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

Loggerhead Recovery Team

Meeting Minutes

7-8 May 2002

National Conservation Training Center, Shepherdstown, WV

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 & 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

Guest Speakers:

• Dr. Deborah Crouse - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
• Ms. Susan Pultz - National Marine Fisheries Service

Rapporteur:

• Ms. Therese Conant - National Marine Fisheries Service

Welcome and Introduction: Ms. Schroeder and Ms. MacPherson welcomed the loggerhead recovery team members and briefly described the background to the Atlantic loggerhead recovery plan process as well as the purpose for convening a new recovery team. In 1984 NMFS and USFWS issued a multi-species recovery plan for listed sea turtles in the southeast U.S. region, this plan was revisited in the early 1990's culminating in an individual species recovery plan for the loggerhead in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico in 1991. Since then, much has been accomplished to recover the species, new threats have been identified, and new information on the biology and status of the species is available. A comprehensive revision of the current recovery plan is needed to incorporate new information and to update and prioritize needed recovery actions. Advances in genetic techniques and intensive research and sampling efforts over the past decade have also resulted in the identification of five genetically distinct nesting assemblages of the loggerhead in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. This new information is critical to consider in the revision of the existing recovery plan.

Team Leader: Dr. Alan Bolten was introduced as the appointed team leader. His responsibilities are to serve as a conduit for communication with the Services in conjunction with team functions; organize, schedule, and facilitate team meetings; coordinate the various writing and other assignments for drafting the recovery plan; and keep the team moving forward and making steady progress. Other than these functions, the team leader serves as a member of the team and is not a decision-maker for the team.

Agenda: The agenda was approved with one change. Section IX ‘Development of a Production Schedule’ was moved to the first morning slot on May 8. The team agreed that development of a production schedule was an important aspect to meeting team goals and should be placed earlier on the agenda to ensure that the issue was fully vetted.

Recovery Team Overview/Terms of Reference (TOR): An overview of the purpose of recovery teams and the draft TOR (Tab 2 in the Loggerhead Recovery Team Background and Reading Materials) were presented. The TOR were drawn from the existing TORs developed for the Steller sea lion plan. They are draft and have not been reviewed fully through NMFS or FWS. Thus, the team recognized that some of the text may change prior to a final TOR being approved for the loggerhead recovery team.

The ESA does not mandate that recovery teams be appointed for developing recovery plans. Recovery plans may be written by Service staff. However, given that the existing loggerhead recovery plan was developed by a recovery team and there is a wealth of new information, the Services felt that a recovery team was necessary to revise the existing plan. The recovery team is an advisory group that is exempt from the requirements specified under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The recovery team may also appoint technical sub-committees to work on specific aspects of the plan. These appointed technical advisors are also exempt from FACA. The recovery plan is a guiding document and is not regulatory in nature. Team members do not make decisions for the Services and any draft recovery plan may be changed by the Services. In addition to approving the final recovery plan, the Services appoint or disband recovery teams and provide funding and logistical support. Team members should avoid a conflict of interest in matters which may have a direct or predictable affect on their personal financial interests. Team members should hold any unpublished information obtained as a result of their service on the recovery team in confidence and ensure that it is used exclusively for official purposes. To ensure that team members avoid any conflicts of interest, the recovery planning process needs to be transparent and all interested persons are allowed input throughout the process to provide a balance. Team members do not represent an agency rather they represent themselves only as a working member of the recovery team.

Team members ability to discuss issues openly without recrimination was discussed. The Services believe that members must be able to explore all possibilities, no matter what level of controversy. The recovery team meetings are public and the minutes will be made available. Team members may also wish to seek input from colleagues on sections they are responsible for drafting. The Team Leader recommended the team establish guidelines at the earliest possible time to determine if any discussion may be held back until the more formal peer review process or if any input may be sought from colleagues during the drafting stage.

The Services’ joint policy (Tab 11 in the Loggerhead Recovery Team Background and Reading Materials: NMFS & FWS Interagency Cooperative Policy on Recovery Plan Participation and Implementation, July 1, 1994 59 FR 34272) requires public participation above and beyond requesting public comment on a draft recovery plan. The Services must identify representatives of affected interests that can participate in the recovery plan process including the implementation phase. Stakeholders may be appointed as recovery team members, such as in the case of the manatee recovery team, or technical advisors may be appointed who assist as called upon during the recovery planning process. The team recognized the need to develop a protocol to ensure meaningful public input during the planning process (see ‘Stakeholder Participation’). Heightened interest in sea turtle recovery has resulted from high profile lawsuits resulting from federal regulatory actions aimed at reducing the incidental capture of sea turtles in various commercial fisheries.

