and includes reasons for the Service to consider it. (For example, a substantive 

comment might be that the document referenced 500 individuals of a particular species, but that 

current research found 600. In such a case, the Service would likely update the plan to reflect the 

600, citing the current research. While a comment that would not be considered substantive would 

be: “We love the refuge.”) 

The page numbers referenced relate to the original page numbers in the Draft CCP/EA that was 

released for public review and comment. 

AFFILIATIONS OF COMMENTERS 

Twelve individuals, organizations, businesses, and governmental agencies submitted 

comments, as listed. 

Commenter Affiliation and Location 

Noah Kahn Federal Lands Associate, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington DC 

Jessica Koelsch Florida Marine Wildlife Program Manager, Ocean Conservancy, St. 

Petersburg, FL 

Sally B Mann Director, Office of Intergovernmental Programs, Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL 

Ray Mojica Land Manager, Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, Brevard 

County, Melbourne Beach, FL 

B Sachau Florham Park, NJ 

Staff East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Maitland, FL 
Appendices 155 

Commenter Affiliation and Location 

Staff Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, Stuart, FL 

SM Stover Sarasota, FL 

Terry Stoms Parks Planner, Parks and Recreation Department, Brevard County, 

Viera, FL 

Max Taylor Melbourne Beach, FL 

Sharon Tyson Environmental Specialist III, East Central Florida Aquatic Preserves, 

Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas, Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, Cocoa, FL 

R. Sherman Wilhelm Director, Division of Aquaculture, Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services, Tallahassee, FL 

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS AND THE SERVICE’S RESPONSES 

The comments submitted during the public review and comment period were evaluated, summarized, 

and grouped into several categories: Wildlife and Habitat Management; Resource Protection; Visitor 

Services; Refuge Administration; and Other. Comments on like topics were grouped together. The 

Service’s responses to the comments are provided below, by category. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management 

Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species 

Comment: It seems that a normal ecological scheme cannot exist in this area without this agency 

making value judgments on which animals are nuisance and which it wants. Let the animals work it 

out without human interference. The plan proposes to kill raccoons and feral cats. All of this is 

completely murderous in nature, particularly when other parts of the agency are giving permits to kill 

Florida scrub-jays in other parts of Florida. 

Service Response: Comment noted. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is mandated under federal 

law and policy (e.g., under the Endangered Species Act and Biological Integrity Policy, 601 FW 3) to 

manage threats to endangered species and retain biological integrity to their habitats. Human 

population growth and increased development have impacted ecosystems, resulting in: habitat loss, 

extirpation of top predators, endangerment of rare and vulnerable species, disruption of food chains, 

disruption of predator/prey balances, infestation of exotic plants and animals, increased populations 

of urban-adapted wildlife, and increased populations of feral domestic animals. At Archie Carr NWR, 

this has been manifested in higher and unnatural populations of raccoons and feral cats. The 

objective of the existing Refuge Predator Control Plan is to minimize the impacts to threatened and 

endangered species from exotic and nuisance animals that prey on them. For example, in the case 

of sea turtle protection, the refuge only targets those predators that have targeted sea turtle nests. 

The CCP aims to reduce nest predation to less than five percent. This comment is further addressed 

under Wildlife and Habitat Management objectives 1.a(2) and 4.b. 
156 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Fire Management 

Comment: This crooked management wants to burn up the site for some claimed improvement. 

Fine particulate matter is released from burning that travels thousands of miles causing lung cancer, 

heart attacks, strokes, asthma, pneumonia, and allergies for millions of fellow American citizens, just 

so they can get fire pay. 

Service Response: Comment noted. This comment is addressed under Wildlife and Habitat 

Management objectives 1.c(1), 1.d, 3.d, and 4.a. Under the Service’s biological integrity policy (see 

601 FW 3), refuges are charged with maintaining and restoring biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health. The refuge is also directed by the 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy, the Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, 

and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual 6RM7 to suppress all unwanted wildland fires that ignite within 

the boundaries of the refuge through the use of appropriate management response. These policies 

also state that the refuge shall prepare and implement a fire management plan that encompasses all 

fire management activities on the refuge, including prescribed fire, wildfire suppression, 

memorandums of understanding, and annual operating plans with cooperators (e.g., federal, state, 

and local governments and agencies). The use of prescribed fire is an invaluable tool in preventing 

wildfires and promoting the natural ecological processes of a fire-dependent ecosystem. Many of the 

habitats in Florida evolved with the natural and regular occurrence of fire, requiring fire to maintain 

these natural communities. However, due to a variety of factors, naturally occurring fire has been 

excluded from many areas, increasing the threat to public health and safety from wildfires. 

Prescribed fire is one of the management tools that helps fulfill the purposes of Archie Carr National 

Wildlife Refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, including helping to restore 

and maintain the biological integrity of refuge habitats and helping to manage for threatened and 

endangered species and wildlife diversity. Prescribed fire offers two primary benefits: providing for 

habitat management and reducing threats to public health and safety from wildfires. 

In protecting public health and safety, prescribed fire maintains healthy levels of fuel loads, limits the 

occurrence of catastrophic fire, and provides for the direction of smoke (e.g., away from population 

centers). The refuge coordinates with land management partners and with local emergency 

management services and fire departments on all prescribed fires and wildfires. Further, the refuge 

notifies the public when prescribed burns are planned to allow neighbors to take any needed 

precautions. And, all prescribed fire is conducted using sound professional judgment under Service 

and Department policy and specified conditions, including under an approved plan, which minimizes 

smoke impacts, helping to protect public health and safety. For additional information regarding the 

Service’s Fire Management Policy, please refer to: http://www.fws.gov/policy/621fw1.html. 

Mechanical Cutting 

Comment: Ban mechanical cutting. It costs taxpayers too much and is not necessary. 

Service Response: Comment noted. Exotic vegetation control and management activities are 

located under Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective 4.a. Directly related issues and reasons 

for exotic vegetation management is addressed under Wildlife and Habitat Management objectives 

1.c(1), 1.d, 3.c, 3.d, 3.e, 3.f, and 3.g. Further, under the Service’s Biological Integrity Policy (see 601 

FW 3), refuges are charged with maintaining and restoring biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health. Mechanical cutting is one of numerous effective tools employed by the Service 

to restore and maintain certain habitats. Mechanical cutting is essential to reduce vegetation density 

to prepare for a safe prescribed burn or where burning is not practical. Mechanical cutting (and 

chemical treatment) is also effective in removing invasive, exotic, and nuisance species of plants. 
Appendices 157 

Mechanical cutting is also effective in managing forest canopy, midstory, and ground cover for the 

benefit of threatened and endangered species. These types of land management techniques help to 

serve the vision, purposes, goals, and objectives of the refuge. 

Climate Change 

Comment: In order to strengthen the final CCP’s treatment of climate change, list climate change as 

a refuge priority in the final CCP. The complexity and range of challenges that climate change poses 

for a barrier island refuge such Archie Carr NWR merits its listing as a priority on its own (Draft CCP, 

p. 70). Climate change is among the most significant problems affecting plants and animals today. 

Thus, the potential impacts of climate change should be a central consideration in the development of 

refuge CCPs under the provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. 

Appelson, Gary and Marydele Donnelly, A “Perfect Storm” Threatens Loggerhead Recovery, 

Caribbean Conservation Corporation (2008). 

Environmental News Network, Conservation Groups Act to Protect Loggerhead Sea Turtle: 

Commercial Fishing and Climate Change May Soon Cause Extinction (Nov. 15, 2007). 

Fischman, Robert L. The National Wildlife Refuge System and the Hallmarks of Organic Legislation, 

29 Ecology L.Q. 457, 501 (2002). 

Hawkes, L.A. et al., Investigating the potential impacts of climate change on a marine turtle 

population, 13 GLOBAL CHANGE BIOL. 923, 924 (2007). 

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, 

S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Southeast Region. 2007. Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) 5-year Review: Summary 

and Evaluation. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ____. Recovery Plan for the 

Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta), Second 

Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

Nelson, K., R. Trindell, B. Witherington, and B. Morford. 2002. An analysis of reported disorientation 

events in the State of Florida. Pages 323-324 in Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (compilers). 

Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477. 

Petition Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act to Designate the Western North Atlantic 

Subpopulations of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) as a Distinct Population 

Segment and to Reclassify the Western North Atlantic Subpopulations as Endangered, 

Oceana and Center for Biological Diversity (Nov. 15 , 2007). 

Scavia et al. 2002. Climate Change Impacts on U.S. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems. 

Estuaries 25(2): 149-169. 
158 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Velasquez-Manoff, Moises, Climate Turns up Heat on Sea Turtles, 

The Christian Science Monitor (June 21, 2007). 

Weishampel, J., Bagley, D., Ehrhart, L. Earlier nesting by loggerhead sea turtles following sea 

surface warming. Global Change Biology, 2004. 

Williams, Ted, Hitting the Beach, National Audubon Society Magazine (January 2006). 

Witherington, B.E. and R.E. Martin. 1996. Understanding, assessing, and resolving light pollution 

problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. Florida Marine Research Institute 

Technical Report TR-2. 73 pages. 

Service Response: The EA considered climate change in the development and analysis of 

alternatives and the Draft CCP considered climate change in the development of objectives for 

implementation. To elevate climate change and its associated impacts on the refuge and its 

resources for future managers, the priority issues listed on page 70 of the Draft CCP was updated to 

include “Impacts of climate change” as the last bullet. Further, the Wildlife and Habitat Management 

paragraph on pages 70-71 of the Draft CCP was also updated to include climate change. The 

following sentence was added between the first and second sentences of that paragraph: 

Climate change and its associated impacts, which are not well understood for the refuge, 

relate to and can exacerbate all of these impacts. 

Climate Change – Sea Level Rise 

Comment: The CCP should prioritize consideration of the impacts of climate change on sea turtles. 

Without question, climate change poses pronounced threats to the continued survival of sea turtles, 

and the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Archie Carr NWR. 

As a barrier island refuge, Archie Carr NWR is particularly susceptible to sea level rise induced by 

climate change. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that 

average sea level will rise between 18 to 59 cm by the year 2100 (IPCC 2007). Under this scenario, 

coastal areas are at elevated risk of increased beach erosion, saltwater intrusion, storm surges, and 

hurricane winds (Scavia et al. 2002). Rising sea level poses its own set of problems for nesting sea 

turtles by limiting females to more restricted areas of nesting habitat, and increasing egg vulnerability 

with higher high tides. As noted in the Draft CCP, the refuge is fragmented and development has 

spread throughout the barrier island system, which restricts available nesting sites for sea turtles 

(Draft CCP, p.71). Defenders appreciates that the Draft CCP recognizes this threat and has stated 

intention to monitor sea level and saltwater encroachment. 

Service Response: Comment noted. This comment is addressed under Wildlife and Habitat 

Management objectives 1.a(1), 5.a, and 5.b. As more information becomes available for the refuge 

regarding the impacts of climate change, the Service will adapt management as appropriate. 

Climate Change – Beach Armoring 

Comment: The CCP should prioritize consideration of the impacts of climate change on sea turtles. 

Without question, climate change poses pronounced threats to the continued survival of sea turtles, 

and the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Archie Carr NWR. 
Appendices 159 

In response to rising sea level and increased beach erosion from climate change, people will likely 

increase beach armoring and beach nourishment; practices that already pose a threat to sea turtles, 

shorebirds, invertebrates and other wildlife, and natural coastal processes. Beach armoring involves 

the placement of rigid structures parallel to the beach to prevent the loss of residential and 

commercial structures. Residents along the coast currently rely on armoring to protect structures built 

close to shore. Beach armoring not only physically blocks female sea turtles from reaching otherwise 

suitable nesting sites, but also permanently degrades nesting habitat by encouraging erosion, as sea 

wall structures redirect the tremendous energy from crashing waves seaward (Williams 2006). We 

agree with the Draft CCP’s acknowledgment that the construction of sea walls, rock revetments, and 

geotextile tubes are often ineffective and that instead, more beneficial practices of dune stabilization 

should be adopted to combat erosion (Draft CCP, p. 111). In light of the fact that these costly 

structures are continually battered by waves and storms, and are likely to become even more 

vulnerable with increased frequency and strength of hurricanes caused by warming seas, the refuge 

should endeavor to educate and discourage private property owners from building these largely 

ineffective structures in order to better preserve natural processes on coastal beaches and enable 

female sea turtles to nest properly. Only through outreach efforts will local communities and decisionmakers realize that viable, less environmentally destructive alternatives exist for safeguarding both 

wildlife habitat and human infrastructure. 

Service Response: Comment noted. This comment is addressed under Wildlife and Habitat 

Management objectives 5.a and 5.b. The Service will continue to work with research and land 

management partners to address this issue. The majority of the refuge is within Brevard County, which 

currently prohibits the construction of hard armoring, such as sea walls. Coastal armoring in the Indian 

River County segment of the refuge is regulated by the Indian River County Habitat Conservation Plan, 

which permits only emergency armoring. In relation to permit applications related to the refuge, the 

Service does not have regulatory authority, but will continue to work with the permitting agency to 

minimize impacts. Beyond the refuge’s boundaries, the Service also works with other governmental 

agencies (e.g., through county and state habitat conservation plans) to address the issues and impacts 

associated with beach armoring. For instance, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has 

recently begun to seek an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the Service and develop a Habitat 

Conservation Plan (HCP) as per Section 10 of the ESA for its Coastal Construction Control Line 

permitting activities, such as beach armoring and coastal development. This HCP will assess the impacts 

to sea turtle, beach mice, and shorebirds from these activities and this HCP will include minimization and 

mitigation measures. The Service will continue to work with the partners of the Archie Carr Working 

Group, including the Service’s South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, which is very engaged in 

the Florida Beaches Habitat Conservation Plan development. 

Climate Change – Beach Nourishment

Comment: The CCP should prioritize consideration of the impacts of climate change on sea turtles. 

Without question, climate change poses pronounced threats to the continued survival of sea turtles, 

and the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Archie Carr NWR. 

Another frequent response to the natural and beneficial process of coastal erosion is so-called beach 

nourishment, the practice of pumping sand onto an eroded beach, which often proves ineffective, 

costly, and environmentally harmful. Although nourishment may provide a beach for sea turtle 

nesting, the sand deposited on beaches is typically dredged from elsewhere, which adversely 

impacts the dredge site and has different mineral content and size characteristics. This difference in 

composition may alter nest site selection and digging behavior, while sand color can alter the 

incubation temperature and thus the hatchling’s sex ratio (NMFS, Office of Protected Resources 

2007). These unnatural alterations compromise sea turtle nesting habitat and can result in 
160 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

decreased nesting success, abnormal nest construction and reduced survivorship of eggs and 

hatchlings. Therefore, Defenders strongly urges the refuge to maintain its position that “if 

nourishment or other sand placement projects are to be implemented in the Archie Carr NWR area, 

then extra steps should be taken to ensure that the sand placement is designed to mimic the natural 

beach profile as close as possible and that the area of alteration be minimized as much as possible to 

allow beach organisms ... enough nearby natural beach to withstand major impacts to the microenvironment in the project area” (Draft CCP, p. 111). We support this emphasis on mimicking natural 

processes and encourage the development of a similar position regarding beach armoring. Further, 

interesting and useful work regarding the application methods and design shapes of beach 

nourishment projects has been researched and conducted by biologists at Pea Island NWR in North 

Carolina, and we encourage dialogue with FWS staff from that station. 

The refuge should also note that the frequency of proposed beach nourishment projects may 

increase due to the impacts of global warming, such as sea level rise and massive erosion due to 

intense storm events. Rising seas may eventually inundate off-refuge beaches as human 

development and impermeable barriers halt natural beach migration inland and upland (VelasquezManoff 2007). A concerted effort should therefore be made to prevent beach armoring or 

unnecessary beach nourishment on Archie Carr NWR to allow for natural migration of habitats, if 

possible, and only if such migration can happen at a sufficient rate that sea turtles and other wildlife 

are not stranded without habitat. 

Service Response: Comment noted. This comment is addressed in detail under Wildlife 

Management objectives 1.a(1), 1.b(1), 1.g, 2.b(2), 3.f, and 5.a. The Service will continue to work with 

the partners through the Archie Carr Working Group (ACWG) to address beach nourishment impacts 

on the resources of the refuge and the larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership. The refuge supports 

properly designed beach nourishment projects, which are preferable to beach armoring projects. All 

beach nourishment projects will continue to be encouraged to mimic natural beach characteristics 

with appropriate sand quality, texture, and topography. The refuge will continue to work with partners 

to minimize impacts to the beach ecosystem through limiting the size and scope of nourishment 

projects. Project planning with other agencies and partners through the Archie Carr Working Group 

will assist in the appropriate timing and implementation to reduce impacts to sea turtles and migrating 

shorebirds. Further, the refuge is committed to supporting ongoing research, including through the 

University of Central Florida (UCF), as well as Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute, FWC’s Fish and 

Wildlife Research Institute, and the University of Florida. Continuing standardized nesting surveys 

and physiological information on sea turtles is important, but concentrating efforts towards sea turtle 

nesting success in relation to nest site selection, sand texture, beach/dune slope, topography, and 

shape will guide future refuge management decisions on beach/dune nourishment projects. Ongoing 

research through UCF has provided the refuge with long-term sea turtle nesting data which will 

continue to aid in planning processes for the beach/dune ecosystem as climate change is placed at 

the forefront. The refuge has coordinated and will continue to coordinate with other refuges such as 

Pea Island NWR along with other agencies inside and outside the core ACWG. 

Climate Change – Sex Ratio Changes 

Comment: The CCP should prioritize consideration of the impacts of climate change on sea turtles. 

Without question, climate change poses pronounced threats to the continued survival of sea turtles, 

and the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Archie Carr NWR. 

Besides sea level rise, climate change may pose other challenges to nesting sea turtles, including the 

alteration of population sex ratios. As an ectothermic species whose sex is determined by the 

ambient temperature during incubation, the temperature of the sand directly affects the sex of sea 
Appendices 161 

turtle hatchlings (Weishampel et al. 2004). At higher temperatures more female offspring are 

produced, while at lower temperatures more male offspring are produced (Hawkes 2007). Florida’s 

beaches, the primary nesting beaches for sea turtles such as loggerheads in the U.S., are already 

skewed towards females, with less than 10 percent of eggs producing males (Hawkes 2007). In fact, 

an increase in only 1° Celsius could completely eliminate the birth of male turtles. The Draft CCP 

makes note of possible future changes in sex ratios and Defenders supports efforts to increase 

research related to this phenomenon. We recommend that the final CCP including provisions that 

direct FWS to monitor the ambient temperatures of nesting sites, in order to enable the refuge to 

anticipate and better understand changes in the sex ratios of sea turtle hatchlings. 

Service Response: The CCP was updated on the Draft CCP page 75 under Wildlife and Habitat 

Management Objective 1.a(1) to include the following text before the last sentence of the first 

paragraph on that page: 

Further, the refuge will work with research partners to implement appropriate monitoring to 

better understand the impacts of climate change on the sex ratios of sea turtle hatchings 

within the larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership. The sex of sea turtles is determined by the 

nest temperature surrounding the egg during development, with higher temperatures causing 

more females to be produced (Yntema and Mrosovsky 1980, Graeme et al. 2003, Hawkes 

2007). Multiyear studies of the sex ratio of loggerheads at Cape Canaveral, to the north of the 

refuge, indicated that a strong female bias already exists (87-99% female) (Mrosovsky and 

Provancha 1989 and 1992). Slight changes in atmospheric temperatures due to climate 

change could further alter ratios, eliminating the production of males altogether in this region. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is mandated by the Endangered Species Act to protect 

threatened and endangered sea turtles populations and accomplish target population goals 

for each species. Thus, the refuge will coordinate with researchers at various east coast 

locations to monitor rates of change in relation to sex ratios in sea turtle hatchlings, increases 

in temperature, and other related factors. This will require coordination with nesting beaches 

in northerly locations along the U.S. eastern seaboard. 

These issues are also discussed under Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective 5.b, addressing 

climate change impacts. 

Climate Change – Research and Monitoring 

Comment: The CCP should prioritize consideration of the impacts of climate change on sea turtles. 

Without question, climate change poses pronounced threats to the continued survival of sea turtles, 

and the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Archie Carr NWR. 

Defenders supports the continued monitoring of sea turtles and their nesting areas in order to 

maintain the targets required by the refuge under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Draft CCP, p. 

74), and plans to increase coordination with researchers to anticipate impacts of climate change 

(Draft CCP, p. 87). Specific surveys and data collection will be vital to anticipate the impacts of 

climate change on sea turtles, and establishing a scientific baseline for appropriately responding with 

adaptive management practices. Obtaining information whenever possible about potential shifts in 

the coast due to sea level rise and erosion will help the refuge respond more effectively to the threats 

that climate change poses for nesting sea turtles and their greater ecosystem. 

Service Response: Comment noted. This comment is addressed under Wildlife and Habitat 

Management objectives 1.a(1), 5.a, and 5.b. The Service recognizes the importance of research and 

monitoring to better understand the impacts of climate change on the resources of the refuge. The 
162 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

refuge will continue its long-standing partnership with UCF to continue monitoring the beach/dune 

ecosystem and changes that occur. Further, within the Archie Carr Working Group, the refuge will 

continue to work with the partners to seek new innovative techniques and strategies to monitor, 

understand, and adapt management to any changes or shifts to the coast that could potentially cause 

threats to the nesting sea turtles, as well as to the entire beach/dune ecosystem. 

Climate Change – Shifts in Range and Land Acquisition 

Comment: The CCP should prioritize consideration of the impacts of climate change on sea turtles. 

Without question, climate change poses pronounced threats to the continued survival of sea turtles, 

and the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Archie Carr NWR. 

Defenders supports FWS’s pledge in the Draft CCP to “Evaluate inholdings for potential acquisition 

from willing sellers,” (Draft CCP, p. 113). However, in order for such acquisitions to be effective, FWS 

must first gather and assemble information regarding shifts in the timing or location of nesting. This 

exercise will aid the refuge in adjusting to changes in sea turtle nesting patterns and determine if 

beaches currently outside the refuge will become important habitat for sea turtles. Because sea turtle 

species exhibit genetically-determined natal beach homing with strong nest-site fidelity, it is unknown 

whether sea turtles will adapt to new nesting sites if existing sites become submerged or are 

otherwise unsuitable, as mentioned in the Petition to Designate the Western North Atlantic 

Subpopulations of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (“Petition”) submitted by Oceana and the Center for 

Biological Diversity in 2007. Monitoring of any shift in the timing or location of nesting will help the 

refuge make strategic decisions about opportunities to acquire or cooperatively manage land 

currently now outside the refuge. Defenders thus recommends that the final CCP prioritize the 

collection of information concerning the potential range shifts on the Archie Carr NWR, and 

subsequently work to establish refugia and new nesting beaches where appropriate. 

Service Response: Comment noted. Information regarding land acquisition is addressed under 

Resource Protection Objective 2. In addition, as more information becomes available in relation to 

the climate change impacts on the refuge, the Service will adapt management, including the land 

acquisition priorities for the refuge. Currently the refuge owns and manages properties on both the 

east and west sides of SR A1A. Further, land acquisition priorities include properties west of SR 

A1A. The Service will continue working with the partners to expand the conservation lands managed 

in and around the refuge to protect these important resources and to enable management responses 

to the impacts of climate change. 

Climate Change – Additional Stressors – including Artificial Lighting, Pollution, Invasive Species, 

Vehicular Impacts 

Comment: The CCP should prioritize consideration of the impacts of climate change on sea turtles. 

Without question, climate change poses pronounced threats to the continued survival of sea turtles, 

and the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Archie Carr NWR. 

