Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA — The Hawai‘i deep-set longline and American Samoa longline fisheries are the focus of a complaint at the federal court in Honolulu, against defendants, including the U.S National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Gina Raimondo in her capacity as the U.S Secretary of Commerce.

The complaint was filed Wednesday by plaintiffs, the Hawaii-based non-profit group Conservation Council of Hawai‘i, along with Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner and small business owner, Michael Nakachi.

And the plaintiffs are seeking “declaratory and injunctive relief” against the federal defendants, according to the complaint.

 The plaintiffs alleged the NMFS failed to protect threatened and endangered species from harm caused by fisheries in the Western Pacific Ocean, in their 49-page lawsuit.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that NMFS has failed to complete required consultations under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) regarding the effects of NMFS’s continued authorization of the Hawai‘i deep-set longline and American Samoa longline fisheries on multiple threatened and endangered species: the green sea turtle, olive Ridley sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, scalloped hammerhead shark, sperm whale, and Main Hawaiian Island insular false killer whale.

“By failing to complete the consultations, NMFS is failing to ensure that these fisheries do not jeopardize the continued existence of these species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat, in violation of ESA Section 7 and its implementing regulations,” the plaintiffs further alleges.

The complaint noted that the Hawai‘i deep-set longline and American Samoa longline fisheries attempt to catch tuna and other far-ranging open ocean fish species by laying dozens of miles of baited hooks in the water.

“This indiscriminate fishing method catches, injures, and kills myriad species it is not meant to catch, including every species of sea turtle that roams the Pacific Ocean and numerous marine mammal and shark species,” it alleges.

The complaint explained that the ESA requires NMFS to reinitiate Section 7 consultation and complete a new biological opinion if new information indicates that the fisheries may affect listed species in a way or to a degree NMFS did not consider — for example, by catching or killing more animals than authorized by the fishery’s incidental take limits or by affecting newly designated critical habitat for listed species.

Because these fisheries have a history of injuring and killing threatened and endangered species, they have been the subject of a series of biological opinions that establish incidental take limits for each of the many affected listed species, it says.

For the Hawai‘i deep-set longline fishery, plaintiffs say it currently operates pursuant to a biological opinion and a supplemental biological opinion completed in 2014 and 2017, respectively.

And the American Samoa longline fishery currently operates pursuant to a biological opinion completed in 2015.

According to plaintiffs, NMFS reinitiated consultation on the effects of the Hawai‘i deep-set longline fishery and American Samoa longline fishery in 2018 and 2019, respectively, in response to various triggers, including the fisheries’ excessive take of sea turtles, the recent designation of critical habitat for false killer whale, and new information on the effects of the fisheries on leatherback sea turtles, scalloped hammerheads, and sperm whales.

“In the meantime, both fisheries have consistently and significantly exceeded the incidental take limits that the most recent biological opinions established for multiple sea turtle species,” the complaint alleges.

Between 2017 and 2019, the Hawai‘i deep-set longline fishery injured and killed almost twice the number of green and olive Ridley sea turtles allowed under its incidental take limits, and continuously exceeded the take limits for loggerhead sea turtles, it says. 

“During the same time, the American Samoa longline fishery injured and killed green, hawksbill, and olive Ridley sea turtles well above its incidental take limits,” plaintiffs allege.

“These fisheries have exceeded incidental take limits for one or more sea turtle species every single year since 2017.

Plaintiffs claimed that, incidental take limits are supposed to act as a check on the agency’s assumption that these fisheries are not impairing the species’ ability to survive and recover in the long term.

“Yet, the agency has allowed the fisheries to injure and kill many more turtles — in some cases twice as many — than the limits it deemed acceptable in its existing biological opinions without checking the effects of that excessive take on the long-term prospects of these already imperiled, slow-growing species,” the complaint claims.

The plaintiffs argued that NMFS’s continued authorization of the Hawai‘i deep-set longline fishery and American Samoa longline fishery without first completing the required consultations violates the agency’s procedural duty to complete consultation and its substantive duty to avoid jeopardy to the continued existence of listed species and destruction or modification of their critical habitat under Section 7 of the ESA.

In conclusion plaintiffs requested the court to “declare” that NMFS is in violation of the ESA and its implementing regulations.

Plaintiffs requested that the court order NMFS to complete the required consultations and issue final biological opinions on the effects of the Hawai‘i deep-set longline fishery and the American Samoa longline fishery on the green sea turtle, olive ridley sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, scalloped hammerhead shark, sperm whale, and false killer whale critical habitat within 90 days.

The federal court is expected to set a date for when the federal defendants are to file a response.