The team discussed the prioritization of recovery tasks including how to identify priorities when all threats, in some form, may be seen as a priority. A linear hierarchy of priorities may not fully address the tasks that may not individually meet some threshold but are cumulatively important. The team felt that a long list of priority 1 tasks would not be an effective way to facilitate implementing the plan tasks. One suggestion was to use mortality within certain life stages to set priorities. Another issue discussed was the criteria for categorized plan tasks as priority 1. Priority 1 tasks are those actions that must be taken to prevent extinction. There has been disagreement within the Services about the use of the priority 1 category for a threatened species. Some believe it should be used sparingly based on the premise that there should be few threats that would render a threatened species extinct and others who believe the use of the priority 1 category is appropriate to prevent the threatened species from becoming endangered. A useful tool for setting priorities will be the revised recovery planning guidelines (Tabs 6 & 7 in the Loggerhead Recovery Team Background and Reading Materials). Both the FWS and NMFS recovery planning guidelines are being revised and the intent is to publish a joint recovery planning document. The revised recovery guidance will serve as a useful tool for plan implementation and improving task prioritization to focus research and management efforts. The revised recovery guidance is meant to ensure that recovery plans are effective, working documents (see ‘Recovery Planning Presentation’ below).

Recovery Planning Presentation: Dr. Debby Crouse presented an overview of the ESA recovery criteria and recovery planning guidance. The presentation is provided in Appendix A to the minutes. The minutes reflect the major discussion points.

The current 1990 FWS and 1992 NMFS recovery planning guidelines (Tabs 6 & 7 in the Loggerhead Recovery Team Background and Reading Materials) are being revised to provide adequate information on the planning component of the recovery planning process and to provide guidance for negotiating the policy changes published in 1994 (Tabs 10, 11 & 12: Distinct Population Segment Policy, Recovery Planning Policy, and Peer Review Policy).

The definition for recovery under the ESA diverges from a more strict biological definition. Recovery is a process by which the decline of an ESA listed species is arrested or reversed and the threats to its survival are neutralized, so that its long term survival in nature can be ensured. A recovery goal is to restore listed species to a point where they are a self-sustaining component of their ecosystem, so that the protections of the ESA are no longer required. The emphasis here is on the restoration of the ecosystems upon which they depend. The Services published a joint policy for an ecosystems approach to the ESA (July 1, 1994, 59 FR 34273) which emphasizes that a species will be conserved best not by a species-by-species approach but by an ecosystems conservation strategy. The 1994 policy further states that recovery plans should be developed and implemented in a manner that restores the function of the ecosystems upon which species depend. FWS’ solicitors have expressed concerns that the 1994 policy may over interpret the ESA in that the statute implies a self-sustaining component and the policy establishes a delisting criteria based on a species being a functioning component of the ecosystem.

The recovery plan should be structured so that the biological needs and constraints of the species are clear and the threats to various life stages are delineated. The recovery plan requires three components: 1) a description of site-specific actions; 2) objective, measurable delisting criteria; and 3) estimates of time and cost for carrying out actions. The recovery plan is a ‘road map’ to recovery. The recovery plan provides context and guidance for implementation of other sections of ESA such as section 7 consultations, section 6 cooperative agreements, and section 10 conservation plans. The recovery plan is an outreach tool and should read logically so as to be understandable to all stakeholders. Outreach methods may include videos, compact discs, internet web sites. Outreach efforts should facilitate the implementation of the plan and may identify new participants who are relevant to recovery.

The goal of the recovery planning process is to reclassify or delist a species based on specific criteria. The objectives are broad statements about the recovery needs for the species and the criteria are the measures by which you identify whether the recovery objectives have been met. Although recovery criteria must be measurable they are not necessarily numerical. For example, a recovery criteria specified in the manatee recovery plan is that a network of level 1 and 2 warm-water refuge sites must be established as refuges or sanctuaries. The criteria must also relate back to the 5 factors for listing: habitat loss, over-utilization, disease or predation, inadequate regulations, and other factors. The criteria can consider self-sustaining populations over a range of key habitats, stable or increasing populations and population persistence over specific periods of time, specific reproductive and recruitment rates, and the amount and quality of habitat distribution. The criteria can also consider the number of recovery units (defined as those units necessary to both the survival and recovery of a species in a final recovery plan) that are necessary to ensure demography and genetic diversity. Recovery units cannot be downlisted or delisted separately unless they qualify as a distinct population segment (Tab 10 in the Loggerhead Recovery Team Background and Reading Materials). Each recovery unit must be recovered in order to downlist or delist the species throughout its range.

