How close is too close to quasi-extinction?<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a subjective question, Melissa Snover told the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council at its June meeting. But in light of the council\u2019s recent recommendation to lift the effort limits on Hawai`i\u2019s shallow-set fishery, Snover, a scientist with the Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center\u2019s Marine Turtle Assessment Program, tried to answer that question by assessing the impacts of potential increases in interactions between the shallow-set longline fishery, commonly known as the swordfish fishery, and rare loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles.<\/p>\n
\tUsing turtle nesting data from Jamursba-Medi in Indonesia, Costa Rica, and Japan, as well as data on post-interaction mortality, Snover determined how likely turtle populations from those areas are to see a 50 percent reduction in nesting females within three generations. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, such a reduction would be an indication that a population is \u201cvulnerable.\u201d<\/p>\n
Snover found that an annual loss of more than one adult female Costa Rican leatherback would result in \u201cexcessive increases in SQE (susceptibility to quasi-extinction).\u201d For the Jamursba-Medi leatherbacks, fewer than four, and ideally fewer than two, adult female deaths a year would have a minimal impact on SQE. Finally, for the Japanese loggerheads, fewer than seven, and ideally fewer than three, adult female deaths would have a minimal SQE impact.<\/p>\n
\t\u201cThese numbers are small and may seem to suggest that this method is overly conservative, however these populations are all small and declining and the allowable fatal interactions from them should reflect their status,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n
\tWhile Snover\u2019s results were given in terms of adult female mortalities (AFM), most turtles taken by the fishery are juveniles. So, using sex ratios, reproductive values, and mortality rates, Snover determined that an interaction or take level of 46 loggerheads would result in about three AFM, and 19 leatherback interactions would result in about three AFM.<\/p>\n
Snover said genetic data indicates that 94 percent of the leatherbacks that interact with the Hawai`i longline fleet are from the Western Pacific with the remaining six percent from the Eastern Pacific. Most are from Jamursba-Medi, while a few are from Costa Rica. All of the loggerheads that interact with the Hawai`i fishery are from Japan. While all are at risk of quasi-extinction, she said, her assessment indicates that there is no significant difference between the current allowed levels of takes for the two species and the increased levels the council was considering.<\/p>\n
\tEven so, she warned that her analysis incorrectly assumes that the trends at nesting beaches are representative of the total population trends. For that reason, she notes in her assessment that \u201ccaution needs to be applied in interpreting these results.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tHer report states that since 1997, loggerhead nesting abundances in Japan have been increasing, but the two most recent years of data suggest a substantial decline. While two years isn\u2019t long enough to make any real inferences, she writes, \u201c[T]he mortalities of juveniles off the Baja peninsula of Mexico are well documented and these mortality levels are relatively recent. The current declining numbers in the Japanese loggerhead trends may simply be the start of another [historic] cycle, however it may also be that the reduction of the juveniles in Baja is just now being manifested in the nesting beach data and the population could be declining at a much more rapid rate than the analyses here represent. Considerations of extenuating circumstances such as these should be accounted for when determining acceptable interaction levels.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tDespite her warnings, the majority of the council felt her assessment represented the best available science and narrowly voted (5-4-1) to make a final recommendation that the National Marine Fisheries Service raise its annual hard cap on interactions with loggerheads from 17 to 46 and the one for leatherbacks from 16 to 19.<\/p>\n
\tNow that the council has voted, the NMFS\u2019 Pacific Islands Regional Office will prepare a biological opinion to assess the impact of raising the turtle take limit, to comply with Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act. If the NMFS finds that the proposal will not jeopardize the turtles\u2019 survival, it will likely promulgate rules in accordance with the councils\u2019 recommendation. PIRO\u2019s Lance Smith told the council that he could not speculate on whether or not there will be a jeopardy finding. He only said that Snover\u2019s SQE analysis will be considered as his office tries to determine the effects turtle mortalities will have on each population and on each of the two species as a whole.<\/p>\n
Bad Timing<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
According to Center for Biological Diversity attorney Andrea Treece and Ocean Conservancy manager Meghan Jeans, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act should have prevented the council from taking final action on its proposed swordfishery rule amendments.<\/p>\n
\tIn a June 13 letter to council executive director Kitty Simonds, they argued that because the NMFS had not released a draft supplemental environmental impact statement for public review, the council\u2019s votes of support for new swordfishing rules violate \u201cthe most basic purposes\u201d of those acts.<\/p>\n
\tNEPA, they wrote, is meant to ensure that agencies have detailed environmental impact information before a decision is made, and guarantee that the information is made available to the public that \u201cmay play a role in the decision-making process.\u201d The act requires environmental information, such as a draft EIS, be disseminated \u201cearly enough so that it can serve practically as an important contribution to the decision-making process and will not be used to rationalize or justify decisions already made,\u201d they wrote. The APA, they continued, requires the council to \u201cgive interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tTreece and Jeans concluded that until a draft SEIS is made available to the public and public comments have been considered, the council must refrain from selecting a preferred alternative or taking final action with regard to modifying shallow-set fishery effort levels, turtle take hard caps, or other requirements.<\/p>\n
\tIn her June 14 response, Simonds called their statements \u201cwillfully inaccurate\u201d and a \u201cmisguided attempt to impugn this council\u2019s record on sea turtle conservation and management.\u201d She explained that final action by the council is being required by the NMFS before the initiation of the ESA\u2019s biological opinion process. She added that while the timelines of NEPA, APA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act (which governs council actions) may be confusing, her staff had informed Jeans on June 13 about the rule-making process, before their letter was sent.<\/p>\n
