Comments submitted on behalf of the Fisheries Survival Fund regarding the proposal to establish nine “distinct population segments” (“DPS”) for loggerhead sea turtles and to change the listing status for most of the new DPSs from “threatened” to “endangered.”
These are joined by Associated Fisheries of Maine, Long Island Commercial Fishermen’s Association, North Carolina Fisheries Association, Southeastern Fisheries Association, Garden State Seafood Association, and Sustainable Fisheries Coalition.
From the comments:
In addressing these questions, we incorporate the attached report prepared for the group by Dr. Trevor Kenchington, principal of Gadus Associates. This report well details the scientific deficiencies of the extinction analysis undertaken in the 2009 Status Review1 by the Loggerhead Biological Review Team (“BRT”), particularly as they relate to the key legal issue of the imminence of loggerhead turtle extinction. It also discusses deficiencies with the DPS analysis, a matter we do not address in great detail herein except to note that the proposed division of the population of loggerhead sea turtles into nine DPSs can be most charitably be described as pushing the limits of the Services’ own policy. On that basis alone, we oppose this aspect of the proposal and would strenuously object to any attempt to further divide the population into yet even smaller units.
"In summary, we question whether the proposed designation of the loggerhead population as nine individual DPSs is either appropriate or meets the congressional command that DPSs be used “sparingly.”2 However, we strongly oppose the designation of either the species as a whole or the Northwest Atlantic (“NWA”) DPS as endangered. As we will show, decades of effective regulatory measures and nesting beach and hatchling protection efforts have led to a significant rebound in the species. Certainly, all indications are that this species is comprised of millions of individuals, making extinction in any foreseeable timeframe well nigh impossible."
"More to the relevant legal point, a change in status is not warranted by the best scientific and commercial data available, which is the ESA’s primary legal criterion to which the Services must adhere in making listing determinations. See 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A). For one, the BRT never assessed the proposed species – that is, the population comprising the NWA DPS – as a whole; rather analysis focused solely on specific indices. No finding was ever made as to whether the species as it is proposed to be defined is in danger of extinction. Nor was there any analysis of the timeframe in which extinction is likely to occur, which itself is the primary factor distinguishing a threatened from an endangered species under the ESA. Thus, the primary legal standard was never addressed. Therefore, the appropriate response would be to find that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the uplisting proposal and to withdraw the proposed regulation under 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), at least as to the proposed NWA DPS, and likely the proposed North Pacific Ocean DPS, as well."
Read the report by Dr. Trevor Kenchington.