A critical component to an effective recovery plan is a strategy to monitor and evaluate the plan implementation. Most plans are limited to monitoring species numbers and trends but are inadequate in monitoring the intensity and changes to threats as management measures are implemented. The FWS is working on an implementation database which may focus allocation of funds for research and management actions during the implementation phase of the recovery plan. The ESA also requires that a delisted species must be monitored for 5 years after the delisting to ensure that the species is sustained as recovered. The recovery plan does not have to specify the post delisting monitoring program. However, the FWS recommends that the team identify a well-developed monitoring program that would serve as the basis for a post-delisting program.

Another tool for ensuring a species maintains a sustainable status once it is delisted is by specifying in the recovery plan those regulatory mechanisms that are necessary to be implemented in perpetuity. One possibility discussed was to recommend that a statute be developed for marine turtles similar to the Marine Mammal Protection Act or Migratory Bird Treaty Act to ensure that threats are removed and maintained. Regulatory mechanisms are not limited to federal authority and may include state regulations that may need to be invoked or changed to ensure consistency and maintain recovery. International regulatory mechanisms should also be included in the discussion of inadequacy of existing regulations. The adequacy of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCA) was discussed. The MSFCA is currently being considered for reauthorization. The Farr Bill (H.R. 2570 Fisheries Recovery Act 2001) submitted to Congress for MSFCA reauthorization would require federal fisheries management plans (FMPs) to more actively consider ecosystem impacts. This may benefit marine turtles in that fisheries managers would be required to fully analyze the impacts to other living marine resources that may result from their fisheries such as a loss of food availability or degradation of foraging habitat. The indirect effects of fisheries activities on marine turtles may be included in the revised loggerhead recovery plan.

A component of the recovery plan is the Implementation Schedule which organizes the plan tasks under general broad categories such as beach habitat restoration or research needs. The team discussed options for the implementation schedule. One suggestion was to organize the schedule by priority category. Agencies that may only fall within priority 3 would have more defined guidance on implementation. The schedule may also be ordered by agency for easier identification of responsible agencies, but then prioritize the tasks. The team has the authority to order, structure or present the Implementation Schedule in a manner they believe is the most effective. The team recommended that the data fields in the Implementation Schedule should be standardize but the arrangement should be flexible to facilitate implementing the tasks described in the Implementation Schedule.

Use of Recovery Units in Recovery Planning: Susan Pultz presented an overview of the use of recovery units in recovery planning. The presentation is provided in Appendix A to the minutes. The minutes reflect the major discussion points.

Recovery units are identifiable subunits of the listed species that are critical to maintaining the genetic and demographic robustness of the species throughout its range. They are an optional designation and do not meet the requirements of a distinct population segment (Tab 10 in the Loggerhead Recovery Team Background and Reading Materials). Recovery units should collectively cover the entire species. The joint section 7 Consultation Handbook (Tab 8 in the Loggerhead Recovery Team Background and Reading Materials) allows the Services to make a jeopardy determination on a recovery unit that has been documented as necessary to both the survival and recovery of the species in a final recovery plan.

Recovery units are delineated mostly on a biological basis, however they can be established based on political boundaries as well as delineation of where threats occur. A recovery unit should be sufficiently large to handle normal and catastrophic stochasticity. Recovery units allow for recolonization, maintain adaptive ability, and lessen vulnerability for slow growing organisms. They are useful tools for long-term planning and are an effective conservation approach for species that exhibit fidelity to their natal region, but have regular, if low, levels of dispersal (i.e. they do not meet the requirements of a distinct population segment). Management units can be identified under each of the recovery units.