\tSimonds also pointed out that the NMFS is the \u201cagency\u201d in this case, and since NEPA documents are agency documents, \u201ccouncil staff cannot release the DSEIS to the public to initiate formal public review until NMFS has approved the document for public release.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tShe wrote that she expected a draft SEIS to be available for public review by mid-August and that the council would consider all public comments made during the 45-day comment period.<\/p>\n
\t\u201cIf substantive comments are provided by the public that bring forth relevant information that would warrant reconsideration of proposed management modifications for the Hawai`i shallow-set longline fishery, the council will consider modifying its recommendations at its October 2008 meeting, as appropriate,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n
\tSimonds also wrote that the confusion over NEPA, APA, and MSA timelines has led Congress to direct the NMFS to develop new environmental review procedures and that the NMFS has already issued a proposed rule on them.<\/p>\n
\tWhen council member and state Department of Land and Natural Resources director Laura Thielen asked about the conservancy\u2019s letter at a June 16 standing committee meeting, PIRO director William Robinson responded that ideally the NEPA process would have been completed before the council took final action. Even so, Robinson said he did not believe there was any legal requirement to have done that and that the NEPA process will be completed before the NMFS takes any action.<\/p>\n
On the last day of the council\u2019s June meeting, when most of the big items had been heard and most members of the public had gone elsewhere, the council approved a directive that sounds nearly identical to what the state\u2019s newly created `aha kiole advisory committee is supposed to help do. Under Act 212 of the 2007 Legislature, the committee is supposed to lay the groundwork for the creation of an island-based advisory council, called `aha moku, to recommend to state agencies the best way to manage local resources in accordance with indigenous methods.<\/p>\n
So far, however, Governor Linda Lingle has refused to release funds for the committee\u2019s work. That, combined with the state\u2019s strict procurement process, has stymied the committee\u2019s attempts to fulfill its mission.<\/p>\n
Earlier in the course of the council\u2019s three-day June meeting, `aha kiole committee member Charles Kapua gave a presentation on the committee\u2019s mission and its troubles. He explained how the Ho`ohanohano I Na Kupuna Puwalu series of 2006 and 2007, funded mainly by the council, had led to the drafting and passage of Act 212. For many of the participants in the Puwalu series, the act seemed like a victory.<\/p>\n
But that victory was short lived, by Kapua\u2019s account. He complained to the council about the lack of funding and how the committee\u2019s eight members had spent $1,700 of their own money trying to meet their mandate. He said that the committee had held 61 community meetings and three committee meetings \u2013 all at the expense of its members.<\/p>\n
\u201cHow can we be successful without money?\u201d he asked the council.<\/p>\n
Department of Land and Natural Resources director and council member Laura Thielen tried to explain why things haven\u2019t panned out as expected. She said that usually, non-profit groups would receive a grant-in-aid from the Legislature. (While the `aha kiole was, in fact, established by the state, Thielen seems to view the committee as a citizen organization.)<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t know why, but the money [for the committee] came through our department,\u201d she said, adding that the committee\u2019s request that its $220,000 legislative appropriation be used to pay for a salaried employee ran into problems with the state\u2019s procurement process.<\/p>\n
She also pointed out that the committee was not the only state entity that has been denied its funding. Her department\u2019s entire budget was cut by more than four percent this year, and its parks and administration division budgets were cut by 20 percent, according to Thielen.<\/p>\n
Thielen admitted, \u201cIt\u2019s been difficult for them as a citizen organization.\u201d But when Kapua said committee members did not know how to secure their own funding since \u201cwe\u2019re coming off the street,\u201d Thielen fired back, saying that her staff had met with the committee to explain various state rules and budget requirements. She had even sent the committee a letter encouraging it to stop spending money because the funds had not been released.<\/p>\n
For the record, she said, \u201cOur staff has been working with the committee this whole time.\u201d<\/p>\n
On the last day of the council\u2019s June meeting, with no prior public discussion, the council decided to \u201cdevelop a community cultural consultation process throughout the region for the native communities to inform resource managers on the best practices for traditional resource development.\u201d While the process is strikingly similar to the `aha moku council anticipated in Act 212, council media specialist Sylvia Spalding told Environment Hawai`i that she did not think the measure was intended as a way to pay the `aha kiole committee. That is the state\u2019s responsibility, she said. Spalding was not able to explain by press time why the council recommended the measure and whether the council planned to create its own `aha moku-type system.<\/p>\n
For more background on these topics, read the following articles:<\/p>\n
On the swordfish fishery regulations: <\/b><\/p>\n
\u201cFishery Council Narrows Scope of Study on Expanded Longlining Effort in Hawai`i (November 2007)<\/p>\n
\u201cFisheries Council Approves Proposal to Raise Caps on Turtle Interactions\u201d (May 2008)<\/p>\n
On the `aha kiole committee:<\/b><\/p>\n
\u201c`Aha Kiole Committee Tramples Over Public Process in Selecting Contractor\u201d (March 2008)<\/p>\n
\u201cIf at First You Don\u2019t Succeed\u0085The Ongoing Saga of `Aha Kiole\u201d (June 2008)<\/p>\n
— Teresa Dawson<\/p>\n
Volume 18, Number 10 April 2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
How close is too close to quasi-extinction? It’s a subjective question, Melissa Snover told the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council at its June meeting. But in light of the council’s recent recommendation to lift the effort limits on Hawai`i’s shallow-set … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1234","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1234","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1234"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1234\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1234"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1234"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1234"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}