Defenders supports the Draft CCP provisions to address other stressors to sea turtles, including 

protecting sea turtles from predators, as addressed in Project 7 of the Draft CCP, reducing vehicle-wildlife 

collisions (Draft CCP, p. 112), and limiting night time beach access during sea turtle nesting season in 

Project 13 (Draft CCP, p. 114). In addition to these measures, Defenders recommends that the final CCP 

contain additional measures to ensure that sea turtles are safeguarded from other stressors including 

pollution and trash, the encroachment of nonnative, invasive vegetation, harassment and hunting of 

turtles and their eggs by humans, and artificial beach lighting. Artificial lighting not only impacts adult 

behavior, but also hatchlings, as they instinctively rely on visual cues to find the sea. As page 42 of the 
Appendices 163 

Draft Loggerhead Recovery Plan states: “reports of hatchling disorientation events in Florida describe 

several hundred nests each year and are likely to involve tens of thousands of hatchlings” (Nelson et al. 

2002). However, this number calculated from disorientation reports is likely a vast underestimate. In data 

collected in 1993 and 1994, Witherington et al. surveyed hatchling orientation at nests located at 23 

representative beaches in six counties around Florida and found that approximately 10% to 30% of nests 

showed evidence of hatchlings disoriented by lighting. From this survey and from measures of hatchling 

production (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, unpublished data), the number of 

hatchlings disoriented by lighting in Florida is estimated to be in the range of hundreds of thousands per 

year (emphasis added). 

The impacts of artificial lighting may increase as beach levels rise from beach nourishment projects. 

Defenders supports the refuge’s proposed measures to increase law enforcement and to work with local 

jurisdictions to assist and educate them about lighting ordinances and enforcement (Draft CCP, p. 76). 

Service Response: Comments noted. These issues are addressed throughout the CCP. Solutions 

for pollution and litter are addressed under Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective 1.a(3) and 

within Project 17. Solutions for invasive vegetation are addressed specifically under Wildlife and 

Habitat Management Objective 4.a and within Project 3. Solutions for artificial beach lighting, 

disorientation, harassment, and hunting is addressed under Wildlife and Habitat Management 

Objective 1.a(3) and Visitor Services Objective 6.b. These types of issues are not easily solved, as 

they require a larger and more collaborative effort between the refuge and partners. However, the 

Service is committed to protecting sea turtles and will continue to work with the partners through the 

Archie Carr Working Group to address these types of issues. In the aforementioned refuge projects 

and management objectives, increasing public education with support from partners and increasing 

law enforcement presence will be the most effective strategy in potentially decreasing the impacts of 

both human and environmental type stressors. 

Climate Change – Loggerhead Turtles Face Endangerment 

Comment: The CCP should prioritize consideration of the impacts of climate change on sea turtles. 

Without question, climate change poses pronounced threats to the continued survival of sea turtles, 

and the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Archie Carr NWR. 

Though the loggerhead sea turtle is federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, the best available science currently shows that the species is now at the point of 

endangerment (Petition at 3). At Archie Carr NWR, loggerhead nesting has declined by 63 percent 

since 1998 (Appelson and Donnelly 2008). Due to the recent decline of the northern and Florida 

populations of loggerheads, and Archie Carr NWR’s importance as a nesting site for loggerheads, 

Defenders recommends that the final CCP include all the various measures referenced above to 

safeguard loggerhead nesting sites in order to avoid the extirpation of the species. 

Service Response: Comment noted. Currently, speculation exists regarding reasons for recent 

declines in loggerhead sea turtle population numbers. Specific reasons and theories are wide and 

varied. Although loggerhead numbers recently seem to be declining in the refuge, green and 

leatherback numbers seem to be increasing. At this point, climate change does not appear to be the 

driving force causing the decline in loggerhead numbers, at least as far as their nesting environment 

is concerned. As new information becomes available, the refuge will adapt management as 

necessary. For the management actions at the refuge level, this comment is addressed under 

Wildlife and Habitat Management objectives 1.a(1), 1.a(2), 1.a(3), 3.f, 5.a, and 5.b. 

 
164 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Climate Change – Do Nothing 

Comment: Do not plant, leave it alone. With global warming and higher seas, this area might be 

covered up soon. 

Service Response: Comment noted. The Service recognizes the importance of considering and 

planning for the impacts of climate change. The effects of climate change include sea level rise and 

changes in severe weather patterns that could potentially cause increased erosion and reduction of 

beach/dune habitat on the refuge. However, the rate at which environmental change is occurring is 

widely debated. One factor needing further study is the rate at which natural ecosystems adapt to 

environmental changes through sediment accretion and organic deposition. Goals for the refuge within 

the life of this CCP are to manage for the beach/dune ecosystem that support threatened, endangered, 

and migratory wildlife. Further, under the Service’s Biological Integrity Policy (see 601 FW 3), refuges are 

directed to maintain and restore biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. This comment is 

further addressed under Wildlife and Habitat Management objectives 3.f, 5.a, and 5.b. 

Ocean Acidification 

Comment: The CCP should prioritize consideration of the impacts of climate change on sea turtles. 

Without question, climate change poses pronounced threats to the continued survival of sea turtles, 

and the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Archie Carr NWR. 

Ocean acidification is a problem that the Draft CCP did not consider, but should. Although ocean 

acidification is unrelated to climate change, both problems do share the same cause, the high input of 

carbon into the atmosphere by humans. As oceans become more acidic from atmospheric carbon 

deposition, the shells of preferred sea turtle prey such as mollusks and crustaceans have difficulty 

forming, which could significantly impact the entire ocean food web but sea turtle prey in particular 

(Environmental News Network 2007). Defenders recommends that FWS identify and describe the 

potential impacts of ocean acidification on the Archie Carr NWR in the final CCP, and identify 

measures to address that threat. In addition, Defenders encourages the refuge to work in partnership 

with local, state and federal agencies to monitor ocean acidity and the status of the sea turtle prey 

populations of mollusks and crustaceans. In this way, the refuge will be aware and more prepared to 

deal with this building threat. 

Environmental News Network, Conservation Groups Act to Protect Loggerhead Sea Turtle: 

Commercial Fishing and Climate Change May Soon Cause Extinction (Nov. 15, 2007). 

Service Response: Comment noted. Ocean acidification was not specifically addressed in the Draft 

CCP. However, comprehensive environmental monitoring in relation sea turtle management and 

research was addressed under Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective 1.a(1) and within projects 

1 and 2. The Service works with the partners through the Archie Carr Working Group to address 

management issues as they arise. The Service supports efforts to understand the impacts of ocean 

acidification on sea turtles and would foster research into these impacts. The Service would adapt 

management of the refuge as necessary to respond to these impacts. 

Resource Protection 

Future Acquisitions 

Comment: It is critical to identify and prioritize properties for future acquisition. 
Appendices 165 

Service Response: Comment noted. This comment is addressed under Resource Protection 

objectives 1.a, 1.b, and 2 (respectively numbered Objective 1 on page 88, Objective 2 on page 89, 

and Objective 2 on page 96 of the Draft CCP). 

Refuge Boundary 

Comment: It is critical to resolve discrepancies with the current refuge boundary. 

Service Response: Comment noted. This comment is addressed under Resource Protection 

Objective 1.a(1) (incorrectly numbered Objective 1 on page 88 of the Draft CCP). Further, the 

Service is continuing to work within the agency and with the partners to assure the accuracy of the 

refuge’s acquisition and management boundaries, as well as of the boundaries of the larger Archie 

Carr Refuge Partnership. 

Visitor Services 

Access 

Comment: The public should not lose its right to access the beach. State and county tax dollars 

were utilized to purchase much of these lands for conservation and recreation, yet the plan 

completely ignores the recreational component originally promised and explicitly recognized in the 

purchases by state and local taxpayers. While the leases between the State of Florida and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service do not qualify as sales, they area virtually a transfer of title. Further, the plan 

states that there is adequate access, which is wrong. There is inadequate access now and it will 

become even more apparently inadequate in the years ahead. The plan contemplates no new 

accesses and suggests closing the small number of sand paths dotted along the shoreline. 

Service Response: Comment noted. The Draft CCP only applies to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceowned and managed lands and does not apply to those lands owned and managed by the State of 

Florida, Brevard County, Indian River County, or Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute, representing 

about 2,411 acres. The Service manages a total of 119 acres on the east side of A1A (where 49 

acres are leased from the state and 70 acres are Service-owned). The Service-owned lands were 

purchased for conservation management and will remain as managed conservation lands. Any stateleased lands that were purchased under the Save Our Coasts program for improving beach access 

would be considered for public access development should the partners express the need for 

increased public access on these lands. Other state-leased lands that were purchased through the 

Conservation and Recreation Lands program for conservation are and will remain designated as 

managed conservation areas. 

For clarification, Table 8 identifies the mix of current public access points, parks, and parking spaces 

located within the larger Archie Carr partnership, demonstrating that the existing land management 

partners are currently providing adequate levels of visitor facilities on lands acquired primarily for 

public access and recreation. As a result, Service-owned and/or managed lands within the Archie 

Carr National Wildlife Refuge will continue to be managed for conservation. Developing major 

Service visitor beach accesses or facilities on Service lands would only duplicate our partners’ efforts. 

This comment is also addressed under Visitor Services Objective 2.a(2) which states that the Service 

will work with partners to direct fishing activities to designated access points and close all 

undesignated access points through refuge properties managed for conservation. 
166 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Barrier Island Center 

Comment: Consider emphasizing the newly opened Barrier Island Center as a primary resource for 

welcoming and orienting visitors. The text at the bottom of page 63 should be updated to reflect the 

importance of the Center. The section of Environmental Education and Interpretation on page 64 

could also be expanded and updated. 

Service Response: To emphasize that the new Barrier Island Center is now serving as the primary 

resource for visitors to the larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership, the CCP was updated in the Draft 

CCP pages 63, 64, 65, and 98. 

The last sentence of the first paragraph on Draft CCP page 63 was updated to include the Barrier 

Island Center. 

The second sentence of the second paragraph on that same page was replaced with the following 

text: 

Brevard County's Barrier Island Sanctuary Management and Education Center, which opened 

in May 2008, will serve as the focal visitor contact point for the refuge. This new Center and 

the existing public facilities and accesses are currently providing and planning for adequate 

levels of visitor services on lands acquired primarily for public access and recreation within the 

larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership. 

And the second sentence of the third paragraph was also updated to include the Barrier Island 

Center. 

Further, Table 8 was updated to remove “future” from the description of the Barrier Island Center. 

The Welcoming and Orienting Visitors section, the last paragraph in the Draft CCP page 63, was 

modified to read as follows: 

Welcome signs to the Archie Carr NWR are posted at both the northernmost and 

southernmost boundaries on SR A1A to let the general public know they are driving within the 

boundary of the refuge. The main visitor contact point within the Archie Carr NWR is the 

newly opened (May 2008) Barrier Island Sanctuary Management and Education Center on SR 

A1A, owned and operated by the Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands 

Program. Since no Service-operated visitor center exists, this new sea turtle and barrier 

island habitat education facility will serve as the focal point for welcoming and orienting visitors 

entering the Archie Carr NWR. This facility is a state-of-the-art visitor center and provides 

visitors with important information on recreational opportunities within the entire Archie Carr 

partnership, features exhibits on sea turtles and other wildlife within the barrier island 

ecosystem, and offers ongoing orientation and educational movies. 

Other major visitor contact points within the Archie Carr NWR include: 

y Sebastian Inlet State Park - north and south Ranger Station entrances, an administration 

office, one foot trail, and one public beach access; 

y Brevard County Parks and Recreation - eight public beach accesses; 

y Indian River County Parks and Recreation - three public beach accesses; 

y Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program - three foot trails. 
Appendices 167 

With exception to lifeguards at the Treasure Shores and Golden Sands beach accesses in 

Indian River County, all county beach accesses are unstaffed, but have entrance signs visible 

from SR A1A posted by their respective county or state-managing entity. Once inside all 

beach accesses, visitors will find a sea turtle etiquette informational sign at the dune 

crossovers which identifies the beach as within the Archie Carr NWR. Two major beach 

accesses, one in Brevard County and one in Indian River County, and the foot trail at 

Sebastian Inlet State Park have a three-panel Service informational kiosk that provides a 

refuge map, as well as information on the refuge’s history, sea turtles, and Dr. Archie Carr. 

Each of the three foot trails managed by Brevard County host a trailhead kiosk to welcome 

and orient visitors, but do not specifically mention the Archie Carr NWR. 

The Environmental Education and Interpretation section in the Draft CCP, page 65, was updated to 

read as follows: 

Due to the lack of environmental education facilities and education staff, neither the Service 

nor the Barrier Island Sanctuary Management and Education Center will focus directly on 

environmental education and interpretive programming. Instead, the Barrier Island Center’s 

focus is on conducting teacher workshops for teacher-guided school visits with Brevard 

County students. The Center also conducts summer camps and environmental education and 

interpretive programs by special request for home school, scout, and other groups. The 

Barrier Island Center itself provides an excellent opportunity for passive environmental 

education through its youth-friendly exhibits and audiovisual facility. The major interpretive 

themes of the Center’s programs revolve around barrier island wildlife and habitats, while 

emphasizing sea turtle conservation. Several partners, including the Caribbean Conservation 

Corporation, Friends of the Carr Refuge, the Sea Turtle Preservation Society, Sebastian Inlet 

State Park, Disney’s Vero Beach Resort, and the Environmental Learning Center are 

providing opportunistic offsite environmental education to schools and/or children in the area. 

The mainstay interpretive program within the Archie Carr NWR is the sea turtle watch 

programs conducted by the Service, the Caribbean Conservation Corporation, and Sebastian 

Inlet State Park in the months of June and July. 

The last sentence of the second paragraph in the Draft CCP page 65 was updated to state, “All three 

trails were designated as Great Florida Birding Trail (GFBT) sites in January 2008, bringing the total 

number of GFBT sites in the refuge to five.” 

The third paragraph on that page was moved up to the second paragraph and replaced by the 

following text: 

Coconut Point Beach Park and Sebastian Inlet State Park were incorporated into the GFBT 

system in 2000. Currently, bird watching in the refuge is promoted mainly through the GFBT 

program, with the most common bird watching activities occurring on the beach. Interpretive 

guided walks and programs on EEL properties of the refuge are conducted by staff at the 

Barrier Island Sanctuary Management and Education Center by request. 

Also in the Draft CCP page 65, the fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences of paragraph 4 were replaced 

with the following text: 

Since no Service-owned facilities are located in the Archie Carr NWR, CCC and refuge staff 

rely on both state and county facilities to conduct the sea turtle watch programs. For years, 

the indoor portion of the program was conducted at the Sebastian Inlet State Park 

Administrative Building. Starting in summer of 2008, both CCC and refuge staff began 
168 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

conducting the indoor portion of the program from the new Barrier Island Sanctuary 

Management and Education Center. Approximately 800 people per year participate in a sea 

turtle watch program within the Archie Carr NWR, although this is still not meeting the public 

demand for these programs. With the new Barrier Island Center in place and a partnership 

with CCC to conduct up to four sea turtle watch programs per week, that figure has the 

potential to increase by 600 participants, which will help meet the increasing demand. 

On page 98 of the Draft CCP, Visitor Services Objective 1.a(4) was updated to read, “Within one year of 

plan approval, provide the Archie Carr NWR brochure at the Barrier Island Sanctuary Management and 

Education Center, Sebastian Inlet State Park, and kiosks within Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge.” 

Educating and Informing the Public 

Comment: The goals and objectives under Visitor Services are greatly needed. Much of the public 

that passes through or uses the beaches and other resources of the refuge may be unaware that they 

are on a national wildlife refuge. 

Service Response: Comment noted. This comment is addressed under Visitor Services objectives 

1.a(1), 1.a(4), 1.a(5), 1.a(6), 1.c(2), 1.c(4), and 1.d. The Service is committed to working with its land 

management and visitor services partners to continue to improve public awareness of the Archie Carr 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Refuge Administration 

Staffing 

Comment: The Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance section on page 67 indicates that the Park 

Ranger position is targeted for elimination. Our understanding is that this position will only be 

eliminated if it is vacated. Make this distinction in the document. Also, it would be valuable to include 

a footnote indicating when/if a revised Workforce Management Plan will be forthcoming, possibly 

preserving some of these positions. 

Service Response: Comment noted. The Service is currently working under the existing Workforce 

Plan, which identifies the elimination of the existing Park Ranger position for the refuge. 

Comment: Securing dedicated staff for the refuge is essential and necessary to implement the goals 

and projects outlined in the plan. 

Service Response: Comment noted. This comment is addressed under Refuge Administration 

objectives 1.a(1), 1.a(2), 1.a(3), and 1.a(4); under the proposed projects; and in Figure 13. 

Other 

Aquaculture Use Zones 

Comment: Would the draft plan preclude a positive response by the Archie Carr National Wildlife 

Refuge to allow shellfish harvest and culture in Aquaculture Use Zones on sovereign submerged 

lands below mean high water? 

Service Response: Question noted. The refuge contains very little aquatic habitat. Any proposal of 

this nature for lands and waters managed as part of the refuge must meet Service policies, most 
Appendices 169 

notably appropriateness (603 FW 1) and compatibility (603 FW 2), which require that the proposed 

use be appropriate for a national wildlife refuge and compatible with the purposes for which the 

refuge was established and managed (to conserve threatened and endangered species, especially 

sea turtles; to protect native wildlife and habitat; and to conserve migratory birds) and which also 

require that the proposed use be in accord with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (to 

conserve, manage, and restore wildlife and habitats for the American people). Any proposed use of 

the refuge that conflicted with these purposes or the mission of the Refuge System or any proposed 

use that was anticipated to have unacceptable wildlife or habitat impacts or that was anticipated to 

conflict with existing approved uses would not be approved for the refuge. 

However, the comment seems to address proposed aquaculture use zones adjacent to or near the 

refuge, not on the refuge. In this case, the Service would evaluate each individual project on its own 

merits, based upon anticipated impacts to the refuge and the resources for which it is managed. 

Thus, it is impossible for the Service to render a conclusion about future aquaculture proposals in 

relation to Archie Carr NWR. The Service is committed to working with the State of Florida in 

evaluating specific proposals as they arise.

Alternatives 

Comment: Two comments supported the selection of Alternative B as the Proposed Action. 

We support the Proposed Action, Alternative B, which focuses refuge management actions on the 

needs of rare, threatened, and endangered species. This is the only one of the four alternatives that 

is comprehensive enough to perform all of the actions necessary for the refuge; provides a netpositive effect to the majority of key topics identified under wildlife and habitat management, resource 

protection, visitor services, and refuge administration; and provides staff to accomplish these actions. 

The serious threats that sea turtles and other species face now and in the future at the Archie Carr 

NWR lead Defenders to support Alternative B because of its comprehensive approach aimed at 

minimizing and mitigating the effects of climate change, while protecting sea turtles and other species 

from detrimental or inappropriate human activities. Monitoring variables affecting sea turtles and other 

imperiled species on the refuge, maintaining adequate law enforcement presence, and working in 

partnership with local communities and stakeholders will likely provide the refuge with the tools 

necessary to fulfill its conservation. Monitoring and understanding climate-related changes in real 

time, and other modern threats to wildlife and habitats, will be essential as the FWS works to 

adaptively manage and conserve the wildlife resources Archie Carr NWR was established to protect. 

Service Response: Comments noted. These comments are addressed in the EA. 

Typographical Errors and Updates 

Comment: Page 24, paragraph 3, 4th sentence – Remove “live” from “animals that live utilize them.” 

Service Response: Page 24 of the Draft CCP was updated to delete “live” from the fourth sentence 

of the third paragraph. 

Comment: Page 63, last paragraph, sentence 6 – Remove CCC reference after “In 2006, the 

Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program.” The EEL program built the facility 

and CCC is a partner in operations. CCC was not involved with the construction of the facility. 
170 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Service Response: The Welcoming and Orienting Visitors section on page 63 of the Draft CCP was 

modified (see the Service’s response under the Barrier Island Center subheading). 

Comment: Page 263, paragraph 2 – Change the references to the Barrier Island Center to indicate 

that it is currently open. 

Service Response: The CCP was updated to reflect this change (see the Service’s response under 

the Barrier Island Center subheading). 

Comment: Table 6, page 53 – Indialantic is north of the refuge, not within the refuge. 

Service Response: Table 6 on page 53 of the Draft CCP was modified to show that Indialantic is 

just north of the refuge. 

Comment: Table 8, page 64 – This table requires several corrections to Brevard County Parks and 

Recreation entries, including: 

y Coconut Point Park should include 64 parking spaces; 

y Juan Ponce DeLeon Landing should include 47 parking spaces; 

y Atlantic Drive Beach Access should include 10 parking spaces; 

y River Drive should include 6 parking spaces; 

y Judith Resnick Park should include 7 parking spaces; 

y Bonsteel Park should include 53 parking spaces; and 

y River Oaks Road should include 15 parking spaces. 

Service Response: The Refuge staff has coordinated with Brevard County to update Table 8 and a 

citation was added to the document. 

Comment: Table 8 – Change Barrier Island Center from future to active, since the Barrier Island 

Center opened on May 10, 2008. 

Service Response: Table 8 on page 64 of the Draft CCP was modified to show that the Barrier 

Island Center is the visitor center. 

Comment: Page 45 – The gopher tortoise was upgraded from species of special concern to 

threatened, as listed by the state. 

Service Response: All references to the state listing status of the gopher tortoise throughout the 

Draft CCP/EA were updated to reflect the change from species of special concern to threatened. 

Comment: Page 47 – The plan describes the listing status of manatees, but the wording may not 

reflect the current listing status accurately. Although the listing status is under review, it may be 

tabled and the CCP should merely list the current state and federal designations and omit the 

additional discussion. 

Service Response: Comment noted. The discussion lists both the existing status and the fact that 

the status is under review. 
Appendices 171 

Maps 

Comment: Figure 6-3 shows Australian pines west of Bonsteel Park and the Barrier Island Center, 

but there are no pines there. However, pines do exist on the Hubbs and FWS parcels to the south. 

Comment: Figure 7-3 shows a slice of green (indicating FWS) north of Bonsteel Park on the east 

side of A1A. This area is all owned and managed by the Brevard County EEL Program. 

Comment: Figure 3-1 on page 4 shows a County/County site west of A1A that should be 

State/County (SOC). 

Comment: Figure 3-3 on page 6 shows a State/County (SOC) site across from Bonsteel Park that 

should be County/County (EEL). 

Comment: Figure 3-4 on page 7 shows a County/County site east of Long Point campground that 

should be State. 

Comment: Figure 3-4 on page 7 shows a County/County (Parks) site north of the Long Point 

campground that should be County/County (Mosquito Control). 

Comment: The East Central Florida Aquatic Preserves Office of FDEP requests inclusion of the 

Indian River Aquatic Preserve (IRAP, a State MPA) on the Visitor Services map. 

Service Response: The refuge coordinated with the land management partners to update the maps 

and associated databases to show the most current and correct information available for all the 

partners. These maps and databases will be utilized by the Archie Carr Working Group to coordinate 

management activities within the larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership. 
172 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 173 

Appendix V. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge Appropriate Use Determinations 

An appropriate use determination is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first 

considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find that 

a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. This process clarifies and 

expands on the compatibility determination process by describing when refuge managers should 

deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. If a proposed use is not appropriate, it will 

not be allowed and a compatibility determination will not be undertaken. 

Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

y Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses – As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are 

determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge manager must still determine if these uses 

are compatible. 

y Take of fish and wildlife under state regulations – States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. The Service considers take of wildlife 

under such regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if the 

activity is compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Statutory Authorities for this policy: 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. §668dd-668ee. This law provides 

the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the authority to 

prohibit certain harmful activities. The Act does not authorize any particular use, but rather authorizes 

the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are compatible and “under such regulations 

as he may prescribe.” This law specifically identifies certain public uses that, when compatible, are 

legitimate and appropriate uses within the Refuge System. The law states, “. . . it is the policy of the 

United States that . . . compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate 

general public use of the System . . .compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority 

general public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and 

management; and . . . when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational 

use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated . . . the Secretary shall . . . 

ensure that priority general public uses of the System receive enhanced consideration over other 

general public uses in planning and management within the System . . . .” The law also states, “in 

administering the System, the Secretary is authorized to take the following actions: . . . issue 

regulations to carry out this Act.” This policy implements the standards set in the Act by providing 

enhanced consideration of priority general public uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere 

with our ability to provide quality, wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 
174 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use, when such uses do not 

interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational 

facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development or 

protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 

Other Statutes that Establish Refuges, including the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. §410hh - 410hh-5, 460 mm - 460mm-4, 539-539e, 

and 3101 - 3233; 43 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). 

