Terms of Reference

Recovery Potential Assessment for Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta)

Regional Peer Review Meeting

16-17 February, 2010
Saint-Andrews, NB

Chairs: T. Worcester and K. Smedbol

Background

When the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) designates aquatic species as threatened or endangered, DFO, as the responsible jurisdiction under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), is required to undertake a number of actions. Many of these actions require scientific information on the current status of the species, population or designable unit (DU), threats to its survival and recovery, and the feasibility of its recovery. Formulation of this scientific advice has typically been developed through a Recovery Potential Assessment (RPA) that is conducted shortly after the COSEWIC assessment. This timing allows for the consideration of peer-reviewed scientific analyses into SARA processes including recovery planning decisions.

The status of loggerhead turtle is anticipated to be evaluated by COSEWIC in the spring of 2010. DFO previously initiated an RPA for loggerhead turtle in November 2006, but it was not completed at that time.

Objectives

The overall objective of this meeting is to determine the recovery potential of loggerhead turtle. Specifically, to the extent possible:

Status and Trends

1. Evaluate present abundance and range of loggerhead turtle.
2. Evaluate the recent trajectory for abundance and range.
3. Estimate the current or recent life-history parameters (total mortality, natural mortality, fecundity, maturity, recruitment) or reasonable surrogates; and describe associated uncertainties for all parameters.

Habitat Characterization

4. Provide functional descriptions of the properties of aquatic habitat (DFO 2007b) needed for successful completion of all life-history stages.
5. Describe the spatial extent of suitable habitat, i.e., habitat that is likely to have these properties within the species’ range.
6. Provide advice on any tradeoffs (i.e., pros and cons) associated with habitat allocation options, if any options would be available at the time when specific areas are designated as Critical Habitat.
7. Evaluate residence requirements, if any.
8. Recommend research or analysis activities that are necessary in order to complete these habitat-use Terms of Reference if current information is complete.

Threats

9. Quantify the magnitude of each of the major potential sources of mortality identified in the COSEWIC Status Report, from DFO sectors, and other sources.  
10. Identify the activities most likely to result in threats to the functional properties of habitat of loggerhead turtle, and provide information on the extent and consequences of these activities within the species’ range.  
11. Assess how activities identified in Step 10 have resulted in reductions to habitat quantity and quality to date, if at all.

Mitigation and Alternatives 

12. Develop an inventory of all feasible mitigation measures that could be used to minimize the threats to loggerhead turtles and their habitat.  
13. Develop an inventory of all reasonable alternatives to activities that are threats to loggerhead turtles and their habitat, but with potential for less impact.
14. Develop an inventory of activities that could increase the productivity or survivorship of the species.
15. Provide advice on feasibility of restoring habitat to higher values, if supply may not meet demand by the time recovery targets would be reached.
16. Estimate the expected impact on abundance and distribution from identified mitigation measures, alternatives, restoration activities, and activities that may alter the productivity or survivorship.

Recovery Targets

17. Estimate expected abundance and distribution targets for recovery, according to DFO guidelines (DFO 2005).

Assessment of Recovery Potential

18. Given current population dynamics parameters and associated uncertainties, project expected population trajectories over three generations (or other biologically reasonable time), and trajectories over time to the recovery target using DFO guidelines on long-term projections (Shelton et al. 2007).  
19. Given alternative mortality rates and productivities associated with specific scenarios identified for exploration, project expected population trajectory (and uncertainties) over three generations (or other biologically reasonable time), and to the time of reaching recovery targets.
20. Assess the probability that the recovery targets can be achieved under current rates of population dynamics parameters, and how that probability would vary with different mortality (especially lower) and productivity (especially higher) parameters.
21. Assess the degree to which supply of suitable habitat will meet the demands of the species when it reaches recovery targets for abundance and range. 

Outputs

• CSAS Science Advisory Report
• CSAS Proceedings of meeting
• CSAS Research Documents

Participation

• DFO Science
• DFO Fisheries and Aquaculture Management; Oceans, Habitat, and Species at Risk; and Policy and Economics
• Aboriginal Communities 
• Province of NS and NB
• External Reviewers
• Industry
• Non-governmental organizations
• Other Stakeholders

References

DFO. 2005. A framework for developing science advice on recovery targets for aquatic species in the context of the Species at Risk Act. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2005/054.

DFO. 2007a. Revised Protocol for Conducting Recovery Potential Assessments. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/039.

DFO. 2007b. Documenting habitat use of species at risk and quantifying habitat quality. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/038.

Shelton, P.A., B. Best, A. Cass, C. Cyr, D. Duplisea, J. Gibson, M. Hammill, S. Khwaja, M. Koops, K. Martin, B. O’Boyle, J. Rice, A. Sinclair, K. Smedbol, D. Swain, L. Velez-Espino, and C. Wood. 2007. Assessing recovery potential: long-term projections and their implications for socio-economic analysis. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2007/045.