Home

Send comments on our web site or general questions to northflorida@fws.gov

If you need special assistance please contact the Public Affairs Officer at chuck_underwood@fws.gov

Team Members in Attendance (in alphabetical order):

• Dr. Alan Bolten - Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research, University of Florida

• Dr. Larry Crowder - Duke University Marine Laboratory

• Mr. Mark Dodd - Georgia Department of Natural Resources

• Ms. Sandy MacPherson - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Dr. Jack Musick - Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary

• Ms. Barbara Schroeder - National Marine Fisheries Service

• Dr. Blair Witherington - Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

• Rapporteur:

• Ms. Kristy Long - National Marine Fisheries Service

Approval of September 2002 Minutes: The Team reviewed and approved the minutes from the September 2002 meeting.

Demographic Trends: Discussion revolved around the data time series to analyze and whether to analyze the number of nests/km or to focus more on effort. The nesting beach data more closely fit a census than a sample. There was discussion as to whether data should be weighted by length of beach (area) for the trend index. Density differs among beaches; therefore, area may not be a useful tool for weighting. Weighting needs to occur after all data sets are combined. The non- FL nesting data are not from index beaches, so there may be small differences, e.g., 0.5 km difference, in survey effort. Aerial surveys that show no nests need to be included. Discussion ensued regarding how to handle remigration nesting intervals, such as by autocorrelation regression. The Team discussed the use of indicator beaches, those for which historical, reliable data are available.

The team decided to use Mr. Dodd’s method by using three breaks in the time series data at 28 years, 25 years, and 13 years. Slope analysis will be performed on longer data sets to elucidate large scale qualitative differences. Aerial surveys and long-term data sets will constitute in-water contributions. A Dry Tortugas daily data set is not held by the state, only summary data are reported with survey start/end dates. The Team decided to use whatever short data sets are available for the Dry Tortugas. For example in the Dry Tortugas, 1984-1985 nesting surveys were only performed until mid-July, thus later years of data will be shortened to the same time frame for qualitative comparison; the same will be done for South FL and the panhandle. Dr. Witherington will do the analyses for the Southern FL recovery unit and Mr. Dodd will perform the analyses for the northern recovery unit. For index beaches, the Team agreed to use a three-year running average and then fit a polynomial curve to elucidate 5-6 year cycles in the population. It was noted that in the narrative of the recovery plan, it should be mentioned that clutch frequency may not be static; it could be increasing or decreasing, similar to the way that productivity changes and diet changes affect remigration intervals. One limitation of these data is that numbers of nests, not numbers of turtles, were used for the analyses. The Team noted the importance of including a short section in the text of the Plan on loggerhead populations that do not nest on US beaches, but whose juveniles forage and utilize developmental habitat in US waters.

Stakeholder Meeting: The FWS and NMFS representatives explained the agencies’ joint policy on stakeholder involvement in the recovery planning process. This allows stakeholders an opportunity to express concerns and allows the Team an opportunity to seek information and consider input before the Recovery Plan draft is complete. FWS/NMFS Draft Recovery Guidelines give examples on how to bring stakeholders into the recovery planning process, e.g., through stakeholder meetings and recovery plan websites.

The Team discussed possible formats for the Stakeholder meeting while keeping in mind the objectives of the meeting. The Team decided to structure the meeting with plenary presentations followed by focused breakout groups. Possible breakout groups for the stakeholder meeting could include:

1. Resource Use (Fisheries) – includes marine habitat alteration from fishing gear;
2. Resource Use (Non-Fisheries) – includes terrestrial habitat alteration;
3. Pollution – includes debris, lighting, noise, toxins; and
4. Other – includes predation, disease, climate change, exotic species.