Executive Orders. The Service must comply with Executive Order 11644 when allowing use of offhighway vehicles on refuges. This order requires the Service to designate areas as open or closed to offhighway vehicles in order to protect refuge resources, promote safety, and minimize conflict among the 

various refuge users; monitor the effects of these uses once they are allowed; and amend or rescind any 

area designation as necessary based on the information gathered. Furthermore, Executive Order 11989 

requires the Service to close areas to off-highway vehicles when it is determined that the use causes or 

will cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, habitat, or cultural or historic 

resources. Statutes, such as ANILCA, take precedence over executive orders. 

Definitions: 

Appropriate Use

A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four conditions. 

1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals 

or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the 

date the Improvement Act was signed into law. 

3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations. 

4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11. 

Native American. American Indians in the conterminous United States and Alaska Natives (including 

Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians) who are members of federally recognized tribes. 

Priority General Public Use. A compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

Quality. The criteria used to determine a quality recreational experience include: 

y Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities. 

y Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives 

in a plan approved after 1997. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

y Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 

y Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 

y Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 

y Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and the Service’s role in managing and protecting these resources. 
Appendices 175 

y Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

y Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting. 

y Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use. As defined by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

Appropriate use findings are listed below for the following uses: beach use, beach renourishment, 

recreational ATV use, research and dog walking. 
176 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 177 
178 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 179 
180 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 181 

Appendix VI. Compatibility Determinations 

Refuge Name: 

Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 

Refuge Purposes:

Archie Carr NWR was authorized in 1989 and established in 1991 with the following purposes: 

y ...”to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species...or (B) plants...” 16 USC §1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

y “...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) 

y “..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) 

y “to protect sea turtle populations and their nesting habitat along the central Atlantic coastline of 

Florida ...” (Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Archie Carr National Wildlife 

Refuge, August 1990) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

As outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 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. 

Public Review and Comment Period:

Public scoping for the CCP commenced on April 24, 2000, including notices in the Federal Register (on 

April 24, 2000 and May 12, 2000) and in local newspapers (on April 28-30, 2000 and May 19-20, 2000). 

Additional information about the planning process and the public scoping meetings were provided through 

informational flyers, planning updates, several articles in the local newspapers, and postings on the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Internet websites (http://merrittisland.fws.gov and http://pelicanisland.fws.gov). 

Given the proximity of the two refuges, several shared issues, and many overlapping interested parties, 

joint public meetings were held for the Pelican Island and Archie Carr refuges. 
182 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Utilizing existing public mailing lists of the two refuges, as well as public mailing lists from various 

governmental partners, more than 1,200 informational flyers were initially mailed. This first flyer 

invited participation in the planning process through a variety of means, including public meetings, 

letters, faxes, telephone calls, e-mail messages, and personal visits. The flyer also announced the 

times and locations of the public meetings, provided other information, and described the purposes of 

the two refuges. Afterwards, three neighborhood meetings were conducted on May 3, May 25, and 

June 1, 2000. Outlining the planning process and highlighting the issues and concerns raised to 

date, a June 2, 2000 Planning Update was mailed out to over 2,800 interested parties. Following this 

Planning Update, two summary, countywide meetings were held on June 14 and June 15, 2000, in 

Sebastian (Indian River County) and Melbourne (Brevard County). 

The public meetings were attended by a total of 90 individuals representing a variety of interests and 

organizations. Approximately 117 individuals, organizations, and governmental entities submitted 

comments regarding the plans for Pelican Island and Archie Carr refuges. Letters, faxes, email 

messages, and phone calls were received from across the country. Comments from the public were 

submitted by a variety of entities, ranging from a local middle school student to a coalition of six 

organizations representing more than 700,000 members. 

Due to a variety of factors, including the Centennial for the National Wildlife Refuge System and 

Pelican Island NWR, Centennial, the Archie Carr NWR CCP process was put on hold in 2003. The 

Service re-started the planning process in 2006 with professional reviews of the refuge to 

determine the status, trends, and conditions of refuge resources and facilities. 

A Notice of Availability of the Draft CCP/EA for Archie Carr NWR for public review was published in 

the Federal Register on June 26, 2008. Public comments were accepted from June 26 to July 28, 

2008, while comments from the State of Florida were submitted through the State Clearinghouse on 

August 7, 2008. A total of 12 individuals, organizations, businesses, and governmental agencies 

submitted comments on the Draft CCP/EA, including two organizations, three individuals, and five 

state and local governmental agencies (including the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection; Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; East Central Florida Regional 

Planning Council; Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council; and Brevard County). Under the State 

Clearinghouse review, the proposed activities were found to be consistent with the Florida Coastal 

Management Program; the Strategic Regional Policy Plan’s goals, objectives, and policies of the East 

Central Florida Regional Planning Council; and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the Treasure 

Coast Regional Planning Council, including Regional Goal 6.8 and Policy 6.8.1.3. Appendix IV 

summarizes the comments received during the public review and comment period and the Service’s 

responses to those comments. 

Description of Use: Fishing 

Fishing was identified as a priority wildlife-dependent activity under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act and is a traditional use at the refuge. Fishing was identified as a wildliferelated activity that would be offered where compatible with refuge objectives in the preferred 

alternative of the Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Archie Carr National Wildlife 

Refuge, August 1990. Only fishing from shore is analyzed in this compatibility determination due to 

the fact that the refuge does not own or manage the waters (Atlantic Ocean and Indian River Lagoon) 

along its shoreline, with the exception of a few minor portions of the Indian River Lagoon. Fishing is 

permitted on the refuge along the Atlantic Ocean beaches if accessed from the beach (i.e., east of 

the dunes) or from approved access points on partner properties. These access points are from 

partner properties and not from Service properties. With the exception of a few minor foot paths, the 

only portion of Service properties along the Atlantic Ocean that are open to public use are those 
Appendices 183 

areas eastward of the seaward extent of the dune vegetation to mean high water. Along the Indian 

River Lagoon, the fishing public is permitted to access the lagoon and associated waterways from 

designated and open trails on partner properties. These trails are not on Service properties. Access 

is generally by foot, but users also carry kayaks and canoes down partner trails to access the water. 

Users park along SR A1A at designated parking areas (e.g., county beach parks and EEL trailhead 

parking areas). The only portion of Service properties along the Indian River Lagoon that are open to 

public use are the open water areas of the lagoon over submerged lands owned by, leased to, or 

otherwise managed by the refuge. Fishing is regulated in accordance with state regulations. 

Availability of Resources: Annual refuge operation funds support the Visitor Services program and 

activities. Funds needed to support law enforcement activities associated with fishing are identified in 

the proposed staffing plan of the CCP. Infrastructure used to support this recreational activity is 

managed by local and state partners. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated based on best 

professional judgment and published scientific papers. Overfishing has been known to cause the 

local extinction of certain fish species and precedes all other human disturbance (Jackson, et al. 

2001). In recent history, overfishing in Florida has led to the decline of certain species (Coleman et 

al. 2004). In an attempt to minimize overfishing, the State of Florida monitors fish populations and 

sets seasons, slot and size limits, and total bag limits for most sport fish. Collectively, the state 

fishing regulations should minimize the likelihood of fish stocks declining in waters surrounding the 

refuge. Additional impacts are associated with access to fishing areas and include minor trampling 

of vegetation along trails and to the water on partner properties and unauthorized access to and 

through Service properties. Although not permitted, littering and abandoned and discarded fishing 

gear pose additional potential impacts to wildlife and habitats. 

Determination: 

____Use is Not Compatible 

_X__Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Fishing is allowed on the refuge in accordance 

with state regulations. Access to fishing must be through approved access points (e.g., county park 

dune crossovers, designated beach foot paths, and designated and open trails). If wildlife 

populations suffer as a result of fishing activities, fishing quality declines, or other wildlife or habitat 

impacts occur, additional restrictions may be implemented. The refuge will modify or eliminate any 

use with unacceptable impacts. The Service will work with the partners to increase awareness and 

understanding to help limit the impacts from fishing activities. 

Justification: Fishing is a priority wildlife-dependent use under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act. Fishing, as described, was determined to be compatible, in view of the potential 

impacts that fishing can have on the Service’s ability to achieve purposes and goals of the refuge. 

Fishing densities and use levels are currently and are anticipated to remain relatively low during most 

days, minimizing impacts and sufficient opportunities are available for other priority wildlife-dependent 

recreation, minimizing user group conflicts. 
184 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: _______9/18/2023_________

Description of Uses: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography are considered simultaneously in this compatibility 

determination. Wildlife observation and photography were identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. This compatibility 

determination applies only to personal photography and not to other forms of photography (e.g., 

commercial photography and filming). Wildlife observation and photography may occur during 

daylight hours throughout all open areas of the refuge. With the exception of a few minor foot paths, 

the only portion of Service properties along the Atlantic Ocean that are open to public use are those 

areas eastward of the seaward extent of the dune vegetation to mean high water. Wildlife viewing 

and photography improvements have been made by local and state partners along their hiking trails 

and at other locations adjacent to refuge properties to provide exposure to different habitat types and 

diverse flora and fauna. Beach access for wildlife viewing and photography is generally provided by 

refuge partners on lands adjacent to refuge properties. Trails and beach access points are on 

partner properties and not on Service properties. Access is generally by foot, but users also carry 

kayaks and canoes on partner dune crossovers and partner trails to access the water. Users park 

along SR A1A at designated parking areas (e.g., county beach parks and EEL trailhead parking 

areas). Wildlife observation opportunities are also provided on refuge-led sea turtle watch programs. 

Availability of Resources: Annual refuge operation funds support the Visitor Services program and 

activities. Interns, volunteers, partners and Friends of the Carr Refuge members provide the staffing 

to support these uses. Funds needed to support law enforcement associated with this activity, 

particularly at night, are identified in the proposed staffing plan of the CCP. Numerous unauthorized 

sea turtle walks take place on the refuge at night during the nesting season, resulting in the increased 

potential for disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The Zone Officer and officers from the Refuge 

Complex Headquarters are available for targeted operations. Infrastructure used to support this 

recreational activity is managed by local and state partners. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses: This purpose of this section is to critically and objectively 

evaluate the potential effects that wildlife observation and photography could have on the wildlife, 

habitat, and other public use activities based on available information and best professional 

judgment. Each activity has the potential to have impacts, but the focus is to minimize impacts to 

within acceptable limits. This is based on the impacts at the existing and projected level of use. 

Short-term Impacts: Wildlife observation has the potential for disturbing wildlife species. Night-time 

human activity can cause nesting females to abort nesting attempts (Murphy 1985). The use of 

flashlights on nesting beaches disorients hatchlings and can deter nesting females (Mortimer 1979).

Approaching water birds can reduce time spent foraging and can cause them to avoid foraging habitats 

adjacent to the areas of disturbance (Klein 1993). Walking on wildlife observation trails tends to 
Appendices 185 

displace birds and can cause localized declines in the richness and abundance of wildlife species 

(Riffell et al. 1996). Bicycling and people walking causes more disturbances to waterfowl than vehicles 

(Pease et al. 2005). Wildlife photographers tend to have the largest disturbance impacts (Klein 1993; 

Morton 1995; Dobb 1998). While wildlife observers frequently stop to view wildlife, wildlife 

photographers are much more likely to approach wildlife (Klein 1993). Even slow approach by wildlife 

photographers tends to have behavioral consequences to wildlife (Klein 1993). Other impacts include 

the potential for some photographers to remain close to wildlife for extended periods of time (Dobb 

1998) and the tendency of casual photographers with low power lenses to get much closer to their 

subject than other activities would require (Morton 1995). Minor trampling of vegetation may also result. 

Long-term Impacts: Disturbance resulting from night-time human activities and lighting can cause sea 

turtles to shift their nesting beaches, delay egg laying, and select poor nesting sites (Murphy 1985). Further, 

other wildlife may abandon use of an area due to increased disturbances from human use and activities. 

Determination: 

____Use is Not Compatible 

_X__Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: By design, wildlife observation and photography 

should have minimal wildlife and habitat impacts. Wildlife observation and photography activities are 

limited to daylight hours and authorized guided walks, which include nighttime sea turtle walks. 

Nighttime sea turtle walks are limited to only state-permitted, authorized groups led by the Service or 

led by one of the partners. These walks are constrained by the conditions of the state permit. If 

evidence of unacceptable wildlife and/or habitat impacts begins to appear, it will be necessary to 

change the activity or the program, move the activity or program, or eliminate the program. Actions to 

be taken include the establishment of buffer zones that minimize disturbance around sensitive areas 

and the designation of additional no-entry zones, as well as the education of visitors that their actions 

can have negative impacts on wildlife and habitat. Access for wildlife observation and photography 

activities must be through approved access points (e.g., county park dune crossovers, designated 

beach foot paths, and designated and open trails). If wildlife populations or habitats suffer as a result 

of these activities or if other wildlife or habitat impacts occur, additional restrictions may be 

implemented. The refuge will modify or eliminate any use with unacceptable impacts. 

Justification: Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Providing quality, appropriate, and compatible opportunities for these activities 

contributes toward fulfilling provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Wildlife 

observation and photography would provide excellent forums for promoting increased awareness, 

understanding, and support of refuge resources and programs and of the Service. The stipulations 

outlined above should minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions. At the current 

and anticipated levels of visitation, these wildlife-dependent uses would not conflict with the national 

policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the refuge. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: _______9/18/2023_________
186 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Uses: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Environmental education and interpretation consist primarily of youth and adult education and 

interpretation of the natural resources of the refuge. Activities include onsite staff-led, volunteer-led, 

or teacher-led environmental education programs; offsite volunteer-led or teacher-led classroom 

programs; teacher workshops; and interpretation of wildlife, habitat, other natural features, and/or 

management activities occurring on the refuge. These activities seek to increase the public’s 

knowledge and understanding of wildlife and their habitats and to contribute to wildlife conservation 

and support of the refuge. Environmental education and interpretation were identified in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act as priority public use activities, provided they are 

appropriate and compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. With the 

exception of a few minor foot paths, the only portion of Service properties along the Atlantic Ocean 

that are open to these public use activities are those areas eastward of the seaward extent of the 

dune vegetation to mean high water. 

Environmental education and interpretation programs may be conducted by the Service or by the 

partners on Service or on partner properties. Other than state-permitted nighttime sea turtle walks, 

any environmental education and interpretation activities proposed for Service properties must be 

reviewed and approved by the Service through a special use permit issued by the refuge. These 

permits will contain conditions to minimize impacts and ensure compatibility. 

Availability of Resources: Annual refuge operation and maintenance funds support the Visitor 

Services program and activities. The CCP outlines proposed staffing and projects to support Visitor 

Services during the 15-year life of the plan. Interns, volunteers, partners and Friends of the Carr 

Refuge members also provide the staffing to support these uses. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses: Environmental education primarily occurs outdoors and can 

cause disturbance and habitat destruction through trampling. 

Short-term Impacts: Night-time human activity can cause nesting females to abort nesting attempts 

(Murphy 1985). Approaching water birds can reduce time spent foraging and can cause them to avoid 

foraging habitats adjacent to the areas of disturbance (Klein 1993). Walking on trails tends to 

displace birds and can cause localized declines in the richness and abundance of wildlife species 

(Riffell et al. 1996). People walking cause more disturbances to waterfowl than vehicles (Pease et al. 

2005). Minor trampling of vegetation may also result. 

Long-term Impacts: Disturbance resulting from night-time human activities and lighting can cause 

sea turtles to shift their nesting beaches, delay egg laying, and select poor nesting sites (Murphy 

1985). Further, other wildlife may abandon use of an area due to increased disturbances from 

human use and activities. Service and partner programs and refuge special use permits are 

designed to limit these impacts. 

Determination: 

____Use is Not Compatible 

_X__Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: While impacts are anticipated to be minimal, 

stipulations are required to ensure that wildlife resources are adequately protected. Other than 

Service programs, any other environmental education or interpretation activity or program conducted on 

Service properties will be required to obtain a refuge special use permit. These permits will contain 
Appendices 187 

conditions to help ensure that impacts are minimized to ensure compatibility. The environmental 

education program and interpretation activities would avoid sensitive sites and vulnerable wildlife 

populations. Built into all curriculums will be a section on wildlife etiquette. Where possible, 

environmental education programs and activities will be held at or near established facilities so that 

impacts may be minimized. As part of the special use permit application and renewal process, 

evaluations of sites and programs would be conducted annually to assess if objectives are being met 

and that the natural resources are not being adversely impacted. Impacts associated with interpretive 

programs are also anticipated to be minimal. One overarching aspect of the interpretive program is to 

build understanding and appreciation for the refuge and its natural resources. As use increases, the 

chance of wildlife disturbances may also increase, but through interpretive materials (e.g., brochures, 

signs, and kiosk panels) proper wildlife etiquette will be stressed. Education and interpretive activities 

and programs are critical for making visitors aware that their actions can have both positive and 

negative impacts on wildlife. Interpretive activities and programs will be conducted at developed sites 

where impacts can be minimized. Wildlife impacts will be carefully monitored. If impacts are detected, 

adaptive strategies will be developed, such as approach-zones, to lessen wildlife disturbance. As part 

of the special use permit application and renewal process, annual evaluations will be conducted to 

assess if objectives are being met and that the natural resources are not being adversely affected. The 

refuge will modify or eliminate any use that results in unacceptable impacts. 

Justification: Environmental education and interpretation are identified as two priority wildlifedependent recreational activities under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. 

Environmental education and interpretation are key components of the Service’s initiative to connect 

children with nature. Environmental education and interpretation are used to encourage all citizens to 

act responsibly in protecting natural resources. They are tools the refuge can use to build 

understanding, appreciation, and support for the refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System. For 

example, the refuge and its partners have developed interpretive signs that are posted on every public 

beach access, including one on Service property. The refuge and its partners have also developed 

interpretive kiosks at three major beach accesses. As long as stipulations to insure compatibility are 

followed, the programs should remain compatible with the purposes of the refuge. At such time that 

unacceptable wildlife impacts are detected, the refuge will modify or eliminate the activity to minimize or 

eliminate the impacts. Both programs are essential to inform the public of the missions of the Service 

and Refuge System, as well as the refuge’s vision and purposes. Minimal anticipated impacts are 

anticipated from the implementation of the environmental education and interpretation programs and 

the benefits that should arise through public education, participation, and involvement. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: _______9/18/2023_________
188 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Beach Use 

This use consists of a variety beach activities such as swimming, sunbathing, surfing, picnicking, and 

beach combing, as well as bicycling and jogging. Other activities include beach games such as 

throwing Frisbees and balls and flying kites. This is not a priority public use. This use is likely to 

occur along all of the refuge’s ocean beaches. Access to Service properties would be from the north 

and south along the ocean, from partner properties. Several partner parking lots with boardwalks 

access the beach and are owned and managed by state and local agencies. Beach use tends to be 

concentrated around these access points. Beaches are open to public use year round and potentially 

24 hours a day. This is a traditional activity on the refuge and is enjoyed by thousands of visitors 

annually. With the exception of a few minor foot paths, the only portion of Service properties along 

the Atlantic Ocean that are open to public use are those areas eastward of the seaward extent of the 

dune vegetation to mean high water. 

Availability of Resources: Funds needed to support law enforcement associated with this activity 

are identified in the proposed staffing plan of the CCP. Infrastructure used to support this 

recreational activity is managed by local and state partners. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Refuge beaches are utilized year-round, but the summer months 

are the busiest. The high concentration of people on the beach may displace birds using the beach. 

Migratory shorebirds utilize the refuge during their seasonal migrations as foraging and resting areas. 

Repeated human disturbance of foraging or resting shorebirds at a migratory stopover site has 

several negative impacts on shorebirds. Human disturbance can reduce the amount of time 

shorebirds spend foraging or roosting, reducing their ability to accumulate and conserve fat stores, 

which provide the energy needed for their long-distance flights. Disturbance also forces birds to use 

up valuable energy reserves while fleeing, resulting in lower weight birds. Finally, chronic disturbance 

may partly or entirely displace a bird from an area (Pfister et al. 1992). 

Human disturbance can also affect five federally listed sea turtle species that utilize the refuge. At 

night, during the sea turtle nesting season, visitor use can cause nesting females to retreat before 

laying their eggs. Repeated disturbance may cause the turtles to nest on substandard beaches where 

hatchling survival may be lower (Murphy 1985). Beach goers may also inadvertently dig up nests. 

In addition to the direct effects described above, beach use can have indirect negative impacts on 

wildlife. Heavy beach use can contribute to erosion, especially in areas where unauthorized beach 

access trails traverse trough coastal strand and dune habitats. Additionally, trash (food) left on the 

beach can attract predators that feed on nesting or roosting shorebirds, as well as on sea turtle eggs 

and hatchlings. Furthermore, the removal of shells, wrack, and other natural debris from the beach 

may have indirect biological and ecological effects by reducing food availability and microhabitat used 

by invertebrates that are in turn preyed upon by shorebirds. 

A critical and objective evaluation of the potential effects that bicycles and jogging could have on the 

wildlife, habitat, and other public use activities is based on available information and best professional 

judgment. Although bicycling and jogging have potential impacts, the focus is to minimize these 

negative effects. 

Short-term Impacts: Wildlife disturbance relative to bicycle riding has been poorly studied with most 

references using other activities such as walking, hiking, and operating vehicles and their impacts on 

wildlife; therefore, bicycle impacts are inferred (unless noted). A study conducted at Back Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge indicated that jogging and bike riding in an open habitat, such as marshes 

where the activity is highly visible to wading birds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, is disruptive (Pease et 
Appendices 189 

al. 2005). As a result, marsh birds in open areas flee from joggers and bike riders (Laskowski 1999). 

Similar results have been documented on beaches (Burger and Gochfeld 1991; Burger 1995; Burger 

et al. 2004). Wildlife may receive different cues from different modes of transportation. For instance, 

animals do not flee as readily from cars, perhaps because the person is hidden in the vehicle and not 

perceived as a threat (Klein 1993). A 2005 study at Back Bay National Wildlife NWR (Pease et al. 

2005) compared five different human activities (i.e., motorized tram, slow moving truck, fast moving 

truck, bicyclist, and pedestrian) in relation to waterfowl disturbance. The study found that people 

walking and biking disturbed waterfowl more than vehicles. 

Long-term Impacts: Considering the high level of use and variety of activities occurring at the 

refuge, appropriate solutions to minimize impacts need to be developed. For example, during the 

fall migration and over-wintering seasons, wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation are all occurring simultaneously and are at the highest levels of the 

year. Techniques to limit disturbance must be evaluated, implemented, and monitored. This 

stems from the hypothesis that prolonged and extensive disturbance may cause migratory birds 

to abandon the wetlands most disturbed by humans and winter elsewhere. Current use may not 

be at a level to cause this shift, but anticipated increases relative to the expansion of the 

population and the growth of visitor opportunities could result in seasonal shifts in migratory bird 

use of the refuge’s beach habitats. Bicycling would add to the level of disturbance and strategies 

need to be implemented to limit wildlife impacts. 

Current and anticipated levels of beach use are predicted to have minimal impacts. Where 

impacts are found to be unacceptable, the Service would work with the partners to modify or 

eliminate these uses. Modifications may include the establishment of temporary closed areas 

around roosting or nesting wildlife. 

