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

4-8 October 2004

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office, Jacksonville , FL

Team members in attendance (in alphabetical order):

• Alan Bolten - University of Florida
• Mark Dodd - Georgia Department of Natural Resources
• Sandy MacPherson - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Jack Musick - Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary
• Barbara Schroeder - U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service
• Blair Witherington - Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Rapporteur:

• Kristy Long - U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service

Life History Table : The Team discussed and revised the table of life history parameters and decided to include it in the introduction section of the plan. For some parameters, the Team discussed using a range of means for the whole population instead of listing individual means for each recovery unit. This reduces the amount of boxes in the table, and therefore, makes it a general life history table.

Demographic Criteria : The Team decided to include summary statistics within footnotes in the main body of the plan. In addition, tables will be included in the Appendix to identify beaches used in the analyses for each recovery unit, loggerhead annual nest totals from these selected beaches, and loggerhead annual nest totals for all surveyed beaches used to determine the baseline annual number of nests.

Listing Factor Criteria : The Team noted that several of the listing factor criteria require the development and implementation of a strategy to address various threats. Thus, the Team discussed who is responsible for developing and implementing strategies to satisfy these factors. The Team discussed NMFS and FWS convening a team or panel to develop such strategies. Subsequently, NMFS and FWS would jointly evaluate the strategies. Additionally, the Team discussed and agreed to have these strategies peer-reviewed.

Threats Tables and Analyses : The Team had previously decided to use a log midpoint to construct the summary table. One Team member suggested using the upper limit if we are taking a precautionary approach or using the arithmetic midpoint. The Team noted that most cells were filled in using a Delphic approach and the Team came to consensus on the order of magnitude. Where there are no specific data inputs for a cell, the Team decided to use the logarithmic midpoint, and therefore, just present data on an order of magnitude. The Team decided to use a log midpoint for those cells that were estimated using a Delphic approach.

The Team decided to add a footnote on the age distribution table explaining that the numbers used there are based on the 2001 stock assessment model. Additionally, in the table, 7 years was used for the oceanic juvenile stage even though the range in ages is from 7-12 years. Using 7 years slightly changes the weighted averages and does not drastically change the results. Therefore the Team agreed to use 7 years. The Team decided to add another footnote detailing how the egg, hatchling, hatchling swim frenzy, and transitional stages are regarded in the model.

The Team discussed how the summary threats table was developed. Initially, the summary table was presented without numbers, just colors. Gray designates an existing threat for which no data are available. Numbers represent reproductive equivalents. Colors represent orders of magnitude for threats and representative risk. Numbers imply precision, which is not the intention, especially considering a Delphic approach. Therefore, the Team decided not to include these numbers.

The Team discussed using a level of confidence for each category. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report uses a “Rank of certainty estimate”. The Team decided not to include a level of confidence for individual cells that have a number. The Team discussed whether to include individual threats tables with numbers or whether to include a different type of summary table. A second summary table might list threat category and then rank individual threats. The Team discussed putting summary tables in the printed version of the recovery plan and making individual threats tables available on the web, so that the reader can view comment boxes. The Team discussed including individual threats tables in the plan with shaded boxes, but no numbers. However, these numbers will be available on the website where readers can view comment boxes in conjunction with numbers.

The Team discussed representing the summary table in terms of which threats are feasible to manage, i.e., it is not practical to manage species interactions to reduce mortality during the juvenile stage, since the mortality is the result of shark predation. One Team member noted that recovery actions reflect which threats are manageable. The Team suggested iterating this in the narrative that precedes the summary table instead of footnoting the table or developing an additional summary table for manageable threats. Therefore, the Team decided to draft text on how the tables were developed and how the Team intended them to be used.

Format of the Introduction Section : The Team agreed to revise the format of the introduction by incorporating the demography section into the biology section.

Assignments :

• Develop a first draft of responsible agencies for each recovery action and distribute to the Team for comment – SLM and BAS
• All Team members should send changes on the threats tables to KJL, who will then input the changes and note those cells for which 2 or more team members submitted comments, so the Team can subsequently discuss those changes.
• Draft footnote for age distribution table on how egg, hatchling, hatchling swim frenzy, and transitional stages are regarded in the model – BEW

• Meetings