The National Marine Fisheries Service has begun to re-examine the limits it has established for the incidental takings of sea turtles by the Hawai`i-based longline fishing fleet. The action was prompted by pressure from a conservation group and by NMFS’ own statistics that show allowed takes of some turtles by the fleet were exceeded in 1995.
In 1995, more loggerhead turtles were taken by the fleet than are allowed under the biological opinion issued by NMFS. This was cited as the reason for the review by NMFS Honolulu laboratory chief Mike Laurs when he addressed the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council at its meeting in August. While preliminary figures showed that the taking limit had not been exceeded, Laurs said, “upon internal review of our estimates of the take, we found there was a mathematical error, and indeed, we did exceed take limits for loggerheads in 1995.”
“As a result of this exceedance,” he continued, “consultation will be reconvened in the very near future.” The review process is formally known as consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
According to those revised figures, Laurs said, the total number of loggerheads hooked in 1995 was 413, with 62 of those estimated to have died. The allowed take is 305 loggerheads, with 46 mortalities.
The existing limits were established in a biological opinion issued in July 1994. That opinion covered not only loggerhead sea turtles, but all other species of sea turtle found in the range of the fleet. Those are the leatherback, olive ridley, hawksbill, and green turtles. The first three of these are formally listed as endangered species. The loggerhead and green turtles are listed as threatened. To date, no hawksbills have been reported caught by longliners.
The Instant Cause
The recalculation of loggerhead takes in 1995 undoubtedly was a factor in the decision to review take limits. However, according to other sources, pressure from the Center for Marine Conservation, a national organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C., also contributed. For the previous six months at least, the CMC had been urging NMFS to reinitiate consultation on turtle bycatch.
In a letter dated February 22, 1996, Deborah Crouse, CMC’s senior conservation scientist, and Tim Eichenberg, the group’s program counsel, note that in 1994, loggerhead takes and mortalities “exceeded the limits for that species by 45 percent and 13 percent, respectively.”
“NMFS’ July 25, 1994, Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement Concerning the Take of Sea Turtles in the Hawai`i Longline Fishery states that, ‘If NMFS estimates or believes that the annual take or mortality levels are met or exceeded for any turtle species, or if new information indicates that excessive incidental taking is occurring, or if new information indicates that Pacific sea turtle populations are continuing to decline and cannot sustain this level of take, then consultation must be reinitiated, and sea turtle conservation measures may be imposed.'”
According to Rod McInnis, a spokesman for NMFS southwest regional office in Long Beach, California, there was no exceedance of the turtle take limits in 1994. What the CMC was referring to, McInnis told Environment Hawai`i, were preliminary estimates of the turtle bycatch done by the regional office.
When a more statistically sophisticated analysis was done by NMFS Honolulu laboratory, “they scolded us roundly for not using the appropriate statistical method for generating estimated take,” McInnis said. “Then went through the process of a more appropriate estimate method, and their estimates came in a little bit lower.”
McInnis explained why a straightforward extrapolation of the turtle bycatch noted by observers aboard the longline fleet may be inappropriate. “Turtle take is more common in vessels targeting swordfish, but in 1994, the fishing effort was lower for swordfish and higher for tuna. So, when you just multiply incidental take rates from observers by the total effort, we came up with higher numbers than when you stratify based on effort.”
Leatherback Decline
But the Center for Marine Conservation identified another area of concern besides the incidental take of loggerhead turtles: the take of the enormous leatherback turtles. Participants at a December 1995 workshop on sea turtles convened by NMFS agreed that “two of the three source populations for Pacific leatherbacks were showing declines of 20 percent per annum at the nesting beaches,” Crouse and Eichenberg noted in their February letter. “Declines at this rate mean the populations will be halved in just three years. The Malaysian population already comprises fewer than 50 nesting adult females. The workshop participants concluded that these populations could not withstand any further takes.”
“Nevertheless,” the CMC continued, “the current incidental take level for leatherbacks in the Hawai`i longline fishery is set at 271, including 41 mortalities. Clearly, these take levels are likely to jeopardize both the Malaysian and Mexican nesting populations of leatherback turtles. Consequently, consultation must be reinitiated and new ITLs [incidental take levels] must be established that do not jeopardize leatherbacks…
“Clearly, new information on Pacific leatherback vulnerability is available and the incidental take limits for loggerheads have been exceeded… NMFS has statutory requirements to reinitiate consultation and take steps to limit incidental takes of endangered sea turtles in this fishery when new information is available or when incidental take levels are exceeded. Furthermore, we note that Pacific leatherbacks do not have the luxury of waiting until additional observer data are compiled… There is no excuse for not taking action now.”
Eichenberg told Environment Hawai`i that the Center for Marine Conservation wants to see NMFS lower the allowed incidental takes and mortality levels. In addition, he said, “NMFS should be instituting terms and conditions to limit the take. They don’t know which turtles survive and which don’t, and we think many, if not most, die.”
“We want to see them undertake research to minimize the take,” he said — perhaps modifying the gear or hooks so that they are less damaging to the turtles. Crouse told Environment Hawai`i that NMFS “doesn’t understand that re-initiating consultation should involve reducing the take, not simply adjusting the take limits upward” to the estimated level of turtles taken by the longline fleet. The manner in which take limits have been established in the past “is contrary to the intent of the Endangered Species Act,” she said.
The consultation was instituted last month. According to sources at NMFS, it may take up to three months before a new biological opinion is issued.
Volume 7, Number 4 October 1996