The team brainstormed categories of stakeholders, including:

• State Resource Agencies
• Federal Agencies (e.g., FWS, NOAA, MMS, ACOE, etc.)
• Local Governments
• NGOs
• Regional Fishery Management Organizations (e.g., Fishery Management Councils and Marine Fisheries Commissions)
• Military
• Fishing Industry (e.g., gillnet, longline, trawl, etc.)
• Non-fishing Marine Industry
• Developers
• Researchers
• International Entities

Recovery Criteria by Recovery Unit: A presentation on this topic at the Stakeholder Meeting should describe the listing factors, as well as priority one tasks from the implementation schedule in the 1991 Atlantic Loggerhead Recovery Plan, plus the nesting goals listed in the 1991 plan. The Team reviewed the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan and the measurable parameters developed at the September 2002 loggerhead recovery team meeting. Downlisting and delisting categories for recovery criteria should also be included in the presentation. Since the process for evaluating a species for potential delisting requires an analysis of the five factors considered in the listing package for the species, there is a need to frame recovery criteria in terms of both population parameters and the five listing factors. Recovery criteria are the objective and measurable measures by which we identify whether the recovery objectives have been met. Recovery actions are the concise and action oriented tasks that must be accomplished in order for recovery criteria to be met.

Therefore, the Team discussed how it will need to relate recovery criteria back to the five factors considered in the listing package for the species, as well as how to include demographic criteria that address survivorship. Every threat does not need to be addressed by a recovery criterion. The demographic and recovery criteria will be the driving force of the plan, with everything else linked back to those criteria, with the ultimate goal of increasing survivorship. The target survivorship must be over a long time period, rather than a certain amount of eggs, or hatchlings, etc. A benchmark for the demographic criteria could be a period of generations.

The presentation should identify the need to develop recovery criteria and the demographic criteria, as well as indicate that the Team intends to break down these criteria by marine and terrestrial habitats. It might be useful to give examples of potential recovery criteria. Just a few bullets for stakeholders to visualize the direction the Team is going in. It was suggested to insert slides to describe loggerhead ecological niches and when loggerheads will be considered "recovered," while keeping in mind shifting baselines and the ESA’s definition of "recovery goal."

Deadlines:

• Complete Trend Analysis – February 15

• Presentation/Graphics for Stakeholder meeting distributed to team – March 15

Threats Table: In the summary table, the Team discussed using per capita reproductive value, as opposed to elasticity values, since threats are categorized by individuals. Currently, there is no vertical component to the summary table. Reproductive values only apply across rows, not down rows, therefore they only apply to the summary table. The Team discussed using the middle of the log scale for the ranges of individuals. One idea was to shade the boxes across rows according to reproductive potential (# individuals x reproductive value). The Team discussed replacing numbers and colors by a 2-dimensional grid with shading. For each individual threat table, another column was added, which sums all threats for each life stage. These values were imported to the summary table. However, this approach does not account for "+", "+d", and "I". It was suggested to use these classifications to move up certain rankings as a B+ would move up to an A- based on qualitative experience.

Habitat threats are not clearly reflected in the summary threats table; currently, threats are translated into direct mortality, which excludes habitat threats. The Team decided to review the summary table once all the direct mortality values are entered. Certain categories may be revised depending on habitat threats.

The Team discussed using elasticity values instead of reproductive values to more accurately represent the total threats to each stage. Also, some stages encompass more years than others, i.e., time in each stage is not factored into estimates of annual mortality. Using elasticity values may address these issues because it takes length of stage into account. Dr. Crowder will work with Melissa Snover to determine the appropriate elasticity values for each age class listed on the threats tables.

It was noted that natural mortality is only represented in certain cells, but not all cells. For example, it is included in each life stage of "other factors" but not in juvenile neritic zone for non-fisheries resource use. The team discussed using two summary tables – one including all sources of mortality and one with manageable mortality (minus natural mortality) – or using a threats table and a habitat table.

There was some question about which number to use for the threats table in regard to the new TED rule. The threats analysis is the present state of affairs, a snapshot. At the Stakeholder meeting, the Team decided to specify that new regulations are coming into effect and the estimates on the threats table are projected results, and not the number of observed takes.

Schedule of Upcoming Team Meetings: The team discussed agenda, timing, and venues for upcoming meetings. It also discussed the need to schedule conference calls in between meeting dates.

• 8-9 April 2003 (with invited stakeholders) - Location TBD (Atlanta, Georgia or Silver Spring, Maryland)

• 22-26 September 2003 - Shepherdstown, West Virginia

The meeting concluded at noon on 16 January 2003.

• Meetings