Atlantic Loggerhead Recovery Plan September 2002 Recovery Team Meeting Minutes

Approval of May 2002 Minutes: Discussion of previous meeting minutes: all the members (excluding Larry Crowder who was not present) approved the minutes. We will check with Larry by email.

Administrative Record: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (Ms. MacPherson) will maintain the Services’ administrative record for the team. The team discussed how references would be supplied for the administrative record and Ms. MacPherson and Ms. Schroeder will work together and request any references that are not available to them. There were questions regarding whether gray literature is allowable and if there are any specific restrictions on cited material, none were noted. Emails should be kept for inclusion in the record.

Recovery Units/DPS Listing Petition Discussion: The team discussed how the petition to reclassify the northern and Florida panhandle nesting subpopulations of loggerheads as Distinct Population Segments (DPS) with endangered status would affect the work of the recovery team. Ms. Schroeder supplied background information on the process. The petition was received on January 15, 2002. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted and announced its plans to initiate a review of the status of the species. This finding does not mean that a listing change will be implemented. The final finding on the listing petition is due January 14, 2003. The NMFS Southeast Regional Office in St. Petersburg is the lead on this petition. The question before NMFS is whether the northern and Florida panhandle loggerhead subpopulations are DPSs, not whether the recovery team should consider recovery units. The recovery team is not conducting a formal status review, as periodically required under the ESA or as required in light of a listing petition. There was some concern that the recovery team will duplicate the NMFS’s effort. NMFS has received many comments on the listing petition. If a finding is made that one or more units of the population qualify as DPSs, the next step is to determine whether they should be listed as threatened or endangered.

The team discussed how they should proceed given the current listing petition and NMFS’s review/consideration of that petition. Ms. Schroeder will check with the NMFS Southeast Region and inform the team how the Region plans to proceed with the status review. The Recovery Team could be used as the status review team, but the Services retain the decision as to whether the recovery team will function in that role. Dr. Bolten suggested that a liaison be consulted, if the Services decide to put a separate team together for the status review. The recovery team decided to provide comments to NMFS on the listing petition. Ms. Schroeder will get copies of the DPS policy and the listing petition and Federal Register notice to the team for review and later discussion. The team agreed to go through the DPS policy, criterion by criterion, to determine their opinion. Issues relating to the DPS question include nuclear DNA, sample size of nesting assemblages, and "rare" haplotypes. The team discussed how recovery might best be achieved for the species - as individual DPSs or recovery units. If NMFS determines that a DPS listing is not warranted, the team may still use recovery units in the plan; if NMFS determines that a DPS listing is warranted, it would likely be a matter of renaming recovery units to DPSs, since the team’s structure of recovery units is likely to be similar to any DPS structure. DPSs are listable entities whereas recovery units are a tool to enhance recovery. Section 7 consultations consider both DPSs and recovery units; however, recovery units will all have the same listing status while DPSs are listed separately.

Although the current loggerhead recovery plan focuses on the U.S. population of loggerheads, no recovery units are currently specified. Several of the "Reasons to use Recovery Units" (from draft FWS / NMFS Recovery Guidelines) are satisfied in the loggerhead case. The team decided to establish recovery units where genetic data are available and to combine others, where genetic data are unavailable, based on geographic region or another category. This can be revised, as genetic data become available. There was some discussion regarding the designation of recovery units for the species, since loggerheads are listed worldwide but U.S. populations, for the purposes of recovery plans, are divided up by two ocean basins, i.e., Atlantic loggerhead recovery plan and Pacific loggerhead recovery plan. The team decided that for the purposes of this recovery plan revision, recovery units would be identified, with the focus on those recovery units nesting in the U.S. and combining all other Atlantic/Mediterranean nesting assemblages into one unit. This way all turtles occurring in U.S. waters will be included within a recovery unit, even those that originated on nesting beaches outside the U.S. Each recovery unit will have distinct recovery criteria, and each recovery criterion must be met to ensure recovery of the species.