Determination: 

____Use is Not Compatible 

_X__Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Beach use, especially bicycling and jogging, can 

cause and increase wildlife impacts and can disrupt other individuals viewing wildlife. Evaluation of 

beach use activities, especially bike riding and jogging, will be conducted annually to assess if 

objectives are being met, if habitat impacts are within a tolerable range, and if wildlife populations are 

not being adversely affected. If evidence of unacceptable impacts begins to appear, it may be 

necessary to change the activity, move the activity, or eliminate the activity. Several stipulations are 

necessary to ensure compatibility of beach use activities, as follows: 

y Enforce laws aimed at minimizing disturbance to nesting sea turtles. 

y Enforce nighttime closures of beach accesses during sea turtle nesting season to minimize 

disturbance to nesting sea turtles. 

y The Service will work with the partners to encourage visitors to access the beach only through 

approved access points (e.g., established boardwalks). 

y Utilize a volunteer program to educate the public about the importance of minimizing 

disturbance to sea turtles and shorebirds. 

y Implement zone closures if disturbance levels are determined to be unacceptable (e.g., create 

temporary closed areas around shorebird nesting and important roosting areas). 

y Monitor shorebird use during fall migration to better assess foraging and resting areas. 
190 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Justification: Although these uses are forms of nonwildlife-oriented recreation, they are historic 

activities that occur in areas where the refuge has limited jurisdiction. These uses have been 

ongoing since the early 1960s, and sea turtle populations on the refuge continue to remain high 

despite the increases in beach uses. From a biological standpoint, restrictions are in place to assure 

the protection of the migratory shorebirds and sea turtles. At the current and anticipated levels of 

visitation, beach use activities on the refuge do not seem to conflict with the national policy to 

maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the refuge. The Service would 

work with the partners to modify or eliminate any use with unacceptable impacts. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: ________9/18/2018_________

Description of Use: Research

Research is the planned, organized, and systematic gathering of data to discover or verify facts. 

In principle, research conducted on the refuge by universities, cooperative units, nonprofit 

organizations, and other research entities furthers refuge management and serves the purposes, 

vision, and goals of the refuge. The refuge hosts research from a variety of research institutions, 

including various universities and private research groups. All research activities, whether 

conducted by governmental agencies, public research entities, universities, private research 

groups, or any other entity, shall be required to obtain special use permits from the refuge. 

Approved refuge special use permits will contain conditions under which researchers must 

operate to help minimize negative impacts to refuge resources. All research activities will be 

overseen by the Refuge Biologist and Refuge Manager. Projects that are fish and wildlife 

management-oriented, which will provide needed information to refuge operation and 

management, will receive priority consideration and will even be solicited. 

Availability of Resources: Other than the administration of associated special use permits, no 

refuge resources are generally required for this use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) have been used on the refuge by nonService scientists to conduct research on the refuge. Many areas (e.g., beaches) are inaccessible to 

larger vehicles and researchers use ATVs as part of their scientific studies. Approved refuge special use 

permits are required and contain conditions under which researchers and their use of ATVs must operate 

to help minimize negative impacts to refuge resources. The compatibility of ATV use on the refuge is 

evaluated in a separate compatibility determination. 

Generally, adverse impacts from research are minimal. Occasionally, slight or temporary 

wildlife or habitat disturbances may occur (e.g., minor trampling of vegetation may occur when 

researchers access monitoring plots). However, these impacts are not significant, nor are they 

permanent. Also, a small number of individual plants or animals might be collected for further 

scientific study, but these collections are anticipated to have minimal impact on the populations 
Appendices 191 

from which they came. All collections will adhere to the Service’s specimen collection policy 

(Director’s Order 109, dated March 28, 2005). 

Determination (check one below):

____Use is Not Compatible 

_X__Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All research conducted on the refuge must 

further the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. All 

research will adhere to established refuge policy on research and policy on collecting specimens 

(Directors Order Number 109). To ensure that research activities are compatible, the refuge requires 

that a special use permit be obtained before any research activity may occur. Research proposals 

and/or research special use permit applications must be submitted in advance of the activity to allow 

for review by refuge staff to ensure minimal impacts to the resources, staff, and programs of the 

refuge. Each special use permit may contain conditions under which the research will be conducted. 

Each special use permit holder will submit annual reports or updates to the refuge on research 

activities, progress, findings, and other information. Further, each special use permit holder will 

provide copies of findings, final reports, publications, and/or other documentation at the end of each 

project. The refuge will deny permits for research proposals that are determined to not serve the 

purposes of the refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge will also 

deny permits for research proposals that are determined to negatively impact resources or that 

materially interfere with or detract from the purposes of the refuge. All research activities are subject 

to the conditions of their permits. 

Justification: Research activities provide important benefits to the refuge and to the natural 

resources supported by the refuge. Supporting management, research conducted on the refuge can 

lead to new discoveries, new facts, verified information, and increased knowledge and understanding 

of resource management, as well as track current trends in fish and wildlife habitat and populations to 

enable better management decisions. Research has the potential to further the purposes and goals 

of the refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description:

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: _______9/18/2018________ 

Description of Use: All-terrain Vehicle Use to Support Research Activities 

All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) have been used on the refuge by non-Service scientists to conduct research 

on the refuge. Many areas (e.g., beaches) are inaccessible to larger vehicles and researchers use ATVs 

as part of their scientific studies. ATV use on the refuge by the public will remain prohibited. Approved 

refuge special use permits are required and contain conditions under which researchers and their use of 

ATVs must operate to help minimize negative impacts to refuge resources. 
192 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Availability of Resources: Operational funds to support this activity would be minimal and limited to 

issuing permits to researchers and enforcing regulations prohibiting recreational ATV use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: A critical and objective evaluation of the potential effects that 

ATVs could have on the wildlife, habitat, and other public use activities is based on the most current 

information available and best professional judgment. Although ATVs have the potential to have 

impacts, the focus is to minimize their negative effects. This is based on the impacts at the existing 

and projected level of use. Improperly used ATVs can have very serious and long-term 

consequences due to destruction of habitat and disturbance to wildlife (Webb and Wilshire 1983, 

Defenders of Wildlife 2002). However, based upon special use permit conditions, the impacts from 

approved ATV use to support research activities are anticipated to be minimal. 

Determination: 

____Use is Not Compatible 

_X__Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: ATV use can have substantial negative impacts on 

refuge resources. However, this activity will be limited to qualified researchers, a relatively small number 

(generally less than 20 annually) of scientists/biologists. In addition, all ATV users will be permitted to 

only use their ATVs in specific areas on the refuge where they are conducting their studies, and only 

during the timeframes and under the conditions outlined in a refuge-approved protocol and special use 

permit. All research on the refuge is reviewed by the staff prior to implementation. Approved ATV users 

will stay on trails and beaches and adhere to all applicable procedures. 

Justification: Scientific research conducted on the refuge will contribute to a better understanding 

the resources and natural processes that occur on the refuge. In some cases, these scientific studies 

will allow the Service to more effectively protect and manage wildlife and plant populations. Providing 

opportunities for these activities contributes toward fulfilling provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act. For some scientific studies, ATV-use is an important tool in meeting 

research objectives, and with proper precautions, this mode of transportation can be utilized with 

minimal environmental impacts. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ________9/18/2018________

Description of Use: Beach Renourishment/Dune Reconstruction 

Brevard and Indian River counties have periodically conducted permitted beach renourishment and 

dune reconstruction on or near Service lands when part of a larger beach restoration project. 

Beach renourishment includes a variety of activities, such as dredging and pumping sand material 

onto the beach, using pipes and heavy equipment to deliver and distribute sand along the beach 
Appendices 193 

and into the dune, building sand fencing to retain sand in the newly built areas, and planting native 

vegetation to stabilize dunes. Dune reconstruction includes a variety of activities, such as using 

heavy equipment to deliver and distribute sand along the beach to build the dune, building sand 

ramps to access the beach with heavy equipment, staging equipment at access sites on the beach 

during reconstruction activities, building sand fencing to retain sand in the newly built areas, and 

planting native vegetation to stabilize dunes. 

Beach renourishment and dune rebuilding (if implemented with Service concurrence on sand type, 

timing, and other vital factors essential for the protection of listed species) would be preferable to 

typical beach armoring structures such as sea walls, geotextile tubes, and rock revetments installed 

on adjacent private properties. Impacts from beach armoring (including lower nesting success) tend 

to be long-term and cumulative. Any impacts from beach nourishment and dune rebuilding (including 

lower nesting success) tend to be short-term. 

Availability of Resources: Operational funds to support this activity would be minimal and limited to 

issuing permits to government agencies proposing dune reconstruction activities. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Impacts include, but are not limited to: dune escarpment formation 

resulting in potentially reduced sea turtle nesting success (Brock et al. 2008); changes to the physical 

characteristics of the beach and dunes resulting in potentially reduced hatching success (Nelson and 

Dickersonson 1989); negatively sloped dunes resulting in potentially increased sea turtle hatchling 

disorientation (Witherington, pers. comm.); potential temporary loss of dune vegetation that is buried 

(sea oats, seashore dropseed, sea purslane, beach elder, and southern sea rocket) and coastal strand 

vegetation (saw palmetto, sea grape, Hercules’ club, inkberry, and southern prickly pear) (Witherington, 

pers. comm.); potential loss of ghost crabs and white beach tiger beetles (Witherington, pers. comm.); 

and potential loss of macroinvertebrates, such as mole crabs, amphipods, polychaetes, and mollusks 

that are important for foraging shorebirds (Peterson et al. 2006). 

Determination: 

____Use is Not Compatible 

_X__Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Dune reconstruction projects should be 

coordinated with the refuge and permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in consultation with the Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 

to ensure that the proposed project will not result in take to listed species or long-term adverse 

impacts to the refuge’s biotic community. 

Justification: Dune reconstruction activities are justified when shoreline erosion results in threats to 

sea turtle nesting habitat, beach mouse habitat, or other native resources. Dune reconstruction may 

also be justified when the scope of shoreline erosion threatens the human environment to the extent 

that public policy options (e.g., beach armoring) would result in long-term threats to sea turtle nesting 

habitat, beach mouse habitat, or other resources. 
194 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: _______9/18/2018________
Appendices 195 

Literature Cited: 

Brock, K.A., J.S. Reece, and L.M. Ehrhart. 2008. The Effects of Artificial Beach Nourishment on 

Marine Turtles: Differences between Loggerhead and Green Turtles. Restoration Ecology, 

published article online: 3-Jan-2008. 

Burger, J. and Gochfeld, M. 1991. Human Activity Influence and Diurnal and Nocturnal Foraging of 

Sanderlings (Calidris alba). The Condor. 93(2):259-265. 

Burger, J. 1995. Beach Recreation and Nesting Birds. Pages 281-295 in T.L. Knight and K. J. 

Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Receptionists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. 

Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372pp. 

Burger, J., Jeitner, C., Clark, K., and Niles, L. 2004. The effect of human activities on migrant 

shorebirds: successful adaptive management. Environmental Conservation 31: 283-288. 

Coleman, F. C., W. F. Figueira, J. S. Ueland, and L. B. Crowder. 2004. The impact of U.S. 

recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. Science 305: 1958-1960. 

Defenders of Wildlife. 2002. Out of Control: The Impacts of Off-Road Vehicles and Roads on Wildlife 

and Habitat in Florida's National Forests. August 2002. 

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality Check: The Debate behind the Lens. Audubon: Jan.-Feb. 

Jackson, J., B.C., Kirby, Michael X., Berger, Wolfgang H., Bjorndal, Karen A., Botsford, Louis W., 

Bourque, Bruce J., Bradbury, Roger H., Cooke, Richard G., Erlandson, Jon, Estes, James A., 

Hughes, Terence P., Kidwell, Susan, Lange, Carina B., Lenihan, Hunter S., Pandolfi, John M., 

Peterson, Charles H., Steneck, Robert S., Tegner, Mia J. and Warner, Robert R. 2001. Historical 

overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293(5530): 629-637. 

Klein, M. L. 1993. Waterbird Behavior Responses to Human Disturbances. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 21: pp. 31-39. 

Laskowski, H., T. Leger, J. Gallegos, and F. James. 1993. Behavior Response of Greater Yellowlegs, 

Snowy Egrets and Mallards to Human Disturbance at Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. 

Unpub. Repot #51510-01-92. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 25pp. 

Morton J.M. 1995. Management of Human Disturbance and its Effects on Waterfowl. Pages F59-F86 

in W. R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe, and L. Roberts (eds). 

Waterfowl Habitat Restoration, Enhancement and Management in the Atlantic Flyway. Third 

Ed. Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council Technical Section, and 

Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. Dover, DE. 1114 pp. 

Murphy, T. M. 1985. Telemetric monitoring of nesting loggerhead sea turtles subjected to 

disturbance on the beach. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle 

Biology and Conservation. 13-16 March, Waverly, GA. 

Nelson, D. A., and D. D. Dickerson. 1989. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles. Pages 125–

127 in S. A. Eckert, K. L. Eckert, and T. H. Richardson, compilers. Proceedings of the 9th 

Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SEFC-232. 
196 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Pease, M. L., R.K. Rose, and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of Human Disturbances on the Behavior of 

Wintering Ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1): 103-112. 

Peterson, C.H., M.J. Bishop, G.A. Johnson, L.M. D'Anna and L.M. Manning. 2006. Exploiting beach 

filling as an unaffordable experiment: Benthic intertidal impacts propagating upwards to 

shorebirds Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology Volume 338, Issue 2, 

Pages 205-221. 

Pfister, C., Harrington, B.A., Levine, M. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at a 

migration staging area. Biological Conservation. 60(2): 115-126. 

Riffell, S. K., J. Gutzwiller, and S. H. Anderson. 1996. Does repeated human intrusion cause 

cumulative declines in avian richness and abundance? Ecological Applications 6(2): 492-505. 

Webb, R. H. and H. G. Wilshire. 1983. Environmental effects of off-road vehicles: impacts and 

management in arid regions. Springer-Verlag, NewYork. 
Appendices 197 

APPROVAL OF COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. If one of the descriptive uses is 

considered for compatibility outside of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the approval signature 

becomes part of that determination. 
198 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 199 

Appendix VII. Intra-Service Section 7 

Biological Evaluation 

SOUTHEAST REGION

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM

Originating Person: Paul Tritaik, Refuge Manager, Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge and 

Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Telephone Number: 772/562-3909 X 244 E-Mail: paul_tritaik@fws.gov 

Date: 2/19/2008 

PROJECT NAME: Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I. Service Program:

___ Ecological Services 

___ Federal Aid 

___ Clean Vessel Act 

___ Coastal Wetlands 

___ Endangered Species Section 6 

___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

___ Sport Fish Restoration 

___ Wildlife Restoration 

___ Fisheries 

 X Refuges/Wildlife

II. State/Agency:

n/a 

III. Station Name:

Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, FL 

IV. Description of Proposed Action:

The proposed project is to implement the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge (ACNWR) 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) as required under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. The purpose of a CCP is to describe the desired future conditions of a 

refuge and provide long-range guidance and management direction to accomplish the purposes of a 

refuge, to contribute to the mission of the Refuge System, and to meet other relevant mandates. 
200 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

The CCP details the proposed action to improve refuge management in the following areas: wildlife 

and habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and refuge administration. The 

proposed action (Alternative B) focuses refuge management actions on the needs of rare, 

threatened, and endangered species. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management 

The refuge would expand management activities to protect federally and state-listed species, 

migratory birds, and native wildlife and habitat diversity; expand management activities to control 

exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; and develop management activities to address the impacts of 

climate change on the refuge’s resources. 

Sea Turtles. From March 1 through September 30, the refuge would continue to conduct daily sea turtle 

nest surveys along eight kilometers of beach in Indian River County, with some surveys continuing into 

November, as needed. The University of Central Florida Marine Turtle Research Group and Sebastian 

Inlet State Park) would continue to survey the 13 miles (21 km) in Brevard County and the three miles 

(five km) in the Sebastian Inlet State Park (SISP) respectively that comprise the remainder of the Archie 

Carr Refuge partnership. The refuge would coordinate all the sea turtle survey work conducted by the 

refuge and the partners within the refuge’s acquisition boundary and facilitate funding and support, if 

possible. It is estimated, based on prior experience, that nest depredation rates would be lowered from 

10% to less than five percent through the use of a Biological Science Technician position dedicated to 

trapping and through intensified monitoring and targeted trapping and euthanization of nuisance animals. 

The refuge would continue to coordinate with Brevard and Indian River counties and the Archie Carr 

Working Group to address lighting issues and un-permitted beach activities. The refuge would continue 

to participate in rescuing stranded and injured sea turtles. Further, the refuge would foster needed 

research to support sea turtle recovery and would work with Ecological Services to develop sea turtle 

recovery targets for the refuge. Management activities would include oversight of beach and dune 

restoration and mitigation of effects from erosion control efforts. In addition, the refuge would work with 

private landowners and beach goers to minimize impacts to sea turtles (e.g., barriers to nesting, 

harassment of nesting and hatching sea turtles, and lighting). The refuge would work with the partners to 

understand and manage the nearshore habitats. 

Southeastern Beach Mouse. Under the proposed alternative, Southeastern beach mouse management 

activities would be expanded. The refuge would continue to work with the Service’s South Florida 

Ecological Services Field Office, University of Central Florida (UCF), and Cape Canaveral Air Force 

Station (CCAFS) to translocate beach mice from CCAFS to reestablish an extirpated population on the 

refuge, at locations just north of Sebastian Inlet. The refuge would continue to work with SISP to 

conduct needed habitat management and monitoring activities to support this translocation effort. 

Further, the refuge would work with Ecological Services to develop beach mouse recovery targets for 

the refuge and to locate additional release sites (e.g., in Indian River County, south of Sebastian Inlet). 

The refuge would work with the partners to evaluate the genetic composition of donor populations for 

compatibility with populations south of Sebastian Inlet. The refuge would actively modify and restore 

habitats to serve beach mice, including mechanical cutting of vegetation, prescribed burning, and 

planting of sea oats and other forage plants. Management activities would be coordinated between 

Archie Carr and Pelican Island refuges and SISP. Predator control, telemetry, mark-recapture 

sampling, and intensive presence/absence surveys would be conducted. 

Gopher Tortoise. The refuge would develop management activities to address the needs of gopher 

tortoises. This would include working with the partners to evaluate the feasibility of, locate, and develop 

wildlife underpasses, especially during roadway maintenance work, including along SR A1A. Gopher 

tortoise crossing signs, barriers to movement, and other measures would be undertaken to minimize 

vehicle collisions. Where barriers are developed, the refuge would work to provide for their foraging 
Appendices 201 

needs. Gopher tortoise surveys would be conducted to help the refuge assess population status and 

trends, including diseases. The refuge would identify sites in need of additional management activities to 

support gopher tortoises. The refuge would assess the need for relocation and would identify sites for 

translocations from non-Service sites. The refuge would support the genetic analysis of barrier island 

versus mainland populations to assess the feasibility of receiving translocated tortoises. 

Florida Scrub-jay. Since only one known Florida scrub-jay family is known to occur on the refuge, the 

Service would evaluate the refuge’s ability to meet the needs of scrub-jays. The refuge would 

coordinate with the scrub-jay recovery team to evaluate management of refuge habitats to support 

the species. If determined to be feasible for scrub-jay recovery, the refuge would work with partners 

to restore former scrub-jay habitat on tracts in Segment 1, especially in the area of Twin Shores Park 

and Coconut Point Park. Restoration would involve cutting some of the young hardwoods, creating 

open space for food caches and fire breaks, conducting prescribed burns, removing exotic plants, 

and monitoring recruitment of native scrub plants. 

Wood Storks. The refuge would work with the partners to minimize impacts to wood storks and the 

conflicts with humans (e.g., at fish cleaning stations). Further, the refuge would work with the 

partners to increase the ability to rehabilitate injured wood storks, as well as other birds (e.g., 

pelicans) in the vicinity of the refuge. 

Other Species. The refuge would expand management activities in relation to the bald eagle, piping 

plover, Eastern indigo snake, and West Indian manatee. Where bald eagle nesting is discovered, the 

refuge would institute protection measures (e.g., closed area buffers around the nests). Through 

wintering surveys, the refuge would be able to detect piping plover use and would adapt management 

as necessary, including creating closed areas. Additional surveys in suitable habitats would help 

determine the presence or absence of the Eastern indigo snake. 

The refuge would work with the partners to conduct Christmas Bird Counts to identify the mix of 

neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, wading and water birds, and waterfowl. Closed areas would 

be created as necessary to minimize impacts to nesting shorebirds. The refuge would work with the 

partners (including FDOT) to minimize wildlife impacts from vehicle collisions, through the use of 

wildlife underpasses, speed limits, no passing lanes, rumble strips, outreach, increased awareness, 

and signage. Expanded surveys would help the refuge to better understand the diverse wildlife using 

the refuge. Management activities would be adapted as necessary and the refuge would identify any 

rare or listed species in need of additional protection and management. 

Land Crabs. Harvesting of land crabs is not allowed on the refuge or on the rights-of way within the 

Indian River county portion of the refuge. The refuge would continue to coordinate with FWC to 

regulate land crab harvest on partner lands. Further, the refuge would increase law enforcement 

patrols to control harvesting activities. The need for wildlife underpasses, especially for SR A1A, 

would be evaluated. The refuge would work with the partners to increase and install bilingual 

regulatory signage and to incorporate land crab protection into outreach efforts. Further, interpretive 

signage would also be installed at Pelican Island NWR to promote land crab protection. 

Habitat Management. Habitat management activities would be expanded or developed for scrub, the 

beach and dune system, and mangroves and wetlands. The refuge would continue to conduct regular 

prescribed burns in scrub habitat to help increase the amount and quality of scrub acreage managed on 

the refuge. The beach and dune system would be actively modified and restored to serve beach mice. 

The refuge would coordinate with the partners to conduct mangrove restoration activities. 
202 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species. Control of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species activities 

would be expanded and focused on high priority habitats serving rare, threatened, and endangered 

species. Volunteers and partners would continue to conduct exotic plant control efforts. The refuge 

would identify and locate new infestations of Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council categories I and II 

invasive upland plants. Initial attack would be conducted with an emphasis on elimination. Control 

efforts would focus on limiting the spread of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species to high priority 

habitats serving rare, threatened, or endangered species. Further, the refuge would coordinate with 

the partners to control feral and free-roaming animals to minimize adverse impacts to rare, 

threatened, and endangered species. 

Climate Change. The refuge would institute management activities to address the impacts of climate 

change on refuge resources. The refuge would coordinate with researchers and partners to identify 

climate change research needs for the refuge, investigating the impacts of climate change on rare, 

threatened, and endangered species and their habitats (e.g., sea turtle nesting habitat changes, sex 

ratio changes of sea turtles, extent and duration of sea turtle nesting seasons, and changes of habitat 

composition in relation to salt water intrusion). Further, the refuge would work with the partners to 

establish benchmarks in relation to sea level rise and shoreline changes and to monitor the migration 

of the dunes and salt water intrusion into existing wells. Increased land acquisition and restoration 

efforts would help the refuge and partners to respond to the impacts of climate change in an effort to 

maintain the ability to manage habitats for rare, threatened, and endangered species and to reduce 

the federal, state, and local cost of protecting private property threatened by erosion. 

Resource Protection 

Land Acquisition, Land Swaps, and Consolidated Management. The Service would pursue 

completion of the acquisition boundary from willing sellers through prioritized active acquisition efforts 

on those properties east of SR A1A. The refuge would consider using land swaps, if necessary, to 

protect high priority properties. Management to protect important habitats and wildlife corridors would 

increase under this alternative. The refuge, would work with the partners to identify and protect sites 

that serve rare, threatened, and endangered species. It would consider coordinating land 

management and consolidate those areas publicly held by multiple partners under management of 

one entity (e.g., through management agreements and land swaps). 

Cultural Resources. The refuge would continue to respond to cultural resource issues as they arise, 

but would expand efforts in relation to protection of the Oak Lodge Site. The refuge would actively 

work with the partners to acquire or otherwise manage, protect, and interpret the historically important 

Oak Lodge site due to its contributions to research and historical data for the barrier island. Further, 

these sites would be incorporated into an interpretive program. 