Discussion ensued about whether there were any disadvantages to identifying recovery units. One concern was whether the use of recovery units in the recovery planning process was legally defensible. Designating recovery units may result in a greater impact on stakeholders. Since the recovery unit is a policy rather than a regulatory requirement, it may not fair well under a legal challenge. Although a distinct population segment analysis for the loggerhead has yet to be completed, data indicate that while females exhibit a high degree of philopatry, males may not which would have a bearing on the designation of discrete population segments for the species. Participants were unaware of any legal challenge of the recovery unit policy, however there may be information from other recovery plans which include recovery units such as the marble murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus). The Services noted that the recovery team consists of experts and any identification of recovery units in the recovery plan by such experts provides the basis for defending the designation. Identifying recovery units allows a more proactive approach in that separate recovery criteria must be identified for each unit and all the recovery criteria for all of the recovery units must be met prior to delisting the species. Another concern was the use of recovery units for a species that is highly migratory and essentially global in distribution. The U.S. loggerhead population is not separate from the global listing. In order to delist the U.S. population, the threats to the species as a whole must be addressed. If one portion of the loggerhead population were delisted, a management program that addresses the most threatened portion of the population would still be necessary. The listing status coverage goes wherever the animal exists.

The legal defensibility issue aside, no negative aspects were identified for the designation of recovery units during the planning process. However, no consensus was reached, nor attempted, on whether recovery units should be identified for the loggerhead, the exchange was for conceptual and information purposes only. The team agreed that this was a priority issue that needed to be further discussed during subsequent meetings.

History of Previous Recovery Plans: As a recovery team member that developed the existing loggerhead recovery plan completed in 1991, Ms. Schroeder discussed several aspects of the existing plan. The recovery criteria specified an evaluation period of 25 years for which three conditions must be met: 1) the adult female population in Florida is increasing and in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, it has returned to pre-listing nesting levels; 2) at least 25% of all available nesting beaches is in public ownership and is distributed over the entire nesting range and encompasses greater than 50 percent of the nesting activity; and 3) all priority 1 tasks are successfully implemented. The target date of 25 years was a measure of time to allow for an evaluation over a longer time period. This time period may need to be revised, given that the loggerhead exhibits protracted maturity and several generations are required before the population could be considered stable. Basing criteria on the nesting portion of the population is confounded by the uncertainty in the number of turtles in the pipeline to come back to the beach for reproduction. Results in population trends may not be seen for a period of time after a threat is removed or increased. The team is not bound by the existing criteria and may revise the criteria extensively as long as any changes are clearly explained.

Process to Revise the Recovery Plan: The team leader proposed that the team be divided by expertise under three broad habitat categories: terrestrial, oceanic early juvenile, and benthic (older juveniles and adults). The revised recovery plan sections would be divided by each of these broader categories. The team would function as sub-teams dealing with the biology, threats, and conservation in each life stage and habitat area. The sub-teams would draft the various sections in the recovery plan (see page 11 for writing assignments) and would submit them to the team leader who would piece the draft sections together for the recovery plan. The team would function as a unit to produce the final product, including the recovery goals and criteria. The team generally agreed to this approach, however it was noted that much of the biological information in the various habitats and life stages would need to be integrated into a demography section in order to conduct a population analysis.

Production Schedule: The time line for the draft and complete recovery plan is 1.5 and 2.5 years, respectively. The team agreed to meet again the week of September 23, 2002. The meeting would be scheduled for 3½ days (with travel on Monday and Friday afternoons) to allow for sufficient discussion and synthesis of writing assignments. The goal for the second meeting would be to complete the draft “Introduction Section.” The location will be unchanged from the first meeting. Material needs for the second meeting should be minimal given that the writing assignments should be done in advance. Detailed editing should not be the objective of the meeting. Draft writing assignments will be shared in advance and should be completed and submitted to the team leader by September 1, 2002, but no later than September 13, 2002. All draft writing assignments will be collated and incorporated into one document. The team should be prepared to discuss the rough draft to determine if there are any biological inconsistencies and identify major data gaps as well as address those gaps.

The third meeting will be held the week of January 13, 2003. The goals will be to draft the recovery section and to invite input from stakeholders as well as share information on the team’s activities. The location should be centrally located and near an airport to ensure accessibility and lower costs.

Plan Format: The format may rely mainly on the intended audience. The general public may appreciate pictures and graphics such as in the manatee recovery plan. For example, the photograph of manatees congregating outside a power plant outfall conveys a strong message about the association of power plants and manatees. Managers, scientists, technicians, and affected public would likely want more data analysis. Other format criteria include the use of plain language. Font and spacing is important in the presentation of the document. The team felt that the single spacing in the existing recovery plan was difficult to read. Specific guidelines regarding the length of the recovery plan do not exist; however, the plan should be thorough and cover the relevant issues, but be concise and readable. The recovery plan must be a stand-alone document. Key points should be presented with the relevant literature cited. Figures and diagrams would be effective in providing information on status and trends. The team agreed to be concise, use plain English, and write to an educated public.