The team decided on 5 recovery units: (1) South Florida, (2) Northwest Florida, (3) Northeast Florida through North Carolina, (4) Dry Tortugas, and (5) "Other" (Yucatan, Cuba, Bahamas, Cape Verde, and Mediterranean). The first four recovery units are based on U.S. nesting populations of loggerheads while the fifth is based on loggerheads nesting outside the U.S. but occurring within U.S. waters.

The group would like to explore how to handle the "Other" unit - whether they should combine Yucatan, Cuba, Bahamas, Cape Verde, and the Mediterranean or have an additional 5 recovery units; Ms. Schroeder will explore further and report back to the group. Yucatan has approximately 1000 nests, approximately 250 females; Bahamas is similar on the order of magnitude. The team will specify criteria for the "Other" unit, such as exportation of conservation technology. Ms. MacPherson will draft text that justifies the classification of recovery units based on FWS and NMFS draft recovery guidelines and the team’s discussion. The team will clarify that all lifestages are covered under the recovery plan in the text.

Threats Analysis: The team discussed how to prioritize, quantify, and categorize threats. Alan Bolten provided a strawman based in part on a threats analysis template developed by The Nature Conservancy. The team decided to categorize threats into seven relatively distinct groups. Within each threat category, the significance of the threat will be broken out by life stage and ecological zone. It was noted that the oceanic zone for the adult life stage is relatively short and likely seasonal during migrations and that this should be noted in the text. The team decided that adult and juveniles in the neritic zone - waters up to 200m - should be kept separate because of different elasticity values.

The life stages, ecological zone and eight threat categories developed by the team are:

Life Stage	Ecological Zone
Nesting Female	Terrestrial
Egg	Terrestrial
Hatchling	Terrestrial
Hatchling Swim Frenzy/	Neritic
Post-Hatchling	Transitional
Juvenile	Oceanic
Adult	Oceanic
Juvenile	Neritic
Adult	Neritic

Within each of the threat categories, a list of threats falling within that category was developed. Then, a series of spreadsheets were created incorporating all of this information. Discussion ensued on how to go about analyzing the threats within each life stage and "filling in" the threat "level" for each cell in the series of spreadsheets. One suggestion was to use elasticity values to come up with a quantitative ranking. Another suggestion was to attempt to quantify the level of "take" within each threat category, by life stage. Estimates could provide insight as to the order of magnitude for each threat. Qualitative rankings (minimum, moderate, and maximum) were also discussed.

The team discussed a number of issues with regard to filling in the threat analysis tables. These discussions included: quantitative data for each of the threats listed are not available for all life stages; threats are not further subdivided by geography and some team members were uncomfortable extrapolating information from one distinct geographic region to the entire population; and the scale and magnitude of certain threats may vary extensively throughout the loggerhead’s U.S. range.

Because absolute numerical values could not be derived for each cell, a log scale which included several non-quantitative items was developed to quantify mortality for each threat at each life stage. The numerical scale developed follows (these are annual mortality figures):

Stippling within a cell was used to indicate uncertainty surrounding the estimate for that specific threat and life stage. When the team thought that data from one life stage could be extrapolated to a subsequent life stage, 5% of the mortality from the first stage was used to estimate mortality at a subsequent stage. A "+" indicates that mortality is believed to occur at a certain life stage, however, there are no data to allow for quantification of that mortality. A "+d" indicates that mortality has been documented to occur at a certain life stage, however, there are insufficient data to quantify the magnitude of that mortality. Indirect effects were defined as non-lethal effects that may result in lowered fitness. The team will provide detailed explanations for each of the tables in the text.

Team members will reassess each individual cell ranking after consulting additional information and making appropriate changes. Each team member will send his/her updated comments to Ms. Long who will incorporate them into a master spreadsheet. She will also send out specific guidelines as to how edited comments should be sent to her and will keep running lists of all edits and suggestions to change ranking for each cell.