Law Enforcement. A PINWR Law Enforcement Officer would be shared with ACNWR to conduct 

both nighttime and daytime patrols. Nighttime patrols would be conducted during sea turtle nesting 

season to protect sea turtles from poaching and harassment and to educate a law-abiding public to 

avoid disturbing nesting sea turtles. Nighttime patrols would also accomplish lighting ordinance 

compliance through coordination with local jurisdictions. Daytime patrols would be scheduled to 

enforce refuge regulations on Service lands, particularly during the seasonal harvest for land crabs 

and palmetto berries. 

Visitor Services 

Welcome and Orientation, Signage, and Access. The Service would continue to maintain two 

entrance signs for the refuge: at the north and south ends. All permitted visitor activities within 

the larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership would continue to occur on partner properties. Other 

than special tours and research activities, the refuge’s properties would remain closed to public 
Appendices 203 

access (although users would continue to access the beach from partner properties). Service 

messages would be focused on rare, threatened, and endangered species and the refuge would 

work with the partners to incorporate these messages into their visitor activities and signage. The 

refuge would continue to work directly with the partners to maintain develop and install kiosks at 

all approved beach access points, as well as to simplify regulatory signage to limit confusion of 

the users. The refuge would continue to coordinate with Sebastian Inlet State Park to develop a 

dune crossover on State Park property near the refuge’s Spanish House site. Further, the refuge 

would coordinate with the partners to develop a visitor counting process to estimate the numbers 

of visitors at all Carr Refuge partner lands. 

Information about the refuge would be improved. The refuge would work with the partners to actively 

maintain and update associated websites, including providing cross links between refuge and partner 

sites. The refuge would coordinate with the partners to develop an overall map of all the visitor 

facilities available in the area. The Service would continue to develop and update the first Service 

brochure for the refuge. Brevard County opened the Barrier Island Sanctuary Management and 

Education Center in May 2008, within the larger Carr Refuge partnership, as a visitor center with 

kiosks, exhibits, an auditorium, and night viewing scopes. Various partners, including the Service, 

conduct programs from this site. The Barrier Island Center serves as the primary visitor center for 

this area and for the refuge. The refuge would work with the partners to enhance the rare, 

threatened, and endangered species messages delivered at the Barrier Island Center. 

Fishing. All fishing activities would continue to occur or originate on partner properties. 

Unapproved access through closed refuge lands would be eliminated and fishing activities would 

be directed to approved access points. The refuge would work with the partners to provide 

information to anglers regarding the impacts of fishing activities on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. The refuge would work with the partners to evaluate the need to develop 

additional dune crossovers and to expand the monofilament recycling program. Dune crossovers 

would be considered on Save Our Coast parcels, ahead of refuge and other conservation lands. 

Dune crossovers would also be considered for existing foot paths and dune blowouts before 

considering sites with intact dunes and unaltered habitats. 

Wildlife Viewing and Photography. Wildlife viewing and photography opportunities would continue to 

occur on partner properties. The refuge would annually conduct 10 sea turtle viewing programs, while 

the partners would conduct an additional 40 programs. The refuge would work with partners to expand 

sea turtle viewing programs. More guided turtle watch programs should help alleviate the demand of 

the public to view sea turtles, as well as reduce unauthorized and potentially harassing turtle 

encounters. Other wildlife viewing and photography opportunities would mostly occur from beach 

access points or along Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands’ (EEL) trails west of A1A. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation. Environmental education and interpretive opportunities 

would be increased. The refuge would develop on-and offsite curriculum-based and interpretive 

programs with messages focused on rare, threatened, and endangered species and the minimization 

of human impacts. Staff, volunteers, teachers, and tour operators would be trained to conduct these 

programs and incorporate interpretive themes into their programs. The refuge would coordinate with 

the State of Florida to develop the key messages to be conveyed to all sea turtle walk participants. 

The refuge would develop staff- and/or volunteer-led interpretive programs focused on rare, 

threatened, and endangered species. The refuge would work with the Brevard EEL Program, 

Caribbean Conservation Corporation, and other partners to offer formal environmental education and 

interpretive programs at the Barrier Island Center. 
204 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Inappropriate Uses. The refuge would work with the partners to control inappropriate uses. All 

unapproved foot trails through refuge properties would be closed and dune blow-outs would be 

restored. Approved foot trails that had dune blowouts would also be restored and improved with 

dune crossovers. All public nighttime access to the beach from refuge properties would be eliminated 

(e.g., through barriers and law enforcement). The refuge would work with the partners to eliminate 

nighttime access to the beach from their properties. 

Outreach and the Archie Carr Working Group. The refuge would focus its outreach efforts on rare, 

threatened, and endangered species. Outreach would continue to be conducted by the partners, the 

refuge, and sea turtle researchers. Increased outreach activities would be conducted by the volunteers, 

the Friends of the Carr Refuge (FOCR), and others (e.g., the lifeguards would be provided with 

outreach materials). The Archie Carr Working Group would continue to coordinate several outreach 

activities. The refuge would provide outreach support and core messages to the Working Group. 

Volunteers. The refuge would increase the number of active volunteers and focus their efforts on 

projects to benefit rare, threatened, and endangered species. The volunteers would be coordinated 

by staff. The refuge would coordinate with the partners to develop a volunteer cadre to be shared 

amongst the partners. 

Friends of the Carr Refuge. The refuge would help the FOCR become a 501(c)(3) nonprofit 

organization, with a Cooperating Agreement. The friends group would seek agreements with other 

organizations to expand opportunities to assist the refuge. The refuge would work with FOCR to 

focus its efforts and activities to benefit rare, threatened, and endangered species. Further, the 

refuge would support increased numbers of members and levels of activities. 

Litter and Ocean Debris. In an effort to address litter and ocean debris, the refuge would work with 

the partners and volunteers to develop a regular cleanup program for the expanse of refuge and 

partner beaches. The refuge would schedule major cleanup efforts prior to and after sea turtle 

nesting season and would periodically assess the need to conduct other cleanups (e.g., after 

hurricanes and winter storms). The refuge would coordinate with the partners to conduct outreach to 

area boaters and users of the Port of Canaveral (e.g., cruise ships) to minimize litter and ocean 

debris from these vessels. Further, the refuge and the partners would work to increase awareness 

and understanding of area dump stations for boats (e.g., might provide GPS locations of existing 

stations and might work to develop additional dump stations). 

Refuge Administration 

Refuge Management. The refuge would continue to share facilities, equipment, utilities, and 

some staff with PINWR, but would have its own budget and its own full-time staff members. 

Much of the facilities would continue to be managed together with PINWR, including the 

researcher beach house and dune crossover, deteriorating beach structure (slated for demolition 

and removal), planned bunk house, garage at SISP, maintenance facility at PINWR, Seaview 

dune crossover, planned dune crossover near Spanish House, and administrative offices at 

Ecological Services. The refuge would demolish the deteriorating beach structure. Further, it 

would seek to locate needed maintenance and office facilities closer to the refuge. 

Staffing. Staff would be increased with some positions shared with and some positions separate from 

PINWR. The refuge would share seven positions with Pelican Island NWR: Wildlife Refuge 

Manager, Assistant Refuge Manager, Refuge Officer, Administrative Assistant, Supervisory Refuge 

Ranger, Supervisory Maintenance Worker, and Wildlife Biologist. The staff specific to the refuge 

would include 3.5 positions: Refuge Ranger, Maintenance Worker, Biological Science Technician, 
Appendices 205 

and a seasonal Biological Science Technician. See Figure 13 in the Draft CCP/EA for an 

organizational chart of the proposed staffing levels. 

Partnerships. The refuge would enhance and increase partnership efforts to support management 

and recovery of rare, threatened, and endangered species. The refuge would continue to work with 

the government and nongovernment partners through the Archie Carr Working Group. Beyond the 

Working Group, the refuge would also continue to work directly with Ecological Services, SISP, 

Brevard and Indian River counties, the mosquito control districts, and the State of Florida. 

CCP Progress and Future Permits. Throughout the life of the CCP, the refuge will report on progress 

towards meeting the objectives outlined in the plan (e.g., in Refuge annual narratives and through the 

Refuge Management Information System). Further, the refuge, any contractors, researchers, and 

other consultants will acquire all future needed permits before commencement of a project. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Refuge Location & Habitats:

No species occurrence maps are provided. However, general species occurrence 

maps are included in the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (Service 2002). 

The proposed project area is located on Archie Carr NWR in Brevard and Indian River 

counties, on the east coast of Florida, on the barrier island, between the Atlantic 

Ocean and the Indian River Lagoon. Refuge habitats include beach and dunes, 

coastal strand, coastal scrub, maritime hammock, saltmarsh, mangrove swamp, and 

vegetated and nonvegetated wetlands. The refuge includes nonnative vegetation such 

as citrus groves, Australian pine, and Brazilian pepper. 

B. Federally Listed Species:

The Refuge currently serves 20 federally threatened or endangered species, as listed. 

SPECIES CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS

West Indian manatee 

(Trichechus manatus) 

designated endangered 

Southeastern beach mouse 

(Peromyscus polionotus 

niveiventris) 

none threatened 

Right whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis) 

designated endangered 

Humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) 

none endangered 

Sperm whale 

(Physeter macrocephalus) 

none endangered 

Atlantic green sea turtle 

(Chelonia mydas) 

designated endangered 
206 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS

Hawksbill sea turtle 

(Eretmochelys imbricata) 

designated endangered 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle 

(Lepidochelys kempii) 

none endangered 

Leatherback sea turtle 

(Dermochelys coriacea) 

designated endangered 

Loggerhead sea turtle 

(Caretta caretta) 

none threatened 

Eastern indigo snake 

(Drymarchon corais copueri) 

none threatened 

American alligator 

(Alligator mississippiensis) 

none threatened (s/a) 

American crocodile 

(Crocodylus acutus) 

designated threatened 

Atlantic salt marsh snake 

(Nerodia clarkii taeniata) 

none threatened 

Florida scrub-jay 

(Aphelocoma coerulescens) 

none endangered 

Piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus) 

designated threatened 

Wood stork 

(Mycteria americana) 

none endangered 

Smalltooth sawfish 

(Pristis pectinata) none endangered 

Fragrant prickly-apple 

(Harrisia fragrans (Cereus 

eriophorus var. fragrans)) 

none endangered 

Johnson’s seagrass 

 (Halophila johnsonii) designated threatened 
Appendices 207 

VI. Location: 

A. Ecosystem Number and Name:

Ecosystem 53, South Florida 

B. County and State:

Brevard and Indian River counties, Florida. 

C. Latitude and longitude:

North 27 48' 14" West 80 25' 46" 

D. Distance and direction to nearest town:

2 miles east of Sebastian, FL 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

Three species of sea turtles are known to nest on the sandy beaches and dunes of the refuge: green, 

leatherback, and loggerhead. Hawksbills have been documented, but very rarely. Kemp's ridley 

turtles have not been documented nesting on the refuge but have nested on Florida’s east coast on 

rare occasions. Approximately 25% of all loggerhead and 35% of all green turtle nests in the United 

States occur within the refuge's 20.5-mi boundary. The leatherback sea turtle nests on the refuge in 

small, but rapidly 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 2007). 

Gopher tortoises, listed by the State of Florida, are most abundant (~100) 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) where the populations appear to be surviving, but not 

sustaining (Ehrhart, pers. comm.) . The eastern indigo snake has been observed on rare occasions 

(~10 over 15 years) in coastal scrub, maritime hammocks, and mangrove islands. Alligators are found 

rarely in the lagoon near the refuge, usually in canals and impoundments where salinities are lower. 

There no records of them nesting on the refuge. 

Manatees forage in seagrass beds of the lagoon bordering the western boundary of the refuge, and 

utilize Sebastian Inlet to move between the estuary and ocean. Herds of mating manatees 

sometimes are seen in the surf and occasionally seen beaching themselves on the refuge. 

Southeastern beach mice have been documented on the dunes at Sebastian Inlet State Park (south 

of the Inlet) and Treasure Shores and Golden Sands parks in Indian River County, as well as in 

adjacent old fields at Pelican Island NWR. The type specimen was found in the area of present-day 

Aquarina in Brevard County by Frank Chapman in 1889. Beach mice were found in the southern 

Brevard County at least until the late 1970s (Ehrhart, pers. comm.). 

The refuge area once supported 11 scrub-jay families (Brevard County 1995). Now, only one known 

scrub-jay family remains on the refuge. Piping plovers are currently not known to breed on the refuge, 

but utilize it as a migratory stop-over site. Piping plovers have been observed at Sebastian Inlet State 

Park (DePue, pers. comm.) and in the Brevard County portion of the refuge (Witherington, pers. 

comm.). Wood storks are not known to breed on the refuge, but they do breed on adjacent 

conservation lands at Pelican Island NWR and in the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve, and they 

utilize the salt marsh and mangrove fringes along the Indian River Lagoon, as well as the beaches of 

the Archie Carr Refuge for foraging. Wood storks also congregate around the fish cleaning stations at 

Sebastian Inlet State Park. 
208 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

VII. Determination of Effects:

A. Explanation of effects: 

The impacts to all the listed species occurring on the refuge (listed in Table V.B) are 

anticipated to be beneficial over the long-term. The Draft CCP/EA for Archie Carr 

includes a table that summarizes the environmental consequences of plan 

implementation (see Table 12 in the EA). 

SPECIES/ 

 CRITICAL HABITAT

IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

Sea Turtles 

(Loggerhead, Green, 

and Leatherback, 

Kemp’s Ridley and 

Hawksbill) 

Positive. 

Increased information about sea turtles and their habitats. 

Decreased predation rates. Increased protection and law 

enforcement. Decreased impacts from landowners and beach 

goers. 

Southeastern Beach 

Mouse 

Positive. 

Increased habitat quality and management. Increased 

information. Decreased predators. Potential for additional 

relocations to the refuge. 

Florida Scrub-jay Positive. 

Increased habitat quality and acreages. Potential for increased 

population. 

Wood Stork Positive. 

Impacts minimized. Increased rehabilitation of injured birds. 

Piping Plover Neutral to positive. 

Increased information and protection, when present. 

Eastern Indigo Snake Positive. 

Enhanced habitat quality. Increased information. Decreased 

roadkill. 

West Indian Manatee Positive. 

Minimized impacts to manatees. 

American Alligator and 

American Crocodile 

Neutral to positive. 

Increased information. 

Atlantic Salt Marsh 

Snake 

Neutral to positive. 

Increased information. 

Smalltooth Sawfish Neutral to positive. 

Increased information. 

Whales (Right, 

Humpback, and Sperm) 

Neutral to positive. 

Increased information. 

Fragrant Prickly-apple Neutral to positive. 

Increased information. 

Johnson’s Seagrass Neutral to positive. 

Increased information. 
Appendices 209 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

The implementation of all goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in the CCP will follow the 

refuge’s best management practices and will pursue avoidance and minimization of impacts to 

federally threatened and endangered species, to the extent possible and practicable. 

Whenever and wherever prudent, the avoidance and minimization measures outlined in Table 

VII.B will be incorporated into the implementation of the CCP to minimize the effect to 

federally threatened or endangered species. 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT 

ACTIONS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS 

All federally 

threatened and 

endangered species 

on the refuge 

Earthmoving Activities

All earthmoving activities on the refuge will obtain all applicable 

permits before commencement. During the application for permits, 

conditions may be imposed to minimize any impacts that may be 

anticipated from proposed earthmoving activities. Major earthmoving 

activities in listed species’ habitat would be expected to require future 

Section 7 consultations. The refuge provides orientation information 

regarding federally threatened and endangered species found on the 

refuge to all new employees, volunteers, and contractors involved in 

earthmoving activities. The refuge will make all efforts possible and 

practicable to limit long-term wildlife impacts of earthmoving activities. 

During earthmoving activities associated with exotic plant control and 

habitat restoration, measures to limit wildlife impacts include 

preliminary assessments by qualified individuals to avoid burrows, 

nests, and other obvious signs of wildlife activity. 

Fire Management Activities

Fire management is a tool employed for the benefit of wildlife, 

including improving habitat, controlling wildfires, and controlling or 

removing exotic plants. The refuge will make all efforts possible and 

practicable to limit long-term wildlife impacts of management 

activities. Measures employed to limit wildlife impacts related to fire 

management activities include scheduling fire preparation and burns 

around nesting seasons and other periods of increased wildlife 

activity. 
210 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT 

ACTIONS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS 

Exotic Plant Control and Removal Activities

Refuges regularly and commonly use Garlon to control exotic plants 

with no measurable effects on federally listed threatened and 

endangered species. The refuge provides orientation information 

regarding federally threatened and endangered species found on the 

refuge to all new employees, volunteers, and contractors involved in 

controlling and removing exotic plants. All pesticides and herbicides 

are applied in accordance with label directions. 

The refuge will make all efforts possible and practicable to limit longterm wildlife impacts from management activities. Measures to limit 

wildlife impacts during the control and removal of exotic plants 

include preliminary assessments by qualified individuals to avoid 

burrows, nests, and other obvious signs of wildlife activity. 

Research Activities

All researchers on the refuge must obtain all applicable permits, 

including a refuge special use permit before the commencement of 

research activities on the refuge. During the application for permits, 

conditions may be imposed to eliminate or minimize any impacts that 

may be anticipated from a research proposal. The refuge provides 

orientation information regarding federally threatened and 

endangered species found on the refuge to all researchers. 

Increased Visitation

Working with the partners, the refuge will make all efforts possible 

and practicable to limit wildlife impacts related to increased visitation. 

Measures to limit wildlife impacts related to increased visitation 

include establishing and enforcing closed areas (e.g., for bird 

rookeries), controlling access, conveying ethical wildlife viewing 

messages (e.g., through brochures, interpretive talks, and 

presentations), and controlling or eliminating inappropriate and 

incompatible uses. 

Construction Activities

All construction activities on the Refuge will obtain all applicable 

permits before commencement. During the application for permits, 

conditions may be imposed to eliminate or minimize any impacts that 

may be anticipated from proposed construction. Future construction 

activities would be expected to require future consultations, once 

specific sites and structure footprints have been identified (e.g., 

another Section 7 would be required for the siting and building of a 

visitor center). The Refuge will make all efforts possible and 

practicable to limit long-term wildlife impacts of management 

activities. 
Appendices 211 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested:

 SPECIES / 

 CRITICAL HABITAT 

DETERMINATION1 RESPONSE1 

 REQUESTED 

NE NA AA 

West Indian manatee / 

designated 

(Trichechus manatus) 

 X Concurrence 

Southeastern beach mouse / 

none 

(Peromyscus polionotus 

niveiventris) 

 X Concurrence 

Right whale / designated 

(Eubalaena glacialis) 

 X Concurrence 

Humpback whale / none 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) 

 X Concurrence 

Sperm whale / none 

(Physeter macrocephalus) 

 X Concurrence 

Atlantic green sea turtle / 

designated 

(Chelonia mydas) 

 X Concurrence 

Hawksbill sea turtle / 

designated 

(Eretmochelys imbricata) 

 X Concurrence 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle / none 

(Lepidochelys kempii) 

 X Concurrence 

Leatherback sea turtle / 

designated 

(Dermochelys coriacea) 

 X Concurrence 

Loggerhead sea turtle / none 

(Caretta caretta) 

 X Concurrence 

Eastern indigo snake / none 

(Drymarchon corais copueri) 

 X Concurrence 

American alligator / none 

(Alligator mississippiensis) 

 X Concurrence 

American crocodile / 

designated 

(Crocodylus acutus) 

 X Concurrence 
212 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

 SPECIES / 

 CRITICAL HABITAT 

DETERMINATION1 RESPONSE1 

 REQUESTED 

NE NA AA 

Atlantic salt marsh snake / 

none 

(Nerodia clarkii taeniata) 

 X Concurrence 

Wood stork / none 

(Mycteria americana) 

 X Concurrence 

Piping plover / none 

(Charadrius melodus) 

 X Concurrence 

Florida scrub-jay / none 

(Aphelocoma coerulescens) 

 X Concurrence 

Smalltooth sawfish / none 

(Pristis pectinata) 

 X Concurrence 

Fragrant prickly-apple / none 

(Harrisia fragrans (Cereus 

eriophorus var. fragrans)) 

 X Concurrence 

Johnson’s seagrass / 

designated 

 (Halophila johnsonii) 

 X Concurrence 

1

DETERMINATION/ RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or 

cumulatively impact, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or 

designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested is optional, but a “Concurrence” is recommended for a 

complete Administrative Record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to 

adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be 

beneficial effects to these resources. Response Requested is a “Concurrence.” 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to adversely 

impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested for 

listed species is “Formal Consultation.” Response requested for proposed and candidate species is “Conference.” 
Appendices 213 
214 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 215 

Appendix VIII. Wilderness Review 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land that retains its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human inhabitation, and is 

managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which: 

1. generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

2. has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation; 

3. has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres (2,023 ha) or is of sufficient size to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an unimpeded condition; or is a roadless island, 

regardless of size; 

4. does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive 

development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored 

through appropriate management at the time of review; and 

5. may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

The lands within Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the 

criteria for wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. No units of the refuge meet the 

minimum Wilderness Area size criteria of 5,000 acres (2,023 ha), nor does the refuge contain any 

islands. The refuge is only 258.05 acres (104.43 ha) in four segments spanning about 20.5 miles (33 

km) through two counties. In many cases the Service owns individual or a group of a few residential 

lots which front along State Highway A1A. All segments are bounded by or divided by roadways, 

including State Highway A1A. The average annual daily traffic on A1A in this area was 14,400 in 

2004 (Florida Department of Transportation 2005). Commercial and residential development 

dominates the landscape with shopping centers, neighborhoods, community centers, and parking 

lots. The small size and fragmentation of the refuge, the presence of public roads, and the proximity 

of commercial and residential development as well as high beach use, all preclude the opportunity for 

a wilderness experience at Archie Carr NWR. 

In review of the federally owned lands and waters within the boundary of Archie Carr NWR, no areas 

were found suitable for designation as Wilderness. The lands and waters of the refuge: 

y do not meet the wilderness minimum size requirement of 5,000 contiguous roadless acres 

(2,023 ha); 

y do not contain any units of sufficient size for preservation as wilderness; 

y have been altered by historic and ongoing human activities; 

y do not include outstanding opportunities for solitude or for primitive recreation; and 

y are fragmented by roadways and human development. 

Therefore, no units of Archie Carr NWR are suitable for designation as wilderness at this time and the 

suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not further analyzed in this plan. 
216 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 217 

Appendix IX. Refuge Biota 

Refuge biota lists include bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian, insect, and plant species lists, as well as 

state and federally listed species. 

List of priority migratory birds likely to be present at Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. This list is 

adapted from the list of priority bird species in Bird Conservation Region 31 (Peninsular Florida) 

derived through the Partners In Flight scoring method and the Strategic Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy. It does not include waterfowl. 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus 

Greater Shearwater (pelagic) Puffinus gravis 

Audubon's Shearwater (pelagic) Puffinus lherminieri 

Northern Gannet (pelagic) Morus bassanus 

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis 

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga 

Magnificent Frigatebird Fregata magnificens 

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis 

Green Heron Butorides striatus 

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea 

Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor 

Great Egret Egretta alba 

Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens 

Great White Heron Ardea herodias occidentalis 

Snowy Egret Egretta thula 

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias 

Yellow-crowned Night-heron Nyctanassa violacea 

Black-crowned Night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax 

White Ibis Eudocimus albus 
218 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Roseate Spoonbill Ajaia ajaja 

Wood Stork Mycteria americana 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Swallow-tailed Kite Elanoides forficatus 

Mississippi Kite Ictinia mississippiensis 

Short-tailed Hawk Buteo brachyurus 

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus 

American Kestrel Falco sparverius 

Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris 

Wilson's Plover Charadeius wilsonia 

Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus 

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus 

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

American Golden-plover Pluvialis dominica 

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola 

American Oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus 

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana 

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus 

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa 

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres 

Red Knot Calidris canutus 

Sanderling Calidris alba 

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla 

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri 

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla 
Appendices 219 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Dunlin Calidris alpina 

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus 

Laughing Gull Larus atricilla 

Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia 

Brown Noddy Anous stolidus 

Least Tern Sterna antillarum 

Gull-billed Tern Sterna nilotica 

Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri 

Royal Tern Sterna maxima 

Sooty Tern Sterna fuscata 

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis 

Black Skimmer Rynchops niger 

Common Ground-Dove Columbina passerina 

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor 

Chuck-will's-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis 

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus 

Gray Kingbird Tyrannus dominicensis 

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

Black-whiskered Vireo Vireo altiloquus 

White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus 

Florida Scrub-Jay Aphelocoma coerulescens 

Purple Martin Progne subis 

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 

Brown-headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla 

Cuban Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia gundlachi 

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor 

Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica 

Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea 

Kirtland's Warbler Dendroica kirtlandi 
220 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina 

Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica cerulea 

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis 

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Painted Bunting Passerina ciris 

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna 

Refuge mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes 

Key: N = nonnative 

Common Name Scientific Name 

MAMMALS 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncatus 

Cotton Rat Sigmodon hispidus 

Deer Mice Peromyscus sp. 