Stakeholder Participation: Discussion occurred about the need to involve stakeholders during the development of recovery plans to increase their effectiveness. The team generally agreed that the recovery planning process is improved by stakeholder involvement by receiving information that may not have been considered within the recovery team and to facilitate the implementation process.

Stakeholders will be invited to the third meeting and will include managers and stakeholders from the U.S. and the international community. The Services involve international participants in the recovery planning process where species have an international component. There is an international component to the loggerhead recovery effort, and the team felt international participation was necessary. International participants should consist of managers involved in marine turtle issues. International participants may include representatives from Portugal, Spain, Mexico, Cuba, Canada, and the Bahamas. U.S. stakeholders for fisheries issues could be identified through the Atlantic States and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions. Stakeholders should represent all of the areas of threats. One suggestion was to schedule one more meeting prior to involving stakeholders. For example, a meeting with technical staff from the Azorean government may improve information exchange relevant to recovery efforts with regard to threats outside of U.S. jurisdiction. This information could then be provided to U.S. stakeholders. However, the team agreed that the third meeting would be more appropriate for input from stakeholders and advisors.

Other stakeholders representing fisheries issues may be drawn from the bycatch committee of the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). Pelagic mortality is a threat, and ICCAT should be identified as an entity to provide information and assist in addressing threats on the high seas. However, there may be other scheduled meetings on longline and sea turtle interactions such as the U.S. sponsored technical longline workshop scheduled for the spring of 2003 which may make it unnecessary to invite these technical experts to attend a team meeting. It was suggested that at least one team member attend the next ICCAT meeting or that the team invite an ICCAT representative to participate as a stakeholder at the third recovery team meeting.

Stakeholders will be given the draft ‘Introduction Section’ including identification of threats (unranked) prior to the third meeting. Stakeholders will be invited to provide input on the draft ‘Introduction Section’ and list of threats. Stakeholders also will be requested to provide relevant information on marine turtle threats in their area of expertise including identification of data gaps. Managers and stakeholders would be divided into separate sessions to discuss threats under their jurisdiction as well as mechanisms in place to address the threats. International technical advisors would present information on the status of the population and the threats and protection measures on their nesting beaches and/or in their waters. The meeting would consist of discussion topics by area of threat (e.g. beach, fisheries, dredging) and possibly further separated within the area of threat to ensure a meaningful discussion. One suggestion was to devote the first day to presentations and discussions from the international community and the second and third days to domestic issues.

Discussion occurred on how best to capture stakeholder input. The Council process under Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act was cited as a possible model to receive public comment. During Council meetings the public is invited to provide comments and these comments are recorded on tape and then transcribed. There was concern that an ‘open microphone’ venue may not be as effective as requesting specific input. During a recent National Research Council meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, stakeholders presented information related to the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Consultations were conducted with each presenter as follow up after the meeting. Feedback from stakeholders who participated in the steller meeting was generally positive. Participation consisting of specific input may be more effective for it ensures that the affected public is involved in the process. Invitations must be inclusive and may not be limited to the public but may include other federal agencies, state government and nongovernmental organizations. Other options to invite public participation may include public workshops, electronic mail sites, and mailouts. The team recommended that a range of alternatives be identified to ensure public participation.

Data Use and Needs: The scope of the subpopulations to be considered in the recovery plan as well as the ability to identify recovery units given available data was discussed. The data are sufficient to describe the stock and assess the threats to the Northern Subpopulation and South Florida Subpopulation. More limited data for the Dry Tortugas, Florida Panhandle, and Yucatan Subpopulations are available. For example, haplotypes from the Yucatan Subpopulation have been found in Florida Bay, and the team may be able to demonstrate its presence and describe the threats. However, the team would be unable to analyze to what degree this subpopulation would be impacted as a result of the threat. The three subpopulations may need to be lumped together as a recovery unit or management unit due to insufficient data to identify separate recovery criteria. One possibility may be to identify the Western North Atlantic as a management unit and subdivide the subpopulations within that management unit. Threats may be assessed where they occur to this larger management unit. One concern with identifying the U.S. population as an independent management unit is that the population listing is worldwide and delisting cannot occur without meeting global criteria. One option for the Services might be to determine if listing of the U.S. population as a distinct population segment is appropriate. Recovery units might then be identified through the recovery planning process. The team agreed to include the Yucatan, Bahamas, and Cuba nesting populations in the recovery plan as turtles from those nesting beaches are known to migrate into U.S. waters. The U.S. population would be described as five subpopulations: Northern, South Florida, Dry Tortugas, Florida Panhandle, and the Yucatan. The recovery plan will consist of management or recovery units (to be decided by the team at a later date) for the Northern and the South Florida Subpopulations and will describe the research or logical management needs for the other subpopulations.