The results from each of the 8 categories of threats were synthesized into a summary table, which ranked threats by major threat category and life history stage. The team discussed whether summing mortality across rows and columns was a valid approach. Some of the team felt that summing was difficult because the rankings are ranges and not absolute values. Others felt that summing was unnecessary unless elasticities were factored in first, and then only columns should be summed. There was disagreement regarding which end of the mortality scale to use (e.g., 1 or 10 for the 1-10 category). Some team members felt that summing across rows would be beneficial to management agencies implementing the recovery plan and will aid in focusing efforts by lifestage, as well as ecological zone. The team noted the importance of explaining the reproductive value of each life stage. The team also noted that some of the low threat rankings in the terrestrial environment are the direct result of intense management efforts to ameliorate these threats in recent decades.

Stakeholder Meeting: Ms. Donna Brewer of the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) joined the team for the discussion and planning of the upcoming stakeholder meeting. It was noted that communication makes or breaks interactions between the recovery team and stakeholders. Some of the teams have a regular list serve with relevant stakeholders to maximize communication. At the outset, Ms. Brewer suggested trying to minimize unreasonable expectations and setting good ground rules, including stressing that the goal of a recovery plan is recovery of species which are listed now as threatened and endangered. The team could give a recovery outline to stakeholders, so they know what is happening. Ms. Brewer recommended bringing stakeholders in as soon as possible. The team decided to develop a recovery outline before the stakeholder meeting. The group discussed the possibility of having breakout sessions for separate stakeholder groups. Format for the meeting could include a ½ day introductory session, breakout sessions led by 2 team members, and a follow-up ½ day session with comments.

Structuring the meeting as an informational meeting could produce useful information and provide the team with an understanding of major concerns. The team stressed that the stakeholder involvement not be a public hearing, but an information exchange and dialogue. It was suggested that we have half-day sessions with different groups (e.g., development, fisheries sector). Some team members felt it would be helpful if the recovery goals were set before the stakeholder meeting, thereby keeping recovery and science in the forefront of the process.

The group decided to move the planned January 2003 stakeholder meeting to April 2003. The team felt that additional preparation time was needed. Prior to the stakeholder meeting, the team will have sufficient time to develop recovery goals, at the January recovery team meeting. In the meantime an e-mail list and a web site will be developed to disseminate information and keep stakeholder groups informed. A Federal Register Notice will be prepared to explain that the team is working on the recovery plan, and to seek contacts for stakeholders. These contacts will be added to the e-mail contact list.

Ms. Brewer offered to provide the team with additional examples of current recovery plans and to provide the names of individuals who may be able to assist the team with its stakeholder meeting planning. Additionally, she will try to locate an example of a strategy for stakeholder involvement for the team to review. The team discussed interactions with stakeholders and agreed that the team leader, Dr. Bolten, should speak for the team. If team members are individually contacted, they should explain that the team is still in the process of working on the recovery plan and would welcome comments.

Strategic Items Needing Completion for the Recovery Plan: (not in order of importance)

After addressing these strategic items and implementing the information dissemination process for stakeholders, the team felt they would be sufficiently prepared for a stakeholder meeting in April 2003.

The team developed the following list of ideas for involving stakeholders in plan review/development:

In-depth discussions on these identified ideas/strategies and timelines for completion were discussed and fleshed out in greater detail as noted below:

Federal Register Notice: put out after the website is up, so the address can be included

This letter would announce the informational e-mail list and give directions on how to be added to the list.

Schedule of Upcoming Team Meetings: The team discussed agenda, timing, and venues for upcoming meetings.

Dr. Bolten would like each team member to send him dates that they are unavailable to meet in September 2003. Ms. MacPherson will make arrangements to hold the September 2003 meeting at NCTC once Dr. Bolten has confirmed that Dr. Crowder is available that week. Dr. Bolten will also check with Dr. Crowder regarding his availability for the April 2002 stakeholder meeting.