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 

Florida Mouse Podomys floridanus 

Marsh Rabbit Sylvilagus palustris 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes 

Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius 

Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana 

West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus 

REPTILES 

American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis 

American Crocodile Crocodylus acutus 

Common Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina 

Corn Snake Elaphe guttata 

Eastern Box Turtle Terrepene carolina 

Eastern Coachwhip Masticophis flagellum 

Eastern Coral Snake Micrurus fulvius 

Eastern Glass Lizard Ophisaurus ventralis 
Appendices 221 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Eastern Indigo Drymarchon corais 

Eastern Rattlesnake Crotalus adamanteus 

Eastern Ribbon Snake Thamnophis sauritus 

Florida Soft Shell Turtle Apalone ferox 

Florida Water Snake Nerodia fasciata 

Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus 

Green Anole Anolis carolinensis 

Green Turtle Chelonia mydas 

Ground Skink Scincella lateralis 

Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Peninsula Mole Skink Eumeces egregius 

Pygmy Rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius 

Rough Green Snake Opheodrys aestivus 

Saltmarsh Snake Nerodia clarkii 

Scarlet Kingsnake Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides 

Scarlet Snake Cemophora coccinea 

Six-lined Racerunner Cnemidophorus sexlineatus 

Southeastern Five-lined Skink Eumeces inexpectatus 

Southern Black Racer Coluber constrictor 

Southern Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus 

Striped Mud Turtle Kinosternon baurii 

Yellow Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta 

AMPHIBIANS 

Eastern Narrow-mouthed Frog Gastrophryne carolinensis 

Green Treefrog Hyla cinerea 

Pig Frog Rana grylio 

Southern Leopard Frog Rana utricularia 

Southern Toad Bufo terrestris 

Spadefoot Toad Scaphiopus holbrooki 

Squirrel Treefrog Hyla squirella 
222 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

FISHES 

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata 

Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus 

Opossum pipefish Microphis brachyurus lineatus 

Amphibious mangrove killifish Kryptolebias marmoratus 

Striped croaker Bairdiella sanctaeluciae 

Sand tiger shark Carcharias taurus 

River goby Awaous tajasica 

Bigmouth sleeper Gobiomorus dormitor 

Slashcheek goby Ctenogobius pseudofasciatus 

Spottail goby Ctenogobius stigmaturus 

Mountain mullet Agonostomus monticola 

Common snook Centropomus undecimalis 

Fat snook Centropomus parallelus 

Tarpon snook Centropomus pectinatus 

Atlantic tarpon Megalops atlanticus 

Spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus 

Flounder Paralichthys spp.

Black mullet Mugil cephalus 

Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus 

Black drum Pogonias cromis 

Ladyfish Elops saurus 

Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculates 

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix 

American eel Anguilla rostrata 

Nonnative species occurring on the refuge. 
Appendices 223 

Common Name Scientific Name 

INVERTEBRATES 

 Cyphomyrmex rimosus 

 Eurhopalthrix floridana 

 Pheidole moerens

 Strumigenys eggersi

Asian ambrosia beetle Xyleborus glabratus 

Asian green mussel Perna viridis

Bromeliad-eating weevil Metamasius callizona 

Green porcelain crab Petrolisthes armatus

Little red fire ant Wasmannia auropunctata 

Red imported fire ant Solenopsis invicta

Serrated swimming crab Scylla serrata

Striped barnacle Balanus amphitrite

FISHES 

Blackchin Tilapia Sarotherodon melanotheron

Walking catfish Clarias batrachus

AMPHIBIANS 

Cuban tree frog Osteopilus septentrionalis

Greenhouse frog Hyla cinerea

REPTILES 

Boa Constrictor Boa constrictor constrictor 

Brahminy Blind Snake Ramphotyphlops bramina 

Brown anole Anolis sagrei

Indo-Pacific gecko Hemidactylus garnoti 

Mediterranean gecko Hemidactylus turcicus 

Redeared Slider Trachemys scripta elegans 

BIRDS 

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis 

Eurasian Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto 

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris 

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus 

House Sparrow Passer domesticus 
224 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Rock Pigeon Columba livia 

MAMMALS 

Black Rat Rattus rattus 

Brown Rat Rattus norvegicus 

Feral Cat Felis catus 

House Mouse Mus musculus 

Nine-banded Armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus 

Refuge Insects 

Key: N = nonnative 

Common Name Scientific Name 

ANTS 

Camponotus decipiens

Florida bull (=carpenter) ant Camponotus floridanus

Tortugas bull ant Camponotus tortuganus

Crematogaster ashmeadi

Cyphomyrmex minutus 

Forelius pruinosus 

Hypoponera opacior 

Snap-jaw ant Odontomachus brunneus

Pheidole floridanus

Florida harvester ant Pogonomyrmex badius 

Pseudomyrmex ejectus 

Solenopsis abdita 

Solenopsis nickersoni 

Solenopsis picta 

Solenopsis tennesseensis 

Strumigenys louisianae 

Trachymyrmex septentrionalis 

BUTTERFLIES 

White Peacock Anartia jartrophae 

Monarch Danaus plexippus 
Appendices 225 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Gulf Fritillary Dione vanillae 

Small sulphur Eurema sp. 

Zebra Heliconius charitonius 

Carolina Satyr Hermeuptypchia hermes 

Giant Swallowtail Papilio cresphontes 

Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus 

Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes 

Cloudless Sulphur Phoebis sennae 

Pearl Crescent Phyciodes tharos 

Common Buckeye Precis coenia 

Long-tailed Skipper Urbanus proteus 

Red Admiral Venessa atalanta 

OAK-GALL INSECTS 

Amphibolips murata 

Amphibolips quercuscitriformis 

Andricus quercusfoliatus 

Belonocnema quercusvirens 

Callirhytis difficilis 

Callirhytis myrtifolia 

Callirhytis quercusbatatoides 

Callirhytis quercusclavigera 

Callirhytis quercusmedullae 

Disholcaspis quercussuccinipes 

Disholcaspis quercusvirens 

Neuroterus quercusminutissimus 

Neuroterus sp. 

Refuge plants 

Key: N = nonnative 
226 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

American Beautyberry Callicarpa americana 

Asparagus fern (N) Asparagus aethiopicus 

Asparagus fern (N) Asparagus aethiopicus 

Australian Pine Casuarina spp.

Balsampear Momordica charantia 

Basket Grass Oplismemus hirtellus 

Beach naupaka (N) Scaevola taccada 

Beach naupaka (N) Scaevola taccada 

Beggerticks Bidens alba 

Bermuda Grass Cynodon dactylon 

Black Ironwood, Leadwood Krugiodendron ferreum 

Bowstring hemp (N) Sansevieria hyacinthoides 

Bowstring hemp N) Sansevieria hyacinthoides 

Bracken Pteridium aquilinum 

Brazilian pepper (N) Schinus terebinthifolius 

Butterbough (N) Exotheca paniculata 

Buttonsage Lantana involucrata 

Cabbage Palm Sabal palmetto 

Camphorweed Heterotheca subaxillaris 

Cardinal Airplant Tillandsia fasciculata 

Carrotwood Cupaniopsis anacardioides 

Carrotwood (N) Cupaniopsis anacardioides 

Coastal Mock-vervain Glandularia maritima 

Coral Bean Erythrina herbacea 

Dogfennel Eupatorium capillifolium 

Dune Sunflower Helianthus debilis 

Earleaf Greenbrier Smilax auriculata 

Eastern Poison Ivy (N) Toxicodendron radicans 

Erect Pricklypear Opuntia stricta 

False Mastic Sideroxylon foetidissium 

Firewheel Gaillardia pulchella 

Florida Fiddlewood Citharexylum spinosum 
Appendices 227 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Florida Keys Hempvine Mikania cordifilia 

Florida Shrubverbena Lantana depressa var. floridana 

Florida Swampprivet Forestiera segregata 

Forked bluecurls Trichostema dichotomum 

Giant Airplant Tillandsia utriculata 

Giant Leather Fern Acrostichum danaeifolium 

Golden Polypody Phlebodium aureum 

Gopher Apple Licania michauxii 

Greytwig Schoepfia chrysophylloides 

Groundsel Tree, Sea Myrtle Baccharis halimifolia 

Gumbo-Limbo Bursera simaruba 

Hairy Bluestem (N) Andropogon longiberbis 

Half-flower (N) Scaevola taccada 

Half-flower (N) Scaevola taccada 

Hercules' Club Zanthoxylum clava-herculis 

Inkberry, Gallberry Ilex glabra 

Jamaica Swamp Sawgrass Cladium jamaicense 

Lancewood Ocotea coriacea 

Lantana Lantana camara 

Lantana (Hybrid) Lantana camera x depressa 

Lead tree (N) Leucaena leucocephala 

Leafless Swallowwort Cynanchum scoparium 

Life plant (N) Kalanchoe pinnata 

Madagascar Periwhinkle Catharanthus roseus 

Manyflower Marshpennywort Hydrocotyle umbellata 

Marlberry Ardisia escallonioides 

Muscadine Grape Vitis rotundifolia 

Myrsine Rapanea punctata 

Natal grass (N) Rhynchelytrum repens 

Papaya Carica papaya 

Partridge Pea Chamaecrista fasciculata 

Pigeon Plum Coccoloba diversifolia 
228 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Poorman's patch Mentzelia floridana 

Pricklypear Opuntia humifusa 

Red Bay Persea borbonia 

Red Mulberry Morus rubra 

Resurrection Fern Polypodium polypodioides 

Rosary pea (N) Abrus precatorius 

Russian thistle (N) Salsola kali 

Saw Palmetto Serenoa repens 

Seagrape Coccoloba uvifera 

Seaside Goldenrod Solidago sempervirens 

Seaside maho (N) Thespesia populnea 

Shoestring Fern Vittaria lineata 

Simple-leaf chaste tree (N) Vitex trifolia 

Sisal hemp (N) Agave sisalana 

Snowberry Chiococca alba 

Southern Needleleaf Tillandsia setacea 

Spanish bayonet Yucca aliofolia 

Spanish Moss Tillandsia usneoides 

Spanish Stopper Eugenia foetida 

Spotted Beebalm Monarda punctata 

Strangler Fig Ficus aurea 

Tallow Wood, Hog Plum Ximenia americana 

Tick Trefoil Desmodium spp. 

Torpedo grass (N) Panicum repens 

Tough Bully Sideroxylon tenax 

Tread Softly Cnidoscolus stimulosus 

Tropical signal gra ss (N) Urochloa distachya 

Twinberry Myrcianthes fragrans 

Umbrella tree (N) Schefflera actinophylla 

Unnamed Tillandsia simulata 

Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

Virginia Live Oak Quercus virginiana 
Appendices 229 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera 

Wedelia (N) Sphagneticola trilobata 

White Indigoberry Randia aculeata 

White Stopper Eugenia axillaris 

White Twinevine Sarcostemma clausum 

Whitemouth Dayflower Commelina erecta 

Wild Coffee (N) Psychotria nervosa 

Yellow Necklacepod Sophora tomentosa 

Rare, threatened, and endangered species of Archie Carr NWR 

Scientific Names Common Names Agency Status 

FWC FWS 

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 - 
230 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Scientific Names Common Names Agency Status 

FWC FWS 

Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron SSC - 

Ajaia ajaja Roseate Spoonbill SSC - 

Eudocimus albus White Ibis SSC - 

Rynchops niger Black Skimmer SSC - 

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 

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) 
Appendices 231 

Appendix X. Budget Requests 

The refuge’s budget requests are contained in the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and 

Service Asset and Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) databases that include a wide 

variety of new and maintenance refuge projects. The RONS and SAMMS lists are constantly 

updated and include priority projects. Contact the refuge for the most current RONS and SAMMS 

lists. Please refer to Chapter V, Plan Implementation, for the key budget requests associated with 

the proposed projects and staffing. Chapter V includes the proposed projects, which are linked to the 

applicable objectives, and Table 9, which identifies staff, first-year costs, and recurring costs for the 

outlined projects. 
232 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 233 

Appendix XI. List of Preparers 

y Mike Carlson, former Fish and Wildlife Biologist, South Florida Ecological Services 

Field Office, USFWS 

y Cheri M. Ehrhardt, AICP, Natural Resource Planner, USFWS 

y Charles Mathis, former Assistant Refuge Manager, Pelican Island and Archie Carr NWRs, 

Merritt Island NWR Complex, USFWS 

y William G. Miller, Wildlife Biologist, USFWS 

y Paul Tritaik, Wildlife Refuge Manager, Pelican Island and Archie Carr NWRs, Merritt Island 

NWR Complex, USFWS 

y Oliver van den Ende, Contractor, Dynamac Corporation 

y Joanna Webb, Park Ranger, Pelican Island and Archie Carr NWRs, Merritt Island NWR 

Complex, USFWS 

y Nick Wirwa, Wildlife Refuge Specialist, Pelican Island and Archie Carr NWRs, Merritt Island 

NWR Complex, USFWS 

y Barry Wood, Information Technology Specialist (GIS), South Florida Ecological Services 

Field Office, USFWS 
234 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 235 

Appendix XII. Consultation and Coordination 

OVERVIEW 

The Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge CCP process involved a wide variety of participants, 

including federal, state, and local governments; universities and other researchers; private nonprofit 

groups; and the friends of the refuge, as well as a wide variety of local residents, local businesses, 

concerned citizens from all over the country, local schools, universities, and state and national 

organizations. Outreach efforts by the refuge and news coverage by the media have spread across 

the country. The list of participants, beyond those individuals and organizations providing comments 

during the public scoping process, includes the Core CCP Planning Team, the Wildlife and Habitat 

Management Review Team, the Visitor Services Review Team, the Wilderness Review Team, the 

Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team, and the Archie Carr Working Group. 

CORE CCP PLANNING TEAM 

The Core Planning Team included representatives from the Service and the CCP contractor, 

Dynamac. The team met as a whole to review the all the issues, determine the priority issues, and 

identify potential solutions or approaches. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

y Paul Tritaik, Wildlife Refuge Manager, Pelican Island and Archie Carr NWRs, Merritt Island 

NWR Complex 

y Cheri M. Ehrhardt, AICP, Natural Resource Planner 

y Oliver van den Ende, Environmental Scientist, Dynamac Corporation 

y Mike Carlson, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 

Ecological Services 

y Barry Wood, Information Technology Specialist (GIS), South Florida Ecological Services Field 

Office, Ecological Services 

y Joanna Webb, Park Ranger, Pelican Island and Archie Carr NWRs, Merritt Island NWR 

Complex 

y Charles Mathis, Wildlife Refuge Specialist, Pelican Island and Archie Carr NWRs, Merritt 

Island NWR Complex 

y William Miller, Wildlife Biologist 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT REVIEW TEAM 

The Wildlife and Habitat Management Review Team included a core group of Service staff with 

invited participants. The invited participants included local and regional experts, researchers, and 

individuals with intimate knowledge of and expertise with the resources of the refuge. These 

participants included representatives from state and county agencies and universities. Members of 

the Archie Carr Working Group also provided input into the review. The wildlife and habitat 

management review was conducted during September of 2006. 

y Stefani Melvin, Assistant Nongame Migratory Bird Coordinator, Division of Migratory Birds, 

Southeast Regional Office, USFWS 

y Cheri M. Ehrhardt, AICP, Natural Resource Planner, USFWS 
236 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

y Paul Tritaik, Wildlife Refuge Manager, Pelican Island and Archie Carr NWRs, Merritt Island 

NWR Complex, USFWS 

y Mike Carlson, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 

USFWS 

y Sandy MacPherson, Southeast Region's Sea Turtle Recovery Coordinator, North Florida 

Ecological Services Field Office, USFWS 

y Annie Dziergowski, Wildlife Biologist, North Florida Ecological Services Field Office, USFWS 

y Mike Legare, Refuge Biologist, Merritt Island NWR, USFWS 

y Trish Adams, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 

USFWS 

y Dave Martin, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 

USFWS 

y Nichole Perna, Assistant Land Manager, Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, 

Brevard County 

y Duane DeFreese, Vice President, Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute 

y Llewellyn M. Ehrhart, PhD., Professor Emeritus, University of Central Florida/Hubbs-SeaWorld 

Research Institute 

y Ray Mojica, Land Manager, Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, Brevard County 

y Virginia Barker, Beach Management Coordinator/Supervisor, Natural Resources Management 

Office, Brevard County 

y Mike McGarry, Environmental Specialist, Natural Resources Management Office, Brevard 

County 

y Ron Johns, Park Manager, Sebastian Inlet State Park, Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection 

y Ed McKenzie, Assistant Park Manager, Sebastian Inlet State Park, Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection 

y Beth Powell Conservation Lands Manager, Parks Division, Public Works Department, Indian 

River County 

y Alice Bard, District Biologist, Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection 

y Jim Roth, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Biology, University of Central Florida 

y Chris Parkinson, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, University of Central 

Florida 

y Jeff Van Zant, Graduate Student, Department of Biology, University of Central Florida 

y Haakon Kalkvik, Graduate Student, Department of Biology, University of Central Florida 

y Ray Carthy, Ph.D., Assistant Unit Leader/Assistant Professor, Florida Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Research Unit, University of Florida 

y Meg Lamont, Ph.D., Post-Doctoral Associate, Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research 

Unit, University of Florida 

y Rick Herren, Environmental Specialist, Coastal Engineering, Indian River County 

VISITOR SERVICES REVIEW TEAM 

The Visitor Services Review Team consisted of Service staff from the Southeast Regional Office and 

other refuges. The Archie Carr Working Group also provided input to the Review. The Visitor 

Services Review for the refuge was conducted in September 2006. 
Appendices 237 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

y Garry Tucker, Acting Chief, Division of Visitor Services and Outreach, Southeast Regional 

Office, USFWS 

y Shawn Gillette, Park Ranger, Okefenokee NWR, USFWS 

y David Underwood, Park Ranger, Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWR, USFWS 

y Cheri M. Ehrhardt, AICP, Natural Resource Planner, USFWS 

y Joanna Taylor, Park Ranger, Pelican Island and Archie Carr NWR, Merritt Island NWR 

Complex, USFWS 

y Paul Tritaik, Wildlife Refuge Manager, Pelican Island and Archie Carr NWRs, Merritt Island 

NWR Complex, USFWS 

The following partners contributed to the Visitor Services Review: 

y Ray Mojica, Land Manager, Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, Parks and 

Recreation Department, Brevard County 

y Nichole Perna, Assistant Land Manager, Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, Parks 

and Recreation Department, Brevard County 

y Marsha Cantrell, Parks Support Services Manager, Parks and Recreation, Brevard County 

y Jeff Whitehead, Manager, South Area Parks Operations, Parks and Recreation, Brevard 

County 

y Ron Johns, Park Manager, Sebastian Inlet State Park, Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection 

y Ed McKenzie, Assistant Park Manager, Sebastian Inlet State Park, Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection 

y Beth Powell Conservation Lands Manager, Parks Division, Public Works Department, Indian 

River County 

y David Godfrey, Executive Director, Caribbean Conservation Corporation 

y Dan Evans, Outreach and Field Programs Coordinator, Caribbean Conservation Corporation 

y Jessica Koelsch, Florida Marine Wildlife Program Manager, Ocean Conservancy 

y Jerry Heyes, President, Friends of the Carr Refuge 

y Kristi Boogaard, Graduate Student, Florida Institute of Technology 

WILDERNESS REVIEW TEAM 

The Wilderness Review Team involved the Wildlife Refuge Manager and the Natural Resource 

Planner. The review was completed in July 2006. 

y Cheri M. Ehrhardt, AICP, Natural Resource Planner, USFWS 

y Paul Tritiak, Wildlife Refuge Manager, Pelican Island and Archie Carr NWRs, Merritt Island 

NWR Complex, USFWS 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION PLANNING TEAM 

The Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team included local, state, and federal government 

field staff representatives involved with the resources at the local level. This included staff from the 

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission), St. 

Sebastian River State Buffer Preserve (Florida Department of Environmental Protection), Sebastian 

Inlet State Park (Florida Department of Environmental Protection), Indian River Lagoon Program (St. 

Johns River Water Management District), Community Development Department (Indian River 
238 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

County), Parks Department (Indian River County), County Commission (Indian River County), and 

Indian River Mosquito Control District. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

y Cheri M. Ehrhardt, AICP, Natural Resource Planner, USFWS 

y Paul Tritaik, Refuge Manager, Pelican Island and Archie Carr NWRs, Merritt Island NWR 

Complex, USFWS 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission: 

y Blair Witherington, Assistant Research Scientist, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

y Meghan Koperski, Environmental Specialist, Imperiled Species Management 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection: 

y Ron Johns, Park Manager, Sebastian Inlet State Park 

y Ed McKenzie, Assistant Park Manager, Sebastian Inlet State Park 

y Terry O’Toole, Parks Services Specialist, Sebastian Inlet State Park 

y Alice Bard, District Biologist, Division of Recreation and Parks 

y Jason DePue, District Biologist, Division of Recreation and Parks 

St. Johns River Water Management District: 

y Robert Day, Environmental Scientist, Indian River Lagoon Program 

Indian River County: 

y Ken Oristaglio, Senior Environmental Planner, Environmental Planning and Code 

Enforcement, Community Development Department 

y Beth Powell Conservation Lands Manager, Parks Division, Public Works Department 

y Jonathan Gorham Ph.D., Coastal Resources Manager, Coastal Engineering Division, Public 

Works Department 

y James Gray, Coastal Engineer, Coastal Engineering Division, Public Works Department 

y Rick Herren, Environmental Specialist, Coastal Engineering Division, Public Works 

Department 

Brevard County: 

y Virginia Barker, Beach Management Coordinator/Supervisor, Natural Resources Management 

Office 

y Mike McGarry, Environmental Specialist, Natural Resources Management Office 

y Paula Berntson, Environmental Specialist, Natural Resources Management Office 

y Marsha Cantrell, Parks Support Services Manager, Parks and Recreation Department 

y Ray Mojica, Land Manager, Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, Parks and 

Recreation Department 

y Nichole Perna, Assistant Land Manager, Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, Parks 

and Recreation Department 

y Jeff Whitehead, Manager, South Area Parks Operations, Parks and Recreation Department 

y Brandon Smith, Environmental Program Coordinator, Riverwalk Nature Center, Riverwalk-A 

Family Park, Parks and Recreation Department 

y Mark Knowles, South Area Parks Operations, Parks and Recreation Department 
Appendices 239 

ARCHIE CARR WORKING GROUP 

The Archie Carr Working Group was established in 1994 to coordinate efforts amongst all partners 

and parties interested in Archie Carr NWR. The Archie Carr Working Group has met quarterly for over 

12 years to discuss issues related to land acquisition, species protection, biological research, land 

management, and education and outreach. Many members of the Archie Carr Working Group have 

participated in the CCP in some capacity, but the entire Archie Carr Working Group has regularly 

provided input on a variety of issues that have been incorporated into the CCP. The members of the 

Archie Carr Working Group represent: federal, state, and county agencies; federal, state, and local 

elected officials; universities; nonprofit conservation organizations; research institutions; homeowner 

associations; recreational organizations; and private citizens. The Archie Carr Working Group 

currently has over 100 members. 
240 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 241 

Appendix XIII. Finding of No Significant 

Impact 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to protect and manage certain fish and wildlife 

resources in Brevard and Indian River counties, Florida, through the Archie Carr National Wildlife 

Refuge (ACNWR). An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to inform the public of the 

possible environmental consequences of implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 

for Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. A description of the alternatives, the rationale for selecting 

the preferred alternative, the environmental effects of the preferred alternative, the potential adverse 

effects of the action, and a declaration concerning the factors determining the significance of effects, 

in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, are outlined below. The supporting 

information can be found in the Environmental Assessment (Section B) of the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. 