Sufficiency of the existing data on the subpopulations was debated in terms of considering them in the three habitat and life stage categories. Dr. Crowder felt that satellite tracking data is not definitive enough to determine whether migratory paths from the subpopulations were sufficiently different from each other. Dr. Musick cited migratory data indicating two different patterns: one group overwinters in North Carolina and then moves north in the summer (some turtles will actually move north into Delaware Bay prior to their fall southward movement, however genetic data are lacking), whereas the other group stays inshore/nearshore and moves as far south as the Florida Keys. Dr. Bolten cautioned that sample sizes from the nesting grounds are too small to make estimates of the proportion of genetic contribution on different foraging grounds. He further stated that the in-water genetic analysis is in flux at this time and should be used with caution. We are more confident about the genetics data from the nesting beaches, and we should be more conservative and cautious about the data from the marine environment. Drs. Musick, Witherington, and Crowder agreed that the data may be inconclusive to determine the level of mixing on foraging grounds, but sufficient data exists to identify that a certain proportion of each subpopulation is present on the foraging grounds.

Discussion occurred on the use of available nesting data. In order to objectively assess population trends, criteria must be identified for what data should be used. Previous population analyses have justified using only portions or all of the data regardless of quality. The team discussed whether to use all of the nesting data with the inherent noise from the various collection methods or limit the use to standardized data. Dr. Musick stated that both types of analyses could be conducted to determine whether the comprehensive data demonstrate similar trends to a quality subset. Ms. Schroeder stated that a reanalysis of existing data may not be necessary, and that the recovery team would only need to compile the existing data analysis. Dr. Musick stated that a reanalysis was necessary to understand the recovery goals and set new recovery criteria, if necessary. The team agreed to evaluate data sets from beaches where such data are available. Based on the evaluation, the team will decide which data sets to use in the analysis. The revised recovery plan would include an Appendix table presenting the criteria for inclusion of data sets in the analysis and the data sets that met the criteria. A comprehensive list of all the data sets would be available in the administrative record for the loggerhead recovery team.

The criteria for selecting data sets was discussed. The team agreed that the data should have been collected for at least a 10-year period and consist of a dedicated survey. Survey coverage should be consistent year-to-year. Information on survey methods would include the approximate survey begin and end dates, the area of beach covered and number days surveyed each week. Aerial survey data will be included in the evaluation of data sets. Aerial data introduces variability because the data are extrapolated over the season. A suggestion was to compare the aerial survey data set with a random sample from the survey data collected on the beach and determine whether inconsistencies in trends exist between the two data sets.

Beach data sets will be collected as follows: Florida (Witherington); Georgia and South Carolina (Dodd), North Carolina (Conant).

Other Discussion Points: A discussion occurred regarding whether the team should identify turtle take levels based on identified threats (i.e. allocate take to various users). Dr. Crowder cited, as a point of discussion, the NMFS section 7 consultation (June 30, 2000) on the Atlantic Pelagic FMP in which NMFS summarized the annual incidental take level anticipated for existing biological opinions in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Ms. Schroeder outlined several inherent problems with the take identified in the cited table: does not adequately identify lethal versus nonlethal take; is based only on federal actions and does not include take resulting from state-managed or private activities, is limited to only those federal agencies that have requested a section 7 consultation; is based only on the best available data and absence of take information may not represent reality. The section 7 consultation process is not a user allocation system. The Services analyze the potential impacts that result from the proposed action. Based on the analysis, an anticipated take is derived and measures are identified to reduce or minimize the take. This does not mean that the proposed action should be conducted in a manner that will take the maximum anticipated take level provided through the Section 7 consultation process. Dr. Crowder expressed concern that stakeholder participants will have concerns because they perceive that an inequity exists among users given the different levels of incidental take identified for different activities. The recovery team is not charged with allocating take or conducting Section 7 analyses, however evaluating the take levels from various threats is necessary to identify recovery criteria.

Loggerhead Team Writing Assignments
Shepherdstown, WV - May 7-8, 2002
Target Completion Date: Sept. 1 but no later than Sept. 13, 2002

• Meetings