Recovery Plan Outline: A recovery plan outline, including target completion dates for drafts and target dates for posting to the website, was developed. The outline follows:

Recovery Criteria: The team discussed how to approach the development of recovery criteria. In accordance with the new recovery planning guidelines, recovery criteria must address the five listing factors. The team agreed that demographics are needed before the recovery criteria can be fully developed. Mr. Dodd and Dr. Witherington will work with Dr. Crowder to ensure that nesting data are appropriately utilized. There was discussion regarding re-visiting the current recovery plan and evaluating the status of the loggerhead relative to the current recovery criteria. It was explained that the team is not charged with doing a formal ESA status review, the team is charged with going back to the original plan to assess the appropriateness of the original recovery criteria and to revise those criteria as necessary to adhere to current recovery planning guidelines. The current recovery plan states that the southeastern U.S. population of the loggerhead can be considered for delisting if, over a period of 25 years, the following conditions are met: (1) the adult female population in Florida is increasing and in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, it has returned to prelisting levels [NC = 800 nests/season; SC = 10,000 nests/season; GA = 2,000 nests/season]; (2) at least 25 percent of all available nesting beaches is in public ownership, is distributed over the entire nesting range, and encompasses greater than 50 percent of the nesting activity; and (3) all priority one recovery tasks have been successfully implemented. The revision of the plan is to incorporate new information, including recovery accomplishments - the plan is not being revised because all of the elements of the original recovery plan were fulfilled. Some team members suggested that text be added to the new plan explaining the need for a plan revision.

Ms. MacPherson will bring delisting criteria and information to the January meeting. Ms. MacPherson will also investigate delisting given the worldwide listing of loggerheads as endangered under the ESA.

The team discussed whether they should set recovery goals, in terms of the number of nests, before developing listing factor criteria or to just go straight into developing criteria. One suggestion was to determine the kilometers of beach needed using maximum or optimum nest density, in order to come up with a recovery goal for number of nests. It was noted that hatching success is affected most by distribution of predators and lights, rather than substrate. Problems with using nest density include naturally clumped areas rather than evenly distributed nests. Offshore topography may be extremely important in determining nest density as well. The team discussed how the current recovery goals were determined. It was noted that the goals set were likely based on current population size, trends, and an analysis of available "historical" information. Demographic information is not precise enough at this stage to develop "ideal" population size. The use of trends may be difficult because populations are not expected to increase indefinitely. Similar to the manatee recovery plan, the team discussed using percentages of female survivorship, hatchling production, etc. It is not necessary to use all the same measurable parameters for each recovery unit; parameters can be mixed and matched among recovery units.

Team members agreed that recovery criteria must be highly justified, taking into account carrying capacity, historical numbers, population biology, etc., with the ultimate goal of maintaining or restoring the ecosystem, as specified in the ESA. Recovery criteria cannot be limited only to the number of nests, because coastal and oceanic segments of the population must be considered as well. In coastal foraging areas, abundance of prey items, among other things, should be considered. It was noted that historical data may be lacking, notably in Florida, and possibly for the entire southeastern U.S. Team members discussed recovery criteria and their relationship to carrying capacity. Some team members felt that carrying capacity would never be reached and therefore should be avoided. It was noted that Fishery Management Plans do not strive to reach carrying capacity. Some team members believed that recovery criteria should be structured to ensure that turtles are recovered so as to fulfill their ecological role, which is the goal of the ESA, not the Magnuson Act. Recovery criteria must be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic (technically feasible, if not always likely), and time-referenced, i.e., a trend line may be sufficient instead of using a target number.

The team brainstormed lists of measurable parameters that may aid in developing recovery criteria:

The team discussed using a Delphic approach - IUCN has approved one method, for which software is available. The team agreed this approach may be possible for some of the recovery units. Mr. Dodd and Dr. Witherington have access to most of the data necessary to further discuss and decide on measurable parameters as they relate to the five listing factors. Mr. Dodd volunteered to summarize data that are available to him in table form; Dr. Witherington will do the same. The team discussed bringing in outside advisors who may have more expertise with some of the recovery units, possibly 3-4 extra people will be invited to the January meeting.

Conservation Accomplishments: The team discussed how to approach the drafting of the Conservation Accomplishments section. It was suggested that the introduction to the conservation accomplishments section could mention indirect conservation benefits including Clean Water Act, manatee speed zones that help reduce boat strikes to loggerheads, etc. Different agencies and legislation have spillover effects that aid in loggerhead recovery and should be included in the plan.

The team developed a list of proposed headings of conservation accomplishments as follows:

The team brainstormed individual accomplishments within each topical area and assignments were made for team members to write-up sections within each of these categories.