ALTERNATIVES 

In developing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated four alternatives: 

The Service adopted Alternative B, the preferred alternative, for implementation in the CCP to guide 

the direction of the refuge for the next 15 years. The overriding concern reflected in this plan is that 

wildlife conservation assumes first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependant recreational 

uses are allowed if they are appropriate and compatible with wildlife conservation and the purposes 

of the refuge. 

ALTERNATIVE A. CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE)

Alternative A represents no change from current management of the refuge. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management 

The refuge currently conducts limited management activities to protect sea turtles and other listed 

species; enhance biodiversity; and control exotic, invasive, and nuisance species. 

From March 1 through September 30, the refuge conducts daily sea turtle nest surveys along five 

miles (eight km) of beach in Indian River County, with some surveys continuing into November, as 

needed. Comprising the remainder of the larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership, the partners 

survey the 13 miles (21 km) in Brevard County and the 3 miles (5 km) in the Sebastian Inlet State 

Park (SISP). Completion of the surveys is dependent upon volunteers and partners. Nest 

depredation rates are targeted at 10% or less through monitoring, trapping in target areas, and 

euthanizing nuisance animals. The refuge coordinates with Brevard and Indian River counties and 

the Archie Carr Working Group to address lighting issues and unauthorized beach activities. The 

refuge also participates in rescuing stranded and injured sea turtles. Further, the refuge annually 

supports about six sea turtle research studies on and around the refuge. 
242 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Minimal Southeastern beach mouse activities are conducted by the refuge, with occasional surveys 

conducted by researchers. However, the refuge is currently working with the Service’s North Florida 

Ecological Services Field Office, University of Central Florida, and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

(CCAFS) to translocate beach mice from CCAFS to the refuge to reestablish an extirpated population 

on the refuge, located just north of Sebastian Inlet. The refuge is working with SISP to conduct 

needed habitat management and monitoring activities to support this translocation effort. 

Harvesting of land crabs is not allowed on the refuge or on the rights-of way within the Indian River 

county portion of the refuge. The refuge is coordinating with the partners to regulate land crab 

harvest on partner lands. 

The primary habitat management activity conducted by the refuge involves the implementation of 

prescribed burns in scrub habitat on a five-year rotation. Fire suppression and prescribed burns 

are conducted by the Merritt Island NWR fire crew in close coordination with the Brevard County 

Environmentally Endangered Program (EEL) and the Florida Division of Forestry. 

An important activity with management implications that has taken place within the refuge is artificial 

dune construction and artificial placement of beach fill. These activities have been conducted as 

responses to erosion and inlet maintenance. The refuge coordinates with the partners to regulate 

some of this activity to minimize potential impacts. Minimal refuge management activities address the 

control of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species beyond the trapping of raccoons in relation to sea 

turtle nest protection. Although volunteers annually treat about 5 acres (2 ha) of refuge lands for 

exotic plants, the partners are actively conducting exotic plant control efforts on their properties. The 

refuge also seeks grants to control invasive exotics. 

Resource Protection 

The refuge responds to cultural resource issues as they arise by coordinating with Merritt Island NWR 

Law Enforcement officers and the Regional Archaeologist. Currently no law enforcement presence 

exists at Archie Carr or Pelican Island NWRs, hence resource protection is minimal. 

Visitor Services 

The Service maintains two entrance signs for the refuge: at the north and south ends. All authorized 

visitor activities within the refuge originate on partner properties. Other than special tours and 

research activities, the refuge’s properties are closed to public access. However, the refuge works 

directly with the partners to maintain three kiosks, as well as informational and regulatory signs on 

partner properties. Sea turtle educational signs are located at all 14 approved beach access sites. 

The refuge is coordinating with SISP to develop a dune crossover on State Park property near the 

refuge’s Spanish House site. 

Information about the refuge is available from Friends of the Carr Refuge (FOCR), the refuge’s partners, 

and the refuge’s website. The Friends of the Carr Refuge maintain and distribute a brochure for the 

refuge. The Service is currently in the process of developing the first Service brochure for the refuge. 

Brevard County is constructing the Barrier Island Sanctuary Management and Education Center within 

the larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership as a visitor center with a variety of visitor facilities, including 

kiosks, exhibits, an auditorium, and night viewing scopes. Various partners, including the Service, will 

conduct programs from this site. The Barrier Island Center will serve as the primary visitor center for this 

area and for the refuge. 

All fishing activities occur on partner properties; however, unapproved access to some sites currently 

occurs through closed refuge lands. 
Appendices 243 

Wildlife viewing and photography opportunities occur on partner properties. The refuge annually 

conducts 10 sea turtle viewing programs, while the partners conduct an additional 40 programs. 

These programs are quickly saturated with participants each year. Unregulated, unpermitted, and 

unguided encounters with sea turtles making nesting attempts within the refuge are common. Other 

wildlife viewing and photography opportunities mostly occur from beach access points or along four 

EEL’s trails west of SR A1A. 

Opportunistic environmental education and interpretive programs are conducted by the Friends of the 

Carr Refuge and refuge volunteers. Once constructed, the Barrier Island Center will offer formal 

environmental education and interpretive programs by the partners. 

Outreach is conducted by the partners, the refuge, sea turtle surveyors, volunteers, and Friends of 

the Carr Refuge. The Archie Carr Working Group coordinates several outreach activities. 

Approximately 20 active volunteers annually contribute about 400 hours to the refuge. The refuge 

relies heavily volunteers to conduct a variety of refuge management activities. 

The Friends of the Carr Refuge is not an independent group, but is currently part of a larger group, the 

Sea Turtle Preservation Society. The friends group does not conduct regular meetings, but does maintain 

and distribute a brochure about the refuge (since a Service brochure does not exist for the refuge). 

Refuge Administration 

All facilities, equipment, utilities, and staff are shared with the nearby Pelican Island NWR. Both 

Archie Carr and Pelican Island NWRs are administered under the Merritt Island NWR Complex. The 

headquarters office is shared with Pelican Island NWR and co-located with the South Florida 

Ecological Services Field Office in Vero Beach. Pelican Island and Archie Carr NWRs share four fulltime staff, with two targeted for elimination: Wildlife Refuge Manager, Wildlife Refuge Specialist 

(Assistant Manager), Park Ranger (targeted for elimination), and Administrative Office Assistant 

(targeted for elimination). The positions of Wildlife Biologist and Biological Science Technician were 

previously eliminated. Archie Carr historically received endangered species recovery funding to 

support sea turtle monitoring and protection and to fund a seasonal Biological Science Technician, 

but funding for those activities ends in 2008. 

The refuge works with governmental and nongovernmental partners through the Archie Carr Working 

Group. The Archie Carr Working Group provides a forum for communication and coordination 

regarding management activities and protection of the barrier island’s resources. Beyond the 

Working Group, the refuge also works directly with Ecological Services, SISP, Brevard and Indian 

River counties, the mosquito control districts, and the State of Florida. 

ALTERNATIVE B. RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE)

The preferred alternative, Alternative B, is considered to be the most effective management action for 

meeting the purposes of the refuge and serving the goals outlined for future management. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management 

The refuge would expand management activities to protect federally and state-listed species, 

migratory birds, and native wildlife and habitat diversity; expand management activities to control 

exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; and develop management activities to address the impacts of 

climate change on the refuge’s resources. 
244 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

From March 1 through September 30, the refuge would continue to conduct daily sea turtle nest 

surveys along five miles (eight km) of beach in Indian River County, with some surveys continuing 

into November, as needed. The partners would continue to survey the 13 miles (21 km) in Brevard 

County and the three miles (five km) in the SISP that comprise the remainder of the larger Archie 

Carr Refuge partnership. The refuge would coordinate all the sea turtle survey work conducted by 

the refuge and the partners within the refuge’s acquisition boundary and facilitate funding and 

support, if possible. In addition, the refuge would work with research partners to implement 

appropriate monitoring to better understand the impacts of climate change on the sex ratio of sea 

turtles hatching within the larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership. Nest depredation rates would be 

lowered from 10% to less than five percent through the use of a Biological Science Technician 

position dedicated to trapping and through intensified monitoring and targeted trapping and 

euthanization of nuisance animals. The refuge would continue to coordinate with Brevard and Indian 

River counties and the Archie Carr Working Group to address lighting issues and un-permitted beach 

activities. The refuge would continue to participate in rescuing stranded and injured sea turtles. 

Further, the refuge would foster needed research to support sea turtle recovery and would work with 

Ecological Services to develop sea turtle recovery targets for the refuge. Management activities 

would include oversight of beach and dune restoration and mitigation of effects from erosion control 

efforts. The refuge would work with private landowners and beach goers to minimize impacts to sea 

turtles. The refuge would work with the partners to understand and manage the nearshore habitats. 

Under this alternative, Southeastern beach mouse management activities would be expanded. The 

refuge would continue to work with the Service’s South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 

University of Central Florida, and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) to translocate beach 

mice from CCAFS to re-establish an extirpated population on the refuge, at locations just north of 

Sebastian Inlet. The refuge would continue to work with SISP to conduct needed habitat 

management and monitoring activities to support this translocation effort. Further, the refuge would 

work with Ecological Services to develop beach mouse recovery targets for the refuge and to locate 

additional release sites. The refuge would work with the partners to evaluate the genetic composition 

of donor populations for compatibility with populations south of Sebastian Inlet. The refuge would 

actively modify and restore habitats to serve beach mice, including mechanical cutting of vegetation, 

prescribed burning, and planting of sea oats and other forage plants. Management activities would 

be coordinated between Archie Carr and Pelican Island refuges and SISP. Predator control, 

telemetry, mark-recapture sampling, and intensive presence/absence surveys would be conducted. 

The refuge would develop management activities to address the needs of gopher tortoises. This 

would include working with the partners to evaluate the feasibility of, locate, and develop wildlife 

underpasses, especially during roadway maintenance work, including along SR A1A. Gopher 

tortoise crossing signs, barriers to movement, and other measures would be undertaken to minimize 

vehicle collisions. Where barriers are developed, the refuge would work to provide for their foraging 

needs. Gopher tortoise surveys would be conducted to help the refuge assess population status and 

trends, including diseases. The refuge would identify sites in need of additional management 

activities to support gopher tortoises. The refuge would assess the need for relocation and would 

identify sites for translocations from non-Service sites. The refuge would support the genetic analysis 

of barrier island versus mainland populations to assess the feasibility of receiving translocated 

tortoises. The refuge would develop and implement translocation policies and, in conjunction with the 

partners, tag and monitor translocated tortoises. Together with the partners, it would assess 

population status and trends, including diseases and perform carrying capacity studies. The refuge 

would also identify sites in need of additional management activities. 

Since only one known Florida scrub-jay family is known to occur on the refuge, the Service would 

evaluate the refuge’s ability to meet the needs of scrub-jays. The refuge would coordinate with the 
Appendices 245 

scrub-jay recovery team to evaluate management of refuge habitats to support the species. If 

determined to be feasible for scrub-jay recovery, the refuge would work with partners to restore 

former scrub-jay habitat on tracts in Segment 1, especially in the area of Twin Shores Park and 

Coconut Point Park. Restoration would involve cutting some of the young hardwoods, creating open 

space for food caches and fire breaks, and conducting prescribed burns. 

The refuge would work with the partners to minimize impacts to wood storks and the conflicts with 

humans. Further, the refuge would work with the partners to increase the ability to rehabilitate injured 

wood storks, as well as other birds in the vicinity of the refuge. 

The refuge would expand management activities in relation to the bald eagle, piping plover, Eastern 

indigo snake, and West Indian manatee. Where bald eagle nesting is discovered, the refuge would 

institute protection measures. Through wintering surveys, the refuge would be able to detect piping 

plover use and would adapt management as necessary, including creating closed areas. Additional 

surveys in suitable habitats would help determine the presence or absence of the Eastern indigo 

snake. 

The refuge would work with the partners to conduct Christmas Bird Counts to identify the mix of 

neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, wading and water birds, and waterfowl. Closed areas would 

be created as necessary to minimize impacts to nesting shorebirds. 

Harvesting of land crabs is not allowed on the refuge or on the rights-of way within the Indian River 

county portion of the refuge. The refuge would continue to coordinate with FWC to regulate land crab 

harvest on partner lands. Further, the refuge would increase law enforcement patrols to control 

harvesting activities. The need for wildlife underpasses, especially for SR A1A, would be evaluated. 

The refuge would work with the partners to increase and install bilingual regulatory signage and to 

incorporate land crab protection into outreach efforts. Further, interpretive signage would also be 

installed at Pelican Island NWR to promote land crab protection. 

The refuge would work with the partners (including the Florida Department of Transportation) to 

minimize wildlife impacts from vehicle collisions, including the construction of wildlife underpasses, 

speed limits, no passing lanes, rumble strips, outreach, increased public awareness, and signage. 

Expanded surveys would help the refuge to better understand the diverse wildlife using the refuge. 

Management activities would be adapted as necessary and the refuge would identify any rare or 

listed species in need of additional protection and management. 

Habitat management activities would be expanded or developed for scrub, the beach and dune 

system, and mangroves and wetlands. The refuge would continue to conduct regular prescribed 

burns in scrub habitat to help increase the amount and quality of scrub acreage managed on the 

refuge. The beach and dune system would be actively modified and restored to serve beach mice. 

The refuge would coordinate with the partners to conduct mangrove restoration activities. 

Control of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species activities would be expanded and focused on high 

priority habitats serving rare, threatened, and endangered species. Volunteers and partners would 

continue to conduct exotic plant control efforts. The refuge would identify and locate new infestations 

of Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council categories I and II invasive upland plants. Initial treatment would 

be conducted with an emphasis on elimination. Control efforts would focus on limiting the spread of 

exotic, invasive, and nuisance species to high priority habitats serving rare, threatened, or 

endangered species. Further, the refuge would coordinate with the partners to control feral and freeroaming animals to minimize adverse impacts to rare, threatened, and endangered species. This 
246 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

would include working with the partners to discourage the establishment of Trap-Neuter-Return 

programs near refuge lands. 

The refuge would institute management activities to address the impacts of climate change on refuge 

resources. The refuge would coordinate with researchers and partners to identify climate change 

research needs for the refuge, investigating the impacts of climate change on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species and their habitats. Further, the refuge would work with the partners to establish 

benchmarks in relation to sea level rise and shoreline changes and to monitor the migration of the 

dunes and salt water intrusion into existing wells. Increased land acquisition and restoration efforts 

would help the refuge and partners to respond to the impacts of climate change in an effort to 

maintain the ability to manage habitats for rare, threatened, and endangered species and to reduce 

the federal, state, and local cost of protecting private property threatened by erosion. 

Resource Protection 

The Service would pursue completion of the acquisition boundary from willing sellers through 

prioritized active acquisition efforts on those properties east of SR A1A. The refuge would consider 

using land swaps, if necessary, to protect high priority properties. 

Management to protect important habitats and wildlife corridors would increase under this alternative. 

The refuge would work with the partners to identify and protect sites that serve rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. It would consider coordinating land management and consolidate those areas 

publicly held by multiple partners under management of one entity. 

The refuge would continue to respond to cultural resource issues as they arise, but would expand 

efforts in relation to protection of the Oak Lodge Site. The refuge would actively work with the 

partners to acquire or otherwise manage, protect, and interpret the historically important Oak Lodge 

site due to its contributions to research and historical data for the barrier island. Further, these sites 

would be incorporated into an interpretive program. 

A Pelican Island NWR Law Enforcement Officer would be shared with ACNWR to conduct both 

nighttime and daytime patrols. Nighttime patrols would be conducted during sea turtle nesting season 

to protect sea turtles from poaching and harassment and to educate a law-abiding public to avoid 

disturbing nesting sea turtles. Nighttime patrols would also accomplish lighting ordinance compliance 

through coordination with local jurisdictions. Daytime patrols would be scheduled to enforce refuge 

regulations on Service lands, particularly during the seasonal harvest for land crabs and palmetto 

berries. 

Visitor Services 

The Service would continue to maintain two entrance signs for the refuge: at the north and south 

ends. All permitted visitor activities within the larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership would continue 

to occur on partner properties. Other than special tours and research activities, the refuge’s 

properties would remain closed to public access (although users would continue to access the beach 

from partner properties). Service messages would be focused on rare, threatened, and endangered 

species and the refuge would work with the partners to incorporate these messages into their visitor 

activities and signage. The refuge would continue to work directly with the partners to maintain 

develop and install kiosks at all approved beach access points, as well as to simplify regulatory 

signage to limit confusion of the users. The refuge would continue to coordinate with SISP to develop 

a dune crossover on State Park property near the refuge’s Spanish House site. Further, the refuge 

would coordinate with the partners to develop a visitor counting process to estimate the numbers of 

visitors at all Archie Carr Refuge partner lands. 
Appendices 247 

Information about the refuge would be improved. The refuge would work with the partners to actively 

maintain and update associated websites, including providing cross links between refuge and partner 

sites. The refuge would coordinate with the partners to develop an overall map of all the visitor 

facilities available in the area. The Service would continue to develop and update the first Service 

brochure for the refuge. Brevard County is constructing the Barrier Island Sanctuary Management 

and Education Center, within the larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership, as a visitor center with 

kiosks, exhibits, an auditorium, and night viewing scopes. Various partners, including the Service, 

would conduct programs from this site. The Barrier Island Center will serve as the primary visitor 

center for this area and for the refuge. The refuge would work with the partners to enhance the rare, 

threatened, and endangered species messages delivered at the Barrier Island Center. 

All fishing activities would continue to occur or originate on partner properties. Unapproved access 

through closed refuge lands would be eliminated and fishing activities would be directed to approved 

access points. The refuge would work with the partners to provide information to anglers regarding 

the impacts of fishing activities on rare, threatened, and endangered species. The refuge would work 

with the partners to evaluate the need to develop additional dune crossovers and to expand the 

monofilament recycling program. Dune crossovers would be considered on Save Our Coast parcels, 

ahead of refuge and other conservation lands. Dune crossovers would also be considered for existing 

foot paths and dune blowouts before considering sites with intact dunes and unaltered habitats. 

Wildlife viewing and photography opportunities would continue to occur on partner properties. The 

refuge would annually conduct 10 sea turtle viewing programs, while the partners would conduct an 

additional 40 programs. The refuge would work with partners to expand sea turtle viewing programs. 

More guided turtle watch programs should help alleviate the demand of the public to view sea turtles, 

as well as reduce unauthorized and potentially harassing turtle encounters. Other wildlife viewing 

and photography opportunities would mostly occur from beach access points or along Brevard EEL’s 

trails west of A1A. 

Environmental education and interpretive opportunities would be increased. The refuge would develop 

on- and offsite curriculum-based and interpretive programs with messages focused on rare, threatened, 

and endangered species and the minimization of human impacts. Staff, volunteers, teachers, and tour 

operators would be trained to conduct these programs and incorporate interpretive themes into their 

programs. The refuge would coordinate with the State of Florida to develop the key messages to be 

conveyed to all sea turtle walk participants. The refuge would develop staff- and/or volunteer-led 

interpretive programs focused on rare, threatened, and endangered species. The refuge would work 

with the Brevard EEL Program, Caribbean Conservation Corporation, and other partners to offer formal 

environmental education and interpretive programs at the Barrier Island Center. 

The refuge would work with the partners to control inappropriate uses. All unapproved foot trails 

through refuge properties would be closed and dune blow-outs would be restored. Approved foot 

trails that had dune blowouts would also be restored and improved with dune crossovers. All public 

nighttime access to the beach from refuge properties would be eliminated. The refuge would work 

with the partners to eliminate nighttime access to the beach from their properties. 

The refuge would focus its outreach efforts on rare, threatened, and endangered species. Outreach 

would continue to be conducted by the partners, the refuge, and sea turtle researchers. Increased 

outreach activities would be conducted by the volunteers, the Friends of the Carr Refuge, and others. 

The Archie Carr Working Group would continue to coordinate several outreach activities. The refuge 

would provide outreach support and core messages to the Working Group. 
248 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge would increase the number of active volunteers and focus their efforts on projects to benefit 

rare, threatened, and endangered species. The volunteers would be coordinated by staff, and the refuge 

would coordinate with the partners to develop a volunteer cadre to be shared amongst the partners. 

The refuge would help the Friends of the Carr Refuge become a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, with 

a Cooperating Agreement. The friends group would seek agreements with other organizations to 

expand opportunities to assist the refuge. The refuge would work with FOCR to focus its efforts and 

activities to benefit rare, threatened, and endangered species. Further, the refuge would support 

increased numbers of members and levels of activities. 

In an effort to address litter and ocean debris, the refuge would work with the partners and volunteers 

to develop a regular cleanup program for the expanse of refuge and partner beaches. The refuge 

would schedule major cleanup efforts prior to and after sea turtle nesting season and would 

periodically assess the need to conduct other cleanups. The refuge would coordinate with the 

partners to conduct outreach to area boaters and users of the Port of Canaveral to minimize litter and 

ocean debris from these vessels. Further, the refuge and the partners would work to increase 

awareness and understanding of area dump stations for boats. 

Refuge Administration 

The refuge would continue to share facilities, equipment, utilities, and some staff with Pelican Island 

NWR, but would have its own budget and its own full-time staff members. Much of the facilities would 

continue to be managed together with Pelican Island NWR, including the researcher beach house 

and dune crossover, deteriorating beach structure, planned bunk house, garage at SISP, 

maintenance facility at Pelican Island NWR, Seaview dune crossover, planned dune crossover near 

Spanish House, and administrative offices at Ecological Services. The refuge would demolish the 

deteriorating beach structure. Further, it would seek to locate needed maintenance and office 

facilities closer to the refuge. 

Staff would be increased and some positions would be separated from Pelican Island NWR. The 

refuge would share a Wildlife Refuge Manager, Assistant Refuge Manager, Refuge Officer, 

Administrative Assistant, Supervisory Park Ranger, Supervisory Maintenance Worker and Wildlife 

Biologist with Pelican Island NWR, but 3.5 staff positions would be assigned to ACNWR. The staff 

specific to the refuge would include: Park Ranger (volunteer coordinator/outreach and environmental 

education), Maintenance Worker, Biological Technician, and a seasonal Biological Technician 

(trapper). 

The refuge would enhance and increase partnership efforts to support management and recovery of 

rare, threatened, and endangered species. The refuge would continue to work with the government 

and nongovernmental partners through the Archie Carr Working Group. Beyond the Working Group, 

the refuge would also continue to work directly with Ecological Services, SISP, Brevard and Indian 

River counties, the mosquito control districts, and the State of Florida. 

ALTERNATIVE C. MIGRATORY BIRDS

The primary focus under Alternative C would be migratory birds. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management 

Under this alternative, management of listed species would increase slightly. Sea turtle 

monitoring and patrol efforts would be altered to minimize their effects on nesting shorebirds. If 

sea turtle surveys and other beach-side activities associated with these species were determined 

to have a negative effect on nesting shorebirds, these efforts would have to be altered. Likewise, 
Appendices 249 

Southeastern beach mouse monitoring would have to be scaled-back or otherwise adjusted if 

these activities conflicted with migratory bird management needs. Gopher tortoise, Florida scrubjay, wood stork, Eastern indigo snake, and West Indian manatee management would remain 

unchanged. For bald eagles, potential future nest sites would be protected. If eagles were found 

to be present, the refuge would adapt management as necessary, including creating closed areas 

to protect the species from human and pet disturbance. Management of piping plovers would 

increase with annual wintering surveys. 

Migratory bird management would increase under this alternative. Survey and monitoring efforts 

would be expanded for neotropical migrants, shorebirds, wading birds, water birds, and waterfowl. 

The refuge would consider using mist nets and banding, where applicable. For neotropical migrants, 

important habitats would be managed to improve forage and nesting availability. Potential nest 

parasites would be identified and controlled as needed. In addition, the refuge would work with 

partners to identify the potential for larger, unfragmented forests to serve the needs of these trust 

species. Shorebird management would include the closure of key areas to limit disturbance, 

including the alteration or elimination of sea turtle surveys in locations where shorebirds are 

particularly vulnerable. Law enforcement would be increased to enforce "no dogs on beach" zones, 

where applicable. For wading and water birds, the refuge would work with the partners to increase 

the ability in the area to rehabilitate injured birds. With regards to waterfowl, the refuge would work 

with the partners to manage impoundments to also benefit waterfowl and consider installing wood 

duck boxes, where appropriate. 

Efforts to maintain or increase the biodiversity on the refuge would increase slightly, primarily in areas 

such the hammocks and mangroves/wetlands, which are utilized by some migratory birds. 

Control of exotic, invasive, nuisance and free-roaming/feral species would be expanded. The refuge 

would focus exotic plant control efforts on high priority habitats for migratory birds and identify and 

locate new infestations of Category I and Category II invasive upland plants. Initial attack would be 

conducted with an emphasis on elimination. In key habitats, existing exotic plants would be 

controlled to reduce their impact on migratory birds. In addition, the refuge would coordinate with the 

partners to control feral and free-roaming animals to minimize adverse impacts to migratory birds. 

The refuge would increase management efforts in response to climate change under this alternative. 

It would coordinate with researchers and partners to investigate the impacts of climate change on 

migratory birds using the refuge. 

Resource Protection 

Under this alternative, the refuge would complete the boundary survey and prioritize active acquisition 

efforts on those properties with high migratory bird values. The refuge would pursue completion of the 

acquisition boundary from willing sellers and consider using land swaps as one of the tools to meet this 

objective. Through collaboration with partners, wildlife corridors and other important habitats would be 

identified and protected to serve migratory birds. The refuge would consider a coordinated land 

management approach and consolidate those areas publicly held by multiple partners under 

management of one entity. 

Under this alternative, a complete archaeological and historical survey of the refuge would be conducted. 

The refuge would also actively work with the partners to acquire or otherwise manage and protect the 

historically important Oak Lodge site due to its contributions to research and historical data on migratory 

birds of the barrier island. It would incorporate this site into an interpretive program. 
250 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Visitor Services 

Visitor service programs would be expanded under this alternative. Visitor informational resources 

would be altered with messages emphasizing migratory birds. An interpretive kiosk would be added 

to the Oak Lodge site and a bird list would be developed. The refuge would work with the partners to 

incorporate messages into their signage and to simplify regulatory signage to limit confusion. It would 

actively maintain and regularly update the refuge’s website and collaborate with the partners to 

provide cross links between the refuge’s and partners’ web sites. In addition, the refuge would 

coordinate with the partners to develop an overall map of the visitor facilities available on the refuge’s 

and partners’ properties. A cooperative effort to develop a visitor counting process to estimate the 

numbers of visitors would be developed with the partners. Archie Carr NWR information would be 

made available at all Pelican Island NWR visitor contact sites. 

Under this alternative, management of fishing would be increased. The refuge would work with the 

partners to provide information to the fishing public regarding the impacts of fishing activities on 

migratory birds. It would close all unapproved foot trails to public access through refuge properties 

and direct the fishing public to approved access points. The need to create additional dune 

crossovers would be evaluated. The refuge would coordinate with the partners to expand the 

monofilament recycling program. 

Wildlife viewing and photography would be changed from current management efforts. The sea turtle 

walk programs conducted by the Service would be eliminated. The refuge would work with the 

partners to develop informational materials for partners’ trails to include migratory bird messages of 

the refuge. Staff and/or volunteer-led migratory bird walks would be developed by the refuge. 

Environmental education, interpretation and outreach activities would be expanded under this 

alternative. The refuge would coordinate with the partners to incorporate migratory bird messages of 

the refuge into existing education programs. In addition, it would work with the partners to enhance 

the migratory bird messages delivered at the Barrier Island Center’s exhibits, brochures, kiosks, and 

programs. Onsite and offsite interpretive programs with messages focused on migratory birds and 

the minimization of human impacts would be developed. The refuge would train staff, volunteers, 

teachers, and tour operators to incorporate interpretive themes into programs and develop staffand/or volunteer-led seasonal migratory bird walks. Outreach efforts would be focused on migratory 

birds. The outreach efforts and activities of the staff and Friends of the Carr Refuge would occur. 

Outreach support and core messages would be provided to the Archie Carr Working Group. 

Under this alternative, the refuge would eliminate nighttime access to the beach from refuge 

properties and close all unapproved foot trails to public access through refuge properties. For foot 

trails through partner properties, the refuge would work with the partners to eliminate nighttime 

access to the beach and to evaluate the need to close, relocate, or build dune crossovers at these 

sites. 

Friends of the Carr Refuge and volunteer programs would likely decrease under this alternative. The 

refuge would likely find it more difficult to recruit members for the FOCR or volunteers, since most of 

these are dedicated to sea turtle recovery efforts. Volunteer efforts would be coordinated by refuge 

staff and focused on the needs of migratory birds. The refuge would coordinate with partners to 

develop a core volunteer cadre to be shared amongst the partners. The refuge would assist the 

FOCR to become an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, with a Cooperating Agreement. 

Alternative C would increase the control of litter and ocean debris. Through increased collaboration with 

the partners and volunteers, the refuge would develop an annual cleanup program for the expanse of 
Appendices 251 

refuge and partner beaches and lagoon shoreline prior to the arrival of shorebirds. Periodically, the need 

to conduct cleanups would be assessed. 

Refuge Administration 

Staffing levels would be increased under Alternative C. The refuge would develop staff specific to the 

refuge and share personnel with Pelican Island NWR. Shared staff would include: Wildlife Refuge 

Manager, Wildlife Refuge Specialist (Assistant Manager), Supervisory Park Ranger, Administrative 

Office Assistance, Law Enforcement Officer, Supervisory Maintenance Worker and Wildlife Biologist 

for a total of seven shared full time equivalent (FTE) employees. Full-time refuge specific staff would 

include a Biological Technician, Park Ranger (outreach, interpretation & volunteer coordinator), and 

Maintenance Worker for a total of three FTEs. 

Under this alternative, refuge infrastructure would need to be increased. Equipment and facility 

repairs would be focused on those items needed for migratory bird management activities. Deferred 

maintenance priorities and API percentages would be reevaluated to reflect a focus on migratory bird 

management. An office facility shared by Pelican Island NWR and Archie Carr NWR staff would be 

made available and pole barns to house additional equipment would be acquired. The refuge would 

demolish deteriorating beach structures (i.e., Interland Melbourne beach structure). 

ALTERNATIVE D. WILDLIFE AND HABITAT DIVERSITY

The primary focus under Alternative D would be wildlife and habitat diversity. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management 

Under this alternative, management of listed species would increase. For sea turtles, regular law 

enforcement patrols would be conducted to protect these marine reptiles from disturbance and 

harassment. In addition, the refuge would work with private landowners and beach goers to minimize 

impacts to sea turtles. The refuge would coordinate and analyze sea turtle data and work with the 

partners to understand and manage the nearshore habitats. Management of Southeastern beach 

mice would include modifying and restoring habitats utilized by these species, including maintaining 

and opportunistically planting sea oats and other forage plants. Beach mouse management efforts 

between the refuge, Pelican Island NWR, and SISP would be coordinated. The refuge would 

increase control of feral predators. Gopher tortoise management would be expanded under this 

alternative. The refuge, working with the partners, would identify locations where gopher tortoise are 

especially vulnerable to vehicle collisions and evaluate the feasibility of developing wildlife 

underpasses, especially during roadway maintenance work. Gopher tortoise crossing signs would be 

posted in key areas. Also, the refuge would consider barriers to turtle movement to minimize vehicle 

collisions and provide for foraging habitat needs inside the barriers. To improve scrub-jay conditions, 

the refuge would work with the partners to identify and restore scrub habitats. For wood storks, the 

refuge would collaborate with the partners to minimize impacts to wood storks and conflicts with 

humans and increase the area's bird rehabilitation services for injured wood storks, as well as other 

birds. Future bald eagle nests would be protected by demarking buffer zones. To minimize injury 

and drowning, the refuge would coordinate with partners to prevent manatees from entering water 

control structures. Piping plovers and Eastern indigo snakes would be included in wildlife diversity 

surveys in an effort to determine the extent of their presence on the refuge. 

With regard to native wildlife and habitat diversity, management efforts would be expanded under this 

alternative. The refuge would coordinate marine mammal stranding incidents with partners. For land 

crabs, surveys would be conducted and increased law enforcement patrols would occur. It would 

work with the partners to install bilingual regulatory signage and incorporate land crab protection into 

outreach efforts. The refuge would work with partners to minimize vehicle-wildlife collisions by 
252 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

evaluating and possibly installing wildlife underpasses to protect land crabs, as well as other species. 

Furthermore, it would work with the partners to evaluate, develop, and install wildlife awareness, give 

‘em a brake, and wildlife crossing signs. Wildlife (amphibians and reptiles in particular) surveys would 

be conducted to establish a more comprehensive species list for the refuge. Management of refuge 

habitats, including scrub, hammocks, nearshore, beach, dune, coastal strand, and mangroves and 

other wetlands would be increased through various restoration and improvement efforts to benefit the 

species utilizing these areas. Control of nonnative, feral, and nuisance species would be expanded. 

The refuge would locate and identify new infestations of categories I and II plants and work to 

eradicate these, while controlling nonnative plants already established. It would coordinate with the 

partners to control feral animals. The refuge would increase its efforts to minimize the effects of 

climate change. It would coordinate with researchers and partners to investigate the impacts of 

climate change on refuge resources and identify climate change research needs. It would foster and 

conduct needed research studies and adapt management as necessary. Cooperative efforts 

between the refuge and its partners to better understand the potential effects on the refuge would 

include: establishing benchmarks in relation to sea level rise and shoreline change, monitoring the 

migration of the dunes, and monitoring existing wells for salt water intrusion. Increasing land 

acquisition and restoration efforts in response to the effects of climate change would help the refuge 

maintain the ability to manage its resources. 

Resource Protection 

Using this alternative, the refuge would complete the boundary survey, and prioritize active 

acquisition efforts on those properties with high biodiversity value. The refuge would work to 

complete acquisition of lands within the acquisition boundary from willing sellers and use land swaps, 

where appropriate, as a method to meet this objective. Through collaboration with partners, areas 

high in biodiversity and wildlife corridors would be identified and protected. Any important properties 

needed for connectivity and protection that are outside of the current acquisition boundary would 

either be targeted by partners or proposed for addition under a Minor Expansion Proposal (MEP) of 

less than 10 percent of the approved acquisition boundary minus the 65 acres (26 ha) added under 

the last MEP (conducted in 2004). A coordinated land management approach would be considered 

by the refuge. It would work to consolidate those areas publicly held by multiple partners under the 

management of one entity. 

Under this alternative, a complete archaeological and historical survey of the refuge would be 

conducted. The refuge would also actively work with the partners to acquire or otherwise manage 

and protect the Oak Lodge site due to its contributions to research and historical data on barrier 

island biodiversity. This site would be made part of an interpretive program. 

Visitor Services 

Under this alternative, visitor service programs would be expanded. Informational resources 

available to visitors would emphasize biodiversity on the refuge. The refuge would develop a bird list 

and, at the Oak Lodge site, an interpretive kiosk would be added. The refuge would work with the 

partners to incorporate messages into their signage. In addition, refuge and partner regulatory 

signage would be consolidated to limit confusion. The refuge’s website would be actively maintained 

and regularly updated, and cross links between the refuge’s and partners’ web sites would be 

established. In addition, the refuge would coordinate with the partners to develop an overall map of 

the visitor facilities available on the refuge and partner properties. A cooperative effort to develop a 

visitor counting process to estimate the numbers of visitors would be developed with the partners. 

Archie Carr NWR information would be made available at all Pelican Island NWR visitor contact sites. 

Under this alternative, management of fishing would be increased. The refuge would work with the 

partners to provide information to the fishing public regarding the impacts of fishing activities on 
Appendices 253 

migratory birds. It would close all unapproved foot trails to public access through refuge properties 

and direct the fishing public to approved access points. The need to create additional dune 

crossovers would be evaluated. The refuge would coordinate with the partners to expand the 

monofilament recycling program. 

Wildlife viewing and photography would be changed from current management efforts. Sea turtle walk 

programs conducted by the Service would remain the same. The refuge would work with the partners to 

develop informational materials for partners’ trails to include wildlife and habitat diversity messages of the 

refuge. Staff and/or volunteer-led migratory bird walks would be developed by the refuge. 

The refuge would increase environmental education, interpretation, and outreach activities under this 

alternative. Through collaborative efforts with the partners, the refuge would incorporate more 

information on biodiversity into existing education programs. It would also work with the partners to 

enhance the wildlife and habitat diversity messages delivered at the Barrier Island Center’s exhibits, 

brochures, kiosks, and programs. Onsite and offsite interpretive programs aimed at maintaining or 

increasing biodiversity and the minimization of human impacts would be developed. Staff, 

volunteers, teachers, and tour operators would be trained to incorporate interpretive themes into 

programs and the refuge would also develop staff and/or volunteer-led wildlife walks. Outreach 

efforts would be focused on biodiversity. The refuge would help increase the outreach efforts and 

activities of the staff and Friends of the Carr Refuge, as well as provide outreach support and core 

messages to Archie Carr Working Group. 

Nighttime access to the beach from refuge properties would be eliminated and the refuge would close 

all unapproved foot trails to public access through its properties. On partner properties, the refuge 

would collaborate to eliminate nighttime access to the beach via unapproved foot trails. In addition, 

the need to close, relocate, or build dune crossovers at these sites would be evaluated. 

Friends of the Carr Refuge and volunteer programs would increase under this alternative. The refuge 

would help increase number of FOCR members and active volunteers and focus projects to benefit 

biodiversity. Volunteer activities would be coordinated by staff and focused on refuge biodiversity 

efforts. The refuge would coordinate with partners to develop a core volunteer cadre to be shared 

amongst the partners. The refuge would assist the FOCR to become an independent 501(c)(3) 

nonprofit organization, with a Cooperating Agreement. 

Under this alternative, the control of litter and ocean debris would increase. The refuge would work 

with the partners and volunteers to develop a regular cleanup program for the expanse of refuge and 

partner beaches and lagoon shoreline. A major cleanup effort prior to and after the sea turtle nesting 

season would be scheduled. The refuge would work with partners to periodically assess the need to 

conduct cleanups. Through partnerships, the refuge would conduct outreach to area boaters and 

users of the Port of Canaveral to minimize litter and ocean debris from these vessels. In addition, the 

refuge would coordinate with the partners to increase awareness and understanding of area dump 

stations for boats. 

Refuge Administration 

Under Alternative D, staffing levels would be increased. The refuge would develop staff specific to 

the refuge and share personnel with Pelican Island NWR. Shared staff would include: Wildlife 

Refuge Manager, Wildlife Refuge Specialist (Assistant Manager), Supervisory Park Ranger, 

Administrative Office Assistance, Law Enforcement Officer, Supervisory Maintenance Worker and 

Wildlife Biologist for a total of seven shared FTEs. Full-time refuge specific staff would include: 

Biological Technician, Park Ranger (outreach, interpretation & volunteer coordinator), and 

Maintenance Worker with a seasonal Biological Science Technician for a total of 3.5 FTEs. 
254 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Under this alternative, refuge infrastructure would need to be increased. Equipment and facility 

repairs would be focused on those items needed for biodiversity management activities. Deferred 

maintenance priorities and API percentages would be reevaluated to reflect a focus on wildlife 

and habitat diversity management. An office facility shared by Pelican Island NWR and Archie 

Carr NWR staff would be made available and pole barns to house additional equipment would be 

acquired. The refuge would demolish deteriorating beach structures. 

SELECTION RATIONALE 

 

Alternative B is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the refuge’s purposes and goals; emphasizes rare, threatened, and endangered species; collects 

needed habitat and wildlife data; and ensures long-term achievement of refuge and Service objectives. At 

the same time, these management actions provide balanced levels of compatible public use opportunities 

consistent with existing laws, Service policies, and sound biological principles and focuses public use 

activities on the partner properties within the larger Archie Carr Refuge partnership. It provides the best 

mix of program elements to achieve desired long-term conditions. 

Under this alternative, all lands under the management and direction of the refuge will be protected, 

maintained, and enhanced to best achieve national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals and 

objectives within anticipated funding and staffing levels. In addition, the action positively addresses 

the priority issues and concerns expressed by the public. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

Implementation of the Service’s management action is expected to result in environmental, social, 

and economic effects as outlined in the Draft CCP/EA. Habitat management, population 

management, land conservation, and visitor service management activities on Archie Carr National 

Wildlife Refuge would result in increased protection for rare, threatened and endangered species; 

increased migratory bird utilization; enhanced wildlife populations; increased detection and control of 

nonnative species; dune, scrub, and mangrove restoration; and enhanced opportunities for 

wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. These effects are detailed as listed. 

Wildlife populations and habitat quality will improve. The refuge will have more information regarding 

its resources, allowing it to better protect listed species, migratory birds, and the overall biodiversity of 

the refuge. Threats to listed species and migratory birds will be better understood, so that the refuge 

can take steps to reduce or eliminate their negative effects. Dune, scrub, and other important 

habitats will improve in quality, capable of supporting a greater variety and number of wildlife species. 

The deleterious effects of exotic species will minimized, to the benefit of native habitats and wildlife 

species. Historical and archaeological resources will be better protected. The acquisition of 

additional lands will conserve these lands in the rapidly developing surrounding landscape. Public 

use will increase, with improved opportunities for fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. 

POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

WILDLIFE DISTURBANCE 

Disturbance to wildlife is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, regardless of the 

activity involved. While some activities may be less disturbing than others, all public use activities 

proposed will be planned to avoid unacceptable levels of impacts. 
Appendices 255 

Known and anticipated levels of disturbance from the proposed action are not considered to be 

significant. Nevertheless, the refuge will manage public use activities to minimize impacts and to ensure 

compatibility. Where appropriate, providing access for fishing opportunities allows the use of a renewable 

natural resource without adversely impacting other resources. General wildlife observation may result in 

minimal disturbance to wildlife. If the refuge determines that impacts from the expected additional visitor 

uses are above acceptable levels, those uses will be modified, discontinued, restricted, or rerouted to 

other less sensitive areas and/or to partner properties to minimize impacts. 

VEGETATION DISTURBANCE 

Negative impacts could result from the maintenance of trails and roads for Service and researcher 

access that require clearing of nonsensitive vegetation along their lengths. This is expected to be a 

minor, short-term, and discrete impact. 

USER GROUP CONFLICTS 

Although the vast majority of the refuge is closed, as public use increases, unanticipated conflicts 

between different user groups could occur (e.g., between conflicting beach users). If this should 

happen, the refuge will work with the partners to adjust involved programs, as needed, to eliminate or 

minimize any public use issues. The refuge will use methods that have proven to be effective in 

reducing or eliminating public use conflicts. These methods could include establishing separate use 

areas; different use periods; and limits on the numbers of users in order to provide safe, quality, 

appropriate, and compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. However, since the 

Service only controls the lands above mean high water, the refuge will need to work with the partners 

to fully address any user group conflicts that arise. 

EFFECTS ON ADJACENT LANDOWNERS

Implementation of the proposed action is not expected to negatively affect owners of private lands 

adjacent to the refuge. Positive impacts that would be expected include higher property values, less 

intrusion of invasive exotic plants, increased aesthetics, and increased opportunities for viewing more 

diverse wildlife. 

However, some negative impacts may occur. To help minimize these potential impacts on adjacent 

landowners, the refuge will work with the partners to provide informational signs that clearly mark 

refuge and partner boundaries; maintain the partners’ existing parking facilities and appropriate 

access points; use law enforcement; and provide increased educational efforts at the visitor contact 

stations. Prescribed burning could negatively impact adjacent landowners, but the refuge would 

minimize effects by informing the public well in advance of any burns. Furthermore, prescribed burns 

would be relatively infrequent (less than annual basis) and of short duration (lasting hours). 

Prescribed burning on refuge lands will also benefit adjacent landowners by decreasing fuel loads 

and minimizing the risk of catastrophic fires. 

LAND OWNERSHIP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT

Land acquisition efforts by the Service could lead to changes in land use. Most of the non-Service 

and non-partner-owned lands within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary are already 

developed. If additional lands are acquired, they would be restored and maintained in a natural state 

and managed for native wildlife populations in accordance with goals, objectives, and strategies 

developed in the CCP. Additional lands acquired for the refuge would be evaluated for appropriate 

and compatible wildlife-dependent public uses. 
256 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

Potential development of any refuge structures or other improvements could lead to minor short-term 

discrete negative impacts on plants, soils, and some wildlife species. When building structures, 

efforts would be made to use recycled products and environmentally sensitive treated lumber. All 

construction activities would comply with all applicable laws, policies, and treaties, including the 

requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; the National Historic Preservation Act; and 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. 

COORDINATION 

The management action has been thoroughly coordinated with all interested and/or affected parties. 

Parties contacted include those listed. 

y Affected Landowners, including area Homeowners Associations 

y Congressional Representatives 

y Other Federal Agencies 

o U.S. Department of Agriculture 

o National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

o National Marine Fisheries Service 

y State Government 

o Governor of Florida 

o Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

o Florida State Historic Preservation Officer 

o Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

o Florida Division of Forestry 

o Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

o Florida Park Service 

o Florida Inland Navigation District 

o St. Johns River Water Management District 

o South Florida Water Management District 

y Regional Tribal Governments 

y Local Community Officials 

o Brevard County 

o Indian River County 

o City of Sebastian 

o Town of Melbourne Beach 

o City of Melbourne 

o City of Vero Beach 

o City of Fellsmere 

o City of Satellite Beach 

o City of Indian Harbour Beach 

o Town of Orchid Island 

y Interested Citizens 

y Local Businesses 

y Area Libraries 

y Area Chambers of Commerce 

y Area Schools 

y Universities and Research Entities 

y Conservation Organizations 

y Area Media 
Appendices 257 

FINDINGS 

It is my determination that the management action does not constitute a major federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended). As such, an environmental impact 

statement is not required. This determination is based on the following factors (40 C.F.R. 1508.27), 

as addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge: 

1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered and this action will not have a 

significant effect on the human environment. (Environmental Assessment, 

pages 175-177, 186-192) 

2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. (Environmental 

Assessment, page 177) 

3. The project will not significantly affect any unique characteristics of the geographic area such as 

proximity to historical or cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 176 and 187) 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 175-177, 186-192) 

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the human 

environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 175-198) 

6. The actions will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor do they 

represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. (Environmental Assessment, 

pages 175-198) 

7. There will be no cumulatively significant impacts on the environment. Cumulative impacts have 

been analyzed with consideration of other similar activities on adjacent lands, in past action, and 

in foreseeable future actions. (Environmental Assessment, pages 196-197) 

8. The actions will not significantly affect any site listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National 

Register of Historic Places, nor will they cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, 

or historic resources. (Environmental Assessment, pages 176 and 187) 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or their habitats. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 175-198) 

10. The actions will not lead to a violation of federal, state, or local laws imposed for the protection of 

the environment. (Environmental Assessment, page 175-198) 

SUPPORTING REFERENCES 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia. 
258 Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY 

The Environmental Assessment was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge and was made available in June 2008. Additional copies are 

available by writing: Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, 

Florida 32960-3559.